Pat, the main point you seem to be making is that because Dr. Wierwille plagiarized some material, the Way Ministry wasn't a legitimate Christian ministry but nothing more than a profit-making business.
quote: You've got it backwards. Only a little of VPW's writing wasn't plagiarized.
Pat, from the evidence I've seen, only a small portion of Dr. Wierwille's books were actually plagiarized. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm open to revising my beliefs.
P.S. I've already seen the evidence from Juedes...which seems to me is only a small portion of the totality of Wierwille's books...if you have more, please feel free to supply it.
Well, this topic is a vein that is part of a confluence of topics that flow into “Did the ministry start out bad or Become bad?”
What I have learned from the well informed people here at GS is the following:
I came to the internet convinced that VPW and TWI were “GOOD” and through the years went “bad”
I was convinced of this because it was “my truth”. In 1972 the ministry was great, by 1976 I saw some very disturbing behavior but thought it to be isolated problems. By 1981 after being invited into the coach I saw VPW as a sick man. Then, I noticed other people felt the same way I did. Except their years were not the came as mine. The good years for one was 1980 to 1991 and then they thought the ministry corrupted. Another was it was good from 1983 to 1993 then it went bad.
I began to read people’s stories and to each person the ministry was “good” when they first got in and went bad after they recognized some very disturbing practices. So, I took away the “years” people sited and what basically people were saying was “When I got “in” it was great! Then when I got out it was “bad””
Therefore, the responses were all subjective. It was all persona; data based on experience. So, I began to read some FACTS on when TWI started to have its problems. The more I read and the more “people in the know” with whom I spoke led me to believe the problems with TWI and in TWI were from its inception.
But because each of us went into it because what intrigued was something good we saw we seemed to assume the ministry was good because we benefited from parts of our participation and it went bad when we no longer benefited.
What I found was, it was started by a man who lied about his training, and stole other people’s hard work and stated it was his own discoveries. Not only did he claim it to be his own he packaged it by a promise from God and a phenomenon/sign of seeing it snow.
I contend the “good” we all experienced when we all got in during our different years was a result of the “work” being presented to us actually coming from GOOD men who had nothing to do with TWI. Men like BG Leonard and Bullinger. We saw the sparkle of the word, we got to see a God we were searching for but then the light grew dim and was replaced by nasty corps people, outrageous rules, invasion of privacy and blind acceptance of what the Moggie said. (That Moggie was ultimately VPW, but it then ran downhill and the poor believer had their twig Moggie, branch Moggie, area Moggie, territory Moggie and so forth to whom you pledged your obedience.)
IMO, The ministry was evil because an "evil/bad" (whatever your word is) man started it. The few glimmering moments all of us experienced, including myself, were the results of actual Biblical things that were researched by actual good men who actually loved God. So the lie continues to this day in “deception” those who believe VPW was a good man because they had a “few good” times in what had become his ministry. Most of the people still holding onto the myth are folks that were on the field as believers or twig leaders who did not see the genesis of evil in the men at the top. This most arguments here are between those that knew VPW/LCM and witnessed the evil or have a journalist training in digging for facts like Raf and those that refuse to see past their limited perspective on “I had a good time in Twig” therefore TWI was not evil -- to an actual person who thinks PFAL was “god breathed” and given to VPW.
Welcome newbies and good luck navigating between the theories and the facts. I hope you find answers and healing.
quote:So since he was just a little dishonest he's okay in your book, oldies?
It doesn't mean it was ok but neither does it negate his godly works.
It's not good to claim Dr. Wierwille plagiarized most of his books without proof. For one, one looks biased and irresponsible for making such a claim if there's not enough proof. But I'm open to evidence if it's out there. Look at it this way: let's say I'm speaking with a pro-Wierwille ex-wayfer and I want to make the point that most of Dr. Wierwille's books are plagiarized. Chances are that person is going to disbelieve it, without proof. So the person asks "where's the proof". Well, currently I can prove that some paragraphs were plagiarized; not most of his books.
How do we define "largely plagiarized" or "mostly plagiarized?"
I don't know how much of RTHST was plagiarized. I can point to a few egregious examples in that book, but I don't see, for example, any one other than Wierwille teaching that these are manifestations as opposed to gifts, or that these are 9 manifestations of one gift. I give him a lot of credit for that one, although those who believe they should be called gifts will obviously disagree. That, however, is a doctrinal question.
It's clear to anyone paying attention that the portion of the PFAL class and book devoted to keys to Biblical interpretation owe much to Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible, but how much of that can accurately be called "plagiarized?" Am I not allowed now to teach keys to Biblical interpretation without quoting PFAL? The keys preceded both Bullinger and PFAL, didn't they?
I believe Wierwille plagiarized. I believe it was even more extensive than I originally realized (someone on another thread threw a Wierwille quote at me, perhaps not realizing that Wierwille had plagiarized EW Kenyon word-for-word on that particular point). I was stunned to find that BG Leonard, not Wierwille, coined the phrase "The Word of God is the Will of God."
I am happy to say Wierwille plagiarized, because it is true. I would be hard put to say that he largely plagiarized, or that he mostly plagiarized. Ultimately, when I teach someone "how to become a Christian," I'm not going to come up with much that is different from every single other Christian teacher on the subject. So... what do you mean by mostly?
quote:For one, one looks biased and irresponsible for making such a claim if there's not enough proof. But I'm open to evidence if it's out there.
Huh? Is this a "new" oldiesman? I only ask because PROOF has never seemed to change your opinion before on other topics... I would say if you're "open" to evidence, then you're a "newiesman"!
(That Moggie was ultimately VPW, but it then ran downhill and the poor believer had their twig Moggie, branch Moggie, area Moggie, territory Moggie and so forth to whom you pledged your obedience.)
For twi to have been a MLM scam, others in the pyramid would have had to made some money.
No one at all made money except for those at the very top.
That's exactly how MLM's work. Shaklee, Amway, even the "good" ones all have very righ people at the top and lot's of folks below working their asses off to make it some day.
I can't say how many, if any, made money. However, there were other perks that could have drawn people in. Others doing your housework, watching your kids, driving you around, "bless gifts" for running a class, etc.
You have a valid point though. So maybe it was a MoLM scam? Mono-level Marketing? ;-) "It all goes to us!" Bet Mr. Ponzi wished he would have thought of that one.
You've got it backwards. Only a little of VPW's writing wasn't plagiarized.
Pat, from the evidence I've seen, only a small portion of Dr. Wierwille's books were actually plagiarized. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm open to revising my beliefs.
P.S. I've already seen the evidence from Juedes...which seems to me is only a small portion of the totality of Wierwille's books...if you have more, please feel free to supply it.
I like that posted reply. You don't seem to have jumped the gun or hopped into a band wagon. It reminded me of a verse "Thy words were found and I did eat them, and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" (punctuation?).
I think many times about OT men who went to the already written word and took possession of the words as their own too.
Nothing under the sun is new.
Unless Dr. Wierwille knowingly concealed that other people had the same teaching as himself, it would not really be stealing or plagerism.
Any teaching that Dr. Wierwilled had, could not have originated with anybody whom he supposedly "stole" it from. Because any valid teaching material would have been in the scripture for hundreds of years. Possibly hundreds of men and women would have recognized and taught portions of it through the centuries without a guarantee of it being recorded.
Many critics that cry "plagerism" spend little time holding the spotlight on the people they think are the ones stolen from. Why don't they take it a step further; take it deeper by another layer? Did it originate with the person whom it was stolen from? Or did the other person plagerize it too.
It can still boil down to the "from one extreme to another mentality".
The important part is not the person with whom a teaching originated, but "what does the word say?" Is it the Word?
It's again the game of putting the focus on a man or woman, and taking the focus off of God. When the focus is taken off God and put on any man or woman, that's an indirect and subtle attack of Satan: a way of gaining indirect worship.
And the "pawns" that carry out that task unknowingly become Satan's little alter boys; Satan's little priests.
Such men and women are then "dished-out" the little reward of feeling important, of apparently looking smart like they have solved some difficult case.
'M. D. Vaden' date='May 22 2006, 01:49 AM' post='241937'
I like that posted reply. You don't seem to have jumped the gun or hopped into a band wagon.
[Appearances are deceiving in this case.
OM sounds oh-so-reasonable in any one post,
but try to follow the conversation whenever any wrongdoing
of vpw is discussed. Then the only things OM never knows
for sure is that vpw ever wronged anyone.
That's true in this thread as well as others.
However,
an eagerness on your OWN part to exonerate vpw of anything
he was caught doing and whitewash anything away there's
any hope to-
that might bias your responses somewhat.
OM says the same thing-therefore he's "reasonable".
(He also shows this same skepticism when facing the subject
of 6 million people killed when vpw says they weren't-
and you disagree with OM there.
However, he uses the same approach on both threads.
Perhaps the same "ignore the evidence" approach on that
thread is in use here? Maybe...]
It reminded me of a verse "Thy words were found and I did eat them, and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" (punctuation?).
I think many times about OT men who went to the already written word and took possession of the words as their own too.
[No-they credited Scripture as the source when it was the source.
Agreeing with Scripture, quoting Scripture, citing Scripture-
few people would ever raise an issue with that.]
Nothing under the sun is new.
Unless Dr. Wierwille knowingly concealed that other people had the same teaching as himself, it would not really be stealing or plagerism.
[bINGO!
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!
vpw retyped Stiles' book and produced the 1st edition of RTHST.
vpw added books from Bullinger and produced later editions.
The first iteration of the pfal class was called
"Receiving the Holy Spirit Today."
It was held 3 months after vpw retook BG Leonard's
CTC's "Gifts of the Spirit" class, which he first took earlier
that year.
vpw got permission from Leonard to run Leonard's class on a
one-time basis locally, and sent Leonard a photo of the class
for his scrapbook.
Meanwhile,
vpw told the students of this class
"this is my class on 'Receiving the Holy Spirit Today'".
It was Leonard's class with Leonard's name crossed out,
and vpw's name written in with crayon.
vpw took 2 books of Bullinger, and retyped them as
"Are the Dead Alive Now?",
including "The Rich Man and Lazarus-An Intermediate State?"
(You can read Bullinger's book online and compare it
all you want.)
In NONE of those cases did vpw say
"I'm taking the material of this person's book and presenting
it here" nor "this class is a modification of the class taught
by BG Leonard".
vpw knowingly concealed that these books and that class were
direct copies of the work of other people.
(This could have been avoided the same way Woodrow's
book "Babylon Mystery Religion" was a rewrite of Hislop's
"the Two Babylons", yet NOBODY complains because it was
done in an honest-and LEGAL-fashion.
The way vpw did it is illegal in all 5 states.
It was plagiarism.
In some cases, it was BLATANT plagiarism-
like when he used the characters from Leonard's class:
Johnny Jumpup and Maggie Muggins and Henry Belocco.
He copied them over when he copied over the material.
BTW, those 285 occurrences of the word "spirit" that vpw
makes a big deal of studying out?
You can make a GREAT headstart on studying them if you
do what he did and read Bullinger's book
"the Giver and His Gifts", aka "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit",
which lists all 285 occurrences and gives the number.
vpw never mentioned that little detail, either.
In the Orange Book (PFAL) and in the White Book (RTHST),
the introductions are rather clear that each book is the
product of vpw and his study-
and has little, if anything, to do with other Christians-
who, BTW, are sincere but ignorant.
The closest he ever comes to admitting both books are
retypings and paraphrases of the books of others
(like Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible) was buried
some 200-300 pages into "the Way:Living in Love",
where he says "Nothing I do is original."
Some people suggest this is equivalent to an outright admission
of the copying he intentionally did,
and that his actions were not illegal.
(One person claimed God TOLD him to plagiarize.)]
Any teaching that Dr. Wierwilled had, could not have originated with anybody whom he supposedly "stole" it from. Because any valid teaching material would have been in the scripture for hundreds of years. Possibly hundreds of men and women would have recognized and taught portions of it through the centuries without a guarantee of it being recorded.
Many critics that cry "plagerism" spend little time holding the spotlight on the people they think are the ones stolen from. Why don't they take it a step further; take it deeper by another layer? Did it originate with the person whom it was stolen from? Or did the other person plagerize it too.
[Fascinating.
You might want to spend a few minutes reviewing
what plagiarism IS.
Here's a quick link to something on it, right on this site:
Here's a dumbed-down rule of thumb on the subject...
If I reproduce someone else's work, and cite the source,
that is not plagiarism. (Like that linked editorial: If I cut and pasted
it here, and said "this is what Raf said in the editorial
"the Integrity of Your Word", that's not plagiarism.)
If I happen to say something similar to someone,
that's not plagiarism.
(Many Christians have taught on John 3:16.
If I happen to make the same points as a local
clergyman made in 1972 from his pulpit at his local
church, then that's not plagiarism.)
If I take the work of someone else and present it as
my own, THAT is plagiarism.
(If I took that editorial, changed a few words, and
just posted it, THAT would be plagiarism.
If I got a copy of the sermon of that local clergyman,
and then taught it myself with no mention of him,
that is plagiarism.
(It's possibly forgiveable if I do that for a little sermon
from one podium-albeit still a crime.
To commit it to tape, video or print and use it to make
a profit, that's both illegal AND immoral.)]
It can still boil down to the "from one extreme to another mentality".
The important part is not the person with whom a teaching originated, but "what does the word say?" Is it the Word?
It's again the game of putting the focus on a man or woman, and taking the focus off of God.
[Actually, it's the opposite.
When someone takes credit for the work of another,
then it becomes about THAT person. HE deliberately places
the focus on HIMSELF rather than on God where it should be.
He also disrespects his fellow Christians whom he plagiarized,
and his fellow Christians to whom he lied.
Uncovering his deceptions and lies is NOT "ungodly" or "carnal",
it's exposing the "ungodliness" and "carnality" of someone claiming
to represent God,
and God thought that task was so important, he designated
prophets to carry out that function.
If it's an unnecessary job, you can go ahead and tell God that He
got a bunch of His own men killed for nothing.
(Prophets often spoke at the risk of being murdered for speaking
the truth.)]
When the focus is taken off God and put on any man or woman, that's an indirect and subtle attack of Satan: a way of gaining indirect worship.
[Correct.
And for a man to take the best work of a number of Christians,
reproduce it and claim he's the sole author,
calls himself "THE Teacher",
puts forth that he's the best man of God in 20 centuries,
and that all other Christians alive today are in error or worse,
THAT is a way of gaining worship.
When one adds all sorts of special privileges-like expensive
vehicles, airplanes, and lots of luxuries-
then it becomes even more blatant.]
And the "pawns" that carry out that task unknowingly become Satan's little alter boys; Satan's little priests.
Such men and women are then "dished-out" the little reward of feeling important, of apparently looking smart like they have solved some difficult case.
[if you mean the posters that post here,
they do quite an effective job of exposing lies told by twi,
past and present.
They have done a lot to help others escape twi, or move on
after having been severed from twi, simply by posting.
(Some have done more and are MORE helpful.)
As to any cause for complaint against them...
Why is it perfectly acceptable for a minister to construct
an elaborate framework to rape women,
then use that framework to drug and rape women,
and kick them out of the group and slander their
names and ruin their reputation if it looks like they'll talk,
but to expose his felonies to the light of day is deplorable?
Isaiah 5:20
"Woe unto them that call evil 'good', and good 'evil';
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" ]
Well said Oldies and MD Vaden...and welcome btw (if you haven't been already).
As far as I know, Dr.W didn't try to hide any of E.W. Bullingers words or books at all or disuade people from reading about him. The companion Bible was a recommended Bible too wasn't it ??
Someone else posted about ministries bearing fruit. I think anyone doing that from the glasshouse of their respective church denominations really ought to look at a cupla layers of their own chuch history too !!
And then there's the actual researchers at TWI who wrote things that vee pee put his name on and never gave credit to them for actually writing. :unsure:
Look up the brouhaha that resulted when the late great popular historian Mr. Ambrose (Band of Brothers and so on) cited some works, credited them in the context but failed to properly footnote the citations. "Plagiarism, Plagiarism!" Your wierwille was an order of magnitute less scrupulous than those omissions, don't you think?
Recommended Posts
oldiesman
Pat, the main point you seem to be making is that because Dr. Wierwille plagiarized some material, the Way Ministry wasn't a legitimate Christian ministry but nothing more than a profit-making business.
Evidence exists that it was both.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Well it made a profit.
Christian? That's debateable
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Good post Pat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
The majority was of VPW's material was deliberately stolen, and not by a clerical oversight of forgetting to quote his sources....
Would a so called christian organization have beliefs and practices towards their followers that were neither humane or christian?
TWI's practices were not christian by any stretch of the imagination.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Pat, from the evidence I've seen, only a small portion of Dr. Wierwille's books were actually plagiarized. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm open to revising my beliefs.
P.S. I've already seen the evidence from Juedes...which seems to me is only a small portion of the totality of Wierwille's books...if you have more, please feel free to supply it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
insurgent
So since he was just a little dishonest he's okay in your book, oldies?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
A bad tree can't bear good fruit--
If you start out with a basis of theft and lying no matter how little or how much you have a house upon the sand.
Like cups that are white on the outside and dirty on the inside or like Whited seplechers [sic]
it rots from the inside out
***having thrown enough metaphors for the day TL slips back to lurk mode**
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
IMO
Well, this topic is a vein that is part of a confluence of topics that flow into “Did the ministry start out bad or Become bad?”
What I have learned from the well informed people here at GS is the following:
I came to the internet convinced that VPW and TWI were “GOOD” and through the years went “bad”
I was convinced of this because it was “my truth”. In 1972 the ministry was great, by 1976 I saw some very disturbing behavior but thought it to be isolated problems. By 1981 after being invited into the coach I saw VPW as a sick man. Then, I noticed other people felt the same way I did. Except their years were not the came as mine. The good years for one was 1980 to 1991 and then they thought the ministry corrupted. Another was it was good from 1983 to 1993 then it went bad.
I began to read people’s stories and to each person the ministry was “good” when they first got in and went bad after they recognized some very disturbing practices. So, I took away the “years” people sited and what basically people were saying was “When I got “in” it was great! Then when I got out it was “bad””
Therefore, the responses were all subjective. It was all persona; data based on experience. So, I began to read some FACTS on when TWI started to have its problems. The more I read and the more “people in the know” with whom I spoke led me to believe the problems with TWI and in TWI were from its inception.
But because each of us went into it because what intrigued was something good we saw we seemed to assume the ministry was good because we benefited from parts of our participation and it went bad when we no longer benefited.
What I found was, it was started by a man who lied about his training, and stole other people’s hard work and stated it was his own discoveries. Not only did he claim it to be his own he packaged it by a promise from God and a phenomenon/sign of seeing it snow.
I contend the “good” we all experienced when we all got in during our different years was a result of the “work” being presented to us actually coming from GOOD men who had nothing to do with TWI. Men like BG Leonard and Bullinger. We saw the sparkle of the word, we got to see a God we were searching for but then the light grew dim and was replaced by nasty corps people, outrageous rules, invasion of privacy and blind acceptance of what the Moggie said. (That Moggie was ultimately VPW, but it then ran downhill and the poor believer had their twig Moggie, branch Moggie, area Moggie, territory Moggie and so forth to whom you pledged your obedience.)
IMO, The ministry was evil because an "evil/bad" (whatever your word is) man started it. The few glimmering moments all of us experienced, including myself, were the results of actual Biblical things that were researched by actual good men who actually loved God. So the lie continues to this day in “deception” those who believe VPW was a good man because they had a “few good” times in what had become his ministry. Most of the people still holding onto the myth are folks that were on the field as believers or twig leaders who did not see the genesis of evil in the men at the top. This most arguments here are between those that knew VPW/LCM and witnessed the evil or have a journalist training in digging for facts like Raf and those that refuse to see past their limited perspective on “I had a good time in Twig” therefore TWI was not evil -- to an actual person who thinks PFAL was “god breathed” and given to VPW.
Welcome newbies and good luck navigating between the theories and the facts. I hope you find answers and healing.
This is my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
It doesn't mean it was ok but neither does it negate his godly works.
It's not good to claim Dr. Wierwille plagiarized most of his books without proof. For one, one looks biased and irresponsible for making such a claim if there's not enough proof. But I'm open to evidence if it's out there. Look at it this way: let's say I'm speaking with a pro-Wierwille ex-wayfer and I want to make the point that most of Dr. Wierwille's books are plagiarized. Chances are that person is going to disbelieve it, without proof. So the person asks "where's the proof". Well, currently I can prove that some paragraphs were plagiarized; not most of his books.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
How do we define "largely plagiarized" or "mostly plagiarized?"
I don't know how much of RTHST was plagiarized. I can point to a few egregious examples in that book, but I don't see, for example, any one other than Wierwille teaching that these are manifestations as opposed to gifts, or that these are 9 manifestations of one gift. I give him a lot of credit for that one, although those who believe they should be called gifts will obviously disagree. That, however, is a doctrinal question.
It's clear to anyone paying attention that the portion of the PFAL class and book devoted to keys to Biblical interpretation owe much to Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible, but how much of that can accurately be called "plagiarized?" Am I not allowed now to teach keys to Biblical interpretation without quoting PFAL? The keys preceded both Bullinger and PFAL, didn't they?
I believe Wierwille plagiarized. I believe it was even more extensive than I originally realized (someone on another thread threw a Wierwille quote at me, perhaps not realizing that Wierwille had plagiarized EW Kenyon word-for-word on that particular point). I was stunned to find that BG Leonard, not Wierwille, coined the phrase "The Word of God is the Will of God."
I am happy to say Wierwille plagiarized, because it is true. I would be hard put to say that he largely plagiarized, or that he mostly plagiarized. Ultimately, when I teach someone "how to become a Christian," I'm not going to come up with much that is different from every single other Christian teacher on the subject. So... what do you mean by mostly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
OM said:
Huh? Is this a "new" oldiesman? I only ask because PROOF has never seemed to change your opinion before on other topics... I would say if you're "open" to evidence, then you're a "newiesman"!Link to comment
Share on other sites
ItsStillTheWord
Don't forget Moggie Muggins!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
hehehehehe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
For twi to have been a MLM scam, others in the pyramid would have had to made some money.
No one at all made money except for those at the very top.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
My3Cents
That's exactly how MLM's work. Shaklee, Amway, even the "good" ones all have very righ people at the top and lot's of folks below working their asses off to make it some day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Steve!,
I can't say how many, if any, made money. However, there were other perks that could have drawn people in. Others doing your housework, watching your kids, driving you around, "bless gifts" for running a class, etc.
You have a valid point though. So maybe it was a MoLM scam? Mono-level Marketing? ;-) "It all goes to us!" Bet Mr. Ponzi wished he would have thought of that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Here's another MLM discussion...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
M. D. Vaden
I like that posted reply. You don't seem to have jumped the gun or hopped into a band wagon. It reminded me of a verse "Thy words were found and I did eat them, and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" (punctuation?).
I think many times about OT men who went to the already written word and took possession of the words as their own too.
Nothing under the sun is new.
Unless Dr. Wierwille knowingly concealed that other people had the same teaching as himself, it would not really be stealing or plagerism.
Any teaching that Dr. Wierwilled had, could not have originated with anybody whom he supposedly "stole" it from. Because any valid teaching material would have been in the scripture for hundreds of years. Possibly hundreds of men and women would have recognized and taught portions of it through the centuries without a guarantee of it being recorded.
Many critics that cry "plagerism" spend little time holding the spotlight on the people they think are the ones stolen from. Why don't they take it a step further; take it deeper by another layer? Did it originate with the person whom it was stolen from? Or did the other person plagerize it too.
It can still boil down to the "from one extreme to another mentality".
The important part is not the person with whom a teaching originated, but "what does the word say?" Is it the Word?
It's again the game of putting the focus on a man or woman, and taking the focus off of God. When the focus is taken off God and put on any man or woman, that's an indirect and subtle attack of Satan: a way of gaining indirect worship.
And the "pawns" that carry out that task unknowingly become Satan's little alter boys; Satan's little priests.
Such men and women are then "dished-out" the little reward of feeling important, of apparently looking smart like they have solved some difficult case.
Edited by M. D. VadenLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf in brackets and boldface as usual.]
'M. D. Vaden' date='May 22 2006, 01:49 AM' post='241937'
I like that posted reply. You don't seem to have jumped the gun or hopped into a band wagon.
[Appearances are deceiving in this case.
OM sounds oh-so-reasonable in any one post,
but try to follow the conversation whenever any wrongdoing
of vpw is discussed. Then the only things OM never knows
for sure is that vpw ever wronged anyone.
That's true in this thread as well as others.
However,
an eagerness on your OWN part to exonerate vpw of anything
he was caught doing and whitewash anything away there's
any hope to-
that might bias your responses somewhat.
OM says the same thing-therefore he's "reasonable".
(He also shows this same skepticism when facing the subject
of 6 million people killed when vpw says they weren't-
and you disagree with OM there.
However, he uses the same approach on both threads.
Perhaps the same "ignore the evidence" approach on that
thread is in use here? Maybe...]
It reminded me of a verse "Thy words were found and I did eat them, and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" (punctuation?).
I think many times about OT men who went to the already written word and took possession of the words as their own too.
[No-they credited Scripture as the source when it was the source.
Agreeing with Scripture, quoting Scripture, citing Scripture-
few people would ever raise an issue with that.]
Nothing under the sun is new.
Unless Dr. Wierwille knowingly concealed that other people had the same teaching as himself, it would not really be stealing or plagerism.
[bINGO!
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!
vpw retyped Stiles' book and produced the 1st edition of RTHST.
vpw added books from Bullinger and produced later editions.
The first iteration of the pfal class was called
"Receiving the Holy Spirit Today."
It was held 3 months after vpw retook BG Leonard's
CTC's "Gifts of the Spirit" class, which he first took earlier
that year.
vpw got permission from Leonard to run Leonard's class on a
one-time basis locally, and sent Leonard a photo of the class
for his scrapbook.
Meanwhile,
vpw told the students of this class
"this is my class on 'Receiving the Holy Spirit Today'".
It was Leonard's class with Leonard's name crossed out,
and vpw's name written in with crayon.
vpw took 2 books of Bullinger, and retyped them as
"Are the Dead Alive Now?",
including "The Rich Man and Lazarus-An Intermediate State?"
(You can read Bullinger's book online and compare it
all you want.)
In NONE of those cases did vpw say
"I'm taking the material of this person's book and presenting
it here" nor "this class is a modification of the class taught
by BG Leonard".
vpw knowingly concealed that these books and that class were
direct copies of the work of other people.
(This could have been avoided the same way Woodrow's
book "Babylon Mystery Religion" was a rewrite of Hislop's
"the Two Babylons", yet NOBODY complains because it was
done in an honest-and LEGAL-fashion.
The way vpw did it is illegal in all 5 states.
It was plagiarism.
In some cases, it was BLATANT plagiarism-
like when he used the characters from Leonard's class:
Johnny Jumpup and Maggie Muggins and Henry Belocco.
He copied them over when he copied over the material.
BTW, those 285 occurrences of the word "spirit" that vpw
makes a big deal of studying out?
You can make a GREAT headstart on studying them if you
do what he did and read Bullinger's book
"the Giver and His Gifts", aka "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit",
which lists all 285 occurrences and gives the number.
vpw never mentioned that little detail, either.
In the Orange Book (PFAL) and in the White Book (RTHST),
the introductions are rather clear that each book is the
product of vpw and his study-
and has little, if anything, to do with other Christians-
who, BTW, are sincere but ignorant.
The closest he ever comes to admitting both books are
retypings and paraphrases of the books of others
(like Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible) was buried
some 200-300 pages into "the Way:Living in Love",
where he says "Nothing I do is original."
Some people suggest this is equivalent to an outright admission
of the copying he intentionally did,
and that his actions were not illegal.
(One person claimed God TOLD him to plagiarize.)]
Any teaching that Dr. Wierwilled had, could not have originated with anybody whom he supposedly "stole" it from. Because any valid teaching material would have been in the scripture for hundreds of years. Possibly hundreds of men and women would have recognized and taught portions of it through the centuries without a guarantee of it being recorded.
Many critics that cry "plagerism" spend little time holding the spotlight on the people they think are the ones stolen from. Why don't they take it a step further; take it deeper by another layer? Did it originate with the person whom it was stolen from? Or did the other person plagerize it too.
[Fascinating.
You might want to spend a few minutes reviewing
what plagiarism IS.
Here's a quick link to something on it, right on this site:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm
Here's a dumbed-down rule of thumb on the subject...
If I reproduce someone else's work, and cite the source,
that is not plagiarism. (Like that linked editorial: If I cut and pasted
it here, and said "this is what Raf said in the editorial
"the Integrity of Your Word", that's not plagiarism.)
If I happen to say something similar to someone,
that's not plagiarism.
(Many Christians have taught on John 3:16.
If I happen to make the same points as a local
clergyman made in 1972 from his pulpit at his local
church, then that's not plagiarism.)
If I take the work of someone else and present it as
my own, THAT is plagiarism.
(If I took that editorial, changed a few words, and
just posted it, THAT would be plagiarism.
If I got a copy of the sermon of that local clergyman,
and then taught it myself with no mention of him,
that is plagiarism.
(It's possibly forgiveable if I do that for a little sermon
from one podium-albeit still a crime.
To commit it to tape, video or print and use it to make
a profit, that's both illegal AND immoral.)]
It can still boil down to the "from one extreme to another mentality".
The important part is not the person with whom a teaching originated, but "what does the word say?" Is it the Word?
It's again the game of putting the focus on a man or woman, and taking the focus off of God.
[Actually, it's the opposite.
When someone takes credit for the work of another,
then it becomes about THAT person. HE deliberately places
the focus on HIMSELF rather than on God where it should be.
He also disrespects his fellow Christians whom he plagiarized,
and his fellow Christians to whom he lied.
Uncovering his deceptions and lies is NOT "ungodly" or "carnal",
it's exposing the "ungodliness" and "carnality" of someone claiming
to represent God,
and God thought that task was so important, he designated
prophets to carry out that function.
If it's an unnecessary job, you can go ahead and tell God that He
got a bunch of His own men killed for nothing.
(Prophets often spoke at the risk of being murdered for speaking
the truth.)]
When the focus is taken off God and put on any man or woman, that's an indirect and subtle attack of Satan: a way of gaining indirect worship.
[Correct.
And for a man to take the best work of a number of Christians,
reproduce it and claim he's the sole author,
calls himself "THE Teacher",
puts forth that he's the best man of God in 20 centuries,
and that all other Christians alive today are in error or worse,
THAT is a way of gaining worship.
When one adds all sorts of special privileges-like expensive
vehicles, airplanes, and lots of luxuries-
then it becomes even more blatant.]
And the "pawns" that carry out that task unknowingly become Satan's little alter boys; Satan's little priests.
Such men and women are then "dished-out" the little reward of feeling important, of apparently looking smart like they have solved some difficult case.
[if you mean the posters that post here,
they do quite an effective job of exposing lies told by twi,
past and present.
They have done a lot to help others escape twi, or move on
after having been severed from twi, simply by posting.
(Some have done more and are MORE helpful.)
As to any cause for complaint against them...
Why is it perfectly acceptable for a minister to construct
an elaborate framework to rape women,
then use that framework to drug and rape women,
and kick them out of the group and slander their
names and ruin their reputation if it looks like they'll talk,
but to expose his felonies to the light of day is deplorable?
Isaiah 5:20
"Woe unto them that call evil 'good', and good 'evil';
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" ]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Well said Oldies and MD Vaden...and welcome btw (if you haven't been already).
As far as I know, Dr.W didn't try to hide any of E.W. Bullingers words or books at all or disuade people from reading about him. The companion Bible was a recommended Bible too wasn't it ??
Someone else posted about ministries bearing fruit. I think anyone doing that from the glasshouse of their respective church denominations really ought to look at a cupla layers of their own chuch history too !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Really?
So you knew:
A) the entire contents of "How to Enjoy the Bible" was incorporated into the Foundational
class, and therefore the Orange Book?
B) the book "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit"/"The Giver and His Gifts"
was added to Stiles' book to make the White Book (RTHST)?
C) "Are the Dead Alive Now?" was the compilation of 2 of Bullinger's
books, including "The Rich Man and Lazarus:an Intermediate State?"
I noticed you skipped mentioning the people whose names NEVER came
up but whose material did-with vpw's name on it...
BG Leonard
JE Stiles
EW Kenyon
(Ok, we knew about 1-2 of Kenyon's books.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
And then there's the actual researchers at TWI who wrote things that vee pee put his name on and never gave credit to them for actually writing. :unsure:
Awesome, as usual, WordWolf. :) Thank you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Wrong. You don't know what plagiarism is. Look it up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Unless Bible scholarship is no biggie to you.
Look up the brouhaha that resulted when the late great popular historian Mr. Ambrose (Band of Brothers and so on) cited some works, credited them in the context but failed to properly footnote the citations. "Plagiarism, Plagiarism!" Your wierwille was an order of magnitute less scrupulous than those omissions, don't you think?
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.