Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Did vpw cite his sources, or did he plagiarize?


WordWolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

However, i am completely confused as to why you seem to support the incredibly self-serving PI Of Gallagher and your RnR heroes. Why?

I think you may have missed my comment regarding my disappointment with R&R, and it was based primarily on what you have shared, along with two others.  I don't support them, I'm waiting to see them slip in their own muck.

As for Dan, as I had stated prior, I was already looking into this very topic on my own.  I don't actually support him, and was pretty surprised that he's already asking for money to help support his web site - they cost $10/month for a good hosting package, and Wordpress is free!  Shouldn't be much of a strain on his pocket if he really wants to get a message out.

But I am still reading his long-winded paper.  So far, he has been very analytical, comparing the two views on salvation.  The one thing I can say about that paper at this point is this: it doesn't seem to be plagiarized!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JayDee said:

You’ll find that when DWBH tells you/us about these individuals, that he’s telling it like it is. No BS. He has no axe to grind. Just protecting people from the madness that is twi. 

Oh, I already know that.  I've read several of his first-hand accounts.  At first I was dumbfounded, then furious, and then I felt really heartbroken for all those that lived through that insanity. 

All I ever did was go to a local fellowship and the classes, and I did the way disciple program once.  So locally I really didn't see much of the manipulation, although I did become aware of an uneasiness in my gut that I couldn't figure out.  That was three years ago, and at that point I stopped inviting people to my fellowship, and gradually reduced my participation in the branch and fellowship activities.  Now I have nothing to do with TWI.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Taxidev said:

Oh, I already know that.  I've read several of his first-hand accounts.  At first I was dumbfounded, then furious, and then I felt really heartbroken for all those that lived through that insanity. 

All I ever did was go to a local fellowship and the classes, and I did the way disciple program once.  So locally I really didn't see much of the manipulation, although I did become aware of an uneasiness in my gut that I couldn't figure out.  That was three years ago, and at that point I stopped inviting people to my fellowship, and gradually reduced my participation in the branch and fellowship activities.  Now I have nothing to do with TWI.

Taxi, :eusa_clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JayDee said:

You’ll find that when DWBH tells you/us about these individuals, that he’s telling it like it is. No BS. He has no axe to grind. Just protecting people from the madness that is twi. 

Jay, how right you are!  Unlike many of the leaders of TWI, DWBH never exploited those around him, for personal gain.  DWBH had/has a strong moral compass; no one can accuse him pimping for VPW, or LCM.  I love DWBH's posts; I find them well-written, and very informative.  Sometimes, they make me laugh.  But, I know DWBH knew many of the top dogs, in TWI, and what they did behind the scenes.  IOWs, DWBH knew many of the leaders, and what they did in their personal lives.  I am so glad that DWBH is willing to share his experiences of TWI, with us. The more I learn about TWI, the more thankful I am, that I left.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you GVC. I appreciate your overly kind words. And, more importantly I appreciate what Pawtucket has done here for the last 18 years!! He is a personal hero of mine. He has suffered so very much for keeping this place alive. Few people really know how much. I do, and I love him and will do so with respect as long as I live. Like I said, he is a hero for truth, justice, and love. Just sayin’......

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 9:47 PM, waysider said:

At one time, there was another session, as well, that dealt with the "unforgivable sin". This session taught that people could supposedly be born again of the seed of the devil. I'm not sure why it was discontinued but I would assume it was too far over-the-edge for most students. I'm not sure where this material came from but I would be willing to bet it didn't originate with Wierwile.

I heard a couple of times that when some people heard that teaching, they were afraid they had committed the unforgiveable sin and had become seed.  So they discontinued it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, outandabout said:

I heard a couple of times that when some people heard that teaching, they were afraid they had committed the unforgiveable sin and had become seed.  So they discontinued it.

It amazes me that TWI and not only TWI but other groups as well will take 1 verse and develop an elaborate doctrine around it. In this case John 8:44.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, outandabout said:

I heard a couple of times that when some people heard that teaching, they were afraid they had committed the unforgiveable sin and had become seed.  So they discontinued it.

That subject is rather vague in Scripture. "Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is never defined.  Therefore, must not be that important, at least for the Christian. 

As a subject, it seems more like an inkblot. I once tried to find out, definitively, what "pulse" was in the OT.  Every online result was "It was a mixture of x, y and z, and we're selling it if you're interested."  Or the infamous "thorn in the flesh". where each speaker had a different problem, and it was the same one Paul complained about, by amazing coincidence. This subject, also, lends itself to lots of wild speculation with people certain of something nebulous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Infoabsorption said:

It amazes me that TWI and not only TWI but other groups as well will take 1 verse and develop an elaborate doctrine around it. In this case John 8:44.

twi did that quite a bit. My usual rule is that- if twi based a doctrine on one verse or no verses, the doctrine should be presumed error until proved otherwise. So far, it's worked.  I had a thread somewhere about doctrines entirely built from one verse, I think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My best example of that was the pro-abortion doctrine. Until we "take our first breath", we're not born, and we die when we "take our last breath" (ZERO VERSES SO FAR.)  The one verse that comes up is when Gabriel spoke to Mary and said that "the holy thing" that would be born of her would be called The Son of God.  So, before Jesus' birth, he was a "thing."  But that's only in the KJV.  The other versions render that  'holy one" or "holy child" or otherwise.  A quick check of the Greek shows that this "THING" thing only occurs here, and the same word for "holy thing" here is translated either "holy one" or "saint" EVERYWHERE ELSE.  For consistency, read them all as "holy one/s".  Then twi's sole verse for "not a person" vanishes.  Worse, we see that other verses show a 3rd trimester kid can react and show emotion. (Elizabeth about John, when Mary arrived.)  AND he was called a "baby." At 6 months. We don't know when that all applied, but it was true by that time, which is 3 months earlier than twi said.  And this is not hard to find if one is looking.  And even after I posted all the verses that said that, vpw fans still posted right after that saying the "thing" thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WordWolf said:

And this is not hard to find if one is looking.  And even after I posted all the verses that said that, vpw fans still posted right after that saying the "thing" thing.

I believe the most important verse for TWI was in the law, Leviticus I think, where it talks about causing a pregnant woman to lose her unborn child.  In the law, murder was punishable by death, but this was only punishable by a fine.  But what they seemed to have missed was, this loss of child was an accident, not on purpose.  So it was an accidental death, not murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Taxidev said:

I believe the most important verse for TWI was in the law, Leviticus I think, where it talks about causing a pregnant woman to lose her unborn child.  In the law, murder was punishable by death, but this was only punishable by a fine.  But what they seemed to have missed was, this loss of child was an accident, not on purpose.  So it was an accidental death, not murder.

Right. We expect there to be a difference between murder (he tried to kill him and succeeded)  and manslaughter (he didn't mean to kill him, but it happened anyway.)  But twi never looked close enough-it saw what it wanted to see, The End.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2018 at 12:25 PM, Infoabsorption said:

It amazes me that TWI and not only TWI but other groups as well will take 1 verse and develop an elaborate doctrine around it. In this case John 8:44.

This is absolutely no different than how native tribes come up with folklore.  Manually filling in the detail through imagination where only the sketch of an outline truly exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This is absolutely no different than how native tribes come up with folklore.  Manually filling in the detail through imagination where only the sketch of an outline truly exists."

 

"Jesus wept." ...I think we ought to take that verse  and build a whole doctrine around it. We could create a youtube channel that dramatizes the doctrine with live actors. In the opening scene, we see Jesus attending a twig fellowship, having been witnessed to by a very attractive young female WOW Ambassador.  In a later episode, and without warning, he discovers he's been the victim of the old *date & switch*  routine. Then, an unseen Ron Howard, acting as the narrator, proclaims with a rueful voice... "Jesus Wept".

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For perspective, I would simply ask how any of the discussion of dispensations/administrations and such has anything to do with the thread title/subject?

This seems to now belong in the doctrinal forum.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Rocky said:

For perspective, I would simply ask how any of the discussion of dispensations/administrations and such has anything to do with the thread title/subject?

This seems to now belong in the doctrinal forum.

 

I'd agree, and perhaps this part can be split off from the original "cite his sources" thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have split what I think were posts regarding "Dispensationalism"  to a new thread in Doctrinal by that name, located here:

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24710-dispensationalism/

let me know by PM if something was moved which should not have been, or if something more needs to be moved. Thank you, Meanwhile please keep discussion in *this* thread to the topic in the original title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 12:57 PM, Taxidev said:

I believe the most important verse for TWI was in the law, Leviticus I think, where it talks about causing a pregnant woman to lose her unborn child.  In the law, murder was punishable by death, but this was only punishable by a fine.  But what they seemed to have missed was, this loss of child was an accident, not on purpose.  So it was an accidental death, not murder.

 

On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 1:03 PM, WordWolf said:

Right. We expect there to be a difference between murder (he tried to kill him and succeeded)  and manslaughter (he didn't mean to kill him, but it happened anyway.)  But twi never looked close enough-it saw what it wanted to see, The End.

Of course, the OT also has a punishment for manslaughter (flee to a city of refuge until the death of the High Priest).  The person who causes the pregnant woman to lose her child does not face that punishment, either.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, GeorgeStGeorge said:

 

Of course, the OT also has a punishment for manslaughter (flee to a city of refuge until the death of the High Priest).  The person who causes the pregnant woman to lose her child does not face that punishment, either.

George

Hi George, 

Did you get the memo? 

This thread is about whether vp cited his sources (i.e. plagiarism).
:wave:
 

 

On 6/20/2018 at 8:30 PM, Modgellan said:

I have split what I think were posts regarding "Dispensationalism"  to a new thread in Doctrinal by that name, located here:

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24710-dispensationalism/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
On 5/12/2018 at 11:55 PM, DontWorryBeHappy said:

JCOP was the first book that was NOT based solely on transcripts of dic’s teachings. As a matter of fact, the body of the contents as well as the vast majority of it were NOT contributed by dictor at all! I can honestly say that the only thing dictor wrote in that book was the dedication! LOL!

I helped with JCOP in the summer of 1978 in Gunnison. It was a Family Camp, and the theme or whatever was something like, "The Last Week of Jesus Christs' Life."  I guess 100 plus of us?

I recall vpw there of course, Walter?, but for sure Chip Stansbrry. Chip was my Twig coor.

What we did every morning and afternoon was have twigs just for study. We spread all around the grounds. 2 or 3 casual hours each time, all week. Each twig did the same. We simply read through all the gospels line byline AFTER, in my case, Chip taught us Passover, the days, customs, and so on. He made sure we had it. That was the first morning session. The start and end of the Hebrew days, and so on. Timelines. It was meticulous work.  THEN, 

We started at John 12:1...6 days before Passover.  We used that verse as our "origin." Chip gave us some work sheets broken into days, and we used it for our timelines witht he verse, and so on. We proceeded through the other areas verse by verse, word by word at times, comparing similar, and sometimes not identical, records or passages/ verses at the same time, carefully watching our timelines, and Chip would ask our opinions on how we were reading it: Did we consider this? What about this? Did we have anything to add? And, we usually did, and Chip would look at you and listen, nod his head, and scribble it down in his notes. We met under the cottonwood trees in lawn chairs. Most of the twigs did. 10 twigs? It was FUN! Sweet. 

After that week was up, never heard anything until it was published. Pretty much what we all saw. I am not confident in a couple of areas, 6 denials of Peter for one, but Chip was OK with it years later when i had an opportunity to speak with him. Me? I don't know. That week was my inspiration to go into the corps, and I did.

It's the only twit book I have. I tossed mine with everything else back around '87. Then ten years later I had a question and needed that book. I said, "WTF?!" and got a copy from ebay. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, engine said:

I helped with JCOP in the summer of 1978 in Gunnison. It was a Family Camp, and the theme or whatever was something like, "The Last Week of Jesus Christs' Life."  I guess 100 plus of us?

I recall vpw there of course, Walter?, but for sure Chip Stansbrry. Chip was my Twig coor.

What we did every morning and afternoon was have twigs just for study. We spread all around the grounds. 2 or 3 casual hours each time, all week. Each twig did the same. We simply read through all the gospels line byline AFTER, in my case, Chip taught us Passover, the days, customs, and so on. He made sure we had it. That was the first morning session. The start and end of the Hebrew days, and so on. Timelines. It was meticulous work.  THEN, 

We started at John 12:1...6 days before Passover.  We used that verse as our "origin." Chip gave us some work sheets broken into days, and we used it for our timelines witht he verse, and so on. We proceeded through the other areas verse by verse, word by word at times, comparing similar, and sometimes not identical, records or passages/ verses at the same time, carefully watching our timelines, and Chip would ask our opinions on how we were reading it: Did we consider this? What about this? Did we have anything to add? And, we usually did, and Chip would look at you and listen, nod his head, and scribble it down in his notes. We met under the cottonwood trees in lawn chairs. Most of the twigs did. 10 twigs? It was FUN! Sweet. 

After that week was up, never heard anything until it was published. Pretty much what we all saw. I am not confident in a couple of areas, 6 denials of Peter for one, but Chip was OK with it years later when i had an opportunity to speak with him. Me? I don't know. That week was my inspiration to go into the corps, and I did.

It's the only twit book I have. I tossed mine with everything else back around '87. Then ten years later I had a question and needed that book. I said, "WTF?!" and got a copy from ebay. LOL

Engine, I thought JCOP was a great book; it was so well-written.  What a mind-blowing read.  I knew VPW didn't write it, the moment I started reading it.  His books were garbage, and painful to read.  The one "Ministry" book I wish I had kept was JCOP, but somehow I lost in in my travels.

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...