Mark, the debate is ongoing, and has never really stopped. WW has done a good job IMHO of documenting what Wierwille actually said about various TWI doctrines and positions, as opposed to what we remember about them, all in TWI-published materials.
No matter what debate it engenders, it gets it out there.
Throughout my academic training in a college, a university, four seminaries
never noticed this before.
Let's see, he went to Mission House/Lakeland Collge for his bachelor's (I guess that's the college)
He went to Princeton Theological Seminary for his Master's (That's either the university or the seminary, maybe both)
He got his "doctorate" from Pike's Peak (Maybe he's considering this a seminary too)
Mark, the debate is ongoing, and has never really stopped. WW has done a good job IMHO of documenting what Wierwille actually said about various TWI doctrines and positions, as opposed to what we remember about them, all in TWI-published materials.
No matter what debate it engenders, it gets it out there.
I keep hearing that he supposedly gave "proper credit" in his books,
and I thought it was worth the time as a refresher,
and to make it handy for the next time someone makes
this ridiculous claim.
Let's see, he went to Mission House/Lakeland Collge for his bachelor's (I guess that's the college)
He went to Princeton Theological Seminary for his Master's (That's either the university or the seminary, maybe both)
He got his "doctorate" from Pike's Peak (Maybe he's considering this a seminary too)
Where else does he mention any others?
The Way:Living in Love,
pg-174. (Same page as the basketball team.)
"I don't remember much of the past. I'll have to renew my mind. Oh, yes,
did I tell you I taught at Gordon Divinity School? Homiletics was my specialty-
that's preaching. I took everything I could take at the Moody's Bible
Institute, too, through their correspondence courses."
I'm guessing he counted both of these.
We know for a fact the Moody thing was a boldfaced lie,
I knew from the Bible that what God sent at Pentecost was still available. It had to be, for God does not change.
But, according to Wierwille, there will be a time when what was available at Pentecost will not be available, and there was a time when it was not, so I guess God does change! Either that, or maybe he should have either thought again about whether it's still available, or have come up with a better argument. Bullinger and others have made the case biblically that tongues are not avilable today.
The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook.
Okay, so, according to Wierwille himself he didn't learn from other people, he figgered it all out hisself from the bible.
This is where the idea that Wierwille claimed that he originated it all, the quotes from The Way: Living in Love notwithstanding.
So, how can we reconcile these two statements?
Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.
and
The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook
They appear to be contradictory? Was Wierwille, perhaps, lying? If so, why print these two apparently contradictory statements in his own publications?
And then, of course, there's this:
One day I finally became so disgusted and tired
of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word- its integrity, its meaning, its words.
About the only time I regret throwing out my TWI books is when we have one of these discussions.
Interesting how the other man just VANISHES from the picture,
no? It's as if vpw later wants to take exclusive credit
("I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well
as my textbook") for something that was exclusively
the result of Stiles-the UNNAMED Christian-working for
God ("...He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a
glove...")
Think about when Wierwille does mention other people, often he pays them left-handed compliments, like saying BG Leonard was great on experience, and poor on documentation, or how Stiles is never mentioned again after that passage in TW:LIL.
Does he ever say "So-and-so taught me such-and-such", no, he throws out names, then about the best he can bring himself to say is that he kept what was accurate and threw out the rest. Specific credit and recognition was not ever given. Forget about footnotes, forget about endnotes, forget about a bibliography, he never, ever, mentions what he learned from whom, all he says is "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped." - a pretty lukewarm recognition of men that he copied from!
Does he ever say "So-and-so taught me such-and-such", no, he throws out names, then about the best he can bring himself to say is that he kept what was accurate and threw out the rest. Specific credit and recognition was not ever given.
And that's what it is all about. Ambiguous credit given to no one in particular.
Dan -- my copies were all soft cover too (paperbacks). The orange book is in pieces,
but the others are kinda intact (lack of use I guess!)
Did Wierwille actually intend these things as 'real books'?
Is that why he skipped putting in all the real "serious" stuff?
Or was he just being plain cheap?
This is an interesting point that Mike also makes that I've been tossing around in my head.
The possibility exists that the books and collaterals from PFAL were not designed for the masses, but designed only for "our household", which could be a possible explanation why he didn't execute proper written acknowledgement in them.
I remember twi actively asking us not to distribute the PFAL books by themselves...i.e., they were just for us who already took the class.
The rationale: "why give someone crumbs when they may eat the whole loaf."
On the other hand, a book that was apparently designed for the masses that was never discouraged from distribution by itself, i.e., Jesus Christ is not God, does have proper written acknowledgement.
This is where the idea that Wierwille claimed that he originated it all, the quotes from The Way: Living in Love notwithstanding.
They appear to be contradictory? Was Wierwille, perhaps, lying? If so, why print these two apparently contradictory statements in his own publications?
The way I see it, if he wanted to hide and lie and steal and deceive us into thinking that all his teachings were original, he would not have made the statement that his stuff was not original, and would not have included the books he learned from, right there in the bookstore for all to research.
Why is this so hard to some to recognize?
Perhaps because some folks just don't want to admit the obvious?
He included a few of the books he "learned" from. But he excluded many others. It's like having a serial burglar confess to two robberies when he committed 50. Fine, give him credit for acknowledging the two. But there are 48 more that he never confessed to.
That is NOT a confession. It is a poor excuse for a confession.
Once again, there is a big difference between "lots of stuff I teach is not original" and swiping the specific language and paragraphs of other writers without attribution.
NONE of the stuff I teach is original. I come to conclusions based on what I read and what I deduce. But I do not plagiarize. Haven't done it since a really bad third grade book report. I daresay none of what you teach is original either. But I don't suspect you are a plagiarist.
I hope you see the difference. This attempted exoneration of VPW based on the flimsiest of evidence is frustrating. I'm much happier when people just say "so what?"
This is where the idea that Wierwille claimed that he originated it all, the quotes from The Way: Living in Love notwithstanding.
They appear to be contradictory? Was Wierwille, perhaps, lying? If so, why print these two apparently contradictory statements in his own publications?
The way I see it, if he wanted to hide and lie and steal and deceive us into thinking that all his teachings were original, he would not have made the statement that his stuff was not original, and would not have included the books he learned from, right there in the bookstore for all to research.
Why is this so hard to some to recognize?
Perhaps because some folks just don't want to admit the obvious?
So we still are back to the question: "Why did he make these apparently contradictory statements?"
What did he mean when he said "Not everything that I teach is original", or that he learned from others, in light of his other statements that he threw out all of his books, and used only the bible as his textbook?
Or this statement about Leonard: "really learned a lot about the other manifestations of the holy spirit. But he worked from personal experiences. I worked what he taught from the accuracy of the Scriptures"
Oldies, the reason that it appears to you that "it is hard to recognize", is that it doesn't add up. There's a lot more context than the appearingly simple statement: "lots of the stuff I teach is not original". Putting Bullinger on the shelf when you are also saying that you were teaching the same stuff before you had ever heard of him, is not the same as saying that you learnd from Bullinger. Crediting Leonard with providing experiential teaching which you later "worked from the Word", while presnted his class as your own, is claiming credit for the research yourself.
I don't know why you can't see this as a contradiction.
I keep seeing this ridiculous notion that acknowledging a teaching is "not original" absolves one of plagiarism.
Plagiarism is NOT the restatement of someone else's ideas, or everyone would be a plagiarist.
Plagiarism is taking what someone else wrote, maybe tinkering with a few words here or there, at most, and then passing it off as if you wrote it. Wierwille did this plenty of times. Sometimes he did it on the sentence level, sometimes the paragraph level, and sometimes on the chapter level. He did it in the structure of the first PFAL class, evidently.
The "originality" of his work is a distinct issue, and I agree with Oakspear in that he made contradictory statements on the matter. You can't get around the fact that he claimed to throw all these other works away and use the Bible as his textbook. He did nothing of the kind. He had plenty of other texts. He acknowledged some of them, derided others, and flat out lied about still others.
Plagiarism itself has a stigma attached to it of the plagiarist intentionally being deceptive.
This is what I am questioning: the intent and motive to deceive.
If VP Wierwille was intentionally deceptive, wanting to deceive us into believing that his teachings were all original, why would he say, in 1972, "lots of the stuff I teach is not original"?
Doesn't sound to me like it was his intent to deceive, when you consider other important evidence.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
What ELSE did the Orange Book say on the subject?
[pg-119-120.]
=====
"For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I
used to read two or three theological works weekly for month
after month and year after year. I knew what Professor
so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend
so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had
not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired
of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3000 volumes
of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit
reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent
years studying The Word- its integrity, its meaning,
its words.
Why do we study? Because God expects us as workmen to
know what His Word says."
=============
As a sidenote, if he read FOUR books a week (one more than
he claimed), every week, every year, it would take 15 years
to make it thru 3000 volumes without rereading any.
(4 books times 52 weeks is 208 books a year. 15 years at that
pace should do it.) That's while he was completing his education,
working, travelling to India, and so on.
That's leaving aside the issue of where one keeps 3000 books...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, the White Book's Preface,
pages ix to xi, which is the ENTIRE preface.)
========
"When I was serving my first congregation, a Korean
missionary asked me, 'Why don't you search for the
greatest of all things in life which would teach Christian
believers the HOW of a really victorious life?'
This challenge was the beginning of a search which led
me through many, many hours of examining different
English translations, the various critical Greek texts,
and Aramaic 'originals', looking for the source of the
power which was manifested in the early Church.
Finally I realized that the experience referred to as
'receiving the holy spirit' in the Scriptures WAS and IS
actually available to every born-again believer today.
I believed to receive the gift of holy spirit and I, too,
manifested.
Ever since receiving into manifestation the holy spirit,
I have had the desire to put in written form the longings
and fears that were mine regarding the receiving thereof.
I believe that sharing my quest with the believers who are
today seeking to be endued with power from on high may
be instrumental in leading them to the answer of their
hearts' desires.
I knew from the Bible that what God sent at Pentecost was
still available. It had to be, for God does not change. I knew that
the receiving of the power from on high on the day of
Pentecost had meant increased ability for the apostles and
disciples years ago, and that I needed and wanted the same
blessing. I knew that if the Church ever needed the holy
spirit in manifestation it needed it now.
Throughout my academic training in a college, a university,
four seminaries, from the commentaries I studied,
and from my years of questing and research among the
various religious groups claiming adherence to the holy
spirit's availability, there appeared many things
contradictory to the accuracy of the recorded Word of
God. I knew their teachings were sincere, but sincerity
is no guarantee for truth.
The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all
that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew
with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook.
I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for,
the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must
fit like a hand in a glove.
If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to
study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or feelings
to discourage you from going on to receive God's best.
If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of
this live, you may find your answer while reading this book.
It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted, and
comforted.
For those searching the Scriptures, desiring to know the
reasons why, how, what or where, I suggest you do a
careful study of the introductions as well as the
appendices in this volume. For those who simply desire
to receive, read chapters 1 though 5 and enjoy God's
great presence and power.
"II Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman
that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the
word of truth."
To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound
debt. This seventh edition has been read and studies carefully
by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability.
To all of these I am most grateful."
=========
End of Preface.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
So are we <u>trying</u> to start up a piffle debate here between the usual suspects on one side and everybody else on the other?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mark, the debate is ongoing, and has never really stopped. WW has done a good job IMHO of documenting what Wierwille actually said about various TWI doctrines and positions, as opposed to what we remember about them, all in TWI-published materials.
No matter what debate it engenders, it gets it out there.
never noticed this before.Let's see, he went to Mission House/Lakeland Collge for his bachelor's (I guess that's the college)
He went to Princeton Theological Seminary for his Master's (That's either the university or the seminary, maybe both)
He got his "doctorate" from Pike's Peak (Maybe he's considering this a seminary too)
Where else does he mention any others?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Did Wierwille actually intend these things as 'real books'?
Is that why he skipped putting in all the real "serious" stuff?
Or was he just being plain cheap?
I bring this up because when I took the class in '78, I received the softcover versions of everything
(blue book, orange book, green book, brownish book, white book, the thicker orange book).
Just about every single one of those damn things fell apart.
And NOT from over-reading.
The covers fell off. The pages fell out. The books split asunder down the middle, and even into 3-4 parts.
"Real", high-quality books don't usually do this.
Nor do they misspell "chapter thirteeen" for a section concerned with the number of criminals actually crucified with Jesus.
Talk about "lack of detail".
How did they bind these things at "American Christian Press"? Did Emogene mix flour and water while Rhoda slapped them together?
Talk about "cheap"!
Something ain't right there.
It wouldn't surprise me if these things originally did include bibliographies, - they just fell out out! (lol)
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I keep hearing that he supposedly gave "proper credit" in his books,
and I thought it was worth the time as a refresher,
and to make it handy for the next time someone makes
this ridiculous claim.
The Way:Living in Love,
pg-174. (Same page as the basketball team.)
"I don't remember much of the past. I'll have to renew my mind. Oh, yes,
did I tell you I taught at Gordon Divinity School? Homiletics was my specialty-
that's preaching. I took everything I could take at the Moody's Bible
Institute, too, through their correspondence courses."
I'm guessing he counted both of these.
We know for a fact the Moody thing was a boldfaced lie,
since Moody has NO record of him at ALL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
********************************************************************************
*********
Okay, so, according to Wierwille himself he didn't learn from other people, he figgered it all out hisself from the bible.This is where the idea that Wierwille claimed that he originated it all, the quotes from The Way: Living in Love notwithstanding.
So, how can we reconcile these two statements?
andThey appear to be contradictory? Was Wierwille, perhaps, lying? If so, why print these two apparently contradictory statements in his own publications?
And then, of course, there's this:
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It is interesting to compare the Preface to the White Book, 7th Edition,
which I already quoted,
with the Preface in the 2nd edition.
=====
Here's how one paragraph ORIGINALLY read in
the 2nd edition, (pg-8):
"The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all
I had been taught and start anew with the Bible as my
handbook as well as my textbook. It took me seven years to
find a man of God schooled in the Holy Spirit, a man who knew
the Scripture on the Holy Spirit, and could fit it together so that
I dod not have to omit, deny or change any one passage.
He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove,
and when you can do that, you can be assured of having
truth."
========
Here's the corresponding paragraph in the 7th Edition,
the one most of us got to read:
======
"The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all
that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew
with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook.
I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for,
the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must
fit like a hand in a glove."
======
Interesting how the other man just VANISHES from the picture,
no? It's as if vpw later wants to take exclusive credit
("I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well
as my textbook") for something that was exclusively
the result of Stiles-the UNNAMED Christian-working for
God ("...He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a
glove...")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
About the only time I regret throwing out my TWI books is when we have one of these discussions.
Think about when Wierwille does mention other people, often he pays them left-handed compliments, like saying BG Leonard was great on experience, and poor on documentation, or how Stiles is never mentioned again after that passage in TW:LIL.Does he ever say "So-and-so taught me such-and-such", no, he throws out names, then about the best he can bring himself to say is that he kept what was accurate and threw out the rest. Specific credit and recognition was not ever given. Forget about footnotes, forget about endnotes, forget about a bibliography, he never, ever, mentions what he learned from whom, all he says is "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped." - a pretty lukewarm recognition of men that he copied from!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
There's some good stuff on this subject,
including some side-by-side between Stiles and vpw,
on http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/tw_founder.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
TW:LIL, pg-179.
"The Word is buried today. If there's no one around to teach it,
God has to teach it Himself. You see, I am a product of my times.
God knew me before the foundations of the world, just like He knew
you and everyone else. We were all in God's foreknowledge from the
beginnings.
God knew I would believe His Word. And every day I am more and
more deeply convinced of this ministry which teaches people the
accuracy and integrity of God's Word."
pg-181, reminscing after the 1942 promise...
"That's where I was sitting when I prayed to God to teach me the
Word and show me how."
(Mind you, page 178, he said
"I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there
were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on."
So, this watershed experience in his life,
the details seem flexible. He even asked at least 2 different
things...)
pg-190.
"If no one is around to teach you the Word, and you are hungry,
then God has to teach you in the framework of your knowledgeable
experience. For example, if you're an athlete, He'll do it through
athletics. If you're a farmer, He'll teach you through farming."
pg-201.
"You see, learning is a process. You don't learn overnight.
The holy spirit field-that's the field God raised me up for.
There's not a question that cannot be answered biblically.
And there's no one I can't lead into speaking in tongues if they are
Christian and want to do it.
No matter how much knowledge you have of God, God seldom allows you
to teach more than people are able to receive.
Some things God taught me that night in Tulsa, I've never taught-
no one would have been able to receive them."
Go ahead, stop implying and suggesting,
come right out and say it instead...
"Everything I learned, God taught me. That's what I teach you."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
How about BG Leonard?
vpw took the ENTIRE contents of pfal class 1.0
from Leonard's class, UNALTERED. What did he say about Leonard?
TW:LIL, pg-207.
"He loved me, and I learned some stuff from him. He had tremendous believing.
That's why I love the guy."
"The summer of 1953, our whole ministry went up-Dotsie and Donnie and some of the
others from Van Wert. We took his whole trip- really learned a lot about the other
manifestations of the holy spirit. But he worked from personal experiences.
I worked what he taught from the accuracy of the Scriptures. When I came home,
I made up my mind that I was going to tie the whole thing together from Genesis to
Revelation. So I did, and in October, I had the very first 'Power for Abundant Living' class.
At that time, the Foundational Class and Advanced Class were together-the whole thing
in two weeks. But the syllabus today is basically the same. The basic principles from
the Word are the same. The class has filled out. But I knew the greatness of our
age-the age of holy spirit and that every truth must fit in the framework of the
manifestations. I just had to teach it to somebody."
"I taught without a syllabus, but the class was the same.
You could throw the syllabus away now and I could still teach it.
It's a burning reality in my soul."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And that's what it is all about. Ambiguous credit given to no one in particular.
Dan -- my copies were all soft cover too (paperbacks). The orange book is in pieces,
but the others are kinda intact (lack of use I guess!)
The intact ones have no bibliography. ;)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
What did he say directly about how he got the 1st edition
of RTHST, which was Stiles' book plus some books by
Bullinger, and ONLY what they contained? (Mostly Stiles.)
(1954)
TW:LIL, pg-209.
"Somewhere in there I wrote the first holy spirit book. I can't
remember exactly what year.
I'd been working those 385 scriptures and they began to all
fall into place."
"We're having the sixth edition printed now of
that book: Receiving the Holy Spirit Today.
It's a great piece of research."
And,
after having lied so thoroughly (and throughly) about
it, he makes the following "disclaimer":
"Lots of the stuff I teach is not original.
Putting it together so that it fit-that was the original work.
I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with
the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I
kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.
Vale from Florida was the one who taught us about
interpretation and prophecy. But he didn't understand the
other manifestations. It took BG Leonard and others to teach
us healing and believing.
But in the holy spirit field, our piece of research is the most
thorough and original coverage of the subject. And believe me,
I've seen about everything in that field. No one really goes into it."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Wonder if Lennon/ McCartney had docvic in mind when they wrote:
:dance: 
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
And what did he say about how he ripped off
Bullinger's books to form pfal and RTHST?
TW:LIL,
pg-210.
"She gave me my first copy of Bullinger's
How to Enjoy the Bible. She said, when she first
heard me teach, that I taught like he wrote, and I'd never
met the man or even read his stuff."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
This is an interesting point that Mike also makes that I've been tossing around in my head.
The possibility exists that the books and collaterals from PFAL were not designed for the masses, but designed only for "our household", which could be a possible explanation why he didn't execute proper written acknowledgement in them.
I remember twi actively asking us not to distribute the PFAL books by themselves...i.e., they were just for us who already took the class.
The rationale: "why give someone crumbs when they may eat the whole loaf."
On the other hand, a book that was apparently designed for the masses that was never discouraged from distribution by itself, i.e., Jesus Christ is not God, does have proper written acknowledgement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The way I see it, if he wanted to hide and lie and steal and deceive us into thinking that all his teachings were original, he would not have made the statement that his stuff was not original, and would not have included the books he learned from, right there in the bookstore for all to research.
Why is this so hard to some to recognize?
Perhaps because some folks just don't want to admit the obvious?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
He included a few of the books he "learned" from. But he excluded many others. It's like having a serial burglar confess to two robberies when he committed 50. Fine, give him credit for acknowledging the two. But there are 48 more that he never confessed to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
But he did confess.
He said "lots of the stuff I teach is not original".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That is NOT a confession. It is a poor excuse for a confession.
Once again, there is a big difference between "lots of stuff I teach is not original" and swiping the specific language and paragraphs of other writers without attribution.
NONE of the stuff I teach is original. I come to conclusions based on what I read and what I deduce. But I do not plagiarize. Haven't done it since a really bad third grade book report. I daresay none of what you teach is original either. But I don't suspect you are a plagiarist.
I hope you see the difference. This attempted exoneration of VPW based on the flimsiest of evidence is frustrating. I'm much happier when people just say "so what?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
What did he mean when he said "Not everything that I teach is original", or that he learned from others, in light of his other statements that he threw out all of his books, and used only the bible as his textbook?
Or this statement about Leonard: "really learned a lot about the other manifestations of the holy spirit. But he worked from personal experiences. I worked what he taught from the accuracy of the Scriptures"
Oldies, the reason that it appears to you that "it is hard to recognize", is that it doesn't add up. There's a lot more context than the appearingly simple statement: "lots of the stuff I teach is not original". Putting Bullinger on the shelf when you are also saying that you were teaching the same stuff before you had ever heard of him, is not the same as saying that you learnd from Bullinger. Crediting Leonard with providing experiential teaching which you later "worked from the Word", while presnted his class as your own, is claiming credit for the research yourself.
I don't know why you can't see this as a contradiction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I keep seeing this ridiculous notion that acknowledging a teaching is "not original" absolves one of plagiarism.
Plagiarism is NOT the restatement of someone else's ideas, or everyone would be a plagiarist.
Plagiarism is taking what someone else wrote, maybe tinkering with a few words here or there, at most, and then passing it off as if you wrote it. Wierwille did this plenty of times. Sometimes he did it on the sentence level, sometimes the paragraph level, and sometimes on the chapter level. He did it in the structure of the first PFAL class, evidently.
The "originality" of his work is a distinct issue, and I agree with Oakspear in that he made contradictory statements on the matter. You can't get around the fact that he claimed to throw all these other works away and use the Bible as his textbook. He did nothing of the kind. He had plenty of other texts. He acknowledged some of them, derided others, and flat out lied about still others.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Plagiarism itself has a stigma attached to it of the plagiarist intentionally being deceptive.
This is what I am questioning: the intent and motive to deceive.
If VP Wierwille was intentionally deceptive, wanting to deceive us into believing that his teachings were all original, why would he say, in 1972, "lots of the stuff I teach is not original"?
Doesn't sound to me like it was his intent to deceive, when you consider other important evidence.
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.