Leaderboard

Hi. Since some of you have never read the archives, I'm reposting this out of them for your convenience. It's called "The Integrity of Your Word", and I didn't write it. http://web.archive.org/web/20030220025532/http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/plagiarism-wierwille.htm It hardly seems like a big deal. Borrow a phrase here or a sentence there. As long as your goal is to make God’s Word known, what’s the problem? Is there a copyright on the Bible? Some of the typical excuses for plagiarism center on the thought that no one is really hurt by it, and that everyone borrows thoughts and ideas. The book of Ecclesiastes reveals that there is nothing new under the sun: surely this includes expositions on reading and understanding the Bible, doesn’t it? Yet it’s fairly easy to illustrate that there is something fundamentally wrong with plagiarism. Suppose, for argument’s sake, that you picked up a book tomorrow at Barnes & Noble. The book cover reads, The Ability to Live Abundantly, and the author’s name is Rafael Olmeda. As you open the book, you notice that the first chapter quotes John 10:10. Afterward, it says, “This verse literally change my life. In my years in the Christian ministry, I’ve never manifested an abundant life. It seemed unbelievers were manifesting a more abundant life than Christians. Yet Jesus Christ said he came that we might have life and that we might have it more abundantly. Why are Christians failing to manifest even an abundant life?” The remainder of the book lays out keys for how to understand the Bible. There’s a chapter on how to receive anything from God, including an anecdote about “fire engine red” curtains. Another chapter is called “The Battle of the Senses.” Anyone who’s had any experience with The Way International would recognize that “my” book was little more than a retyping of Victor Paul Wierwille’s Power For Abundant Living. If I were to take that book, slap a new title on it, change a few words around so that the quotes are not exact, could I really call myself an author (especially if I fail to give Wierwille credit for his work)? Could I, in good conscience, sell my book and take the profits? Would you not call me on it? Victor Paul Wierwille was a plagiarist. He took the research of other men and passed it off as his own. He took their words and put his name on them. The most notable example of this is Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. To a lesser extent, he clearly borrowed liberally from E.W. Bullinger’s How to Enjoy the Bible in his book and class Power For Abundant Living. His plagiarism has been well documented, and anyone who doubts it is referred to John Juedes’ Web site (http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stiles.htm), in which he presents compelling evidence to back up the accusation. This article’s goal is not to prove that Wierwille was a plagiarist. We already feel others have provided that proof. This article is more concerned with the implications of Wierwille’s plagiarism as it relates to his ministry and his memory. First, let’s define our terms and look at some examples of what is and what is not plagiarism. To plagiarize, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is to take and use (the thoughts, writings … of another person) as one’s own. It’s a fairly straightforward definition, and it’s usually easy to detect. Sometimes, like the word “obscenity,” it’s not easy to define an actual infraction. Quoting from a published work without identifying it as a quote or giving credit to the source of the quote is plagiarism. Taking a previously published paragraph and changing a few words but retaining the basic structure and meaning of the original paragraph, without crediting the source, is plagiarism. Copying the structure of a book, using the same references in the same order, but changing a few sentences to account for theological differences, without crediting the source, is plagiarism. Inadvertently writing the same sentence that someone else wrote while researching the same subject is not plagiarism. I’m sure if you look through other published works, you will find sentences eerily similar to some of the sentences I’ve written here. Plagiarism does not merely arise from the similarity of phrases, sentences, paragraphs or chapters. Plagiarism arises from the deliberate attempt to take credit for someone else’s work. There have been examples of “accidental” plagiarism. Authors forget to cite their sources, or don’t recall that something they wrote was not original. I once started writing a novel, and later recognized several clever paragraphs as having originated in an Indiana Jones movie. It was inadvertent, and therefore, not plagiarism. Dumb, but not plagiarism. Paraphrasing or repeating the same well-known adage or expression is not plagiarism. If I were to write an article on “How to Become Born Again,” I would be going over material that has been researched and studied over and over again by countless men and women of God. There can be little doubt that I would use some of the same verses, maybe even in the same order, as someone else. That doesn’t make it plagiarism. What makes it plagiarism is if I take someone else’s work on the subject, retype it with my name on the cover, and submit it to whoever’s publishing it as though I had done the work myself. Here’s an example of repeating a well-known phrase: in one of E.W. Bullinger’s books, he quotes the Biblical statement “the natural man cannot know the things of the spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned” (I’m actually paraphrasing). If Wierwille plagiarizes Bullinger here, is it really plagiarism? Well, yes and no. By itself, it’s not plagiarism, because they’re both just quoting the Bible. Now, if Wierwille is using the quote in the same way Bullinger used it, to make the same point, using the same illustrations, etc, then we might have a stronger case against him. But again, by itself, that hardly seems an infraction. Another “gray area” can be found in the Studies in Abundant Living series. The chapter on “The Counsel of the Lord” in the “Blue Book” borrows quite specifically from the selected writings of E.W. Bullinger. The chapter on “Your Power of Attorney” in the “Green Book” is clearly based on The Wonderful Name of Jesus, by E.W. Kenyon. It was Kenyon, not Wierwille, who first wrote about the concept of a Christian’s “power of attorney.” Likewise, Kenyon was the one who first wrote that Jesus inherited a name, was given a name, and obtained a name. Anyone who reads Kenyon’s booklet and then reads Wierwille’s chapter will see quite clearly that one influenced the other. So why do I call it a “gray area?” I do so primarily because those chapters in Studies in Abundant Living were originally presented as teachings. Admittedly, one should cite one’s sources even while delivering a sermon (the pastor at the mainstream church I attend does this all the time). But it’s not a big deal to read from someone else’s work while teaching God’s Word. The problem comes when those sermons are transcribed and edited for publication. The sources are lost in the notes of the speaker. The “chapter” that is written now contains borrowed information without attribution. In the publishing world, this is unacceptable. In the category of publishing basic evangelical outreach materials, it is acceptable and routine (else writers would end up with absurd quotations like “according to Billy Graham, salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ”). What should Wierwille have done? To be truthful, he should have cited Kenyon and Bullinger and anyone else he used as a source in compiling his teachings. If he did not do it while teaching live, he certainly should have done it when the books were being put together. Is it a big deal that he did not follow this simple practice? In my opinion, no, it’s not a big deal. Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, on the other hand, is a big deal. This was Wierwille’s signature book. Together with Power For Abundant Living, it was the foundation on which all of The Way International’s doctrines were based. Wierwille joked that he had forgotten more about the subject of “holy spirit” than some of his critics would ever know. Apparently one of the things Wierwille forgot was to give credit where credit is due. On that subject, some have noted accurately that Wierwille did indeed talk about J.E. Stiles, B.G. Leonard, Bullinger and numerous other people from whom he learned principles of God’s Word. While this is commendable, it does not absolve plagiarism. In order to avoid a charge of plagiarism, one must give credit in the actual book or article being published. It’s not enough to say to a small group of people, “I learned that from Stiles.” If Receiving the Holy Spirit Today quotes significant portions of Stiles’ writings (and it does), then credit to Stiles must be given within the pages of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. Instead, Wierwille implies that the book was strictly the result of his personal research into the Bible. It was not. He claimed to throw away all his other texts and use the Bible as his only textbook and guide. This was dishonest. It was demonstrably false. It was a lie. Plagiarism is lying. It is lying about the amount of work you put into your written project. When the plagiarist claims to be a uniquely qualified man of God, the lie becomes magnified. Why? Because a minister is, by definition, in a position of trust in the church community. No one expects a minister to be superhuman, but it is not unreasonable to expect honesty and integrity. It is not unreasonable, when you read an article that says “by Rafael Olmeda,” to expect that Rafael Olmeda wrote it. It is not unreasonable, when you read a book that says “by Victor Paul Wierwille,” to expect that Victor Paul Wierwille wrote it. Plagiarism is stealing. In a world where books are published and sold, publishing someone else’s work steals revenue that should have gone to the original writer (or, more accurately, the holder of the original copyright). How many people would have purchased Stiles’ book if they knew it was the original source of much of Wierwille’s book? How many would have purchased Bullinger’s book on the subject? I know, Bullinger is dead: but there’s still a copyright on his work and plagiarizing from him is still stealing from them. Now, Wierwille disagreed with Stiles and Bullinger on a number of issues, so it made sense that he would revise their information rather than just republish. It’s plausible that he would not have gotten permission to quote extensively from their work. There are solutions to those issues. Plagiarism was not an acceptable way to resolve them. Victor Paul Wierwille used other people’s work to prop up his own research ability, his own wisdom and understanding of God’s Word. He used other people’s work to exalt himself as The Teacher, the Man of God, our father in the Word. He did so knowing that the words “by Victor Paul Wierwille” were a lie. So what? That’s an important question. So what? Does it really matter that Wierwille plagiarized? Isn’t it more important in the grand scheme of things that more people have a better understanding of God’s Word as a result of Wierwille’s work? Yes, it is more important that people learn about God. Truth from the pen of a plagiarist is still truth. But plagiarism matters. Plagiarism may not reflect on the accuracy of the information that’s stolen, but it does reflect on the character of the plagiarist. The plagiarist is a liar, a thief, an arrogant, lazy, self-important person who dismisses the hard work of other people and disrespects the intelligence of his readers (by presuming the readers will never learn of the infraction). Receiving the Holy Spirit Today should not be dismissed just because it was the result of plagiarism. There may be other reasons to dismiss it, according to some. But plagiarism is not a valid reason to dismiss the contents. Plagiarism does hurt people. It hurts people by stealing from them. It hurts people by misrepresenting the accomplishments of the plagiarist. The Bible teaches that love does not “puff itself up.” But what is plagiarism if it’s not pretending to do something you did not do? We don’t accept it from high school students. We don’t accept it from college students. We don’t accept it from news reporters, from columnists, from authors. We don’t accept it from historians and researchers. Those are “the world’s” professions. How can we accept a lower standard of integrity from men who profess to stand for God?

That's the truly tragic part. My son survived and is healthy as ever today and it happened in spite of the way international and without their bs doctrines on the law of believing and all that. So my case worked out in the long run better without them. How many...and I mean how many cases similar to my scenario where someone passed away. The blame, shame, and self condemnation would be unbearable. The law of believing is a trap designed to blame the person who believed its true and when it doesn't work it's always the victims fault for not doing enough.

It's always hard, for anyone, to lose a loved one. But, to carry on through life believing things might have been different, if only you had said "lo shonta" a few more times? Well, that a whole other level of cruelty.

Right on. That was always the subtle accusation except....I did all of those things and then some. Involved the heavy reverends and all that right at the spiritual nerve center with wogfodats and mogfodats...epic fail.

If it didn't happen, it was all your own fault. Not enough S.I.T., not enough word studies, not enough believing, not enough mastering of the collaterals, not enough this, not enough that, not enough of the other thing. But, hey, no need to feel any guilt or shame. That would be negative.

We got plenty of STORIES about how all sorts of things happened on the other side of the world, in front of people we couldn't speak to and ask. When it came to day-to-day in twi, we should have been tripping over instances all the time of miraculous things happening. There should have been a "how to" in the Advanced class, with people taught live and seeing things happening right there. We should have been hearing how people joined twi and traveled to hq so that vpw could deliver miraculous healing. We had one story like that- but it was one where somebody went in their wheelchair, got to vpw face-to-face, and no healing was even ATTEMPTED. Instead, we got anecdotes about good parking spaces. "Kojacking" in place of miracles is a miserable failure, and a lousy counterfeit. I also won't buy "I once heard from someone that they knew someone who once saw...." If vpw was legit and the miracles were legit, there would have been plenty of public miracles every ROA and they would have been common occurrences on grounds for people who lived and worked there.

They were mad because I was refusing assignments that would take my son away from his nephrologists at Cincinnati Childrens which ranks #3 in the nation for nephrology. They coulda cared less and were responding with comments like well, theres doctors in your new assignment too. I did the right thing for my son's health as his care was top notch and he received a kidney from a 21 year old donor that was a 99% match on his kidney transplant. She was a stronger match than his own family members. Rupp cared so muc that he wouldnt even draw breath to utter a simple prayer. BTW - Rupp used to laugh that he wasn't a yes man but a yes ma'am.

I absolutely agree. Back to the original analogy, a vaccine is injected into the healthy body. It is not sprayed in areas where the infecting virus might be. I can think of another "vaccine" that is peculiar to Wierwille, not Christianity in general. It's when he says Eve's first mistake is "considering" what the devil had to say. Man, imagine you could block off all dissent by making it a fundamental error to even CONSIDER that you might be wrong. Whoo-whee!

Upon further reflection: yeah, that IS plagiarism. Not deliberate, but still plagiarism.

What does it matter that it's plagiarized? Part of the whole package we were sold (where we were defrauded) was that this was the full work of some dedicated minister who tried to understand God and serve God the best he could, and the results were the entire package. Moreover, he claimed that- because he was so dedicated- that God Almighty had revealed to him levels of understanding that were unique to him, that nobody else had, and THAT was the entire package we were sold. All of that was a lie, and all of that is provable as lies. Yet, because we trusted- why would a minister of God lie? Why would he be less truthful than us? - we didn't examine things quite so closely. We didn't examine them for errors that weren't that hard to find once one begins looking for them. http://web.archive.org/web/20030220025532/http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/plagiarism-wierwille.htm

In other screwball news, someone brought their PFAL syllabus made from golden plates, to the Antiques Roadshow for appraisal.

Back in the days of yore, the Catholic church declared earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it. Any decenting voices were tagged heritics (something like being anti-cherry only there was a lot more pain involved). But the planets wouldn't cooperate. Some of them actually went into retrograde, causing astronomers to question the churches decision. But the church held fast. So astronomers came up with some very exotic calculations to compensate for the retrograde motion. One of them, I seen diagrammed out had the planets doing mini-orbits around a point in their orbit (sort of like the moon orbiting around the earth if no earth was there). Then along came Galileo. He suggested that the calculations would be easier if astronomers acted like the earth revolved around the sun. For that, Galileo was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. The church exonerated him 20 or 30 years ago. Bureaucracies are slow to admit they're wrong. My point? This whole thread is an attempt to avoid what's obvious. We're putting the miracles before the MOG, as it were. We're taking, as a given, that Saint Vic was a MOG, therefore miracle should be happening. What proof do we have to support that presupposition? How do we know Saint Vic was a MOG?

Yep. Yep. And yep. The typical deflective apologia I encountered when raising the issue of plagiarism (dishonesty, a lie) was, “If it’s true, what does it matter.” This, it seems to me, is weirdly equivalent to the bathing baby, or at least a limping step towards it. What does it matter? It literally matters EVERYTHING. That’s what. The plagiarism is bad enough, but the plagiarized material is inaccurate or untrue, making it all so… ridiculous. Why does the bathwater need throwing out? Because it’s filthy. Understood. We can all agree. Why is the bathwater filthy? Oh, I don’t know… could it have anything to do with the rotting corpse of a baby floating in it? It’s just ridiculous to keep a cadaver of a baby around. It’s absurd. It’s gross.