Larry N Moore

Very well. Meet me at the tree (not the Way Tree but, the one farther away). :)

I think I've got some nuts "squirreled" away. Would you like some? ;)

Briefly. Hmm . . . I can speculate that VP was aware of the inflated image that believers had of him. I'm not sure what was in his heart concerning it. Why he would allow it would also be speculation but I'm of the mind that he either thought the end justified the means or he really didn't know how to address it because it had become so prevalent. Perhaps that's why he chose to step down as President (although I thought his choice of CM was a bad one). So, yes, ultimately it was his fault but, I think believers hold some accountability. Thanks Belle. I'll keep your helpful and kind suggestion in mind in the future. Yes, I can stipulate my agreement that "at least two . . ." were a "big collaborative process" of working off his writings and producing the books.

Can God breathe?

My point has always been -- even though I've been aware of VP extensive use of others work I never considered it a big deal because for me personally I was more interested in the contents of the books than who the heck was responsible for them (the contents). And as I made mention on previous occasion I was not surprised in the least that TWI would fall not long after VP's death since I had observed that many, many, many members of TWI placed VP upon a pedestal. Doing so was clearly unscriptual. Why few didn't recognize that I cannot tell. Suit yourself Raf. I thank you for the time you've put into this topic. I think we're finished with it, wouldn't you agree?

I'm sorry. I must have missed his testimony. It wasn't an intential oversight/dismissal on my part. I just honestly didn't notice his. Would you please give me a link to his posts on this subject so I may consider what he says?

:) Depends on whether I like your version better than Homer's. I did qualify my statement with the word "most" if I'm not mistaken. In any case -- off the top of my head -- the laws against theft and murder for example are based upon morality. Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to murder? Society for whatever reason has said yes -- and codified those morals into laws. So, no, I guess I don't know "dang" well that they aren't the same thing.

Raf, I didn't mean to imply that HCW was a legal expert. I was using a analogy of a legal court to state that in light of what I originally requested -- testimony from someone who actually worked on the editing/research staff -- his being the only one I'm capable of considering and judging credible. The rebuttals of those were not actually members of that staff carries less weight in my estimation because it falls under the category of speculation. And hearsay evidence doesn't cut the mustard much better. You speak of VP's plagiarism as a moral issue but, most laws (including this one) is based on precisely morality. So I'm not sure I can totally agree that a moral violation has occurred if no legal violation has.

If that image exists in man then you should be able to see evidence of its existence even if you can't see the image itself. What evidence would we be looking for if it exists?

Even if that was true (in the sense that you're applying it) still, we have this from Romans 1:25 "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen" As I understand it is a sin to worship the creation more so than the Creator.

Eagle, I'm trying to avoid reading your excerpts since I've already decided to buy your book. Even so I did take a quick peek at your latest installment -- won't comment on the contents 'cause it will definitely take more than just a quick peek to adequately address it even if I was inclined to do so. Anyways, I was just wondering if you had an editor/proofreader that worked on it prior to its publication 'cause I noticed a few trivial grammatical and spelling errors. Just curious, 'cause I thought they were being paid to pick up on such things.

Raf, believe it or not I'm generally a nice guy but, I do have my limits. In any case I don't anticipate having any more problems with WW since he's now on my ignore list. If he should happen to want to settle this matter between us my door (via PM) will remain open to him. Afterall -- that is the acceptable venue to do so according to the rules.Now as regards the real substance of your post. I apologize to you if I wasted your time in trying to locate the information you alluded to earlier. Perhaps you didn't notice that Eyesopen has already "opened my eyes" (is that a close proximity to plagiarism? :)) on this subject. However . . . . . . let me say this much. Seeing how TWI promoted itself as a "Research and Teaching" ministry I don't find it odd that VP would solicit the help of others to go over his own work and "refine" it. If anything this in itself should demonstrate that VP wasn't entirely a control freak. At least that's one conclusion a person can draw from it. I'm sure others wouldn't and that's understandable. Furthermore, I've read -- what's his name -- Howard's account of what transpired on the editing/research staff and although I can't attest that everything he says is correct it nevertheless is exactly what I was looking for -- the testimony of someone who was there. It could be easy to dismiss him -- as it seems some are intent on doing but, absent a rebuttal by another member of the same editing/research staff his account -- at least in a court of law (which this certainly isn't) would carry more weight. If I'm not mistaken -- whenever one party presents "expert" testimony and the other party presents none -- a court will generally give more credence to that expert and rule in favor of that side. I applaud his balanced look and explanation of how it works, even if it's not true.

modcat5, seeing how you are a moderator I'll accept your word that this is the board policy and in the future will adhere to it. It is always my custom to check out the rules of any board I choose to register on before I post. So, I hope you can appreciate how I was unaware of your policy. It might be helpful for all parties if you would consider including this policy also in the statement of rules. And, for my inappropriate behavior towards WW I apologize.

That's ok, another spot. Half the time I can't follow my own logic.

My mother always told me I ate too fast and because of that I usually got yoke on my face. ;)

Everyone knows that's the part of the egg you dip your toast into.

No, I can't. Although, I probably could cite (perhaps inappropriately) Matthew 22:14 and say there has been no one untouched by God.

Can you say with any authority that God never had a hand on VP's life? I don't believe VP came up with much that was original. As has already been demonstrated, even VP credited the work of others for the books (under the current discussion) credited to his name.

Why can't I laugh first and then go check?

I'm not sure I understand your question. It was made by human hands and yet blessed by God. But it was just an object and as such it should not be worshipped.

With all due respect Mr. Hammeroni, I find it difficult to imagine that the fact that VP's books were largely plagiarized had the greatest impact on the personal cost your association with TWI had in your life. What would have a greater impact would be believing the contents were true only to discover later it was all a lie. Who tells the lie doesn't matter. Believing the lie itself does. Or vice versa.

templelady, you make some valid points. I believe this touches upon the concept of "Does the end justify the means?" and on that point I would have to say you would have to ask those who profited from the knowledge obtained from the books. Personally, I never did care whose name was credited with the contents of the books. That might be difficult for some people to understand and probably why I seldom shared my thoughts on the matter earlier in my involvement with TWI.

You are exactly correct Eyesopen. In my hardcopy I have the section you quoted from. Why I might not have typed in the Acknowledgment section of JCOP on my electronic version (haven't checked the others yet) possibly was due to the fact that I probably didn't considered it important. There was enuf for me type without including that section. That makes sense to me.

My copy of JCOPS is dated 1982. I must have my copy of JCOP packed away. My copy of JCING is dated 1975. I believe all of my books (of that nature) were first editions. I think you're probably right about David's repentance having something to do with it. Perhaps it has more to do with demonstrating the depths of God's love and forgiveness than David's repentance. P.S. Ok I found JCOP. It's dated 1980

Not exactly DrWearWord. Although Lucifer was originally "holy" I don't think he currently holds that distinction.