Larry N Moore

Having never read "VP and Me" I can't comment on what CM said in it. If you have the book then simply quote what he said ON THIS SUBJECT. I've already read them. In fact I have many of them stored on my computer for reference. Whether I became aware of them before you did or not is really irrelevant. The issue I have isn't over whether he plagiarized his writings from that of others but, rather over the issue of the editorial/research staff writing books and slapping VP's name on the cover. You claim that they did on at least two occasions. Where's your proof? I see nothing contradictory in my statements. I was simply making a statement based on my understanding of what you've been stating. At this point I'm not going to bother re-reading your posts to see if I'm misrepresenting or misunderstood what you were saying. Hopefully, you won't get into a morality discussion with me. I'm quite confident you'll lose that argument. However, here again, you're saying someone suggested the staff did. Guess what. Someone on the staff also suggested God didn't exist. I don't need to prove they said it, do I? ;) It does to me. I'll thank you (raf) for attempting to clear the air on the issue. Raf, perhaps you might explain this to me. If the research team was photographed WORKING ON A MANUSCRIPT of JCOP whose manuscript was it if they concocted the whole book? This system of adding a new reply sucks. I wasn't trying to edit my post and yet subsequent posts show up as an edited version of my original post. I'm wondering if the same won't happen when I hit the "Add Reply" button now. Sheesh!

If I recall correctly, when this matter first came up, you linked to a discussion. A discussion where you were the primary contributer. What I had asked for -- and what you failed to provide is -- corroborating testimony from former members of the editorial/research staff that worked on the books. Your hearsay and opinion/speculation of what transpired has about as much weight in my mind as a canary feather. On the issue of my pov with regards to VP's plagiarism. I think I made myself quite clear. I don't see the need to repeat myself. As to how you might consider it immoral on my part not to give a dang -- well -- I really don't give a dang about what you consider immoral either.

Chatty, I'm with Jeaniam on this one. I don't see what you see but, then you don't really expound (at least here) on how you come to the conclusion that Jesus is God. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. If anything, the importance of Jesus Christ became more evident when I learned that he was not God. Not that I ever really believed, prior to TWI, that he was even though I came from a Catholic background.

WordWolf, you'll find my response here.

As promised here. Absent corroborating testimony from former members of the editorial/research staff I cannot give much (if any) credence to your accusation that they wrote either book and merely slapped VP's name on the cover giving him credit for having wrote them. This (your accusation) amounts to no more than gossip, which is malicious. I certainly wasn't trying to falsely misrepresent what you were saying. Thus, I posed a question to determine if I was misunderstanding you. Coupled with your other statements on this matter, this: "I'm saying that vpw edited and "wrote" the first 2 editions of RTHST," might impress upon your mind how I became confused as to what you were saying. And if it doesn't – then so be it. If my understanding of your comments proved out to be correct, then it would be logical to conclude that only those who actually wrote the books would be guilty of plagiarism. VP might have been an accomplice in that activity, by endorsing the product as being his work, but only the ones who actually did the writing have done the act. I'll presume you didn't understand the full import of what I was saying. To put it less ambiguous – I had been aware of VP's plagiarism early on in my involvement with TWI. I simply didn't care about the origin of his teaching. My focus had always been on the truth of what was said. I studied the writings of Bullinger as much as those writings of VP 'cause I was fascinated with the usage of figures of speech. It was during this time that I came across Bullinger's book "How To Enjoy The Bible." As for myself, I took to heart what VP said in PFAL: As I mentioned elsewhere – I had been saying (to a select few) long before the downfall of TWI that many would "fall away" from TWI when VP died simply because in my estimation very few actually understood what he was saying in the above. Many had elevated VP to god-like status in their minds and that was unscriptural. To this day I vividly recall an incident (during the 74 AC at HQ) where another believer attempted to make me feel guilty for what he perceived was an act of disrespect I had done towards VP – THE MOG. He was successful, for after considering it for a bit I approached VP to apologize and I'll never forget the look on his face – in essence it was the look of "What the hell are you talking about?" In conclusion -- I've never denied the accusation of VP's plagiarism. It would be foolish of me to say he wasn't guilty when I've known the charge to be true. But, unlike many I have no interest in proving it, for what really matters is whether what he taught was the right dividing of God's Word. If it isn't – then discard it. However – if it was -- then as he stated in the above quote – we should be ". . . strong in what they say because of The Word . . . ."

WordWolf, in order to avoid any further derailing of this thread with this side-issue I'll respond to your latest post on this subject in this thread when I have more time.

Eagle I thank you for taking the time to post the excerpts from your book. If I had had the link (above) I wouldn't have asked you to go through the trouble of posting it here. So, unless you find it worth your time and trouble to continue posting excerpts, your above link is more than enuf to satisfy my interest. I'll be putting your book on my list of future purchases.

That's fine with me Spot. It's your thread. I think Eyesopen suggested where in Romans you might have been referring to with regards to the sin being in the blood subject. I'll look them over while you go in this current direction.

WordWolf, I thank you for the links. I briefly skimmed through them. However, I think what I was looking for were posts made by former members of the editorial staff. If I recall you stated it was they who wrote or re-wrote all of VP's books (with the exception of two). Which, when you think of it, brings up a point which many might not have considered -- If the editorial staff actually wrote the VP's books (and slapped his name on the cover as you say) then it's not VP who is guilty of plagiarism but rather the editorial staff. Fwiw, I've known since my early days in TWI that much of the PFAL book (class) was borrowed from Bullinger's work -- I suppose that's why I always found Bullinger to be an interesting person and worth reading. Yet I had no more passion to promote him, then I did for VP. I considered both of them merely conduits/vessels and what really mattered was whether what they spoke was true.

Would you, please.

Well, Chatty, despite our difference of opinion on when life begins -- I think we most definitely agree that that which God created in the womb of Mary was holy.

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that TWI staff wrote all of VP's books (with the exception of first two editions of RTHST) and merely slapped his name on the cover to imply that he wrote the books?

I wasn't blaming you but, you certainly have a right to claim the credit. Well, that may be true. I'll go on record here and state that I'm "pro-choice" but, my pov isn't based on that single verse. If there's a thread where the subject of abortion is taking place I might consider joining it. True. The word "thing" or the word "one" is the figure Ellipsis and is employed whenever the sense of a word or phrase is incomplete in itself and the word normally omitted in the text is added to complete the sense of the word as used in the context. I hardly think the KJV boys were "pro-choice". The emphasis isn't on the word "thing" or "one" but rather that on the holiness of the creation of Jesus within Mary's womb. I'm not sure what you're implying here.

WordWolf, I think you're stretching the function of an editorial staff a bit too far. The way I read the above quote would have me believe that VP had no control over the final version of his writings. I find it difficult to accept (especially coming from those who think VP had control over every aspect of TWI) that he would not be involved in the editing of his books. An editor's primary function isn't to interpret the meaning of words conveyed -- it's not like they're the monks who translated the KJV and interpreted the texts to agree with their theology -- but rather to proof-read to correct any spelling and grammatical errors. But perhaps there are some former members of TWI, who worked in the editing dept, posting here who can support your position. Maybe I'm wrong.

Chatty, as far as I can discern (from reading page one) the issue is over the correct rendering of the word hagion. The KJV renders it "holy thing" whereas most other versions render it "holy one". Thus the thrust of the discussion (on page one) initially seemed to be over the subject of abortion. If you keep with the "thing" translation it can be used to support a doctrinal position that abortion is not wrong. I agree with your position that Jesus was holy.

Thanks Eyesopen. It's been quite awhile since I last sat through that class. There was a time when (if it was a song) I could lip-sync it. ;)

I agree. Maybe I should follow your lead and re-read the whole thread in order to pick up on that angle.

Chatty, you might try starting at the top of page seven (or page six). It happens sometimes.

Well, yeah like I said -- I can see how others might make that conclusion. However, since at this point I don't draw the same conclusion I can't say he "succeeded in saying" that. I suppose, if that's what I really wanted to believe he meant it might be easier.

Why do I have the impression that I'm dealing with a teen-ager?

WordWolf, I won't waste my time re-capping all that was said which led us down this path. If you're really interested in answering my questions I think you'll want to take the time to re-read the exchanges between us to discover what you missed. However, I will re-quote two comments you've made which gave me the impression that places you on a "high-horse". In this post I had said: "WordWolf, try as much as I might I can't discover how you came to this conclusion." To which you replied: "*sigh* I'll lay it out again in plain English in a bit." In my mind that was a condescending response. The *sigh* in itself implying that I was wasting your time. But then you followed that up by adding insult to injury with the "plain English" sarcastic remark. And then in this post you further demonstrated your arrogant attitude by the following: "Further, he's wasted no time lecturing the other students." Who the hell do you think you are? Our "teacher". I suggest you re-read through this thread and try to see how you need to tone down your condescending responses to others joining in this discussion. Or don't. Your choice.

Of course I did. That was the point of me asking if you wanted us to "get it". I can't imagine you would think that what you say is not important to us and therefore would want to make every effort to expound on your meaning if we didn't "get it". Well, I don't think that's what I was saying. I'll have to double-check what I said and try to remember what I was thinking when I said it. It's human nature to believe things. I suppose we're all a little cautious about what we believe. As I implied above -- I think you believe that what you say is true or else why would you say them. Therefore I want to be able to understand what you say because if what you say is true then I would want to believe those things. My apology to you if I came across as "jumping" on you. It's not my intention and if I took a little more time, than what I did, before responding to you I might have been able to see how it would be how you could perceive it as such.

That's true enuf but, don't you want us to "get it"? Well, "tossing verses" at others has solved a lot for a lot of people. If it wasn't for someone tossing verses to me I don't know if I would have been saved. From God. So you don't think God can speak through people? If not, then why should I believe God speaks through you?

I would appreciate that Eagle. I'm very interested in reading your take on "The Seed of The Serpent - A Problem With Scripture and Common Sense". I budget myself to spend no more than $30 a month on books. This month I purchased a book on the Constitution. So next month I'll keep your book in mind when I make a decision.