Larry N Moore

You mentioned that 7/4/06, 11:16am.

same thread, same page. I replied 7/4/06, 11:40pm, same thread, same page.

Apparently, I left out the reference to "VP and Me", but THOUGHT I posted it. My mistake. Sorry.

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.

If you need some side-by-side comparisons of books vpw plagiarized alongside the results where

vpw plagiarized them, just ask. I thought they were easy to find. I keep forgetting they're easy to avoid and pretend they don't exist, too.

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?

Well, you said-TWICE- that it might not be vpw's plagiarism at all, but that of the staff.

"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."

"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."

So, you were quite clear and made contradictory statements, once you posted this:

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.

We haven't even gotten into that (issue of morality) yet. We're still on whether or not vpw plagiarized. Apparently, someone suggested the staff did, not vpw.

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? ;)

This make sense to anyone?

It does to me. I'll thank you (raf) for attempting to clear the air on the issue.

One photo in The Way Magazine showed his eight person research team working on a manuscript of Jesus Christ Our Passover (President's Newsletter, The Way Magazine, Nov.- Dec., 1979, pg. 28).

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!

You didn't look very hard for the accounts before jumping to a conclusion. I mentioned one poster and one source in passing. Apparently, you didn't check EITHER.

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.

But there is true essence of all three in one God

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.

and that was something that I think twi missed out on because they lessoned the importance of who Christ was even when they beat their chests at how we were to be like him.

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.

Great. I'll meet you there when you have time. This isn't a race or anything.

WordWolf, you'll find my response here.

As promised here.

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.

I don't have those offhand. I think ResearchGeek was one of the ones who was on the research staff, and worked on either JCOP, JCOPS, or both.

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.

If I recall you stated it was they who wrote or re-wrote all of VP's books (with the exception of two).

I believe that misrepresents what I said.

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.

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.

Congratulations! You've presented the most original attempt to absolve vpw of the plagiarism that he intentionally committed that's been seen for at least a month, probably longer! (Whether you're doing that intentionally or not, I can't tell, but that is the net result.)

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.

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.

I can believe that in part....but you're trying to absolve vpw of felonies that you either lack full understanding of (which happens here a lot) or you understand sufficiently and have no problems misrepresenting to claim vpw didn't commit them (which happens here a lot)

I'll presume it's the first and give you the benefit of the doubt (i.e. you neither understand the full meaning of plagiarism, nor the depth of what vpw did across many sources), and presume that you are at least partly interested in learning more. I was in that position at one point, and slow to believe vpw plagiarized, and QUITE surprised when the evidence began piling up. That's also true of a lot of people here. Perhaps it is true of you.

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:

Ephesians advises in chapter 6, "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord . . ." It does not tell us to be strong in what a theologian may say or in what a Bible teacher may say. If the theologian says what The Word says, if the teacher says what The Word says, then you have to be strong in what they say because of The Word, not because of the men.

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 . . . ."

Please review WHAT PLAGIARISM IS and then we can discuss it.

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.

I had trouble posting a url for the googled version of the book. I am trying again:

The Genesis Pursuit by Google

Okay, that one worked. But Google does not put the entire book in there and does not do graphics except for the cover.

Eagle

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.

Larry, I’d be glad to get into Romans, (and I think it’d be a great idea to) but there is more ground I would like to discuss first.

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.

I can direct you to threads that were specifically about the books and who wrote them.

Would you, please.

I think life begins at conception so I would lean towards holy one rather than holy thing.

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?

You can blame the early discussion of "thing" on me, for which I gladly take the credit and blame.

I wasn't blaming you but, you certainly have a right to claim the credit.

The implication of twi's teaching that the KJV-exclusive translation is "thing" was that abortion was

acceptable- which some people had been specifically taught in twi, and that with this verse.

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.

The intent of the initial post seemed to be about Jesus' nature, and how he is "holy", and his heredity

in some form or another.

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 think all the posters (those not discussing this on a purely intellectual level) agree Jesus was holy-

and still is.

I'm not sure what you're implying here.

A complication, of course, is that he himself didn't really edit the S.I.A.L. books- the editing staff did.

Therefore, the EXACT phrasing was how they interpreted his intent and phrasing to the best of their

abilities, which is not an absolute guarantee it's phrased EXACTLY as he would have.

So, it's more sure to say what the editing staff believed than what HE believed in that chapter.

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.

I have a transcript of the class. I'll check it out for you.

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 wasn't sure if 'holy' had been satisfied in the thread yet.

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).

I too got offtrack so don't take this as criticism.

It happens sometimes.

this was what he intended to say, and succeeded in saying.

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?

Perhaps (just perhaps) your questions got either lost in the shuffle or forgotten as the other

matters were addressed. If so, a recap would not go amiss. It's what I'd do for you.

Instead, you elected to suppose I'm on a high-horse.

Which is more likely to get us somewhere?

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.

You misunderstand my post. And the entire point of my last post.

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".

And I never asked anyone to believe that God speaks through me. Where did you get that idea from?

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.

Why should you believe anything?

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.

yeah well, if you don't get it you don't get it

That's true enuf but, don't you want us to "get it"?

go back to tossing verses at each other

still nothing solved

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.

where do you think the word of god came from?

From God.

people speaking and they still do, the word is still being spoken and written

So you don't think God can speak through people? If not, then why should I believe God speaks through you?

It sounds like a flashback from my dope smoking days.

Larry, I could post a few excepts here. I'll have that done tomorrow. I think you can google it and I am working with Amazon so people can "read inside."

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.