WordWolf

E. Stanley Jones.... Seems he was the real deal. He also was the author of "the Way" (copyright 1946) and "Abundant Living" (copyright 1935). "Victorious Living" (copyright 1936). http://www.vaxxine.com/eves/jones.htm http://www.aabibliography.com/aahtml13/esjones.html

There's a significant difference. Here's a quick example. Oldiesman considers "Christians Should Be Prosperous" to be error. Oldiesman believes that if CSBP was God-Breathed, it would not have errors. Therefore, Oldiesman does not believe CSBP was God-Breathed. If it is "open to checking and rechecking" then it is not "inerrant", which is a requirement for "God-Breathed".

It is not difficult to determine if the letter of the law has been broken. All you need is the letter of the law, and the specifics of what action was taken. In the case of a dispute over the printed word, this is pretty easy. The opposite of "illegal" is not "justified".Someone may commit an illegal action-steal a loaf of bread- which EVERYONE may consider justified. This does not mean the law was not broken, but punishment may be mitigated or foregone if it is believed to be justified. In New Orleans, doctors broke into a pharmacy to get the medications needed to save lives during the worst of the emergency. THEY HAD A POLICE ESCORT. Was the law broken? Yes. Did the police know this? Duuuuuhhhh. Was a crime committed? Yes. Why did law enforcement personnel participate in the commission of a crime? They judged that the illegal action was illegal but justified in order to save lives. I expect there will be a short investigation and no charges will be made to them. --- Now then, in the case of vpw, he did not have to choose between "plagiarize and fail to cite sources" and "people die". There were perfectly legal alternatives to what he did. He chose not to exercise them. It's a lawyer's job to argue a position whether or not he believes it to be true. That's why I mentioned a JUDGE. What is legal or not is hardly opinion. ANYTHING is debatable.

Plus their posting styles are completely different.

Well, since it's from some notes you made on the book, I'd make it clear these are from your notes on the book, not direct quotes, but that you don't have the original with you to make a comparison. It might read something like this.... "The book, 'the Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse', has much useful information you may be thankful to have. Although I don't have my copy anymore, I DO have my notes from it. Here's what some of them say:" or it might read "The book 'the Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse' says something like this on the following subject..." or "Here's more from my notes based on the book 'the Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse'" or something along those lines. Just so we can see that this is FROM it without being direct quotes. A little background on the book wouldn't hurt, either. For example, I think the writer was never an innie, and thus never used the expression "devil spirit" which you used. If that's true, then that part of your notes is a paraphrase or entirely your impressions of the book.

WordWolf said Oldiesman commented on this. Actually, Oldiesman, citing sources is a LEGAL requirement and is legally-actionable. Actually, what we're discussing at this exact moment whether or not citation of sources is legallyrequired-or morally required. What you're asserting is actually "I believe and state that when he read an idea, then wrote about it in his book, without citing his source, that there was nothing wrong with this." What I am asserting is actually "I believe and state that when he read an idea, then wrote about it in his book, without citing his source, that this was morally wrong and legally wrong." No I don't-which post did I say that? Please provide the thread, page, date and time, and provide the quote. I say it is wrong, but I didn't say that THIS was theft. If it IS, then I'm unaware of this. (Perhaps one of our legal-eagle posters can fill us BOTH in.) A lot of it would. Now, if someone was actually claiming that was stealing, we would have grounds for discussion of that. Since this appears to be a manufactured complaint (pending an actual quote from a post), This is a complaint without merit. It's as valid as complaining about someone's charge that "When he rose from his grave in 1986 and sucked the blood from people on grounds, it was wrong." Right-nobody claimed that EITHER. (Duh.) Direct sources for a literary work are legally required to be cited. Direct sources for a sermon are not legally required to be cited. This is not difficult to understand. ****** Actually, in the PFAL books, if the section cites Bullinger, then he's fine.If the section fails to cite the source (the Companion Bible by EW Bullinger), then it's wrong. At least one running of the taped class, the live staff provided a Companion Bible, open to the picture with the 4 crosses, AND an interlinear with the missing word open, for the students to look over. Bravo. I appreciate that. However, that is STILL not legally equivalent to citing his source in the book. This is not difficult to understand. I lose track of how many times we've said this. Whether or not something is plagiarized, or sources are not cited, or anything along those lines, has NOTHING TO DO with the validity of the printed material. If Manson writes a book and is the original author, that does not guarantee merit of the material. If someone writes a paper that is a segment of Leonard's best work, that does not guarantee the material itself lacks merit. Whether or not the material is true has nothing to do with the illegality of what vpw did in printing it. It reflects entirely on the character of the supposed "author". vpw KNEW what was required-he couldn't get out of COLLEGE without knowing this, and couldn't graduate and get his Masters without knowing this. (Both his college and where he got his Masters are schools with certification, and ALL such schools make this an elementary requirement on all submissions.) Furthermore, whether you were happy to hear it has nothing to do with ANYTHING. You were happy when you first sat through him explaining how "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king", which was completely wrong, and when first reading "Christians Should Be Prosperous" and when vpw said that people should be giving their money to Bible organizations in the class. I don't blame you for that. Nearly EVERY first-time student of pfal was happy at both times, also. (There are 3 types of first-time students of pfal- those who were happy to hear most of it, those who dropped out before or just after Session 12, and revisionists who rewrote their memories.) HOWEVER, it has NO BEARING on whether or not illegalities were performed. If you were starving and someone gave you a loaf of bread, you'd receive it happily, even if they told you they had to steal it to get it to you. The bread was good-the act of stealing it was bad. The theft didn't "taint" the bread, the "worthy cause" of feeding the starving did not "sanctify" the theft. Perhaps the owner of the bread may choose not to press charges due to the situation, but he is still entitled to recover damages. See it now? (I can hope, can't I?)

Um, what part's a direct quote from the book, and what's your commentary? Or is all of that a direct quote? Or is all of it a paraphrase from a chapter?

I believe someone wrote this article. As for the supposition this "study" used, it's ridiculous. There's no "control group", and no isolation of variables. It basically says A) Britain has a healthier society than the US. B) The only real differences between Britain and the US are religious beliefs. C) Therefore US' religious beliefs are the sole reason the US' society isn't as healthy as Britain. Let's suppose A) is true for the sake of discussion. (Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But let's get to the real objections.) B) is silly. For starters, we know there are more shootings per capita in the US over Britain. Is it reasonable to presume this means that Britons have lousy aim? No, duh. There are more HANDGUNS per capita in the US over Britain. No one's allowed to own a handgun. Period. "The police don't have a gun, and you don't have a gun. So the police say 'Stop, or I'll say 'stop' again.'" (Robin Williams.) (Yes, there are a kind of SWAT team with guns, but they have to be called in, they're elite units.) However, this article seems to say that the higher per capita shootings are due to belief in a god. Supposedly, the ONLY differences are religious. Do I believe that societies lacking religion are necessarily 'sick' societies? No. The odds may or may not be a bit better. A healthy society has a clear system of order, a healthy economy (eliminating the need for street crime to survive) and clear rules, along with a respect for the law and clear punishment for lawbreaking. A belief in a higher power who orders such respect for the law can make this easier, imposing a reason to respect the law. On the other hand, it's also another tool that some people can use to seize power in a society. (We've all seen that one...) So, I hardly think the answer is as cut-and-dried as they made it out to be.

I noticed you skipped most of the points I've made, and seem determined to ignore my use of an example of a book you owned/own. You do today. I have a bet with myself that about 3 months from the expiration of this thread, you'll reverse this position. I'll have to see this maybe February or so. I believe the only way to prove this isn't semantics used to label everything as "not plagiarized" would be to give examples of what you consider plagiarism, undocumented sources but NOT plagiarism, and something where a source need not be documented at all. IF you are game to an intelligent, polite discussion along those lines, please open a thread for it. I'd gladly participate in it, and do so playing nice. That's a gross oversimplification of my position.He claimed to have no source for some materials other than the Bible and GOD ALMIGHTY. When he did so and lifted sentences, that was plagiarism, and any judge can tell you that. When he did so and rewrote sentences, that was ALSO plagiarism, and any judge can tell you that. When he took an idea from someone else and taught aloud, it is not necessarily expected that he cite his sources-nor would I expect him to. When he took an idea from someone else and WROTE IT IN A BOOK, it is a LEGAL requirement that he give the source. In some cases, a footnote is called for, in others (like Woodrow used all over Babylon:Mystery Religion) endnotes are called for. When he took a concept that came from THE BOOK of someone then writes about it WHETHER OR NOT HE BELIEVES IT- he is legally bound to, at the very least, place it in the bibliography of the book. Book to book concepts mean SOURCES. SOURCES must be cited in your bibliography. I learned that in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. If I didn't cite sources in high school, I would have been in trouble. If I didn't cite sources in college, the paper would be given a failing grade- OR I'd be given the chance to re-submit it WITH the sources or face a failing grade. Further, if I write a book and claim "I had no sources" and have even ONE source, I lie AND can get into trouble. That's the case with the White Book and the Orange Book. (I explained why above, again.) The context was 95% of us on the messageboard OR partakers in the threads explaining plagiarism. It was not "ex-twi" or "people posting in cyberspace" or "lurkers". I don't know enough about THEM to make comments-those are people I've never interacted with. I believe you think that.I think the vast majority of people who post here believe he plagiarized, hid his sources, and did so to support his claim he learned from GOD (with slight side-trips to taking tiny bits from others after he "got the error" out of their work.) By both of us using the words "I think", we indicated we're speaking of OUR OPINIONS, which makes our statements less universal, and thus, less objectionable to those who we are not speaking for. Yes it is. Since Leonard never told me, anything I say would be a guess.However, he DID give clear indications that plagiarism is wrong in his books afterwards. I addressed this several posts back, and I don't feel the need to keep reposting the same comment you missed the first time. Feel free to scroll up. But you expected me to know? Usually.I've seen people who had cause but chose not to. The reasons are their own. In your opinion. In my opinion, the material of much of vpw's teaching was good material. Presenting it was a good thing. The framework in which it was presented was a bad thing. Some of it was error-but the framework DEMANDED it was all above questioning-which is a worse thing. When he said things like adultery was ok with God (reserved for "private teachings") and that "all the women in the land belonged to the king", it wasn't legally a crime, but it facilitated what WERE crimes. When he self-published books that were entirely cut-and-pastes of the books of others, and failed to footnote the other books, endnote the other books, or include them in the Bibliography, THOSE were CRIMES. AND they were morally wrong. The holders of the copyrights were entitled to sue and recover damages. If they knew about it, of course- but "his" books were never distributed nationally among anyone BUT pfal students and grads.

Note to self: do some work on the "William Branham" connection before this thread's done.

Ok, that covers -"Forgers of the Word" -exagerrating or lying about one's credentials to make one sound important -getting a "Doctorate" that doesn't count legally -blanket assertions without documentation -statements with NO supporting evidence -embellished narratives and discourses -the special connection to God-the "ONLY" person on earth with teh tr00th

New drinking rule: one drink whenever the people vpw plagiarizes from are "scattered across the continent". "Scattered across the continent" must mean what the rest of us refer to as "kept in the dark that vpw used their work." This was the 20th century AD, not the 7th century AD. These people could get in a plane, car, bus or train and reached the farm within the day. Someone could pick up a phone at the farm and reach them in a moment. Someone could write a letter and reach them within the week. They lived in different places than the farm. That doesn't mean they're "scattered across the continent". Look, this isn't difficult for 95% or more of us, and more than 95% of the literary world, including college students and grad schools, and people who earned degrees in colleges and grad schools. If I write a book that rips off someone else, but I document properly, then I'm NOT hiding anything, and I'm NOT "ripping them off." Flip thru your copy of "Babylon:Mystery Religion." Woodrow documented ALL his references from Hislop's book. Furthermore, he didn't copy over sentences from Hislop's book. If he did, but documented properly, it would have been fine. vpw wrote books whose contents were taken COMPLETELY from the books of others. The books he wrote that in had NO mention of the sourcebooks nor the source authors. That's a criminal action, and the holders of the various copyrights could have sued his head off. However, since they didn't hear about vpw's books, they didn't sue. Leonard DID hear, but CHOSE not to exercise his legal RIGHTS to recover damages. Instead, he condemned it in print, but let it continue, probably waiting to see if it would benefit people. Besides, "admitted he learned from" has NOTHING TO DO WITH "this book is based entirely on the writings of". I learned from vpw-but when I teach and write, they're not transliterations of "his books" or any OTHER person's "work". The White Book was completely the work of Leonard, Stiles, and Bullinger.Their names do NOT appear in the book. We didn't know ANY of it was based on books by any of them. Know why? It was a SECRET. Instead, he says in the book that the BIBLE was his GUIDEBOOK as well as his TEXTBOOK. This was a LIE. Books by those men were his TEXTBOOKS. Since it was a CRIME, there should be little surprise it was a SECRET. Failing to document the sources IN that book is a crime. Saying it LATER VERBALLY in front of a tiny portion of the owners of the books would NOT constitute "making the point verbally." Plus, he never even told the corps "if not for Bullinger, Stiles, and Leonard, the pages would all have been blank." We've said this lots of times. If it was a matter of "I don't understand", you would have understood by now." Since there's no sign you've gotten it before or now, it's a matter of "I choose not to accept this." Why not be honest? Try saying "I refuse to accept ANY evidence or ANY source showing wrongdoings by vpw." It would save a lot of time. What he did was a textbook example of not giving proper written acknowledgement. He refused to do so-despite learning it was wrong in high school, college, and grad school- in order to claim he threw out all his theology books, and use ONLY the Bible (the Orange Book) and to use the Bible as his guidebook and textbook (the White Book). He did this to claim it was the product of his SKILL and his unique connection to God. He did this to conceal the real authors. This means he was HIDING the books AND the authors. Leonard's books were in the Way Bookstore?Bullinger's books that he cut-and-pasted into the White Book and ADAN were NEVER carried in the Way Bookstore. Did anyone here buy a copy of STILES' book in the Bookstore? It would surprise me to hear his books were carried there. Further, telling some people "I learned from this guy" is not the same as "I cut-and-pasted his books into my books". Finally, even if it WAS, it would STILL fall FAR short of the standards accepted in every HIGH SCHOOL, let alone college, grad school, publishing house... He had SOME books by Bullinger, true, and SOME books by Kenyon, true. No arguments about that. HOWEVER, he seemed to have LEFT OUT the books that comprised the White Book and the Orange Book. (With the exception of "How to Enjoy the Bible", which is such a dry read that relatively few people who BOUGHT the book ever finished READING the book.)

Well, we've established that your hearing could stand improvement. Krys posted That means Krys said it's NOT that she would feel like payment would place Paw under any sort ofobligation, or that she didn't want him around. You replied Uh, no duh. Krys specifically said she DIDN'T want it to be like that, she DIDN'T want it to be like a bribe. You picked out part of a sentence and took it out of its context to say the opposite of what it did. If you only have PART of the word of krysilis, you do NOT have the word of krysilis. krysilis explained herself right in the verse, AND in the context.

Starr Daily.... The impression I have of him is that he was a hardened criminal who experienced the transformative power of Christ, and walked the straight and narrow. http://www.aabibliography.com/starrdailyprisondoors.htm

Well, you'll call it that TODAY, but when we discuss it again, I expect the usual, that is, you'll start all over again.... ======= It's manifestly ridiculous to claim that others say vpw "stole" the administrations teaching when about 2 posts back I did a breakdown on what he got there from Bullinger, and what he didn't. Not only did I not use the word "stole" anywhere, but I broke it down rather specifically as to what was what. He failed to give credit to Bullinger on that. This was wrong. Whether or not that is criminally actionable I leave to the lawyers. It is a moral flaw, and is evidence of a lack of integrity on his part. The one ambiguity on this is that it was in Bullinger's "Companion Bible", and vpw never hid that book- lots of us have/had copies. This is different from him using 2 of Bullinger's other books to form ADAN, or another book of Bullinger's as a part of RTHST. It's also different from using Leonard as a source, since he hid that with all his might. ======== BTW, depending on the level of quality he's going for, footnotes and endnotes all over each chapter of a book may be EXPECTED. It's common among all scholarly books. A book like JCOP should have had them to that degree, and all of his books should have had them some of the time. The Orange Book and the White Book did NOT have them- and the degree to which they are the sum total of other people's work means that nearly every paragraph SHOULD have had footnotes or endnotes. Using a counter-example, Woodrow's "Babylon Mystery Religion" was heavily end-noted and was almost entirely taken from one source. The book didn't suffer from the end-noting, and the HONESTY didn't hurt the author. If vpw had actually done his own research/work more and relied on transliterating the work of others LESS, there would be much less need to footnote or endnote except when citations of sources are needed. This is EXPECTED in any work of consequence because it's expected that you actually did some research and admit that at least SOME of your work came from completed work by others. (And was not just given by the hand of God or something.) When one claims to use the Bible as guidebook and textbook, one is making a blanket claim that there are no literary sources to footnote EXCEPT where noted. I know-to you this sounds like I'm placing unreasonable demands on his work. To everybody else, it probably sounds like I expect him to play by the rules just as everyone else. (Which is the idea.)

Since it's not "Room Service", is it "Trading Places"?

Let's see, more on the names vpw name-dropped.... Glenn Clark. Hm. He said "If you wish to travel far and fast, travel light. Take off all your envies, jealousies, unforgiveness, selfishness, and fears." That's where vpw got "traveling light." He also talked about "that abundant life which Christ promised." CFO mentioned "an 'Athlete of the Spirit' ". http://glennclark.wwwhubs.com/ http://www.campsfarthestout.org http://www.cfointernational.org/lit_portrait_of_GC.html http://www.dickb.com/articles/christian_roots_dsb.shtml http://www.trilliumontariocfo.com/whatiscfo.htm http://www.winni.org Hm. Starr Daily and Rufus Moseley were also involved in CFO. Sunesis mentioned once that they were all part of the 1940 Tulsa Renegade preachers. "Basically what happened was, after WW II, when the country went into great prosperity, in the late '40s, early '50s, these men all decided they could make much more money if they started their own ministries. Sound familiar? VP needed a product for his ministry. After searching, he found BG Leonard, and the rest is history- VP saw his product to promote and sell." Socks added the following: "When I was in the corps, the VPster told us he considered 3 careers as a young man-business, ministry and entertainment. When he was young he said he read a magazine article about up and coming careers, areas of work and industry that would be expanding in the 50s and 60s. Ministry, church work, was #1. It was because of the baby boomers. All those families would be looking for churches, and the social activity that goes along with them. He was pretty open about it, of course he put the emphasis at the time on his personal calling and the stories like being a youngster and looking up at the minister and saying 'I want to be a man of God like you, sir!' I didn't really realize it at the time, but when I took the 'class' it had only been on film for a couple years. As I went along I realized that the 'good old days' of the Way were actually the days in which he solidified his marketing plan for PFAL and put it in to motion by visiting the West Coast and other locations. I'm of the opinion that all that freedom we experienced way back then was just the wheels of the Way slowly gearing up. It was always his plan to have a centralized ministry that he ran and that made money. It just took him a while to get the pieces the way he wanted them. Which is completely aside from what he taught, right or wrong, good or bad. I really feel that he was always conflicted by the desire to have a thriving business that made money and the desire to do some good with teaching the Bible. He mixed God and mammon in the worst way-he packaged what he felt was his personal minstry and sold it for money. No dough, you can't go-that was the deal with PFAL." Too Gray Now replied "Like you said, Socks, he was interested in three areas...he ended up running the Way ministry to fulfill ALL his career desires."

Ok, this is a handy time to invoke this link.... Pike's Peak Seminary had no resident instruction, no published list of faculty, no accreditation, no agency of government supervised it. Its degree programs involved mailing of book reviews and papers by mail. About Dr H. Ellis Lininger being "head of the Dept of Education for the state of Colorado"... The Colorado Dept of Education said he never did head this dept. ========== BTW, thanks for the kind words, Belle. As you can see, however, the group effort on this is more effective than just me posting quotes. Others catch things I miss and post relevant links and quotes. I also got a few quotes from the GSC archives. My favourite quote hasn't even come up yet. It will make the most shocking stuff from earlier in the thread look tame.

Here comes another list of names, from page 188. vpw has said he and 39 others passed the hat around and paid for Christian speakers to come visit them. Anyone know anything definite about the "Spiritual 40 Club"?BTW, Glenn Clark's camps were called "Camps Farthest Out." I'm sure I saw something about that somewhere... That and the ashram thing... Who's John Gaynor Banks???? Here's Otto Lininger. pg-189. page 190, vpw repeats one of his statements, and hopes you'll connect the dots when he does. That was one of the places he suggested-again-that God taught him directly. page 192, vpw exceeds "everyone"'s expectations again, thru his friendship with an anonymous woman who supposedly taught him about Church history.

Yes, USING THOSE TERMS is a minor point at best. The doctrines were ripped off from other people. Slapping a new name on the doctrine didn't make the doctrines "original". Only the NAMES were "original". FWIW, I think "manifestation" (singular) is the best way I've heard the term in I Corinthians 12:6 mentioned. This, of course, means I'm curious who taught him this. I'm fairly confident SOMEONE did, but I haven't found out WHO yet. The TERM "administration" was his usage. The concept was straight out of Bullinger, who called them "dispensations". vpw said it was better translated "administration" or "stewardship", then called it "administration" from then on. Me, I used the term "stewardship" because I thought it more accurately represented the concept, with less ambiguity. Further, Bullinger numbered 7 dispensations. vpw numbered 7 administrations. They weren't QUITE the same 7. I agree with Bullinger's 7 rather than vpw's 7. Bullinger numbers the Law as #3, then Grace as #4, followed by the Revealing (#5) and the MILLENIAL REIGN (#6). vpw does not count the Millenial Reign. vpw counts the Christ administration, or Gospel administration, as #4, making Grace #5. The only advantage to this is allowing Grace to be #5. I find that Scripture supports Jesus' earthly ministry as that which CLOSED OUT the Law rather than just superceding it "just because". Bullinger wrote the book (literally) on Number in Scripture, but he wasnt so obsessed with it that he rewrote things to fit his theology. There, I expect his own personal spin produced the renumbering, but I suspect he didn't understand things as well as he thought he did.

I'm not sure, but that little issue MIGHT be solved if you scroll up and follow my advice. Even if it's not the solution to this PARTICULAR problem, it's all good for your machine anyway and may remove and prevent OTHER problems. Of course, you can always just ignore my advice. It IS your computer, after all.

On page 187, vpw shows how to give a compliment and take it away at the same time, when he's asked whatever happened to Rosalind R. I guess that addressed the earlier question.She "brought him back" to the Bible. He had been brought up with it, and people used it, but they couldnt teach him. Since he was a hellion, I expect the reason they could not is because he could not learn. "When the student is ready, the teacher appears." He actually forgot them in seminary. This was the "start" of him on that track. In other words, if he didn't need to for his sermons, he would never have gone to The Word, it "made" him study.

Hm. Interesting. This warrants further study. Frankly, I'd rather discuss this on a different thread, and will probably open one later for this, since I think it deserves a thread all by itself. However, at a quick read, it provides some ideas that sound familiar. Lamsa downgraded sin to "error" (which is similar to downgrading it to "broken fellowship" in that both of those are PART of sin and not ALL of sin). Lamsa put forth that he was the man of God for this day and time. (That ties up another loose end.) Lamsa's idiosyncratic position on Christ has been used by different people and the writer's suggesting it's the main reason vpw dropped the Trinity. It also gives a lot more info on Lamsa's psychic connections and so on.

I'd look into what info there is about a connection between Lamsa and the Unity school of Christianity that Thomas mentioned above. Those with Leonard's books have quoted him and it appears that Leonard didn't teach the Trinity in the classical sense, nor Jesus' pre-existence in a discrete identity as Trinitarians do. However, he also didn't pick fights about it. The only things we haven't seen were the usages of the terms "administrations" and "manifestations". They're incredibly minor points, but everything ELSE seems to have been traced elsewhere.

I think Raf was looking for his old avatar, the guy with the white hat.... I hate to be a noodge, but when all the vital stuff has been addressed, can someone recalibrate the dingus that adds the little blue boxes under a name? Apparently, they indicate # of posts. Excathedra's posts now distort and are hard to read- she's got so many boxes that it shoves her posts into a corner.