WordWolf

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.

I thought the new people might want to see this thread...

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. 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"?page 190, vpw repeats one of his statements, and hopes you'll connect the dots when he does.

Here's where he says "God taught me himself because no one else COULD teach me. Therefore there was no one else who DID teach me. I'm special because I learned it directly from God." This, apparently, is NOT one of the places where he supposedly credits Leonard, Bullinger, Stiles, etc for what he learned from each. Looks like he's saying teachers that taught him DID NOT EXIST. "If there's no one around to teach it, God has to teach it Himself." Those looking closely will also note that he never comes right out and says "God taught me, period." He prevaricates and implies, and leaves direct statements absent or ambiguous. That way he can say he literally didn't lie, yet still cause others to believe what isn't true. This is the same principle that he uses when defining "apostle" so it looks like it describes him, then leaves out actually saying he's one.

There's my approach, and there's Dogbert's approach from Dilbert. When I encounter them, I sniff once then walk off. I don't even waste my time with people like that if at all possible. Dogbert's approach is to wave his paw at them and say "Bah!"

My first question on this would be: was there a "real" snowstorm producing an instant whiteout? As has previously been discussed here, no whiteout was recorded for the area. Period. Ok, the next question becomes: was there a vision of this? Well, that now goes to confirmation based on the second half. Let's ignore the "if God wants you to tell other people, he'll tell you to tell them" stuff that got Joseph in trouble with his brothers. If someone claims to have a vision from God, and this vision does not come to pass, then they are a false prophet. This supposed prophecy had several components: A) God would teach vpw God's Word B) God would teach vpw God's Word like it hadn't been known since the First Century C) vpw would need to teach it to others. One necessary assumption there is that the phrase "God's Word like it hadn't been known since the First Century" actually had meaning. In the first century AD, there were no printing presses. What was known was the spoken Word, a handful of copies of New Testament books here and there, and the Old Testament/Torah. So, this entire saying is a neat catchphrase, but conveys a false impression. If this came from a god, it came from a foolish god. It's a cute concept that is a convenient FICTION. In practice, there was no unified vision of things. There was considerable division. Christians were on the run. They made sure other Christians were not in financial straits, and spent time together where they could find it, eating together and so on. Where they found a haven, they stayed and taught. They were hardly an "organized" bunch, but most especially, they were not CENTRALIZED. If they saw a need in another city's Christians, someone passed the hat around, and they sent money. Now, compare that to twi. Everything centrally organized. Everything centrally controlled. Everything STANDARDIZED. All the money goes ONE WAY> Permanent locations. What the top leader says, goes-no questions. Organized meetings. Extensive study of Greek, but NO time for charity. The first century Christian church would never RECOGNIZE twi. Any resemblance between vpw's work and the first century Christian church is faint at best, and probably coincidental. So, that part of this supposed prophecy FAILED- NOTHING resembled the first century Christian church. Moreover, everything vpw taught was ALREADY being taught at the time he "learned" it. God could not teach him things that "hadn't been known since" because all of it was KNOWN. That part of this supposed prophecy FAILED-NONE of it was unknown. Evidence is pretty clear vpw got EVERYTHING from the books and class of others, not from God. If there was a vision, it was NOT from the true God who knows better. If it was from another source (the only remaining option if there WAS a vision), then vpw was an incompetent who couldnt tell when he got a message from God versus the false god. vpw then claimed (in the Orange and White Books) that he learned their contents from God and only God. The entire claim fails under scrutiny. It's sole purpose was to put forth that himself was some great one.

But he never mentioned he took one of Bullingers' books and dropped its contents into RTHST, and that 2 of Bullinger's books became ADAN, which was a book he sometimes claimed was the most important book "he wrote"....

Actually Wordwolf, I was beginning to have some sort of fixation on your concept of plagiarism (or your understanding of it) as you purport that most, or the vast majority of VP's writings were plagiarized, because he STOLE all his ideas from others. Actually, it seems that almost every one of "his" teachings, stylings, naming conventions, etc. came from someone else-usually someone he never credited with actually being the source of it. Ever hear about tea and chocolate chip cookies? Leonard said it first... Frankly, if he'd taught ALL the same material, but gave all the credit where it was all due. I suspect I teach MORE original stuff than him, but I provide my sources. No, that's not it. Amazing you could read even SOME of the discussions and STILL not get it. Then Raf (and Oakspear) comes along and puts a fly in your ointment. Actually, we AGREE. You missed that. That's not exactly what they said. And not exactly what I said, either. This black-white thinking is not healthy. It also makes False Dilemmas. False Dilemma. A radio can be stolen or not. Intellectual property, that can be trickier to prove. We've discussed this. That is how you've SEEN it, and it's incorrect. I don't wonder. It's very simple. vpw claimed in his books that the material in them was a collaboration between him and God. Virtually all their contents were a rearrangement of material from a handful of other writers. All of them are uncredited in the books. That's illegal, and immoral, and lying. I claim he's unoriginal, and a deceiver for it. Often, he's a criminal as well, JUST for that. I consider SOME of it plagiarism, and most of it presented deceptively. You claim NONE of it's criminal or plagiaristic, regardless. That's simple enough.

"Matrix" or "Matrix:Reloaded"?

(page-178, since "Nothing cataclysmic...") Watch this next quote from pg-179. pg-180. pg-181. Folks?