WordWolf

"What does that have to do with the question? Nothing." Incorrect, and, although others already explained, but I'll explain again. "It is clear that she was looking for a Bible-based fellowship, but that can't happen. No! We must educate them on what they really need. I suppose we are too stupid to know what we want." No, you're just unable or unwilling to see the relevance of the answer. Although others already explained it, I'll explain again. ==== At this very moment, there are A)God-loving Christians who are trying to leave twi, B)God-loving Christians who just left twi C) God-loving Christians AFRAID TO LEAVE twi [There are also other types of people, and I'm not pretending there aren't.] The Christians afraid to leave twi are afraid to leave for many reasons. Some are afraid to leave behind friends and family members. Some are afraid to face a completely-changed life. The BIGGEST fear for Christians afraid to leave twi is one that was CAREFULLY CULTIVATED by twi. twi taught-and still teaches- that only twi has "The Truth". (That's one reason vpw had to keep lying that he had no significant sources-the sources were proof that he wasn't the only 'Teacher' with 'The Truth'.) twi thus taught-and still teaches-that to leave 'The Only Group With The Truth' is to leave 'The Truth' and you will be unable to serve God and learn from God if you leave. (I'm not even addressing the 'leave twi and die' stuff.) So, some people leave ANYWAY. Once they have left, many Christians have not surgically-removed all twi doctrine from their brains. It doesn't happen like clicking a screen-icon...it takes TIME, WORK, and INFORMATION. So, many Christians leave twi and think that they can't find ANY places that teach 'The Truth'. So, they say, well, all other Christians teach lies, but other people left twi- maybe I will have a chance to hear 'The Truth' from them. It can't be much worse than what I left. So, they then seek out the extwi groups. It would be of considerable benefit to many of them to learn that other Christians aren't all the undereducated, idolatrous idiots twi has taught they were-and still teach they were. Therefore, it is of considerable benefit for many of them to learn this-which means that a Christian genuinely interested in helping another Christian to let them know that there are many Christians NEVER affiliated with twi who are quite good. (Many people still think "Babylon:Mystery Religion" was accurate, even though the AUTHOR has written a sequel completely REPUDIATING it, and it is useful for them to be told that he wrote such a book, and its name: "the Babylon Connection?") So, is it irrelevant to warn people that a group they are looking into has hurt people in the past? If you say 'yes', what are you doing on the GSC? Is it irrelevant to tell people who have been indoctrinated "only WE know The Truth!" that lots of people know 'The Truth' and not just people who were miseducated the same manner they were? You seem to be saying "Yes" by saying it is irrelevant. I say "Make sure they are INFORMED. Then they can make their own decisions. Thus, more information is a GOOD THING." (So long as it's not lies or misinformation.) ======== "Are we supposed to feel guilty because we enjoy Bible fellowship?" Have you stopped beating your wife? --> Duh. Of COURSE it's not wrong to attend a Bible fellowship, nor is it wrong to ENJOY one. For many people, it's probably the BEST option. HOWEVER, it is NOT the ONLY viable option, and it behooves us (horses have behooves) to point that out, and allow them to seek out what works BEST for THEM. To turn this question around into a different unfair question: "Is it wrong to warn someone when they leave one abusive cult and prepare to join another?" Yes, it's an unfair question. You're making it sound like the Christians onsite all said that the extwi groups are all JUST AS BAD as twi. Of course they didn't say that. There ARE problems and pitfalls to avoid, and it is a GOOD THING to make them aware of them, ISN'T IT?

Hello, ChainClanker. I think CC meant that he/she did not intend to insult any particular ethnicity or "race" or skin colour or whatnot in using a derogatory term that originally was used for one group and has also been used for other groups from time to time. (I have seen someone refer to Middle Easterners as "sand-niggers" when thinking out loud.) Actually, since that usage was by someone in Texas, I think that it might be a regional thing to misuse the word "nigger" by tacking it on to other words and give it a similar meaning. Please remember CC did not ORIGINATE the term, and simply passed along what someone else said (not that s/he was disagreeing with the connotations, but there is a difference.)

Ozzy Osbourne Austin Powers:Goldmember John Travolta [As a special note, Ozzy and John played themselves in Little Nicky and Goldmember.]

*lightbulb* "Man on the Moon". :D--> The Andy Kaufman story. If I'm right, someone else can go ahead and post something.

Sounds vaguely familiar. Something lyrics-driven, like U2 or something....

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/edit...exit-advice.htm I recommend that letter for general advice. (I recommend reading ALL the documents off the main site at least once a year to refresh your memory, but nobody seems to take that advice.) ----- Some things to remember: 1) They will NOT "play fair" with you. Therefore, as with anyone who cheats in a game, the only smart move is not to play. Leave and let people know AFTER THE FACT that you have LEFT. Have a logical set of reasons for those you respect. Some of them-and all the people in the hierarchy- will attack you no matter what you say. They will spread vicious lies about you to those who stayed. Expect that and provide contrary information to those you wish to tell. They're adults and are supposedly able to think on their own. ========= In case you'd like to see the US Declaration of Independence, you may find it many places, including here: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ As you can see, it wasn't dashed off in a moment. It was the result of the chain of events that preceeded it, and it states several of them. "...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." They explained their situation had progressed, and all methods of redress short of independence had proven ineffective. They gave specifics. Ultimately, the only persons you owe an explanation to are yourself and God.

It is understandable, if incorrect, if someone completely unaware how SOME lives were destroyed by twi, forcing people to start from scratch, can lack empathy for those forced to start over. After all, if someone sees someone else in a bad mood, and they're not aware that person's house just burnt to the ground, they might think the person lacks a sense of perspective. In those cases, the person lacking empathy simply needs to educate and inform his/herself better as to the reason for the complaint. twi utterly ruined the lives of some people, and partially ruined the lives of many others. It is understandable that people be angry that someone sucked out their life to further their own creature comforts. (The ultimate goals at the top seem to be the luxuries for the people at the top, purchased at the expense of those coerced into giving 10-15% of their income or facing ostracism and expulsion-after being conditioned to believe that to face such is a death sentence. ============== Further, if a criminal has stolen one's house and car, and is currently enjoying use of both, even if the thefts were decades ago, it is not inappropriate to continue to speak out against them. Finally, if someone is seeking innocents to victimize, it is the moral responsibility of those who know this to warn those who do NOT know this. twi's ability to draw new victims to suck dry has been hobbled by the warnings of people all over the world wide web, and especially here. :)--> So, so long as they seek even ONE more victim, we will continue to speak out and warn the public. LOTS of people read what we post here. ======= Now, there are people who are AWARE what others have suffered thru at the hands of twi, and still tell them to "get over it." Their position is that they were unharmed by twi, and so those who claim that THEY were, are exagerrating or lying. Those who say such things were harmed in a most insidious way, for they WERE harmed- their ability to exercise their senses to discern good and evil has been crippled. So, until they understand the clever nature of the harm that was done to themselves, they will continue, in the manner of one who was abused, to continue the cycle and verbally abuse posters here who tell their stories. I leave it up to each individual poster to examine their own hearts and determine if anything I've said above applies to them. Ironically, those who NEED to do this the MOST are the ones LEAST likely to do so, but that goes without saying.

A little more on Leonard. BG Leonard, of course, is never mentioned in pfal-neither the class nor its books. If he was, someone might have been inclined to read some of his work and spot most of the pfal class. If you dig, the ONLY mention EVER made by vpw to Leonard was in the propaganda book "the Way: living in love". vpw said of Leonard that vpw claimed that he himself took Leonard's work and This, of course, is an outright lie. Leonard WAS great with The Word. That's why early pfal classes were nothing BUT Leonard's work. vpw never "put it all together with The Word" because it was already together with The Word. Mrs W, years later, gave the following account of BG Leonard. This is from "Born Again To Serve", copyright 1996. Seems there's a discrepancy here. vpw claimed BG Leonard wasn't very useful, and not with The Word. Mrs W claimed BG Leonard was indispensible and knew his Bible. In light of the fact that Leonard's explanations FROM the Bible all ended up in pfal, I believe it's clear Mrs W told the truth, and vpw lied thru his teeth. WHY did he lie thru his teeth? Because it allowed him to manipulate his image and appear more impressive, claiming he had unique knowledge and ONLY his group had this special knowledge (which was being taught by Leonard before vpw ever HEARD of him). It was wrong to lie, it was wrong to plagiarize, and it was wrong to misrepresent himself. A man of God ought not to sin so grievously.

For the benefit of those of you arriving late, I thought I'd mention a little about BG Leonard. "Brother Leonard" was a Christian up in Canada. He taught a class on understanding and applying the Bible. Among the hypothetical names he used were Johnny Jumpup Maggie Muggins Henry Bolocco His books were printed under the corporate name "Canadian Christian Press." Not long after vpw sat thru BG Leonard's class, vpw started running classes on understanding and applying the Bible. Among the hypothetical names he used were Johnny Jumpup Maggie Muggins Henry Bolocco His books were published under the corporate name "American Christian Press." The body of material from Leonard's class seems to have been copied over entirely into vpw's class. At least one person who took both said they find vpw's idiosyncratic pronunciations of certain words to be a copy of Leonard's speech patterns, as well.

He claimed "an apostle is one who brings new light to his generation. It may be old light, but to the people he brings it to, it's new." Actually, an apostle is a SENT ONE. vpw invented his definition so that it would just happen to apply to him. He claimed he was teaching "The Word like it hadn't been known since the First Century". Therefore, he expected his audience to figure out he was supposedly an apostle. As Goey pointed out, he said "a prophet is one who speaks for God." It IS true that he claimed that "technically" David's sin with Bathsheba was NOT adultery, since "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king." That's straight out of PFAL, both the classes and the books. It comes up frequently on lists of Actual Errors in pfal.

The "riddle of the Sphinx" thing is straight out of Bullinger's "Witness of the Stars". What did lcm say about it?

Oenophile, thanks, it is coming along great. I get what you mean, but perhaps it was a good thing for some of us that we didn't know. Yes, it was better that he be allowed to deceive us!!!! The lesson here is that the man representing God should NOT SIN, not that we should ignore his sins. There's a difference between struggling against temptation, and deliberately making occasion for it. Deliberately choosing to hide your sources and claiming to originate the work, thus putting forth that yourself was some great one, is a decision, which you then put into action all by yourself. No, that is a separate issue. "Truth from the pen of a plagiarist is still truth. But plagiarism matters. Plagiarism may not reflect on the accuracy of the information that's stolen, but it does reflect on the character of the plagiarist. The plagiarist is a liar, a thief, an arrogant, lazy, self-important person who dismisses the hard work of other people and disrespects the intelligence of his readers (by presuming the readers will never learn if the infraction.)" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm Even if it was all 100% factually correct, the plagiarism was still wrong. God is ALWAYS working to help people. This is not a free pass to sin. However, should we refrain from sinning, or is it equally "right" to sin as much as we feel like, knowing God will keep moving even if we deceive the brethren and do other things to them that are sins and criminal actions?

THIS is the point. And it doesn't take an advanced degree to see that it's wrong- everyone CAN see that it's wrong.

Sorry Raf, I should have asked you BEFORE I pulled my little stunt. I thought an ILLUSTRATION would make the point clear. It's WRONG to take someone else's work, change a few words, maybe leave out a little, then claim you originated it. (You do that by failing to give proper attribution.) Plagiarism is morally wrong, AND illegal. Plagiarism demonstrates a moral failing on the part of the plagiarist. When the plagiarist claims to represent God, it shows a deliberate moral failing that shows he is unworthy of trust. Actually, in pulling my little stunt, I thought the extensive quote would be spotted immediately by everyone, since it was right off the main website. I thought people would see my point, which was in the closing of that post, which was the only part NOT ripped off from Raf...

Go to now, Mr. Hammeroni.Don't ya think that lots of folks who enjoy Wierwille's books might go out and buy the works of Stiles, Kenyon, Bullinger, Leonard, et al.? See it in the "original"? Heck I would. We've been discussing this for most of a decade. Oldiesman? Would you really? Then, answer these simple questions... Do you currently own a copy of JE Stiles' "Gifts of the Holy Spirit"? How many books of Leonard and Kenyon do you own? How many of Bullinger's books do you own outside of "the Companion Bible" and "How to Enjoy the Bible"? For that matter, do you own THOSE books?

Less than you'd think-he plagiarized the 1942 promise! BG Leonard: Add "an early October invisible snowstorm", and inflate it to "like it hasn't been known" and you have the 1942 promise.

Friend Belle, being taught the Word like it hadn't been known since the first century, and saying that VPW was the SOLE SOURCE of accuracy, are two very different things. Obviously, he wasn't the sole source. I think you are drawing conclusions that you shouldn't. "Obviously he wasn't the sole source." Obviously you've forgotten what vpw said about other Christians all the time, calling their seminary "cemetaries" and so on. He didn't "mellow out" on that over time, either. Here's what vpw himself said in May 12, 1985.... (not long before he died) "Outside of this ministry, people, I've seen very few answers. If we knew where there were more, we'd go get 'em!" How's that selective memory working for you?

As that book has it, he learned a little bit from THIS man and a little from THAT man, THEN he went and studied out the subjects from the Bible, THEN he assembled his pfal classes. "Putting it all together so that it fit" was NOT the original work. They ALREADY fit. All he did was assemble them together. That's hardly considered "originality". That's taking Leonard's class, adding Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" and Stiles' "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" and calling it an original work. Furthermore, he NEVER gave proper attribution. twi was the result of ripping off a number of Christians, organizing it into an organization that concentrated authority at the top, then merchandizing it brilliantly. Any good car-salesman could have managed the same if he got a grounding in the right Christian sources. It wouldn't change YOURS. Great. It would have affected a lot of people who were-and are STILL being told- that the SOLE SOURCE of accurate knowledge of God is twi- and NOT that Christians in other places know much of ANYTHING.

Well, there is conflicting information about this. I don't have all the answers to this. VPW could have done a lot of the research on his own, which could have been the same research someone else did, years before. That's not impossible to imagine. Then again, we do have evidence of all the men of God he learned from who were scattered across the continent. No question he learned from these men. "THERE IS CONFLICTING INFORMATION ON THIS?" On what planet? vpw meets JE Stiles. vpw buys JE Stiles' books. vpw "writes" a book that uses IDENTICAL PHRASEOLOGY as Stiles' book-even when Stiles' vocabulary diverges RADICALLY from that of vpw's-using Stiles' ideas and his actual words. vpw is told about EW Bullinger's books. vpw buys every book Bullinger ever wrote. vpw "writes" books that contain entire chapters and subjects straight from Bullinger's books. vpw takes Leonard's class. vpw then goes out and teaches "his" class that contains a compilation of Leonard's class, Bullinger's book and Stiles' book. There is nothing that can argue AGAINST this. It's not impossible to "IMAGINE" all sorts of things-like God giving him the books by dictation or Jesus teaching from the Orange Book. However, even you admit that it is irrefutable he learned from those men. What possible reason could we have that he learned from those men (they were "scattered across the continent?" They were together and something split them apart?) THEN to go out and learn this for the first time from God? The only CONFLICTING INFORMATION is a desire to claim there were things he did NOT learn from the original writers.

Actually, it contradicts his claim. Had vpw been prepared to give proper written acknowledgement to other mens' ideas AND WRITINGS in his books, he would have been HONEST, thus obeying the laws of the US, showing proper respect to other men of God, and shown respect to his audience by telling them the truth in a truthful way. HOWEVER, if he HAD done so, he would NOT have been able to say "only God and I knew all this because I'm special". He would have been able to put for that he was A teacher, but not that he was THE TEACHER.

Oh. My. God. You're ACTUALLY promulgating "the 1942 promise." That's the thing where vpw claimed to be sitting in his office... "And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others." "Well, on the day God spoke to me, I couldn't believe it. But then I came to the point by the next day where I said to myself- maybe it's true. So the next day I talked to God again. I said, 'Lord, if it's really true what you said to me yesterday, if that was really you talking to me, you've got to give me a sign so that I really know, so that I can believe.' The sky was crystal blue and clear. Not a cloud in sight. It was a beautiful early autumn day. I said 'If that was really you, and you meant what you said, give me a sign. Let me see it snow.' My eyes were tightly shut as I prayed. And then I opened them. The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling station on the corner not 75 feet away." So, supposedly, according to you, then, God gave vpw a snowstorm-either actual or a vision. Weather reports confirm there was no actual snowstorm. Supposedly, according to you, then, God taught vpw God's Word like it had not been known since the First Century AD, if vpw would teach it to others. vpw then taught it to others. In the first century AD, there were no printing presses, What was known was the spoken word and the Old Testament. There was no unified vision of things, as Acts clearly shows, and as the Epistles show. (Why rebuke division if there is no division?) So, "as it was known in the First Century" is a cute concept which is a convenient FICTION. In the first century AD, 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, etc. Where they found a haven, they stayed and taught. (Like a short time at the School of Tyrannus.) They were hardly an "organized" bunch, definitely not centralized. If they saw a need in another city's Christians, someone passed the hat around, and they sent money. Compare them to twi. Everything centrally organized. Everything centrally controlled. Everything STANDARDIZED-everyone took the same classes. 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. So, the idea that vpw's work in any way RESEMBLED the First-Century Christian church is a pipe-dream. Everything vpw taught was ALREADY being taught at the time he "learned" it. Supposedly, GOD would teach him "like it hadn't been known since..." but it was ALREADY KNOWN! So, THAT part was a fiction. vpw's "GOD" should have known better. vpw learned all this from other people's works, not by studying the Bible himself, and NOT from the utterance of God. So, the entire basis of this claim is false. So, the supposed basis of authority of twi was the supposed vision that the supposed man of God vpw claimed to receive. This vision was either completely made up by vpw, or was received from a source OTHER than God, who would know better. So, your own statement- that God taught him like nobody knew since the First Century by way of other people- contains an internal contradiction. If it was already known, the promise is a lie. If it was NOT already known, then there would be NO other people to learn this from. As it was, extensive evidence has shown that vpw read the works of other Christian writers, then supposedly claimed he learned them from God and nobody knew them.

We discussed this before, Shaz. :)--> vpw said Those of you who want the page numbers or a fuller quotation can look at my EARLIER posts in this same thread. (Nobody accuse me of leaving that out this time-I'm announcing that you can scroll up for that.) WordWolf (me!) said the following once on that same subject Shaz just brought up. Someone suggested that "professional academic journals are often rather thin. I think a thousand volumes of them can easily fit into a small closet." This would assume that the overwhelming majority of the 3000 books would be "professional academic journals". Someone also said "I've noticed that often people buy entire personal libraries at a time at auctions, or are given libraries of elderly or deceased scholars." This would assume that either A) vpw found one or more auctions of personal libraries of professional academic journals and purchased 3000 books at one or more auctions or B) one or more persons donated to vpw entire academic libraries of professional academic journals, 3000 books' worth of them, or almost 3,000- and yet a feat of philanthropy this remarkable was HIDDEN by vpw all these years, that he felt it was not worthy of mention by description, that the donor or source should remain entirely anonymous. Therefore, since vpw had the opportunity to do so, this means either: A) vpw acquired nearly 3000 books by auction or donation, and those sources had THOUSANDS of professional academic journals SPECIFICALLY on the Bible or Theology AND vpw decided to HIDE the specifics of this or B) vpw had access to storage space that exceeds the conventional views of time and space as understood by all Americans to this day, possibly by quantum tunnelling the books to some other planet AND he NEVER divulged a word of this to ANY of his students or anyone else, letting these wizard-like secrets vanish with his death AND never using them for anything else but books or C) vpw lied thru his teeth all his life about this. Occam's Razor would suggest that B) should be dismissed, and A) considered the longshot, and C) is correct- especially since he was a proven liar, such as about his miraculous Tulsa snowstorm (which never happened) and the angel-on-the-phone that kept him from leaving town- so he has a HISTORY of lying intentionally. In all fairness, I thought the opposing point of view should be mentioned, since it came up. As you can see, however, it was hardly an unassailable argument.

As posted previously, John Juedes wrote the following on this subject. Dr John Juedes, 2000.

Welcome, jkboehme. I'm sorry to say, your recommendations, useful though they may be for other threads on other topics, will NOT be particularly useful here. The subject here is PLAGIARISM, most specifically, plagiarism from Bullinger for ADAN. This is NOT a thread to discuss the accuracy of DOCTRINE-that would go in the DOCTRINAL forum. If you want to debate the accuracy of dispensationalism, that would be the forum to do so. (If you want to just declare it, there's no forum for that-all posts are subject to discussion within the bounds of good taste-and often beyond that.) I'm not saying this post made such a declaration, but that WAS the direction you were going. If you wish to keep going there, please use that forum. (All your recommendations were for books attacking dispensationalism.) Furthermore, I'd recommend anyone studying up on dispensationalism OR Darby to skip any books by MacPherson. MacPherson has a personal axe to gring on dispensationalism, and considers that doctrine to have been responsible for his father's firing from his job and his death. (No, I'm not exaggerating.) He's gone out of his way to use all tactics available to him-including outright lies-to support his attacks on dispensationalism- which he confines to attacks on Darby. I don't trust him as a reliable source on data. Finally, it is MUCH more relevant to this discussion-which you are welcome to continue to participate in-to review more obvious examples of vpw's plagiarism: http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stolenrthst.htm http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stiles.htm are two good places to start.

Power for Abundant Living, Pages 119-120. "For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I used to read 2 or 3 theological works weekly for month after month and year after year. I knew what Professor so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3,000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word-its integrity, its meaning, its words. Why do we study? Because God expects us as workmen to know what His Word says." From The White Book's preface. "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove." You can read the entire preface if you want, but that was the only part directly germane. The rest of it underscores this, as he claims that all the Christians he'd encountered in schools, seminaries, etc all lacked The Truth as he later found it once he eliminated all outside sources.