Raf

Of course, some nonsense should never be plagiarized... I guess Leonard believes Hitler should have stopped at 3 million Jews. I don't know. Hitler: God's Avenger. Sick.

"Officially," I was in for less than a year (the period between the time I took the class to the time I made for the door was 11 months). Unofficially, I studied for about two and a half years before bolting. From my first "twig" to the time I left was about 13 months. After that, was in an offshoot for about 9 years.

Linda Z, Your point should be made repeatedly. It's not one I've tried to ignore, but I'm always glad to hear it stated, and glad to state it: The issue of plagiarism being established, the real question becomes, "what does this do to the quality of that which is taught?" The accuracy (or inaccuracy) of what was taught exists independently of whether someone else deserves credit for the words, phrases or paragraphs. I could look at the phrase: "The Word of God is the Will of God," and approach it several ways. I could say, "that was a favorite expression of Wierwille's." I could say, "Wierwille copied that expression from Leonard." Or I could say "that's a true statement." None of those statements are wrong (in my opinion). I would be right, regardless of how I approached that phrase. But each approach serves a different purpose. And the purpose of appreciating the wisdom of the Bible is best served by the last approach, "that is a true statement." It is true regardless of the fact that Wierwille said it. It is true regardless of the fact that Leonard said it first. Thanks for the reminder. Raf

I think I knew you knew I knew that. Plagiarized, of course, from the Honeymooners.

So Dot, what you're saying is, VPW put something in the brownies. It would explain all the invisible snowstorms.

Don't tell me I have to start an Actual Errors in the works of BG Leonard thread. :P-->

Oldiesman, Take your time. I'm sure if you approach this with an open heart, you'll find that there's more bathwater than you anticipated, but by God's grace, there's plenty of baby too. Goey, Good point. I was referring, of course, to Wierwille's internal consistency, not to objective reality. I was only trying to come up with Wierwille's possible justification of plagiarism: "it's not plagiarism if I add a word, delete a word, or change a word." Yes it is.

You guys are missing the point here: If you change a Word of God's Word, then you no longer have God's Word, right? So by the same token, if you add a word, delete a word, or change a word of the word of man, you no longer have that man's word, right? So Oldiesman can look at the section I quoted and see no evidence of plagiarism because there are sufficient "differences," never mind the blatant similarities. That's why I challenge Oldiesman to re-think his definition of plagiarism, because (I believe) it is based on a false standard making plagiarism just about impossible to commit. Wierwille plagiarized Leonard. Period. It's not even arguable, unless your definition of plagiarism is so permissive that the only way it can be committed is with carbon paper and a typewriter.

I'll get to the rest tonight, unless Dot wants to post them now.

Don't you just love it? The only thing missing was an early October invisible snowstorm. Then later on, he hears God tell him, "Write." Riiiiiight. :)-->

It's my personal belief that even the much commented on "promise of 1942" was a variation on tale told by Leonard. I'll be happy to post the Leonard account later.

Oldies, Actually, this was the subject of our last conversation before your GS hiatus. It is NOT the existence of DISsimilarities that disprove plagiarism. It is the EXISTENCE of SIMILARITIES that proves it. Note that I said "If you see no evidence of plagiarism..." Do you honestly see no evidence of plagiarism? None? Then i have to disagree with you. I suggest you review your definition of plagiarism. For example, let's take your paragraph above: Now, I change it to the following: In my paragraph, I have changed quite a few important items compared to your paragraph. I have still committed plagiarism. If you still disagree, then our disagreement is simply over the definition of plagiarism. I'll just leave it at that.

Please compare to RTHST, pgs. 145-148. If you honestly see no evidence of plagiarism, then I submit you are in denial. More later. It's late, and I'm tired.

Ya-hoooooo! Happy birthday buddy!

For me, the question of whether VPW plagiarized was settled ages ago. Of course he did. The only question is, what do we do about it? What difference does it make? Why is it important? If we're evaluating the man and his ministry, it's relevant. If we're evaluating the content, then it's not. The answer to question 8 in the RTHST book doesn't become any more or less valid just because it was an obvious ripoff of JE Stiles. The difference between believing and mental assent exists independently of the fact that Wierwille quoted Kenyon on the subject without attribution. The content should be evaluated on its own merits; the source should only be evaluated when one considers the intellectual dishonesty of the person presenting it.

FYI, I have sent this review along to about three dozen people. I can't even say it with a straight face. "A craptacular crapfest of crappy crap!" Let's see them put THAT on a movie poster.

We should also note that although it was published separately (foolishly), JCING DOES have a bibliography, which would almost by definition negate charges of plagiarism (especially if you're relying on a definition that's not so strict). Publishing the bibliography separately was one of TWI's most perplexing moves.

Perhaps when I get home I can post Wierwille's definitions of the manifestations side by side with Leonard's definitions of the gifts of the spirit. But anyway, that's a bit different from JCING.

Wierwille was far from the first person to come up with the notion that Jesus Christ is a perfect man whose existence began at birth. If you go to Biblical Unitarians, you should be able to find evidence that other groups did teach the same thing. Of course, teaching the same thing is not plagiarism. If I may be allowed to speculate: Wierwille's first major challenge on the Trinity came not from Biblical study, but from the unusual position of BG Leonard, who taught that Jesus Christ was not God, but that God basically took over (so to speak) Jesus Christ during his ministry. Thus, when Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am," that was God talking. But when Jesus said "My father is greater than I," that was Jesus Christ talking. Confused? Yeah, so was Wierwille, I'm betting. The prospect of a distinction between Christ and God being new to him, I believe Wierwille began his walk away from the Trinity after encountering Leonard's doctrine on the subject. Ultimately, Wierwille and Leonard did not agree. But there's evidence that Leonard started Wierwille down the path. As for plagiarism in JCING, I see a little (not a lot) of evidence. The wording of the idea of God fertilizing an egg in Mary's womb comes from Leonard. So does the "formed, made, created" paradigm and the circular definition "a substance is required of which the thing made consists." Interesting question.

Aww, go ahead. The Word of Karl is the Will of Karl.

The Word of God is the Will of God. "a substance is required of which the thing made consists." "faith blasters who go about making statements which have no foundation in scripture." I have not quoted Victor Paul Wierwille in this post.

Insurgent: You won a convert. :)--> Raf

I forgot about Ghost Story and What Lies Beneath. I agree, they're great spooky movies.

Please don't hate us, excy. We don't mean to scare you. Everyone will suffer...

"Make them go away." "I'm trying." "Are you mad? I am your daughter." And of course... All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.