J.E. Stiles The Gift of the Holy Spirit book

[Tom Strange]

Our Southern Belle posed the proper question... that being said,

Exaggerating??? here, I looked this up for you on dictionary.com:

ex·ag·ger·ate /ɪgˈzædʒəˌreɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ig-zaj-uh-reyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -at·ed, -at·ing.

–verb (used with object) 1. to magnify beyond the limits of truth; overstate; represent disproportionately: to exaggerate the difficulties of a situation.

2. to increase or enlarge abnormally: Those shoes exaggerate the size of my feet.

–verb (used without object)

I hardly think that any of that has been done... when entire chapters... even entire classes... were copied/stolen almost word for word.

HERE'S A DIFFERENT DEFINITION FOR YOU OLDIES:

de·ni·al /dɪˈnaɪəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-nahy-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false: Despite his denials, we knew he had taken the purse. The politician issued a denial of his opponent's charges.

2. refusal to believe a doctrine, theory, or the like.

3. disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing.

4. the refusal to satisfy a claim, request, desire, etc., or the refusal of a person making it.

5. refusal to recognize or acknowledge; a disowning or disavowal: the traitor's denial of his country; Peter's denial of Christ.

6. Law. refusal to acknowledge the validity of a claim, suit, or the like; a plea that denies allegations of fact in an adversary's plea: Although she sued for libel, he entered a general denial.

7. sacrifice of one's own wants or needs; self-denial.

8. Psychology. an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable.

[oldiesman]

I stand by my statement.

If anyone can prove that there's as much as 5% "word for word" lifting (I think the figure is probably closer to less than 1%, but I could be wrong), then I will retract my statement that you are exaggerating.

What is proof?

Written texts compared one to the other.

When one makes accusations of the nature you are making, you really do need written proof.

You can't expect folks to believe you otherwise.

Edited January 16, 2007 by oldiesman

[Danny]

And Oldies how do you come up with 5%.

What is your proof?

I think it's a big step for you to admit he stole their work.

[Belle]

Word for Word - I don't know the percentage because it's debatable that ANY thing vee pee put his name to was his own work. We know that what he didn't directly copy word for word, he edited just enough so that it wasn't word for word while for other things, he took what folks in the research department wrote and put his name on it. There are a few of those folks posting on here, but I'll let them post about it if they want to.

Furthermore, there is a 50-page book that documents the plaigarism side by side: Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?

Stolen Goods

Wierwille Borrows

Wierwille - A Great Author?

Charges that "the Master teacher" V.P. Wierwille plagiarized large sections of other authors' books also occupy many conversations. This writer published the first examples in 1980, showing that in his Receiving the Holy Spirit Today Wierwille plagiarized sections of E.W. Bullinger's The Giver and His Gifts.[1]By 1987 Jay Valusek and I had also published excerpts showing Wierwille had plagiarized portions of The Gift of the Holy Spirit by J.E. Stiles, The Father and His Family by E.W. Kenyon, and Selected Writings, The Church Epistles, The Mystery, How to Enjoy the Bible, and Figures of Speech Used in the Bible by Bullinger.[2]

Recently, more examples have been uncovered, including (but not limited to) Wierwille's use of:

- Bullinger in his University of Life course on Thessalonians.

- B.G. Leonard's The Gifts of the Spirit in his Receiving the Holy Spirit Today and the Intermediate and Advanced Power for Abundant Living courses.

- Oral Roberts's The Red Thread in his Lifestyle of God's Word.

In addition, anyone who is well-acquainted with Wierwille's writings and reads Kenyon's and Bullinger's books is struck by the close parallels, even though one cannot always trace exact word-for-word plagiarism.

Many people follow Wierwille in part because they were impressed by his claim that he took over 3,000 books on theology to the city dump[3] and resolved to study the Bible alone without men's teachings.[4] Although Wierwille sometimes said he learned from others, he often explicitly claimed originality. He cultivated an image of being an original Bible researcher and his followers have seen him as such. It has now become apparent to many of them that Wierwille was instead an eclectic plagiarist.

Almost every one of Wierwille's teachings can be traced to other sources (see sidebar for descriptions of some of Wierwille's teachings). Wierwille's writings on the topics of interpreting the Bible, soul sleep, the distinction of impersonal holy spirit from the Holy Spirit, ultradispensationalism, gospel harmony, and "the mystery" are all drawn from Bullinger.

CRI Journal

I'd wager that less than 5% of anything that came out with vee pee's name on it was original to him.

Edited January 16, 2007 by Belle

[oldiesman]

And Oldies how do you come up with 5%.

What is your proof?

I think it's a big step for you to admit he stole their work.

Well if some posters would just carefully read what I type, they may understand what I've suggested.

Of course there are some sentences and paragraphs that were plagiarized. That's obvious.

What I question and still do is the "intent" to lie and steal.

I think that is much more difficult to prove.

But I have no idea about 5%... that was just a wild guess. I suspect its a lot less.

[Belle]

The man hardly wrote an original thought in his life and you want to argue whether he INTENDED to steal from others?? Yeah, he accidentally copied these men... that's the ticket.

Here we will show that nearly every section of RTHST was stolen from Stiles and Bullinger. RTHST is heavily based on the content, wording, structure, terms and general conclusions of these authors. In fact, Wierwille included every section of Bullinger's book into RTHST in some form, and most every chapter of Stiles is represented as well. If Wierwille had never plagiarized Bullinger and Stiles, his "book" RTHST would be hardly the length of a magazine article.

RHST - Side by Side Comparison

[Tom Strange]

If you look closely, you can see OldiesMan on the deck of this cruise ship... as it sails on da nile...

[Ham]

It must have been a cold, blustery August day, the snow had not yet settled upon the pumps.

VP was on his way to the dump with his "useless" documents, the gehenna, where the fires never cease. and he just HAPPENED to trip as he walked by a newfangled Xerox copier..

The wind and snow started to maddeningly whirl about- grasping the books of the MOG to be- lighting struck, hail.. sheep, cows and pigs, barns and gas pumps were swept up into the developing malestrom..

The xerox machine chewed relentlessly upon the swirling mass of debris..

and MIRACULOUSLY, the storm quit as soon as it started. There at vp's feet lay the foundation upon which to build his "ministry"..

Edited January 16, 2007 by Mr. Hammeroni

[oldiesman]

Belle I will examine your links.

But not now. Having too much fun on da nile.

[Tom Strange]

But not now. Having too much fun on da nile.

Don't forget the sunblock brother!

[WordWolf]

Well if some posters would just carefully read what I type, they may understand what I've suggested.

Of course there are some sentences and paragraphs that were plagiarized. That's obvious.

What I question and still do is the "intent" to lie and steal.

I think that is much more difficult to prove.

But I have no idea about 5%... that was just a wild guess. I suspect its a lot less.

I suspect it's at least 5% when it comes to word-for-word plagiarism.

Documentation of his plagiarism abounds, and some of it's linked up the page.

However,

as some people are fond of forgetting,

if you move some of the words around, it is STILL PLAGIARISM.

Plagiarism can be word-for-word, paragraph-for-paragraph, chapter-for-chapter,

concept-for-concept, book-for-book.

Paragraph for paragraph is when the plagiarist takes the original work, restates each

paragraph in his own words, and pretends it's his own work by leaving off any citations,

hoping to deceive and defraud the listener.

Chapter-for-chapter is when he does that with the chapters, so you have 2 books that

handle the same subjects in the same order, using the same concepts and sources,

with the wordings moved around a bit.

It's still fraud and still a crime.

(Same for concept and book.)

==========

As for "what was the intent of the scam artist when he attempted to defraud

the readers", there are only 2 possibilities:

A) He had no idea he was committing a crime, and so there's no malice.

This would now require he have not made it thru a competent high school,

no college, and no grad school, and have no editor.

vpw obviously does not fall in this category.

He heard all about plagiarism in high school, college AND grad school,

and if his doctorate was actually earned, he heard it there too.

(Princeton Theological Seminary, where he earned his Masters,

has never glossed over this crime-it's a respectable learning institution.)

B) He knew he was committing a crime, and chose to do so anyway.

What possible reasons could he have?

Well, there's only one, really-

he intended to deceive his audience as to what was his own work,

to artificially inflate his own talent,

to cheat the REAL authors of their proper credit.

It helped him promote the exclusivity of "his" books and classes-

by denying there is any other source than himself for the material.

Of course, INTENT of a premeditated crime really is not much of an issue-

they considered the situation and elected to commit a crime.

This is hardly along the lines of "I stole food to feed my starving family"-

it's really "I stole to make a product to sell, and to inflate my image".

[oldiesman]

exactly, no exclusive rights. which vpw violated by putting a copyright notice on plagiarized work...

as long as they don't pretend to own it.

And therein lies the problem with the defense mounted by WD and OM.

Interesting little tid-bit here:

My "Are the Dead Alive Now" is from 1971,

it says: "Copyright 1971 by The Devin-Adair Company. All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission of the publisher, The Devin-Adair Co..."

So it appears VPW didn't even own these rights at that time, it was owned by Devin-Adair.

[Danny]

Oldies this is very disturbing.

Are you saying he stole their work?

[Ham]

Here is what the U.S. copyright office says about it:

1. Registration Number: RE-653-041

Title: Are the dead alive now? By aVictor Paul Wierwille.

Claimant: Dorothea K. Wierwille (W)

Effective Registration Date: 20Jul99

Original Registration Date: 29Oct71;

Original Registration Number: A427317.

Original Class: A

looks like the Mrs. holds (or rather, held) the copyright. At least it was renewed as such in 1999.

Edited January 18, 2007 by Mr. Hammeroni

[Raf]

I don't think that's what Oldiesman is saying, Danny.

Devin-Adair is a publishing company. I'm trying to look up info on them and can't really find anything solid (like, say, their own website?).

But this idea of who owned the rights to VP's book is a straw man: Doesn't matter who owned it. He's still the one who committed the plagiarism (assuming there is plagiarism in that particular book, which I never looked into).

[WordWolf]

It's easy to look into SOME of the plagiarism that appears in that book.

It's a combination of 2 of Bullinger's books:

"The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" and

"Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?"

Note that the question format was stolen also.

Now, the former of those books appears here in its entirety:

http://philologos.org/__eb-rml/

(That site also has it available as a PDF.)

[oldiesman]

I don't think that's what Oldiesman is saying, Danny.

Devin-Adair is a publishing company. I'm trying to look up info on them and can't really find anything solid (like, say, their own website?).

But this idea of who owned the rights to VP's book is a straw man: Doesn't matter who owned it. He's still the one who committed the plagiarism (assuming there is plagiarism in that particular book, which I never looked into).

Raffy, that quip wasn't meant as a strawman. It actually was a response to one of your recent statements:

VPW understood enough to put a copyright on his own books. Had he not, I would possibly agree with you.

You would possibly agree had VPW not copyright his books. And I found one, in 1971!

I thought it interesting to find something like that.

But it's not a strawman. Not even a corn stalk.

BTW, your point is well taken.

[oldiesman]

Note that the question format was stolen also.

Wordwolf, you've got to be kidding.

Just because he uses a question format for two of his chapter headings, you say it's a stolen format?

That's ridiculous.

It's stuff like this that leads me to question your conclusions.

There's enough clear stuff without surmising stuff that's not there.

[potato]

Wordwolf, you've got to be kidding.

Just because he uses a question format for two of his chapter headings, you say it's a stolen format?

That's ridiculous.

It's stuff like this that leads me to question your conclusions.

There's enough clear stuff without surmising stuff that's not there.

oldies, that's actually not surmising. both content and format are the author's work. what WW is saying is the theft is so blatant that vpw didn't even bother to try to cover his tracks by changing the format.

which book did you find of vpw's without a copyright notice? and are you sure it came out of twi and wasn't an "illegal" reprint? it wouldn't surprise me to find out people were reprinting vpw's garbage even back then.

[oldiesman]

oldies, that's actually not surmising. both content and format are the author's work. what WW is saying is the theft is so blatant that vpw didn't even bother to try to cover his tracks by changing the format.

which book did you find of vpw's without a copyright notice? and are you sure it came out of twi and wasn't an "illegal" reprint? it wouldn't surprise me to find out people were reprinting vpw's garbage even back then.

This edition was purchased by me from the Way bookstore back in 1973. It's an oldies original!

And what I'm suggesting is that the evil surmising of some against Wierwille is so blatant that he can't even use a question mark in a chapter heading without being thought of as a thief.

I'm so so thankful that I don't think like some of you!

Edited January 19, 2007 by oldiesman

[potato]

And what I'm suggesting is that the evil surmising of some against Wierwille is so blatant that he can't even use a question mark in a chapter heading without being thought of as a thief.

I don't see that. no one is accusing him of stealing a punctuation mark. no one can steal individual characters. that's the dumbest thing I've heard pulled out by his defenders so far.

a question mark is a far cry from paragraphs and chapters.

I used to think like you when I was under the spell of the great MOGs. I'm so glad I don't anymore.

reason is a beautiful thing, especially when it's not clouded by the need to excuse someone's behavior so I can continue to worship them.

[oldiesman]

I don't see that. no one is accusing him of stealing a punctuation mark.

It appears this is precisely what Wordwolf and you are surmising.

He stole a question mark. Or a question format.

The man can't even ask a question without being accused of stealing.

I can't find any chapter heading in "Are the Dead Alive Now" that reads "An Intermediate State"

So it must be the question mark you say is stolen.

BTW, did you actually try to read and compare Bullingers paper to Wierwilles book?

I can't find any chapter heading in Wierwille's book that says "The Rich man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?".

The closest I find is "Lazarus in Abraham's Bosom". Without the question mark.

Maybe he stole the word "Lazarus" too?

Edited January 19, 2007 by oldiesman

[Raf]

He stole a question mark. Or a question format.

The man can't even ask a question without being accused of stealing.

Well, it's clear in Receiving the Holy Spirit Today and in The New Dynamic Church that he did indeed steal the question and answer format, as well as several of the questions and answers.

In and of itself, a Q&A format establishes nothing. However, taken in conjunction with other evidence of plagiarism, it fits the pattern.

As for the notion that someone other than VPW held the copyright, it's irrelevant. It was copyrighted as being "by VPW," when in fact it was other people's work rearranged to provide a semblance of originality.

[oldiesman]

When I see the word for word comparison in question form, then I agree with you.

But I don't see that here.

[Belle]

Then order the book from John Juedes in the links I provided, OM - the side by side comparisons are printed for you to see.