In der vey living in lust, I remember old "doc" telling Elena about the early years, how he burned the "junk", went to the verd, and shared with Dr. Higgins. She read Bullinger. "Wow, you teach like he wrote". vics answer was of not much substance than "aww, tweren't nuthin.."
He claimed to have independantly come up with the same material before Higgins shared Bullinger with him.
"VPW never once claimed that he came up with all of this on his own. I heard a teaching from Emporia once where he spent the first 30 minutes or so just rattling off names of different people who shared and taught him different things."
IN the PFAL Class, VP claimed that God told VP that God would teach VP the word like it hadn't been known since the first century church--implication it has not been known, no one knows it the way God was going to teach VP as long as VP taught it to others --implication VP had a ministry ordained by God, VP has God's authority to teach this as God taught it--implication VP is not receiving what he learned from MEN but rather from GOD
VP said in the PFAL class that God spoke to him audibly just as he was speaking to us on the film.
Insert mini snow squall here
Then VP talked about some doctor calling VP late at night at VP's office and they would ask him, "SO WHAT DID GOD TEACH YOU TODAY?" Notice, they did not ask what he learned, what he read, what he researched but the question was to substaniate the claim that VP made that what he was learning he learned from God as God taught him.
It was an Apostle Paul assertion, I never received the gospel from man nor was I taught it, but by the revelation of...
VP made that same claim in Power for Abundant Living, he got it by revelation.
Anything else he may have said afterwards to inner circles, or to corps or whatever was damage control. DAMAGE CONTROL.
Notice, while the PFAL class was in use, those claims made by VP were never removed NOR clarified. VP wanted it to remain, it gave creedence to his ministry to set it apart from any other ministry; it had God's stamp of approval on what VP was teaching.
If VP was soooooooooo concerned about everyone lauding him too highly, as many here would like to believe that it was the believers who elevated VP too highly and it corrupted VP....VP could have removed that segment of God told me He would teach me like it had not been known if I would teach others in the PFAL class, but he didn't, he just did some minor damage control afterwards as certain facts came to light but he left what he said in PFAL because it accomplished his purpose of being the MOG.
I'm tired of trying to establish the obvious to MOG-worshippers who refuse to open their eyes. If you want to say "so what," then say it. But to deny what Wierwille did is to go from lack of concern to lack of discernment.
P.S. Full Circle, look a little more carefully at Mr. P's post. You directed your comment to the wrong person. :)
First, let me apologize. That post of mine wasn't a post. It was a puke. I just need to relax, take a valium or something. Will post more later. But lone Wolf, if you're as reasonable as you appear, then my post was uncalled for and I'm sorry. I'm going to go wash my mouth out with soap now. :)
It's been a long time, but I recall VP stating that he didn't originate much of what he taught, EXCEPT- his research in the holy spirit field.
Of course, this just makes everything else he teaches that much more important, because it is now corraborated by God, who is teaching Vic the Word as it has not been known from the first century.
All of the stuff he 'borrowed' was good-pieces to the puzzle that he is now putting together. But his teaching was 'best', because of the spirit (Spirit?) working with in him.
No one had it right until him. Even those leading people to tongues couldn't explain it or teach it like VP.
Of all the times I heard vp mention other authors and what they wrote, it was always done in such a way as to compliment vp in comparison, or some how make it sound as if they were argeeing with vp's researcch/ideas. His ego knew no bounds. If he couldn't get around the fact that someone else said/wrote something profound before him, he would change a bit here, or a bit there, and restate it as if his version was most correct and the other was "oh, so close". That's why I don't trust ANYTHING the man taught. His way of twisting truth was so disguised that few could see it for what it was. His "widom" about life, in general, to me, is suspect, too.
His motivations were totally selfish and self-serving, but he hid them behind words that he knew we would swallow, hook, line and sinker. He was a master manipulator...both of people AND of the ideas of others'.
In all sincerity, please help me to understand why this is such an issue?
If the guy was worried about being exposed as a plagiarist, why would he speak of B.G. Leonard and his class? Wouldn't he try to hide that so no one could compare the two? I realize there was some missing notes in the bibliography on some of his works. Some people who should have had a note mentioning them didn't get it, and I'm not sure why. There were plenty of people that he did mention.
Same goes with Bullinger. How to Enjoy the Bible was required reading for the Way Corp. Don't you think people were going to read that and say, "Hey, that's exactly what VPW wrote!". VPW was always quoting Bullinger and spoke on many occasions about where he learned all of his information from. It's obvious he wasn't trying to hide anything otherwise having people read from the same books you "stole" your class from would be foolish indeed...
Personally, I think he knew what he was doing whenever he’d speak of any of these people. Perhaps to give the public the appearance of honesty – as if he had nothing to hide. And maybe – if a person keeps saying the same lie repeatedly they’ll start believing it themselves. In order for a salesman to effectively sell his product he’s got to be sold on it himself…And Listener brought up a good point about VPW elevating himself by belittling what the REAL authors accomplished. I remember at PFAL 77 VPW criticized Bullinger – saying something to the effect that Bullinger would sometimes squeeze the Bible so hard he’d have error run out his fingers. Perhaps that can be interpreted to mean Bullinger analyzed the Bible a little too much where it didn’t agree with VPW’s doctrine in some areas.
To my way of thinking, and I've run out of patience for disagreement on this, sorry, there are only two approaches to VPW's plagiarism:
1. He did it and it affects my opinion of him with regard to his honesty and integrity.
OR
2. He did it and I don't care because the content is more important than the source (the God-told-him-to-plagiarize-because-it-was-HIS-word crowd falls into this category).
Any viewpoint that starts with "he didn't plagiarize" stems from ignorance or denial, for the fact of his plagiarism is as indisputable as the fact of my present ability to breathe.
The single most explicit example of plagiarism that I have found in VPW's writing is in RTHST, the chapter with frequently asked questions (I forget the title of the chapter). His Question 8 and the answer are so close to JE Stiles Question 8 and answer that the plagiarism is simply inescapable. I doubt very highly that Wierwille ever referred to anyone as a "faith blaster" for believing one could receive a "false tongue." It's just not a term Wierwille would use. It's inconsistent with his presentation on faith and believing: he would have referred to those people as "believing blasters." Yet there it is, Wierwille calling those people the exact same thing Stiles called such people!
Hmm... and look around at the context. Stiles says: "When people ask that question, we know that they have somewhere come in contact with one of these 'faith blasters' who go about making statements which have no foundation in Scripture."
While Wierwille says: "When people ask that question, I know that they have somewhere come in contact with one of these faith blasters who go about making statements which have no foundation in Scripture."
Wierwille didn't even have the decency to fix Stiles's bad grammar (it should be "statements that," not "statements which").
There is a big difference between two people teaching the same thing and one person lifting another's words. Yes, there is such a thing as accidental plagiarism, where you forget you read something somewhere and you write it down as though you yourself just had a brilliant thought, not remembering its source. Wierwille's plagiarism was far too rampant to dismiss on this basis. He plagiarized routinely. I spotted one chapter in Order My Steps In Thy Word in which Wierwille flagrantly plagiarizes E.W. Kenyon, then properly cites Kenyon for a very lengthy quote.
I would refer to Wierwille as a reckless plagiarist. He did it so routinely that it didn't matter to him that the words "By Victor Paul Wierwille" on the covers of his books were meaningless. JCOPS, JCING and JCOP all proved that Wierwille could cite his sources and not ruin the flow of his books or cause confusion for his readers. His other books all proved that he either didn't care or deliberately chose to take credit for the observations and conclusions of other writers. I think there were clear instances of both (deliberate choice with regards to Bullinger, reckless disregard with regards to much of Kenyon).
If this influences your opinion of Wierwille as a teacher and as a walking Christian, so be it.
If you couldn't care less, I can't make you care, so, so be it.
But if you can honestly look me in the eye and tell me this man was not a plagiarist, the only thing you've done is prove to me that you are ignorant to the meaning of plagiarism or in intentional denial about your hero's infraction. It ain't a matter of whether or not he plagiarized. It's only a matter of whether or not you care.
There is a big difference between two people teaching the same thing and one person lifting another's words.
You are correct. It's just, well, it's mystifying. Why go through all the work of composing a book as thick as JCOP and not take a moment and phrase things you have learned from others in your own words or if you can't because they coined a great statement, just cite them and give them credit. The guy was educated, much more than I. I have a hard time believing he couldn't do that. It is disappointing.
You are correct. It's just, well, it's mystifying. Why go through all the work of composing a book as thick as JCOP and not take a moment and phrase things you have learned from others in your own words or if you can't because they coined a great statement, just cite them and give them credit. The guy was educated, much more than I. I have a hard time believing he couldn't do that. It is disappointing.
Lone Wolf
Bingo!...Disappointing is an understatement.
If I were so inclined to steal someone else's work, I would at least put it in my own words and create "plausible deniability"...but Wierwille was apparently so smug...so arrogant...so lazy...so dishonest...that he wrote it down word for word!
What does this tell us?...It tells us that he had no regard for honest research, no respect for the men that had put this together...no respect for US who "followed" him. He must have thought "These dumb kids will never know the difference".
The guy deserves all the criticism that he gets...What was he doing for all those years that he claimed to be "working the word"?...My guess is that he was getting drunk and chasing skirts. Biblical research?...he didn't know the meaning of the word.
If I were so inclined to steal someone else's work, I would at least put it in my own words and create "plausible deniability"...but Wierwille was apparently so smug...so arrogant...so lazy...so dishonest...that he wrote it down word for word!
What does this tell us?...It tells us that he had no regard for honest research, no respect for the men that had put this together...no respect for US who "followed" him. He must have thought "These dumb kids will never know the difference".
The guy deserves all the criticism that he gets...What was he doing for all those years that he claimed to be "working the word"?...My guess is that he was getting drunk and chasing skirts. Biblical research?...he didn't know the meaning of the word.
Even worst than that Groucho! Wierwille didn't care if any of us ever confronted him. Even if we did he could defame us as being possessed or somehow talk us into doing what is "right for God's people." That ploy had worked so well to cover his arse in other areas of his life.
Whatever he was researching it had nothing to do with God.
Has anyone ever noticed that the main editors were family members and close friends?????
I remember being at Emporia one day in the Library. At the bottom of one of the shelves was a very small little brown book. I picked it up, it was a small book by Bullinger. I forget the name now, it was on Job. I started reading and came across a chapter. I thought, I've read this before, where have I seen it? I realized it was in one of the collaterals. I looked through them, I forget which book, the orange one maybe. Anyway, there was a chapter called, Order My Steps In The Word, something like that. I sat down on my bed and compared them - it was virtually identical, word for word.
I was so disappointed and stunned. I thought, how could he write this and say it was his??? This was written by Bullinger way before VP put it in his book. I didn't really know, or hadn't given much of a though to plagerism, but in my youthful naivete, I was shocked VP could have done something like that.
I wasn't so trusting of him anymore, and started wondering where he got other things from.
A year or so later, at HQ, I was friends with the official Way "Historian." I get this call from her. She was upset. She said VP had just given her a box of old paperwork, and there in the bottom was BG Leonard's original class syllabus from the class VP had taken. She said, you won't believe this, this is the exact syllabus as PFAL - everything, notes, charts - she was also stunned. That's when I told her about the chapter in the collateral.
I know the JC our Promised Seed came originally, from the work an astronomer had done that VP had read on article on him somewhere.
He kept writing books because it made money - they sold like crazy in the bookstore.
I guess my point is, even though I didn't realize the seriousness of plagerism, a little bubble had been burst. I didn't see him as this MOG who had been taught by God since the first century anymore. It was a huge disappointment - he had lied to us. I guess it was a sense of betrayal - what other stuff really wasn't his and was he taking from other people?
Obviously, he hadn't been taught by God personally, he was taking other people's writings and claiming that he had been taught these things by God, and I realized he hadn't been taught by God personally. Kind of downhill from there.
If he could do that, what else was he lying about?
You are correct. It's just, well, it's mystifying. Why go through all the work of composing a book as thick as JCOP and not take a moment and phrase things you have learned from others in your own words or if you can't because they coined a great statement, just cite them and give them credit. The guy was educated, much more than I. I have a hard time believing he couldn't do that. It is disappointing.
Lone Wolf
Can't argue for why. I don't know why. I can speculate: it certainly makes him look better if he wrote all he claimed to write. He slapped his name on the covers of the books. He copyrighted them. He was certainly concerned about taking credit. Why he was not as concerned about properly giving credit is beyond me. The BEST I can say is he was sloppy. The worst? Well, I don't need to judge him. He plagiarized. Period. Does it matter? That's up to the individual.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
16
12
17
Popular Days
Apr 13
44
Apr 9
28
Apr 12
22
Apr 8
21
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 13 posts
Ham 16 posts
FullCircle 12 posts
Bolshevik 17 posts
Popular Days
Apr 13 2007
44 posts
Apr 9 2007
28 posts
Apr 12 2007
22 posts
Apr 8 2007
21 posts
Ham
In der vey living in lust, I remember old "doc" telling Elena about the early years, how he burned the "junk", went to the verd, and shared with Dr. Higgins. She read Bullinger. "Wow, you teach like he wrote". vics answer was of not much substance than "aww, tweren't nuthin.."
He claimed to have independantly come up with the same material before Higgins shared Bullinger with him.
Until Bullinger books starting making the rounds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FullCircle
"VPW never once claimed that he came up with all of this on his own. I heard a teaching from Emporia once where he spent the first 30 minutes or so just rattling off names of different people who shared and taught him different things."
IN the PFAL Class, VP claimed that God told VP that God would teach VP the word like it hadn't been known since the first century church--implication it has not been known, no one knows it the way God was going to teach VP as long as VP taught it to others --implication VP had a ministry ordained by God, VP has God's authority to teach this as God taught it--implication VP is not receiving what he learned from MEN but rather from GOD
VP said in the PFAL class that God spoke to him audibly just as he was speaking to us on the film.
Insert mini snow squall here
Then VP talked about some doctor calling VP late at night at VP's office and they would ask him, "SO WHAT DID GOD TEACH YOU TODAY?" Notice, they did not ask what he learned, what he read, what he researched but the question was to substaniate the claim that VP made that what he was learning he learned from God as God taught him.
It was an Apostle Paul assertion, I never received the gospel from man nor was I taught it, but by the revelation of...
VP made that same claim in Power for Abundant Living, he got it by revelation.
Anything else he may have said afterwards to inner circles, or to corps or whatever was damage control. DAMAGE CONTROL.
Notice, while the PFAL class was in use, those claims made by VP were never removed NOR clarified. VP wanted it to remain, it gave creedence to his ministry to set it apart from any other ministry; it had God's stamp of approval on what VP was teaching.
If VP was soooooooooo concerned about everyone lauding him too highly, as many here would like to believe that it was the believers who elevated VP too highly and it corrupted VP....VP could have removed that segment of God told me He would teach me like it had not been known if I would teach others in the PFAL class, but he didn't, he just did some minor damage control afterwards as certain facts came to light but he left what he said in PFAL because it accomplished his purpose of being the MOG.
Edited by FullCircleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
VPW didn't steal anyone's ideas/words/etc.
The moon is made of green cheese.
The moon landing was a hoax.
Elvis lives.
The Holocaust didn't happen.
The Earth is flat.
Black is white.
Up is down.
I'm tired of trying to establish the obvious to MOG-worshippers who refuse to open their eyes. If you want to say "so what," then say it. But to deny what Wierwille did is to go from lack of concern to lack of discernment.
P.S. Full Circle, look a little more carefully at Mr. P's post. You directed your comment to the wrong person. :)
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Now, now, Raf. One of those on that list just has to be true. I find this one a little more believable:
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
First, let me apologize. That post of mine wasn't a post. It was a puke. I just need to relax, take a valium or something. Will post more later. But lone Wolf, if you're as reasonable as you appear, then my post was uncalled for and I'm sorry. I'm going to go wash my mouth out with soap now. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
It's been a long time, but I recall VP stating that he didn't originate much of what he taught, EXCEPT- his research in the holy spirit field.
Of course, this just makes everything else he teaches that much more important, because it is now corraborated by God, who is teaching Vic the Word as it has not been known from the first century.
All of the stuff he 'borrowed' was good-pieces to the puzzle that he is now putting together. But his teaching was 'best', because of the spirit (Spirit?) working with in him.
No one had it right until him. Even those leading people to tongues couldn't explain it or teach it like VP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FullCircle
ooops sorry Mr. P Mosh
I edited my post accordingly. Forgive Me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
No problem FullCircle...I never even noticed what you said. In either case, my post was pure sarcasm anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
Of all the times I heard vp mention other authors and what they wrote, it was always done in such a way as to compliment vp in comparison, or some how make it sound as if they were argeeing with vp's researcch/ideas. His ego knew no bounds. If he couldn't get around the fact that someone else said/wrote something profound before him, he would change a bit here, or a bit there, and restate it as if his version was most correct and the other was "oh, so close". That's why I don't trust ANYTHING the man taught. His way of twisting truth was so disguised that few could see it for what it was. His "widom" about life, in general, to me, is suspect, too.
His motivations were totally selfish and self-serving, but he hid them behind words that he knew we would swallow, hook, line and sinker. He was a master manipulator...both of people AND of the ideas of others'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
you mean you don't have a saved bound little book of all his "by the way" articles.... snort
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
THIS PAGE SPECIFICALLY shows docvic's and leanord's works side-by-side
should you care to take a look Lone Wolf.
Go to the blue buttton labeled founder v p wierwille and click on that.
Read what's written there. It should answer ALL questions. :)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Personally, I think he knew what he was doing whenever he’d speak of any of these people. Perhaps to give the public the appearance of honesty – as if he had nothing to hide. And maybe – if a person keeps saying the same lie repeatedly they’ll start believing it themselves. In order for a salesman to effectively sell his product he’s got to be sold on it himself…And Listener brought up a good point about VPW elevating himself by belittling what the REAL authors accomplished. I remember at PFAL 77 VPW criticized Bullinger – saying something to the effect that Bullinger would sometimes squeeze the Bible so hard he’d have error run out his fingers. Perhaps that can be interpreted to mean Bullinger analyzed the Bible a little too much where it didn’t agree with VPW’s doctrine in some areas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
To my way of thinking, and I've run out of patience for disagreement on this, sorry, there are only two approaches to VPW's plagiarism:
1. He did it and it affects my opinion of him with regard to his honesty and integrity.
OR
2. He did it and I don't care because the content is more important than the source (the God-told-him-to-plagiarize-because-it-was-HIS-word crowd falls into this category).
Any viewpoint that starts with "he didn't plagiarize" stems from ignorance or denial, for the fact of his plagiarism is as indisputable as the fact of my present ability to breathe.
The single most explicit example of plagiarism that I have found in VPW's writing is in RTHST, the chapter with frequently asked questions (I forget the title of the chapter). His Question 8 and the answer are so close to JE Stiles Question 8 and answer that the plagiarism is simply inescapable. I doubt very highly that Wierwille ever referred to anyone as a "faith blaster" for believing one could receive a "false tongue." It's just not a term Wierwille would use. It's inconsistent with his presentation on faith and believing: he would have referred to those people as "believing blasters." Yet there it is, Wierwille calling those people the exact same thing Stiles called such people!
Hmm... and look around at the context. Stiles says: "When people ask that question, we know that they have somewhere come in contact with one of these 'faith blasters' who go about making statements which have no foundation in Scripture."
While Wierwille says: "When people ask that question, I know that they have somewhere come in contact with one of these faith blasters who go about making statements which have no foundation in Scripture."
Wierwille didn't even have the decency to fix Stiles's bad grammar (it should be "statements that," not "statements which").
There is a big difference between two people teaching the same thing and one person lifting another's words. Yes, there is such a thing as accidental plagiarism, where you forget you read something somewhere and you write it down as though you yourself just had a brilliant thought, not remembering its source. Wierwille's plagiarism was far too rampant to dismiss on this basis. He plagiarized routinely. I spotted one chapter in Order My Steps In Thy Word in which Wierwille flagrantly plagiarizes E.W. Kenyon, then properly cites Kenyon for a very lengthy quote.
I would refer to Wierwille as a reckless plagiarist. He did it so routinely that it didn't matter to him that the words "By Victor Paul Wierwille" on the covers of his books were meaningless. JCOPS, JCING and JCOP all proved that Wierwille could cite his sources and not ruin the flow of his books or cause confusion for his readers. His other books all proved that he either didn't care or deliberately chose to take credit for the observations and conclusions of other writers. I think there were clear instances of both (deliberate choice with regards to Bullinger, reckless disregard with regards to much of Kenyon).
If this influences your opinion of Wierwille as a teacher and as a walking Christian, so be it.
If you couldn't care less, I can't make you care, so, so be it.
But if you can honestly look me in the eye and tell me this man was not a plagiarist, the only thing you've done is prove to me that you are ignorant to the meaning of plagiarism or in intentional denial about your hero's infraction. It ain't a matter of whether or not he plagiarized. It's only a matter of whether or not you care.
IMHO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
You are correct. It's just, well, it's mystifying. Why go through all the work of composing a book as thick as JCOP and not take a moment and phrase things you have learned from others in your own words or if you can't because they coined a great statement, just cite them and give them credit. The guy was educated, much more than I. I have a hard time believing he couldn't do that. It is disappointing.
Lone Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Bingo!...Disappointing is an understatement.
If I were so inclined to steal someone else's work, I would at least put it in my own words and create "plausible deniability"...but Wierwille was apparently so smug...so arrogant...so lazy...so dishonest...that he wrote it down word for word!
What does this tell us?...It tells us that he had no regard for honest research, no respect for the men that had put this together...no respect for US who "followed" him. He must have thought "These dumb kids will never know the difference".
The guy deserves all the criticism that he gets...What was he doing for all those years that he claimed to be "working the word"?...My guess is that he was getting drunk and chasing skirts. Biblical research?...he didn't know the meaning of the word.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Even worst than that Groucho! Wierwille didn't care if any of us ever confronted him. Even if we did he could defame us as being possessed or somehow talk us into doing what is "right for God's people." That ploy had worked so well to cover his arse in other areas of his life.
Whatever he was researching it had nothing to do with God.
Has anyone ever noticed that the main editors were family members and close friends?????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Good point Doojiewoogie...
He had a bunch of arse kissing friends and relatives that edited the whole shebang! Wonder if THEY knew what a freaking phoney he was?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Do bears poop in the woods.....?
Hey, I like that nickname!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
there is nothing mystifying about being a crook
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I remember being at Emporia one day in the Library. At the bottom of one of the shelves was a very small little brown book. I picked it up, it was a small book by Bullinger. I forget the name now, it was on Job. I started reading and came across a chapter. I thought, I've read this before, where have I seen it? I realized it was in one of the collaterals. I looked through them, I forget which book, the orange one maybe. Anyway, there was a chapter called, Order My Steps In The Word, something like that. I sat down on my bed and compared them - it was virtually identical, word for word.
I was so disappointed and stunned. I thought, how could he write this and say it was his??? This was written by Bullinger way before VP put it in his book. I didn't really know, or hadn't given much of a though to plagerism, but in my youthful naivete, I was shocked VP could have done something like that.
I wasn't so trusting of him anymore, and started wondering where he got other things from.
A year or so later, at HQ, I was friends with the official Way "Historian." I get this call from her. She was upset. She said VP had just given her a box of old paperwork, and there in the bottom was BG Leonard's original class syllabus from the class VP had taken. She said, you won't believe this, this is the exact syllabus as PFAL - everything, notes, charts - she was also stunned. That's when I told her about the chapter in the collateral.
I know the JC our Promised Seed came originally, from the work an astronomer had done that VP had read on article on him somewhere.
He kept writing books because it made money - they sold like crazy in the bookstore.
I guess my point is, even though I didn't realize the seriousness of plagerism, a little bubble had been burst. I didn't see him as this MOG who had been taught by God since the first century anymore. It was a huge disappointment - he had lied to us. I guess it was a sense of betrayal - what other stuff really wasn't his and was he taking from other people?
Obviously, he hadn't been taught by God personally, he was taking other people's writings and claiming that he had been taught these things by God, and I realized he hadn't been taught by God personally. Kind of downhill from there.
If he could do that, what else was he lying about?
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
And the excuse I heard later from others....
"Why re-invent the wheel?"
Harumppppfffffff!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Can't argue for why. I don't know why. I can speculate: it certainly makes him look better if he wrote all he claimed to write. He slapped his name on the covers of the books. He copyrighted them. He was certainly concerned about taking credit. Why he was not as concerned about properly giving credit is beyond me. The BEST I can say is he was sloppy. The worst? Well, I don't need to judge him. He plagiarized. Period. Does it matter? That's up to the individual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
said it once
most of have
i'll say it again
plain and simple cornfield thief
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.