Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Plagiarism on the road to success


Recommended Posts

Here's where the logic falls apart, at least for me.

According to Mike, Wierwille got revelation to assemble things that had already been given by revelation. I'll call this revelation that had already been given the primary revelation and Wierwille's the secondary revelation. We've already demonstrated that the primary revelation contained errors.  Why would secondary revelation be given to use something (the primary revelation) that is known to contain errors? That seems awfully counterproductive, in my opinion.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 551
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just for the record - I’ve mentioned this before - the definition for “hard hitting” as often associated with tough journalists who do their job - is uncompromisingly direct and honest, especially in

Mike, what are you talking about??  I think there is a lot of "good," here at the GSC.  For example, if you go back, and read the threads, many people have revealed the real TWI, not the one in your i

Hey Mike: Don’t flatter yourself with your fantasy that I am your “opponent” in some grand “debate”. I am NOT your opponent. I feel deep sorrow and pity for you, not opposition. I have already to

3 hours ago, Thomas Loy Bumgarner said:

Poor Mikey, his addiction is scripture originally was perfect but sinful human beings purposely decided to pervert them, hence poor translations and not understanding Semetic mid-eastern culture, so radically different than Europe(Greek, Roman, Germanic, and British). Like VPW, he has no knowledge of History, church or secular

Thomas, great post!  LMAO!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, waysider said:

Here's where the logic falls apart, at least for me.

According to Mike, Wierwille got revelation to assemble things that had already been given by revelation. I'll call this revelation that had already been given the primary revelation and Wierwille's the secondary revelation. We've already demonstrated that the primary revelation contained errors.  Why would secondary revelation be given to use something (the primary revelation) that is known to contain errors? That seems awfully counterproductive, in my opinion.

 

 

Are the works of Bullinger and Kenyon examples of the primary revelation?  (I'm assuming that is what is meant)  

Cause wasn't the Bible itself revelation?  And didn't it get written over thousands of years?  Each new book is like secondary, tertiary, dodeca-ary revalation.

So shouldn't all that revelation be added to this nice rainbow:

http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Visualizations/BibleViz

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, waysider said:

Here's where the logic falls apart, at least for me.

According to Mike, Wierwille got revelation to assemble things that had already been given by revelation. I'll call this revelation that had already been given the primary revelation and Wierwille's the secondary revelation. We've already demonstrated that the primary revelation contained errors.  Why would secondary revelation be given to use something (the primary revelation) that is known to contain errors? That seems awfully counterproductive, in my opinion.

 

 

WW, that happens when you use your brain, and not your emotions.:wave:

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

Are the works of Bullinger and Kenyon examples of the primary revelation?  (I'm assuming that is what is meant) 

Yeah. I'm not saying original, initial revelation in a Biblical context, I'm saying primary revelation, as it related to this particular discussion and the works of Wierwille and the people he copied..

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mike said:

In the eyes of man (humans, courts, etc) what happened is definitely plagiarism. But this view is limited to the 5-senses and cannot see the ownership of God in originating the material.  They cannot be convinced by any proofs whatsoever.  So, from my side this view (of humans, courts, etc) is dead wrong, but will never to change.  Nothing can prove my assumption to them, ever.

In the eyes of God what happened is definitely NOT plagiarism.  Those eyes know to whom He gave material directly to at one time  (like Kenyon, or Kenyon's teachers, or their teachers, etc back centuries), and those eyes of God can see to whom He wants to re-distribute same material at a later date. I adopted this view about 20 years ago, slowly and gradually from 1972.

So where do you draw the line?  Does the work of the late Stephen Hawking, for example, in showing us more of the universe (and of God's magnificent handiwork) fall into this category?  No.  He had great thoughts, which themselves are not patentable or copyright.  BUT the books in which he expressed his ideas - they're copyright.  He used ideas from Einstein.  Many people have built on the ideas propounded by Einstein.  Did you know that in accordance with Albert Einstein's Last Will and Testament of 1950, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem holds the copyright to all of his writings?  And Einstein used the ideas of other people, dating back millennia. 

So who's to say that these amazing men didn't get their knowledge by revelation from God?  Did God give it to them directly?  Or did they get it by studying God's amazing handiwork?  The word is written in the stars, don't forget.  Are all who study the stars studying the "Word"?  Should Hawking and Einstein not have any copyrights to their discoveries (whether they found them by their own intellectual knowledge, or whether they were told in some way by God)?

Do you think, Mike, that they plagiarised each other, these astronomers through centuries?  They certainly built on the bodies of knowledge of different aspects of physics, chemistry, biology, atomics.  Should none of the ideas ever have been written down for others to benefit from?  Should no scientific work ever be given copyright? 

Why, in your opinion, is it unnecessary to acknowledge the work of others?  Whether that be the study of "the written Word" aka the Bible, or the "Word in the stars"?  Why, in your opinion, is it unnecessary to acknowledge that God gave others "revelation" too?  Surely, rather than hide that fact, it should be a cause for celebration of God's goodness? of God's willingness to teach people as much as they are ready to receive it? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mike said:

In the eyes of man (humans, courts, etc) what happened is definitely plagiarism. But this view is limited to the 5-senses and cannot see the ownership of God in originating the material.  They cannot be convinced by any proofs whatsoever.  So, from my side this view (of humans, courts, etc) is dead wrong, but will never to change.  Nothing can prove my assumption to them, ever.

 

In the eyes of God what happened is definitely NOT plagiarism.  Those eyes know to whom He gave material directly to at one time  (like Kenyon, or Kenyon's teachers, or their teachers, etc back centuries), and those eyes of God can see to whom He wants to re-distribute same material at a later date. I adopted this view about 20 years ago, slowly and gradually from 1972.

 

Edited by Rocky
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rocky said:

 

I suspect that in my comment above (where I quoted you and highlighted), you are projecting when you said "In the eyes of God what happened is definitely NOT plagiarism."

I get this from a composite reading of all of your posts/comments that I've read. You claim to be speaking for God. Isn't that presumptuous of you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mike said:

The copyrighting Kenyon might have done makes it his in the 5-senses realm, but God really owns it, overruling the 5-senses ownership.  Of course the courts will not recognize this and it's not right there, and consequences might happen. But I'm not talking about what is right  in the strict 5-sense LEGAL ownership, I'm talking about what is right morally in the SPIRITUAL sense and in God's eyes.

It seems to me that if we are looking at anything related to teaching and clarifying God's Word through - presumably - God's eyes, there is no such thing as plagiarism.  That term has no biblical significance at all.  So the simple fact that this thread is about plagiarism precludes God's perspective.

The book "Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed" has a pretty extensive bibliography, and references to the contributors to VPW's material throughout the book.  That is not plagiarism.  He is giving credit to the sources of the information, he is not directly quoting them unless referenced, and he has packaged the bulk of the material in his own verbiage.

However, I saw no references in the PFAL class material.  Based on his extensive use of other authors and research materials in almost everything he taught, I would be hard pressed to believe that the PFAL class was compiled all on his own.  I did like how the material was packaged, but it was presented as if he had determined all of that alone.  Was any of it directly quoted?  Who knows, I sure don't.  But there is a plethora of books and materials out there that are the result of gleaning from other sources, and they aren't considered plagiarized.

I got the impression that VPW, if he had actually plagiarized, didn't intend to plagiarize.  Rather, he wanted to look like he had this all on his own.

I once saw a short clip of Tony Robbins speaking on stage about how to be successful.  It was interesting.  But then a few years later, I heard his mentor, Jim Rohn, speaking.  They both shared pretty much the same material, just tailored to their own manner of delivery.  The main difference between them was this: Robbins delivered the material as if he had figured it all out himself, just as VPW did.  But Rohn told where he found the information, and almost everything he talked about was credited to someone else, including the bible.  There were just a handful of points he shared that he took credit for himself, and I can believe he probably did figure those out himself.  I have much more respect for Rohn than I have for Robbins.  So you can probably guess how I feel about VPW.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Taxidev said:

It seems to me that if we are looking at anything related to teaching and clarifying God's Word through - presumably - God's eyes, there is no such thing as plagiarism.  That term has no biblical significance at all.  So the simple fact that this thread is about plagiarism precludes God's perspective.

The book "Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed" has a pretty extensive bibliography, and references to the contributors to VPW's material throughout the book.  That is not plagiarism.  He is giving credit to the sources of the information, he is not directly quoting them unless referenced, and he has packaged the bulk of the material in his own verbiage.

However, I saw no references in the PFAL class material.  Based on his extensive use of other authors and research materials in almost everything he taught, I would be hard pressed to believe that the PFAL class was compiled all on his own.  I did like how the material was packaged, but it was presented as if he had determined all of that alone.  Was any of it directly quoted?  Who knows, I sure don't.  But there is a plethora of books and materials out there that are the result of gleaning from other sources, and they aren't considered plagiarized.

I got the impression that VPW, if he had actually plagiarized, didn't intend to plagiarize.  Rather, he wanted to look like he had this all on his own.

I once saw a short clip of Tony Robbins speaking on stage about how to be successful.  It was interesting.  But then a few years later, I heard his mentor, Jim Rohn, speaking.  They both shared pretty much the same material, just tailored to their own manner of delivery.  The main difference between them was this: Robbins delivered the material as if he had figured it all out himself, just as VPW did.  But Rohn told where he found the information, and almost everything he talked about was credited to someone else, including the bible.  There were just a handful of points he shared that he took credit for himself, and I can believe he probably did figure those out himself.  I have much more respect for Rohn than I have for Robbins.  So you can probably guess how I feel about VPW.

Taxi, great post!  I remember reading, "JCOPS," years ago.  Wow!  What a book!  I knew as I read it, that VPW didn't write it; it was written by people who really knew what they were doing.  It was way above the usual TWI Dreck. I think somewhere here at the GSC, someone wrote about the three(?) young men who wrote it.  They left TWI, and had successful Academic careers.  I think VPW wanted to claim the book, as his own, and they wanted the credit for writing the book.  I think that was the reason why they left TWI.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Taxidev said:

I got the impression that VPW, if he had actually plagiarized, didn't intend to plagiarize.  Rather, he wanted to look like he had this all on his own.

Please clarify. If Wierwille wanted (and apparently he did want) to look like he had figured it out all on his own, wouldn't that actually BE plagiarism, if he actually didn't figure it out all on his own (from God, without any human help)?  And wouldn't that make it evident that he did intend to plagiarize rather than credit his human sources?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ROCKY: Know what I SAY? Just this: If Wierwille wanted (and apparently he did want) to look like he had figured it out all on his own, wouldn't that actually BE plagiarism, if he actually didn't figure it out all on his own (from God, without any human help)?  And wouldn't that make it evident that he did intend to plagiarize rather than credit his human sources?

Now, don't get in a tizzy over this, pal! I liked what you said so much that I TOOK IT FOR MY OWN. And if you think that's stealing, let me inform you that God told me (by revelation, of course) that I was to do that. So from now on, if YOU DARE use those same words again, I'm gonna hit YOU with plagiarism! :biglaugh:

Seriously though: Although VP was intent on stealing others' works without giving due credit, I'm near positive he justified it all by rationalization, simply because of the sheer numbers of people who "flocked to God" through his ministry. (And to his liking, I bet it didn't do his EGO any harm, either!) I'll bet he considered "the end was justified by the means" --- despite that it was truly a matter of lies and deception to have many people suppose the work was his own. Some were never fooled; however, the ignorant and gullible among the masses (who either weren't very "well-read" or who were just too lazy to do their own "fact-checking") were among those taken in by his ploy.

Edited by spectrum49
grammar
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spectrum49 said:

ROCKY: Know what I SAY? Just this: If Wierwille wanted (and apparently he did want) to look like he had figured it out all on his own, wouldn't that actually BE plagiarism, if he actually didn't figure it out all on his own (from God, without any human help)?  And wouldn't that make it evident that he did intend to plagiarize rather than credit his human sources?

Now, don't get in a tizzy over this, pal! I liked what you said so much that I TOOK IT FOR MY OWN. And if you think that's stealing, let me inform you that God told me (by revelation, of course) that I was to do that. So from now on, if YOU DARE use those same words again, I'm gonna hit YOU with plagiarism! :biglaugh:

Seriously though: Although VP was intent on stealing others' works without giving due credit, I'm near positive he justified it all by rationalization, simply because of the sheer numbers of people who "flocked to God" through his ministry. (And to his liking, I bet it didn't do his EGO any harm, either!) I'll bet he considered "the end was justified by the means" --- despite that it was truly a matter of lies and deception to have many people suppose the work was his own. Some were never fooled; however, the ignorant and gullible among the masses (who either weren't very "well-read" or who were just too lazy to do their own "fact-checking") were among those taken in by his ploy.

Mike should (but may not) give YOU credit for your concise statement of the spiritual reality at issue on this thread. :anim-smile:

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

VPW wanted us to think he'd figured it out on his own.  All of it.  He may have "collated" it but he didn't give credit to the authors, and he didn't even bother to check if they were saying the same thing, ie, if they were consistent with each other.  Because there are differences, in the PFAL material, which strike one when carefully read.  However, for one unschooled in the scriptures, it seems that this is an error of their own understanding - not an error in the presentation or content.

My opinion is that he took the material, presented it as his own thinking that nobody would find out, or wouldn't care if they did find out, and probably everything snowballed - got bigger than he expected.  And TWI having got a bit bigger, he enjoyed the apparent power of it and his ego was fed.  By making a video class, and by copyrighting the stolen material, he probably thought he was "getting one over" the actual authors and his assertion of ownership would supercede theirs, if there ever were any court cases.

Then, he went on a real power-hunt; and because by that time, nobody had challenged him about the earlier plagiarism, the theft of others' works - he thought he could ride roughshod over everyone and everything.  So he hijacked the fruits of others' work - hijacked Doop's and Heefner's followers - built his empire. 

But his empire was founded on theft and love of money, not on love of God.  And so it will fail.  Those that sit hoarding the money pot hoard evil to themselves.  They might do well to remember that when the Israelite slaves were freed, they plundered Egypt of its ill-gotten gains.  And take a look at Isaiah 23:15-18:

 

Quote

At that time Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years, the span of a king’s life. But at the end of these seventy years, it will happen to Tyre as in the song of the prostitute:

"Take up a harp, walk through the city, you forgotten prostitute; play the harp well, sing many a song, so that you will be remembered.”

17At the end of seventy years, the Lord will deal with Tyre. She will return to her lucrative prostitution and will ply her trade with all the kingdoms on the face of the earth. 18Yet her profit and her earnings will be set apart for the Lord; they will not be stored up or hoarded. Her profits will go to those who live before the Lord, for abundant food and fine clothes.

What a splendid thought!  After 70 years after the death of VPW, the ministry will finally implode and all its money will be given to genuinely Christian organisations.

 

Ugh, I wish the "quote" thing worked properly - last para in the quote above is of course my own view, not any Bible verse

Edited by Twinky
Program doesn't handle Quotes correctly
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rocky said:

If Wierwille wanted (and apparently he did want) to look like he had figured it out all on his own, wouldn't that actually BE plagiarism, if he actually didn't figure it out all on his own (from God, without any human help)?

Not at all.  Plagiarism is when you just copy someone else's work without permission.  There are so many books out there that have been compiled from the works of other authors that are not instances of plagiarism.  Also, if a blurb is copied from another work, and the original author and source are referenced, then that also is not plagiarism.

So, while it is not plagiarism, it is dishonest to pretend, as VPW and Tony Robbins have done, that the information was all figured out on their own.  I have much more respect for JCOPS by VPW than I do the classes he put together.  It's a relatively simple matter to include a bibliography and references in a book than it is on stage or in front of a camera.  But the class syllabus could have had them, even if it was just to show who was used as a source.

I wonder how many wayers know who Ernest L Martin is.  His name is in the bibliography of JCOPS.  This is the biblical scientist, not associated with TWI, that determined, through astronomy and computers, the date of Jesus Christ's birth.  And while he is in the bibliography, I never saw a reference to him when VPW specified the date.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Taxidev said:

It seems to me that if we are looking at anything related to teaching and clarifying God's Word through - presumably - God's eyes, there is no such thing as plagiarism.  That term has no biblical significance at all.  So the simple fact that this thread is about plagiarism precludes God's perspective.

. . .

 

Yes.  The thread is about how common it is, as well as related behavior.  Rome grew by stealing other nations and their ideas. 

I think Mike's idea that the ability to take from another means God is on your side is an ancient one.

Edited by Bolshevik
grammaticus
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Taxidev said:

It seems to me that if we are looking at anything related to teaching and clarifying God's Word through - presumably - God's eyes, there is no such thing as plagiarism.  That term has no biblical significance at all.  So the simple fact that this thread is about plagiarism precludes God's perspective...(SNIP)

I just wanted to mention the definition of plagiarism  which is using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, i.e. not crediting the original author – in other words, stealing and lying - which are significant enough to be mentioned throughout the Bible as something we should NOT do. Perhaps THAT is God’s perspective on plagiarism.

In my book, wierwille is the poster child for false teachers – and his unabashed plagiarism is just the tip of the iceberg of his personality disorders – a good reason to question his integrity, competence, and body of work. The example set by his teachings and in much of his work has the undertones of it being ok to disrespect your peers, that you should be willing to steal and lie for your work, and that you can take shortcuts so you don’t have to learn and practice the skills needed for the work.

Edited by T-Bone
formatting
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

The example set by his teachings and in much of his work has the undertones of it being ok to disrespect your peers, that you should be willing to steal and lie for your work, and that you can take shortcuts so you don’t have to learn and practice the skills needed for the work.

Some years ago, I knew a girl in another country who said she hadn't had the time to do her homework so much, because she'd been busy studying the Word of God.  She had forthcoming exams.  I asked her how she would expect to do if she hadn't done the work to prepare for her exams.  She said she'd pray and God would give her the answers.  Yeah, right.

Never heard how it went with the exams. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Taxidev said:

Not at all.  Plagiarism is when you just copy someone else's work without permission.  There are so many books out there that have been compiled from the works of other authors that are not instances of plagiarism.  Also, if a blurb is copied from another work, and the original author and source are referenced, then that also is not plagiarism.

So, while it is not plagiarism, it is dishonest to pretend, as VPW and Tony Robbins have done, that the information was all figured out on their own.  I have much more respect for JCOPS by VPW than I do the classes he put together.  It's a relatively simple matter to include a bibliography and references in a book than it is on stage or in front of a camera.  But the class syllabus could have had them, even if it was just to show who was used as a source.

I wonder how many wayers know who Ernest L Martin is.  His name is in the bibliography of JCOPS.  This is the biblical scientist, not associated with TWI, that determined, through astronomy and computers, the date of Jesus Christ's birth.  And while he is in the bibliography, I never saw a reference to him when VPW specified the date.

Martin was originally associated with Herbert and Garner Ted Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God. He left in the late 70's and started his own ministry ASK- Ascertain Scriptural Knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK --- I confess! I stole someone's work once.  (You might find this humorous.) :rolleyes:

I was in first grade and hadn't been paying attention in class. When it came time to write something at our desks, I leaned over and copied a girl's paper who was sitting front of me. And I copied it ALL even her name:jump:

Now...how STUPID was that? And (of course!) the teacher caught me. How embarrassing!

Edited by spectrum49
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, spectrum49 said:

OK --- I confess! I stole someone's work once.  (You might find this humorous.) :rolleyes:

I was in first grade and hadn't been paying attention in class. When it came time to write something at our desks, I leaned over and copied a girl's paper who was sitting front of me. And I copied it ALL even her name   :jump:

Now...how STUPID was that? And (of course!) the teacher caught me. How embarrassing!

If I was your lawyer I could have gotten you off the hook by merely saying you were giving the proper attribution to the works cited. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, T-Bone said:

using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, i.e. not crediting the original author

Exactly.  There are some works by VPW that cite other authors and list them in the bibliography.  But, as I mentioned earlier, he seemed to have eventually decided to make it look like he figured things out on his own, so he would word things in his own manner which was vastly different than the other authors.  This is what Tony Robbins does with what he learned from Jim Rohn, and it is not plagiarism, even if we think it should be.

The big thing for me was realizing VPW wasn't as insightful as he portrayed himself to be, and the little bit that he may have tried to work out on his own had much error.  I've tried to point that out to some former wayers, but they just can't get their heads out of highly honoring him to take a hard look at some ridiculous things he said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Taxidev said:

...so he would word things in his own manner which was vastly different than the other authors. 

Not always the case. In fact look at THIS comparison John Juedes did, involving Wierwille and Stiles.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Taxidev said:

Not at all.  Plagiarism is when you just copy someone else's work without permission.  There are so many books out there that have been compiled from the works of other authors that are not instances of plagiarism.  Also, if a blurb is copied from another work, and the original author and source are referenced, then that also is not plagiarism.

So, while it is not plagiarism, it is dishonest to pretend, as VPW and Tony Robbins have done, that the information was all figured out on their own.

Wierwille committed plagiarism. Receiving the Holy Spirit Today has passage after passage that is just copying someone else's work.

Further, it may not be honest to say as you did in the second paragraph, "... which it is not plagiarism..." You have not made a valid argument that Wierwille is not guilty of plagiarism.

I would be less inclined to pick at that expression had you written "... while it may not be plagiarism ..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, waysider said:

Not always the case. In fact look at THIS comparison John Juedes did, involving Wierwille and Stiles.

From the link waysider provided:

The next section compares Wierwille's 1972 and 1957 editions of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today and Stiles' 1948 edition of The Gift of the Holy Spirit. This shows that Wierwille obviously copied from Stiles' book in 1957, even though editing for later editions changed the wording a little and made the plagiarism a little less obvious.

Link to post
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...