Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Plagiarism on the road to success


Recommended Posts

Looking at the subtle differences between Wierwille's version and Stile's version, it quickly becomes obvious that Wierwille's intent was to obscure the trickery. This is the level of incompetence you might expect to see on a middle school term paper, not from someone who held himself out to be an authority on a subject..

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

41 minutes ago, waysider said:

This is the level of incompetence you might expect to see on a middle school term paper, not from someone who held himself out to be an authority on a subject..

Or called himself “Dr.”.

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

...comparison John Juedes did, involving Wierwille and Stiles.

Wow!  I had no idea.  This was before my time.

3 hours ago, Rocky said:

You have not made a valid argument that Wierwille is not guilty of plagiarism.

Apparently not.

Thanks to both of you.  I stand corrected.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2018 at 10:22 AM, WordWolf said:

I appreciate your candor about being pompous here, but being pompous doesn't get you special treatment.  

Oops!  Sorry for that typo.  I mean to say NOT being pompous.  That will fit better twith the context now.

 

Here is my paragraph again, corrected.

I could be wrong, but it seems no one else here is nearly the center of attention when they post. My situation is that I am in the center of attention, and get swamped far more than you or anyone else here. I am NOT being pompous here. It's my TOPIC that is the reason I get so much attention, not me.  If you or anyone else here thinks they have any idea of the burden of volume  I face every time I post, please supply a link so I can get convinced by the timestamps.

Edited by Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who are trying to at least UNDERSTAND my posts on this better, this might help.

When I say that VPW’s sources got revelation (and VPW said so too) that does NOT mean that ALL the words and sentences and chapters and books of a source are given by revelation.

What I have in mind is that any one of his sources had a mixed bag of God’s revelations to them, mixed in with things that were their own making in attempting to write and help people.

Some of the revelation to VPW was to pick this author, but not that one.

Then, in studying that author, the next revelation would be pick this book from that book  and not that one by the same author.

Then, in studying that book, the next revelation would be pick these chapters from those chapters and not that those.

Then, on down to half sentences and individual words. Sometimes larger sections would selected by God for use to pass on to us.

Then the order that VPW passed this on was the next revelation.

VPW claimed in a circulated tape in 1965 and in a published book in 1972 that very little of his writings originated with him.   He just put it all together in the right order with all the right pieces.

***

I see posters struggling to get my points with notions that I am saying that each source of VPW had pure stuff.  

Some of VPW's sources were pure enough to sell some of their books in the bookstore. Some were invited to HQ as guest speakers. Some were cited in the 1965 and 1972 tape and book cited above.

***

Has anyone found any evidence of my claim that BG Leonard attended the 1985 Rock of Ages?   I mentioned 1986, but I think that's wrong now.  I only heard this from one person, and even though I trust he was right, I'd like verification and more details. 

He also told me that BG said at that ROA the Way was cursed (or something) due to teaching that SIT was a gift.  This would be one of those errors VPW had to filter out. VPW didn't steal BG Leonard's class; he fixed one of it's critically broken parts.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2018 at 9:05 AM, So_crates said:

So your contention is that because Saint Vic got away with stealing others works, God's hand was in it.

Really? 

 

If you’ve been able to see the perspective I described a few days ago then you can understand my response here.

In that perspective I outlined two views: on man’s one God’s.

Man’s view is limited and in general has no concept of God’s ownership of any revelations God gave to VPW’s sources.  This means man’s view can be dead wrong at times, especially when God’s revelations are involved. This view says that VPW stole the material, and then the record (man’s) says he also got away with it.

On this topic, this view is wrong.  But within the view, yes, VPW stole it and got away with it.

**

 

Now, are you ready to switch views, TEMPORARILY, even if it violates your religion?  You’re not going to like this switch, but if you want to me to answer you must. Try and rise up to the challenge; it’s only temporary.

In the view that God gave revelations to VPW’s sources and they mixed it in with their own material. God guided VPW to the sections HE wanted re-distributed and told him they were his to teach to others and incorporate into PFAL. This view says that VPW did NOT steal the material.  It also looks like God protected him from legal difficulties.

***

The answer to your second question is NO, not really. The reality was that God owned the revelations and He redistributed them as He saw fit. We who absorbed them benefited.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike said:

In the view that God gave revelations to VPW’s sources and they mixed it in with their own material. God guided VPW to the sections HE wanted re-distributed and told him they were his to teach to others and incorporate into PFAL. This view says that VPW did NOT steal the material.  It also looks like God protected him from legal difficulties.

The bible says God is love, and we should walk in love, and we should love one another, and we should do good unto all.  If I read 10 authors on a topic and build a derived work from them, and draw my own conclusions, is it loving to not at least put those authors in my bibliography?  Even if I don't quote them and reference them in the pages, it is proper to show they were my sources of information.

Do you really believe that the God of Love would have me slightly modify another's work and call it my own?

I wonder why it is so important to you to convince everyone here that VPW did not plagiarize.  Waysider showed me a very clear comparison of VPW's book on spirit vs Stile's book on spirit.  While I originally didn't think VPW plagiarized, that comparison was all I needed to change my view.  Is this something you are unwilling to do?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who claims who received revelation for their works?

Did Kenyon or Bullinger or Stiles make that claim?

Did VPW?

Or does just Mike claim that they all did?

Edited by Bolshevik
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike:

I'm beginning to know just a bit about you by now. Perhaps the following may not be true concerning your entire life, but to me (concerning this topic of plagiarism by VP) you seem to fit the bill here:

Prov 26:16 --- "The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason."

Obviously (and as you've said many times before) your mind is already made up on this matter. So to justify it in your mind, you've woven a rather intricate web of deceit which (perhaps unwittingly, to be kind) you've tangled yourself in.

And within that sphere is where you've developed an uncanny ability to come up with an answer (logical or not) for everything concerning this matter --- that you may maintain your present position.

Perhaps it might be a good idea for you to read the comparison between Wierwille's and Stiles' work on holy spirit. And (if you would be so kind) tell the forum whether or not it's plain to you that VP did copy Stiles' work.

Here's the link again: Read it!    http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stiles.htm

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, your intellectual dishonesty is on display;

The following is a copy of my original post:

On 3/28/2018 at 12:05 PM, So_crates said:

So your contention is that because Saint Vic got away with stealing others works, God's hand was in it.

Really? 

Your argument falls apart in more instances than I care to count. Here are a few:

Saint Vic also got away with forcing himself on how many women? Was that God winning too?

Jack the Ripper got away with murdering how many prostitutes? Was that God winning too?

Hitler got away with the systematic slaughter of how many Jews? Was this God winning too?

Stalin got away with killing how many Russians? Was that God winning too?

All four follow your law broken and they got away with it rationalization.

Your answer:

9 hours ago, Mike said:

If you’ve been able to see the perspective I described a few days ago then you can understand my response here.

In that perspective I outlined two views: on man’s one God’s.

Man’s view is limited and in general has no concept of God’s ownership of any revelations God gave to VPW’s sources.  This means man’s view can be dead wrong at times, especially when God’s revelations are involved. This view says that VPW stole the material, and then the record (man’s) says he also got away with it.

On this topic, this view is wrong.  But within the view, yes, VPW stole it and got away with it.

***

Now, are you ready to switch views, TEMPORARILY, even if it violates your religion?  You’re not going to like this switch, but if you want to me to answer you must. Try and rise up to the challenge; it’s only temporary.

In the view that God gave revelations to VPW’s sources and they mixed it in with their own material. God guided VPW to the sections HE wanted re-distributed and told him they were his to teach to others and incorporate into PFAL. This view says that VPW did NOT steal the material.  It also looks like God protected him from legal difficulties.

***

The answer to your second question is NO, not really. The reality was that God owned the revelations and He redistributed them as He saw fit. We who absorbed them benefited.

As you can see, you gave an answer to question I didn't ask.

Now would you like to answer the other part of may post (Are they God winning, as you claim with Saint Vic getting away with stealing others works)?

Also, the problem with plagerism is that it's deceitful, bearing false witness (taking credit for something you didn't do). This begs the question: Would a loving God send one of his spokesmen to intentionally decieve His people? And what is the bibical presidence for that.

Edited by So_crates
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States is not a theocracy.

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."...Treaty of Tripoli (1796)

 

Plagiarism laws are part of a legal system that has been carefully crafted over hundreds of years. It's not our place to now decide which of those laws to choose and reject, based solely on religious beliefs.

Edited by waysider
problem with font
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mike said:

(SNIP)...The reality was that God owned the revelations and He redistributed them as He saw fit...(SNIP)

 

What has led you to believe that ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, waysider said:

Looking at the subtle differences between Wierwille's version and Stile's version, it quickly becomes obvious that Wierwille's intent was to obscure the trickery. This is the level of incompetence you might expect to see on a middle school term paper, not from someone who held himself out to be an authority on a subject..

I think waysider has touched upon the real underlying problem with plagiarism.  It allows someone who has a middle school grasp of a topic to produce a book that shows himself to be an authority on the topic.  The lack of effort in the middle to make a subject one's own, to master it.  That is what is missing from VP's life.  He always took the shortcut in that area.

Whether it was checking into a motel by himself for 10 days eating only grapes while he "had all over 350 verses on holy spirit" in his mind, he did a great impression of what the Catholic scribes must have done before the printing press to get a copy of the scriptures.  The only elbow grease VP put into the holy spirit field was the effort he put in that motel transcribing copy.  So like most topics, VP may have had an outline, but he didn't master the subject.  J.E. Stiles did master the topic.  You know how I know?  Because it was he who actually had the ability, once VP was doing his antics on stage for the Oral Roberts evangelism tent meeting to sort all that out and get VP to the point where he himself was convinced about what he was doing in his private prayer life.  

No, VP plagiarized, lifted, swindled, stole, the vast majority of all of his works.  The better written works, JCPS and JCOP - coming up on Easter now - were not researched or written by VP at all.  For a relatively short period of time in the Way's history, during the time VP published those books with his name solely on the cover, VP employed several people in a research department who did that work for him.  He mostly ruined their lives.  Actually if you would like a good read, Mike, I would suggest picking up a copy of the book "Undertow" which speaks of that - written by spotter penworks - Charlene Edge, an author who posts here.  This gives a firsthand account of Way research at the source.

No, VP was one who showed the character of sliding through life on others accomplishments, all while projecting himself as the hardest working German farmer around.  Others research, brothers money,  correspondence course doctoral degree, young women's beauty and sexual attraction, you name it and Vic was a user and exploited it.

The conversation that is going on now seems to be one debating the topic of who actually owns the copyright to the equivalent of the angel Moroni's transcribed tablets.  Vic wasn't even imaginative enough to come up with a skeptical story like that.  He even had to have his conspiracy theories piped into him from some other source.

 

Edited by chockfull
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mike said:

<snip>

This view (Mike's view) says that VPW did NOT steal the material.  It also looks like God protected him from legal difficulties.

Eccl 8:11-12 "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him."

You see Mike, this is exactly why VP continued the way he did --- because he was getting away with it! Also according to this verse, the more one persists in the error the easier it becomes to practice it. And we also see here that to respect God is how "it shall be well for us".

Have you forgotten what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matt 22:21? "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

1 hour ago, waysider said:

<snip>

Plagiarism laws are part of a legal system that has been carefully crafted over hundreds of years. It's not our place to now decide which of those laws to choose and reject, based solely on religious beliefs.

As well as obeying God, we're expected to obey "the law of the land". And (even as Waysider just indicated) plagiarism is against the law --- not only in America, but in most other countries as well.

Jesus seemed to understand this. Do you, Mike?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

Who claims who received revelation for their works?

Did Kenyon or Bullinger or Stiles make that claim?

Did VPW?

Or does just Mike claim that they all did?

VPW did. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mike said:

VPW did. 

VPW made the claim that Bullinger and Kenyon and Stiles and others received revelation for their works.  VPW made the claim he recieved revelation to use their works nearly verbatim.

I'm just trying to be clear on this understanding.  It is VPW who originally made all these claims?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, spectrum49 said:

Perhaps it might be a good idea for you to read the comparison between Wierwille's and Stiles' work on holy spirit. And (if you would be so kind) tell the forum whether or not it's plain to you that VP did copy Stiles' work.

 

I'm wondering if you ever saw the passage in the 1972 WLIL where VPW explains how he did not originate most of the material he teaches, and that he only put it all together. Have you read that long forgotten passage lately?  I think you should read it.


I have not recently put together my position as you guessed.  Conversely, it’s grads here who “recently” put together their plagiarism position, and from my observations over 20 years most did it relativelyovernight in an emotional rush when they first got some of the data.

I started putting together my position slowly and unemotionally in 1972 when I first saw Bullinger’s “How to Enjoy the Bible” which I bought in the Way Bookstore.  That same year I read the WLIL passage, and discussed the plagiarism issue with other grads then, WHILE WE WERE ALL BEING BLESSED by the material.

As the years chugged by I became aware of many more sources of VPW, and in some of them I saw how VPW improved on them with God’s guidance.

Have you heard the tape “Light Began to Dawn” from a 1965 SNS tape where VPW explains in a half hour narrative how he went from source to source?  If not I can e-mail you the mp3 and I posted the transcript a few months ago here, and also 15 years ago here.

If you are not intimately familiar with these two items from 1965 and 1972, then you have HARDLY BEGUN in “I'm beginning to know just a bit about you by now.”    I think you are picking up more on what others are saying here about what I  say than what I say.   

If you are familiar with those two items, what say ye of them?

 

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

. . .   That same year I read the WLIL passage, and discussed the plagiarism issue with other grads then, WHILE WE WERE ALL BEING BLESSED by the material.

. . .

 

From my own experience to be blessed in TWI is a COMMAND by verbal or physical or emotional coercion.  You are told to be blessed.  You are then told to be inspired from being blessed and this is called free will giving.  

If VPW actually produced something that genuinely blessed anyone, I doubt a huge amount of effort would go into discussing plagiarism.  It would mostly be shrugged off.

Edited by Bolshevik
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2018 at 6:33 PM, 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?

Rocky, wow!  I don't know about Mike, but I would never, never attempt to speak for God.  God's mind is so much bigger than mine; I am a mere human.  IMHO, God is more than capable of speaking for Himself.  People who attempt to speak for God, are usually full of Dung.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'm wondering if you ever saw the passage in the 1972 WLIL where VPW explains how he did not originate most of the material he teaches, and that he only put it all together. Have you read that long forgotten passage lately?  I think you should read it.


I have not recently put together my position as you guessed.  Conversely, it’s grads here who “recently” put together their plagiarism position, and from my observations over 20 years most did it relativelyovernight in an emotional rush when they first got some of the data.

I started putting together my position slowly and unemotionally in 1972 when I first saw Bullinger’s “How to Enjoy the Bible” which I bought in the Way Bookstore.  That same year I read the WLIL passage, and discussed the plagiarism issue with other grads then, WHILE WE WERE ALL BEING BLESSED by the material.

As the years chugged by I became aware of many more sources of VPW, and in some of them I saw how VPW improved on them with God’s guidance.

Have you heard the tape “Light Began to Dawn” from a 1965 SNS tape where VPW explains in a half hour narrative how he went from source to source?  If not I can e-mail you the mp3 and I posted the transcript a few months ago here, and also 15 years ago here.

If you are not intimately familiar with these two items from 1965 and 1972, then you have HARDLY BEGUN in “I'm beginning to know just a bit about you by now.”    I think you are picking up more on what others are saying here about what I  say than what I say.   

If you are familiar with those two items, what say ye of them?

 

 

 

Nothing you have said here excuses the unethical, illegal plagiarism that Wierwille exercised

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

In that perspective I outlined two views: on man’s one God’s.

I find it interesting that you use the two views argument here, yet you fail to follow through on it.

Yes, there's God's view and man's view. 

God's view is absolute, black or white (your either in fellowship or your not; you either obeyed Him or you didn't; something was either stolen or it wasn't) is necessary because those same rationalization we use to fudge our obedience to God, Christ could have used to fudge his obedience to The Law. If Christ didn't obey The Law, then we have no savior.

If rationalizations were acceptable to God, then Christ could have stolen the temple poor box and proclaimed: "This money belongs to my father, I am his son, so it's not really stealing."

Silly isn't it.

But that's what you get when  Man tries to impose shades of grey on God's black or white absolution. 

God's view is absolute; while man makes rationalizations. One such rationalization is stealing is okay is some contexts, but not in others.

Not only does God and Paul tell us not to steal, God also tells us not to bear false witness (in this instance taking credit for something you didn't do).

We are also commanded to obey the laws of men, like theft and plagerism. The only time we can disobey the laws of men is when the run contrary to the laws of God, for example, if there were laws against praying or attending church.

We've discussed this at length before, but somehow you either don't read my posts or you refuse to see anything but your viewpoint.

Edited by So_crates
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike said:

I'm wondering if you ever saw the passage in the 1972 WLIL where VPW explains how he did not originate most of the material he teaches, and that he only put it all together. Have you read that long forgotten passage lately?  I think you should read it.


I have not recently put together my position as you guessed.  Conversely, it’s grads here who “recently” put together their plagiarism position, and from my observations over 20 years most did it relativelyovernight in an emotional rush when they first got some of the data.

Mike, collating the work of others, especially en bloc, is still plagiarism if appropriate credit is not given.  Why couldn't he just say, "I found these wonderful sources (Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyon, etc) and I've put them together so that you can access them easily"?  Why couldn't he just use and sell their books (and thus pay royalties to the authors), and use them as his "textbooks"?  But no.  All the credit, and all the money, had to go to Weirwille.

As for your foolish claim that plagiarism is a recent emotional outpouring here, look at some of the dates of old threads.  They go back years.  I myself saw John Juedes's comparisons about 2003.  It didn't take much convincing that they were outright copies stolen by Weirwille, and thus I have never trusted anything Weirwille claimed, since then.

 

Open your eyes, Mike.  Stop defending the indefensible.  Please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike said:

<snip>

If you are not intimately familiar with these two items from 1965 and 1972...If you are familiar with those two items, what say ye of them?

Yes. I'm aware of those 2 items, which have already been discussed in some detail here at GS. I care not to comment on them, for this appears to me to be like a magician's trick called misdirection. Although my gut feeling is that the following seems futile, I'll try a little more patience with you --- for the time being:

21 minutes ago, So_crates said:

<snip>

God's view is absolute, black or white...Not only does God and Paul tell us not to steal, God also tells us not to bear false witness

Although this is really for Mike, you (So_crates) just might like this. Maybe let me know what ya think?

MIKE:

This is rather deep (and also might just be a bit controversial); but I perceive you like to think deeply, so here goes:

Via a thorough study, I've found what one might call a dark side to the light. It delves into the realm where things usually frowned upon (or forbidden) in the Scriptures are indeed acceptable in God's eyes. A classic case is that of acceptable lying --- from Joshua 2:

You might remember God working in Rahab's heart to lie to King Jericho's men, who were looking for the two spies Joshua had sent out. She told them they had already left, when the truth was that she had hidden them on the roof of her inn.

Normally, lying is wrong. But in that case, it was okay with God because the safety of God's people was more important; for if they had gotten caught, they may have been murdered.

Other base things such as this are available within this dark realm of the light, as I call it. Paul admitted "robbing other churches" (2Co 11:8) and was even "crafty" at times, "catching people by guile" (2Co 12:16).

And even God himself used deception against the enemy: We know from 1Co 2:7-8 that God allowed the Devil to kill Jesus (when in actuality, Jesus willingly gave up his life) supposing that would help him to avoid the fate (the prophesy in Gen 3:15) which foretold that "the seed of the woman would bruise [crush] his head".

There are many more examples of acceptable wrong behavior in the Word. But this liberty is NOT TO BE MISUSED. And it only comes by way of revelation from beyond the written Word --- and not from man's own scheming!

And these things (outside of the norm) seem to happen most often during perilous (or austere) times, and frequently involve the safety and protection of God's people. These exceptions to the normal rules are certainly not a license to do whatever one likes for his own reasons. Just never!

I've also observed that conventions such as these (which deviate from the written revelation) are used to trick and deceive the enemy; and I haven't see even one example where things of this nature were utilized among the household of God!

Within the family, we're honest; we speak the truth; we're not deceitful; and we don't trick people or lay traps for them, etc.

And this is what was wrong with VP's supposed revelation (to deceive his followers into believing God had sanctioned his behavior, which certainly includes plagiarism!): He crossed the line --- when he did this to the household of God!

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

I'm wondering if you ever saw the passage in the 1972 WLIL where VPW explains how he did not originate most of the material he teaches, and that he only put it all together. Have you read that long forgotten passage lately?  I think you should read it.


I have not recently put together my position as you guessed.  Conversely, it’s grads here who “recently” put together their plagiarism position, and from my observations over 20 years most did it relativelyovernight in an emotional rush when they first got some of the data.

I started putting together my position slowly and unemotionally in 1972 when I first saw Bullinger’s “How to Enjoy the Bible” which I bought in the Way Bookstore.  That same year I read the WLIL passage, and discussed the plagiarism issue with other grads then, WHILE WE WERE ALL BEING BLESSED by the material.

As the years chugged by I became aware of many more sources of VPW, and in some of them I saw how VPW improved on them with God’s guidance.

Have you heard the tape “Light Began to Dawn” from a 1965 SNS tape where VPW explains in a half hour narrative how he went from source to source?  If not I can e-mail you the mp3 and I posted the transcript a few months ago here, and also 15 years ago here.

If you are not intimately familiar with these two items from 1965 and 1972, then you have HARDLY BEGUN in “I'm beginning to know just a bit about you by now.”    I think you are picking up more on what others are saying here about what I  say than what I say.   

If you are familiar with those two items, what say ye of them?

Familiar with 2 items.

1. 1972 - WLIL - VP's degree was in homiletics - a good talker - a good con man.  I'll tell you what he "put together" backed by his millionaire furniture maker brother Harry.  He put together the purchase of a physical printing press so that the Way could literally print their own books under the title "American Christian Press".   Why this approach?   #1 - $$$$$$ #2 - all those pesky questions normal publishers ask about the originality of your material.  In other words, they could make tons of money on not only selling "lifted and improved" say class materials but without facing the normal scrutiny that a standard publishing cycle would impose.  He also was telling his story to a young impressionable girl (Elena Whiteside) - of which he was known to tell stories to take sexual advantage of.  The Way has not sold WLIL in their bookstore since the '80's right?

Will this help you be less delusional?  No.  You're going to look at it like the Christline for the God-breathed Moroni inspired PLAF tablets.

2. 1965 SNS tape - "went from source to source" - look - some obscure tape which only you have access to honestly sounds like you are just making up more excuses to think you are the "God entrusted bearer of the PLAF".

What I am familiar with is how when VP couldn't convince people to stand with him, he started the Spiritual 40 club.   What this was I believe (haven't yet looked up exact passage in Mrs W's book) was a bunch of people making a "commitment to stand with him" - i.e. financial $$$ commitment to fund bringing in all those ministers and Biblical people that appear not in bibliographies anywhere but as pictures on the wall of the Founders room in the auditorium to this day.

Oh, on a more basic level - we actually see where VP went "from source to source".  JE Stiles book was one source.  It became the source of RHST published by American Christian Press, authored by VPW solely, no other attribution.  If you would have to calculate or pinpoint the source of the Way's current $65 M - what percentage of that do you think you could track back to direct sales of RHST?  I wonder.....

I also wonder if JE Stiles has any grandchildren that should morally have their college funded by sales of their grandpa's material.  If anyone knows them, they should recommend a good lawyer.

What thoughts do you have about those 2 items?

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...