Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Bolshevik

Plagiarism on the road to success

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, waysider said:

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

THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT! And the point that Mike consistently denies. What VeePee wrote in an obscure book has nothing to do with blatant plagiarism. 

Share this post


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

Paul admitted "robbing other churches" (2Co 11:8)

I believe Paul was being sarcastic there.  The entire verse is: 2Co 11:8  I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

He was letting other churches support his efforts with the Corinthians.

But that certainly doesn't detract from the point you made, which is excellent.

Edited by Taxidev

Share this post


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

(SNIP)...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 relatively overnight 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...(SNIP)

Is boredom an emotion? I am overcome with great boredom. ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz

Yeah I’m not buying that "slowly-and-unemotionally-way-back-in-'72-I-was-all-over-this-plagiarism-issue-way-ahead-of-you-guys" anymore then I would buy the old “I-built-crude-lie-detectors-to-study-the-phenomena-of-lying-and-the-consciousness-of-houshold-plants” routine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see. In 1972, Mike would have been in his early 20's. Unless he was pursuing a formal education of some sort, I highly doubt he gave  much thought at all to the subject of plagiarism. There's no way to prove it, of course...but I'm still skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

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  It is VPW who originally made all these claims?

These things are not all put in one place and amenable to such clear cut statements.

To some degree, I had to put it together from some clear cut statements, putting together synonymous or nearly synonymous phrases, and logical connections.   I have been putting the raw materials to do this in my brain ever since 1972, mostly by accident until 1998, when it became deliberate.  I lived with and/or became close friends with, and was closely associated with at least 3 of VPW’s editors prior to 1998.  

I have many, many facts at close hand in mind when I talk about these things. One by one I have been posting these things for 17 years here.  In that process I have seen that most posters can hold only one, two, or three of these things in mind for a few days as the dialog, not with, but against me. Hardly any care to understand these things but only refute them.  That makes it impossible for them to “get it.”

Hardly anyone studies ALL that I post, and many items I juggle in my mind when thinking on these things are ALL necessary to see some of these things.

If you have not listened to and read the transcript to “Light Began to Dawn” you are missing too many facts to follow me. If you don’t yet know what “Light Began to Dawn” is, then you are an example of what I am talking about.  I’ve posted the transcript here twice, and quoted from it at least a dozen times.  If this is new to you, that means you have not even begun to heart it all, and missed one of the major highlights. I’d love to post the .mp3 here. Is that possible?

VPW says there that he got “light” from certain sources. That’s an example of a synonymous phrase for revelation. Not all the time, but in the contexts that I juggle, it is.

Here’s an example of a logical connection: VPW says that some of his writings are God-breathed (PFAL.p83), then at the end of his life he tells us twice to master the writings that come with the class. That’s a simple logical connection that the writings that come with the class are God-breathed.

There are bunches of these things involved here that make this a bit of a detective job. I did not volunteer to be the gum shoe here, but it seems to have all dropped into my lap. It surprises me to this day.

Another thing to consider is that this was a secret project of VPW’s that only he and God talked about, until he got green lights to let out little tid-bits, scattered over several decades. Mrs. Wierwille even was kept out of the loop. She even had difficulty with water baptism being out (CF&S) let alone her “difficult” husband coming up with God’s Word like it hadn’t been known since the first century. From what I heard here, she didn’t even hear that 1965 tape of  “Light Began to Dawn.”

Often VPW talked about keeping of secrets and all folks here can think of is sex.

The BIG secret of VPW’s life was the light (revelation) God guided to and guided him to put it all together.  How many of us would have signed a green card that had as one of the benefits:  “Receive English language God-breathed texts” ???   I know I would have walked away, and so would have you. We just wouldn’t take the time to check it out, let alone try to discipline our lives to it.  It had to be kept a SECRET as big as the Mystery revelation given to Paul.

In the old, old SNS tapes one can often hear VPW giving out tiny comments indicating he was getting revelation to STOP TALKING. He threw out hints, and he camouflaged many statements so they sail over peoples’ heads, yet still get into the record for those who took the time to meekly search.  No meekness means no seeking and no finding.  

I’m putting out an abundance of sledgehammer non subtle statements, and with the lack of meekness whipped up here it sails over everyone’s heads. Yet it’s in the record here (except for the pruned threads that might someday be restored) for meek digital archeologists to find someday.

 

 

 

Edited by Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2018 at 1:04 PM, 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.

I disagree with your viewing VPW’s sources as primary. They ware also loaded with error.  They also had things we did not need to advance God’s curriculum for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

 

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.

It WAS shrugged off by me and others in the early 70s because we were being so abundantly blessed.

But I disagree with your earlier logic. If what we were given was God-breathed we would get blessed UNTIL the big battle began.  Then the blessings wouldn’t be so free.

Think it through logically and more fully. We are given the greatest tool in the world to threaten the god of this world.  Next step is ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE to take it away from us utilizing MANY means, some false “blessing,” some great genuine agony.

I often thing one of the reasons the Corps went so sour is that most forgot they were volunteering for the front lines, right behind the WOWs.  First, they got falsely “blessed” to think they were ahead of the WOWs and everyone else, and they viewed the chummy comradery of the Corps meant they were better than us lowly grads.  Then all hell broke loose to finish off the job.

I think many grads who wanted to go farther than the fundamental class didn’t take the spiritual battle seriously. They got creamed. I know first hand that this happened to me and many others. It happened in the first century also.

Share this post


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

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

Right. I said that already, with the qualification that you adopt the view that the material was not God-breathed.  That's the view the courts would take. Did you see me agree with your post before you posted it?

If not, then you did not see that in the eyes of God, if He had given it first to VPW's sources and then VPW, the courts would simply be wrong due to inability to see God's ownership.

Yes, in the eyes of unbelieving man there is no excuse for what he did.  I said it again. Let's see how many don't see this second admission to join you in your ignorance on this point.

No excuse in man's eyes; total excuse in God's eyes, IF it were given by God to them all.

Now I said it a third time.

This dovetails right into  a Rocky post, coming next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2018 at 3:33 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?

It's more speaking UP FOR God.

Remember the assumption in the view I described is: God gave the revelations to VPW sources, then told VPW to go get them, shake the dust off them, and re-circulate them.

If that assumption is correct, then it's people here who are forbidding God to do end runs around tradition and courts and copyright laws, as the real owner of the material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, So_crates said:

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.

I do read your posts, and I am thankful for a slightly softer approach here in this one.

It looks FROM MY VIEWPOINT that many of them in the past were designed to irritate and frustrate me. This one is still a little heavy on the number of topics you bring up.  It’s difficult to figure out what to respond to, especially if I get that feeling you’ll just find some way to blow off my responses.

So please pardon me if I pick and choose. It’s late and I’m tired after a couple hours of posting. I have no time to come close to responding to all that are here right now, but I chose yours to try and get a better dialog going between us.

***

I see plenty of room to fudge it in man’s law, PLENTY.  I see zero room for Christ fudging it on God’s law He gave to Moses. I don't want to fudge any principles He strongly suggests for us either. It looks like you were merging a little the concepts of those two types of laws.

***

You wrote: “…your either in fellowship or your not…”

 

This is not on topic with any of this, but I can't resist this. Oddly enough, this was one of the first things I noticed when I came back to PFAL in 1998.

The chapter “Fellowship is the Secret” is LOADED with degrees of fellowship besides in and out.  This is one of the big things the TVTs glossed over.  This is where I  first plainly saw that I had forgotten lots of things that were written, or they had sailed over my head unabsorbed. 

I got excited and started sharing it with friends and immediately noticed they too had either forgotten it or never absorbed it.  If anyone wants to see these many degrees, dust off your books and look.

***

You wrote: “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.”

I think this shuffling around of God's modern revelations is in the last category you mentioned. I really do, and after 40 years of pondering it.

I don’t think we were commanded in the scriptures to not plagiarize. That is a pretty new  concept and didn't happen in the olden days. By the time the US Constitution was written it was becoming well recognized by those who had a financial stake in it, and the founding fathers shored up the flimsy idea of intellectual ownership, and made it fundamental law to financially motivate advances in thought and invention.

Did you see my post (I think to Bolshevek) about the flimsiness of the ownership of things beyond objects? I thought several times he saw some of it and started this thread based on some of it.

Share this post


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

. . .

Did you see my post (I think to Bolshevek) about the flimsiness of the ownership of things beyond objects? I thought several times he saw some of it and started this thread based on some of it.

Sure there's murkiness.  That's a given.

How do we decide ownership and where does that idea originate?  The idea of ownership clearly exists.  Therefore concept of stealing clearly exists.  Therefore concept of plagiarism clearly exists.  How do we decide who has violated one of these concepts and how?

I tend to think these ideas are created in the context of a group.  Between the relationships of many people or even just two.

From your texts I gather your definitions arise from a single individual.  Definitions that do not include all parties involved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mike,

in·tel·lec·tu·al prop·er·ty
noun
LAW
  1. a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc.
     
Edited by OldSkool
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Dear Mike,

in·tel·lec·tu·al prop·er·ty
noun
LAW
  1. a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc.
     

I don't know what it's like now, but, when I was in The Way, you weren't supposed to say you created something. According to Way theology, to create is to make something out of nothing. Therefore,  "Only God can create."  It's a crazy world, where up is down and nonsense passes for wisdom.

Share this post


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

I don't know what it's like now, but, when I was in The Way, you weren't supposed to say you created something. According to Way theology, to create is to make something out of nothing. Therefore,  "Only God can create."  It's a crazy world, where up is down and nonsense passes for wisdom.

Its the same, they make that point in the fnc in the segment covering formed, made,  and created. Twi rearranges the most fundamental boundaries in life and calls that sleight of hand "spiritual."

Im sure thats one of the issues that so many of us struggle with post twi, and perhaps that makes Mike's logic fallicy based arguments seem so sound to him. Passing nonsense for wisdom. Like saying its ok to plagaraize others works as long as you can say the concepts are biblical because then spiritual law supercedes mans law. Obviiusly stealing is stealing.

 

Share this post


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

I do read your posts, and I am thankful for a slightly softer approach here in this one.

It looks FROM MY VIEWPOINT that many of them in the past were designed to irritate and frustrate me.

I understand: it must be pretty frustrating to repeatedly present the same old, tired argument you've been pedaling for 17 years just have someone else answer with the same rebuttal that disproves the argument.

For example, about 20-50 posts back, you made the claim God gave Saint Vic permission to steal others work. I asked how you know God gave Saint Vic permission. You said you didn't have time to explain. However, you've had time to continue writing other posts.

Then there's the claim, also pretty far back, God won when Saint Vic got away with stealing others works. I asked you if God won when Saint Vic got away with forcing himself on ministry women. Again, you refused to answer.

Quote

This one is still a little heavy on the number of topics you bring up.  It’s difficult to figure out what to respond to, especially if I get that feeling you’ll just find some way to blow off my responses.

As I said before, you want less topics, don't have so many illogical fallicies.

However, this one has only one topic, Your claim of God's view and man's view is flawed because you deny the black or white view of God: stealing is stealing. Period.

Quote

So please pardon me if I pick and choose. It’s late and I’m tired after a couple hours of posting. I have no time to come close to responding to all that are here right now, but I chose yours to try and get a better dialog going between us.

Yah, I know, you have no time. You sure it's not because my bearing false witness argument pokes a huge hole in your not-plagerism-because-God-owns-everything argument and you feel the need for some damage control?

Quote

I see plenty of room to fudge it in man’s law, PLENTY.

So we agree.

Quote

  I see zero room for Christ fudging it on God’s law He gave to Moses.

Again we agree. So when God said, Thou shall not steal he meant thou shall not steal anything. Not a grape, not the church poor box, not someone elses work.  And the same applies to Saint Vic: Paul, tells us not to steal: not a grape, not from the chuch poor box, not someone elses work.

So, as you've just admitted, if there's no grey area, Saint Vic stole from both man and God's viewpoint

Quote

I don't want to fudge any principles He strongly suggests for us either. It looks like you were merging a little the concepts of those two types of laws.

No, your the one mearging two concepts: You just claimed God's viewpoint is absolute as I said, yet you claim that even with this absolute-black or white viewpoint--God didn't see Saint Vic as stealing when he stole other's works..

Quote

***

You wrote: “…your either in fellowship or your not…”

So your saying stealing has nothing to do with being in fellowship or not, right?

Quote

You wrote: “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.”

I think this shuffling around of God's modern revelations is in the last category you mentioned. I really do, and after 40 years of pondering it.

I don’t think

Again, your attempting to set yourself as the standard. I don't care what you think, I care what God thinks.

God says do not steal and as you've admitted above he means do not steal anything, not a grape, not from the church poor box. not someone elses work.

God also says do not bear false witness (take credit for something you didn't do), which is the textbook definition of plagerism.

Quote

we were commanded in the scriptures to not plagiarize. That is a pretty new  concept and didn't happen in the olden days.

So your saying God has nothing about bearing false witness to your neighbor (taking credit for something you didn't do, which is the textbook definition of plagerism)?

Isn't it amazing that God, in His foreknowledge, knew a question about plagerism would come up so He put that commandment in there to address it?

Quote

By the time the US Constitution was written it was becoming well recognized by those who had a financial stake in it, and the founding fathers shored up the flimsy idea of intellectual ownership, and made it fundamental law to financially motivate advances in thought and invention.

If the truth were so flimsy,  that would have been obvious immediately and you would not have wasted over 40 years trying to find a way around it, as you admitted a few lines back.

Nor would this thread have ran for near 20 pages, if the truth were so flimsy.

For example, look at all the responses to the gossimer reason your presenting.

Edited by So_crates

Share this post


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

I don't know what it's like now, but, when I was in The Way, you weren't supposed to say you created something. According to Way theology, to create is to make something out of nothing. Therefore,  "Only God can create."  It's a crazy world, where up is down and nonsense passes for wisdom.

 

1 hour ago, OldSkool said:

Its the same, they make that point in the fnc in the segment covering formed, made,  and created. Twi rearranges the most fundamental boundaries in life and calls that sleight of hand "spiritual."

Im sure thats one of the issues that so many of us struggle with post twi, and perhaps that makes Mike's logic fallicy based arguments seem so sound to him. Passing nonsense for wisdom. Like saying its ok to plagaraize others works as long as you can say the concepts are biblical because then spiritual law supercedes mans law. Obviiusly stealing is stealing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in wierwille’s little delusional universe where everything revolved around his little narcissistic brain, an elitist mentality ruled supreme; wierwille thought he was superior in intellect and “spirituality”. In his mind The nonsense he passed off as “wisdom” trumps anything - the laws of man, personal boundaries, even the 10 commandments, if it suited his treacherous agenda.

 

So...plagiarizing the works of others - no problem as long as no one finds out about it, garners him recognition, money and power...and gets him laid.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I disagree with your viewing VPW’s sources as primary. They ware also loaded with error.  They also had things we did not need to advance God’s curriculum for us.

See, Mike, you keep trying to sell yourself as some person of some study, then you expose your ignorance blatantly like this.

We all agree that there were other sources (Leonard, Stiles, Bullinger)  that vpw went to, and took material from.  That's not even debated anymore.  Those sources are therefore "PRIMARY SOURCES." If he took material from them, that makes his work "SECONDARY SOURCES." People who redid his material made "TERTIARY SOURCES."  That's not a reflection of the content or its quality or utility.   People with "tertiary source" material, ex-twi, might well have cleared out problems from vpw's version, which would make them more useful. That doesn't change that they're "tertiary sources." Objecting to technical definitions is not something someone does if they know their subject.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

See, Mike, you keep trying to sell yourself as some person of some study, then you expose your ignorance blatantly like this.

We all agree that there were other sources (Leonard, Stiles, Bullinger)  that vpw went to, and took material from.  That's not even debated anymore.  Those sources are therefore "PRIMARY SOURCES." If he took material from them, that makes his work "SECONDARY SOURCES." People who redid his material made "TERTIARY SOURCES."  That's not a reflection of the content or its quality or utility.   People with "tertiary source" material, ex-twi, might well have cleared out problems from vpw's version, which would make them more useful. That doesn't change that they're "tertiary sources." Objecting to technical definitions is not something someone does if they know their subject.

WW, the problem is that Mike doesn't know his subject; he keeps repeating the same bull, post after post.  Me, I think he likes, or needs the attention.  Same Bullsheet post, after post.  

Share this post


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

Its the same, they make that point in the fnc in the segment covering formed, made,  and created. Twi rearranges the most fundamental boundaries in life and calls that sleight of hand "spiritual."

Im sure thats one of the issues that so many of us struggle with post twi, and perhaps that makes Mike's logic fallicy based arguments seem so sound to him. Passing nonsense for wisdom. Like saying its ok to plagaraize others works as long as you can say the concepts are biblical because then spiritual law supercedes mans law. Obviiusly stealing is stealing.

 

OS, stealing is wrong, no matter what it is.  If you were in High School, or college, and got caught playgertzing, you would end-up in serious trouble.  I was an English major, back in college, and wrote a lot of papers.  I always quoted my sources, and gave credit to others for their ideas.  VPW knew he was playgertzing, but he probably didn't care. Even when I quoted from the Bible, I would still give my source, and credit the Bible with the information I used.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I believe Paul was being sarcastic there.  The entire verse is: 2Co 11:8  I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

He was letting other churches support his efforts with the Corinthians.

But that certainly doesn't detract from the point you made, which is excellent.

I agree with you, Taxidev. Sarcasm seems a much better fit here than "actually stealing". (Thanks!)  Paul had quite a sense of humor, didn't he? Nevertheless, even sarcasm is something which (to me) still belongs on the dark side of the light, as I have shown. (And thanks for considering that point as "excellent"!) But to keep things just a bit simpler, I offer this:

Not that it matters much to you, Mike:

I remember in PFAL (and so do you!) when VP was sharing about law and grace. After explaining how we're no longer under the law, he remarked: "Now, does this mean that we don't have to obey the ten commandments? And he went on to boldly say: "Certainly not!"

Of course, that would also include the 8th commandment, wouldn't it? (Thou shalt not steal!) Concerning plagiarism, that seems pretty damned clear to me. I rest my case!

Edited by spectrum49
grammar
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

These things are not all put in one place and amenable to such clear cut statements.

To some degree, I had to put it together from some clear cut statements, putting together synonymous or nearly synonymous phrases, and logical connections.   I have been putting the raw materials to do this in my brain ever since 1972, mostly by accident until 1998, when it became deliberate.  I lived with and/or became close friends with, and was closely associated with at least 3 of VPW’s editors prior to 1998.  

I have many, many facts at close hand in mind when I talk about these things. One by one I have been posting these things for 17 years here.  In that process I have seen that most posters can hold only one, two, or three of these things in mind for a few days as the dialog, not with, but against me. Hardly any care to understand these things but only refute them.  That makes it impossible for them to “get it.”

Hardly anyone studies ALL that I post, and many items I juggle in my mind when thinking on these things are ALL necessary to see some of these things.

If you have not listened to and read the transcript to “Light Began to Dawn” you are missing too many facts to follow me. If you don’t yet know what “Light Began to Dawn” is, then you are an example of what I am talking about.  I’ve posted the transcript here twice, and quoted from it at least a dozen times.  If this is new to you, that means you have not even begun to heart it all, and missed one of the major highlights. I’d love to post the .mp3 here. Is that possible?

VPW says there that he got “light” from certain sources. That’s an example of a synonymous phrase for revelation. Not all the time, but in the contexts that I juggle, it is.

Here’s an example of a logical connection: VPW says that some of his writings are God-breathed (PFAL.p83), then at the end of his life he tells us twice to master the writings that come with the class. That’s a simple logical connection that the writings that come with the class are God-breathed.

There are bunches of these things involved here that make this a bit of a detective job. I did not volunteer to be the gum shoe here, but it seems to have all dropped into my lap. It surprises me to this day.

Another thing to consider is that this was a secret project of VPW’s that only he and God talked about, until he got green lights to let out little tid-bits, scattered over several decades. Mrs. Wierwille even was kept out of the loop. She even had difficulty with water baptism being out (CF&S) let alone her “difficult” husband coming up with God’s Word like it hadn’t been known since the first century. From what I heard here, she didn’t even hear that 1965 tape of  “Light Began to Dawn.”

Often VPW talked about keeping of secrets and all folks here can think of is sex.

The BIG secret of VPW’s life was the light (revelation) God guided to and guided him to put it all together.  How many of us would have signed a green card that had as one of the benefits:  “Receive English language God-breathed texts” ???   I know I would have walked away, and so would have you. We just wouldn’t take the time to check it out, let alone try to discipline our lives to it.  It had to be kept a SECRET as big as the Mystery revelation given to Paul.

In the old, old SNS tapes one can often hear VPW giving out tiny comments indicating he was getting revelation to STOP TALKING. He threw out hints, and he camouflaged many statements so they sail over peoples’ heads, yet still get into the record for those who took the time to meekly search.  No meekness means no seeking and no finding.  

I’m putting out an abundance of sledgehammer non subtle statements, and with the lack of meekness whipped up here it sails over everyone’s heads. Yet it’s in the record here (except for the pruned threads that might someday be restored) for meek digital archeologists to find someday.

 

According to the definition of communication, you're not taking responsibility for your failure to communicate. Who do you think you are, Jesus Christ?

Btw, Wierwille's comments to which you refer, contrary to your claim, do NOT indicate he was getting revelation (from God). Properly characterized, he would have been exercising his training in homiletics to claim (and get gullible listeners to accept) that he was getting revelation from God. But said comments were specifically NOT indications that he was getting any such thing from God, even in the event he may have been getting revelation from God to such an end.


 

Share this post


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

It's more speaking UP FOR God.

Remember the assumption in the view I described is: God gave the revelations to VPW sources, then told VPW to go get them, shake the dust off them, and re-circulate them.

If that assumption is correct, then it's people here who are forbidding God to do end runs around tradition and courts and copyright laws, as the real owner of the material.

Now you're rewriting your comment given that you were caught doing something you know you can't legitimately do? NO, you weren't speaking up for God. Had that been your intent, you'd have to say something to the effect of "my understanding of God's word is ________ , and I'm calling your attention to it." That's NOT what you did.

Your claimed assumption, as stated above, is specious.

Share this post


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

It's more speaking UP FOR God.

Remember the assumption in the view I described is: God gave the revelations to VPW sources, then told VPW to go get them, shake the dust off them, and re-circulate them.

If that assumption is correct, then it's people here who are forbidding God to do end runs around tradition and courts and copyright laws, as the real owner of the material.

This sounds like the old moral-switcheroo:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter…Isaiah 5:20 NIV

I don’t think this imaginary morally corrupt and mute “god” who thumbs his nose at honest decent folks needs someone to speak up for him - - just a crooked defense attorney. :evilshades:

Share this post


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

It's more speaking UP FOR God.

Remember the assumption in the view I described is: God gave the revelations to VPW sources, then told VPW to go get them, shake the dust off them, and re-circulate them.

If that assumption is correct, then it's people here who are forbidding God to do end runs around tradition and courts and copyright laws, as the real owner of the material.

“If that assumption is correct”-

Let’s keep it simple, the assumption is false therefore the premise on which you built your life the last 15 years is also false, and therefore you do a disservice to God when you claim to “speak UP FOR God”

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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...

×
×
  • Create New...