Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Plagiarism on the road to success


Recommended Posts

On 3/1/2018 at 6:21 PM, Mike said:

 

Human memory, like human creative thought, is a fascinating thing.

I remembered still more of Steve Heefner's request for a leave of absence.

Steve told me in 1990 that he was broadsided by VPW's remark because he had made no such request for a leave of absence. What I saw from the audience in 1972 was VPW making this surprising announcement about Steve's leave of absence request, with Steve standing right there next to him. They then shook hands and Steve walked off the stage.

I had known, even though I was new in the Word, that there were tensions between the two. Lots of people knew that.  It was a pretty tough strong-arm tactic on VPW's part; powerful man versus powerful man.  But it looked friendly, and it had the open hope that Steve would return when their conflict cooled down. However, he never did return. Jimmy Doop did return... a couple of times.

 I saw the hippie element being slowly but systematically removed from the ministry almost right after the 1972 Rock of Ages.  I heard that a lot of the old timers were not happy with hippies, Rock music and such.

As a hippie (or a wannabe), I never felt exploited by the ministry. It provided a service to me until I could provide it for myself and others. Then it went downhill fast.

WOW.  This Machiavellian power play speaks volumes as to the standard set for top leaders that Victor Paul Wierwille showed by example in the Way.  All 3 succeeding presidents after him have studied these acts and performed similar acts of their own.

In this act VP was dishonest - lying in front of a group of his followers - lying about something one of his greatest supporters to date had said privately, removing him from any power and influence (which he had actually cultivated himself - that was not VP's crop there) through lying.  Cutting off access to "the household", Steve was effectively "put on probation" right there and set up to be shunned with control of the followup messaging.  

The hippie element was "systematically removed".  Wow.  From 1972 on.  VPW retired in 1981, right?  So who exactly was it that spearheaded the "systematic removal of the hippies"?  Ding ding ding - yes that would be old shyster VP himself.  

Mike you having been physically present there is a wealth of information about the early functioning of VPW you possess.  You don't even know it yourself because you are kind of walking around in a haze where a man who was behaving like that even in your direct presence you explain away in your brain because somehow you believe God performed automatic writing through VPW in producing his plagiarized classes.

A strong-arm tactic, Mike?  Involving lying?  Where do you see Jesus behaving in this fashion?

 

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

12 hours ago, chockfull said:

WOW.  This Machiavellian power play speaks volumes as to the standard set for top leaders that Victor Paul Wierwille showed by example in the Way.  All 3 succeeding presidents after him have studied these acts and performed similar acts of their own.

In this act VP was dishonest - lying in front of a group of his followers - lying about something one of his greatest supporters to date had said privately, removing him from any power and influence (which he had actually cultivated himself - that was not VP's crop there) through lying.  Cutting off access to "the household", Steve was effectively "put on probation" right there and set up to be shunned with control of the followup messaging.  

The hippie element was "systematically removed".  Wow.  From 1972 on.  VPW retired in 1981, right?  So who exactly was it that spearheaded the "systematic removal of the hippies"?  Ding ding ding - yes that would be old shyster VP himself.  

Mike you having been physically present there is a wealth of information about the early functioning of VPW you possess.  You don't even know it yourself because you are kind of walking around in a haze where a man who was behaving like that even in your direct presence you explain away in your brain because somehow you believe God performed automatic writing through VPW in producing his plagiarized classes.

A strong-arm tactic, Mike?  Involving lying?  Where do you see Jesus behaving in this fashion?

 

I took it as "euphemistic" after talking to Steve in 1990,  and that VPW was giving Heefner another chance to line up with him. That is strong arm. I know VPW tolerated no compromise. We all knew that long before getting deeply involved.

Saying "I accept your request for a leave of absence" is a way of saying "You're fired. HOWEVER you can come back."  It's a euphemism.

You can see this strong arm way of doing things in Jesus' handling of Peter and Judas.  I think he was tougher on Peter.  Jesus tolerated no compromises either, not on important issues.  He was tough because he was right.  When VPW was right, being tough on it was also right. Of course, "when he was right" doesn't fit at all into the Pure Evil paradigm.

Edited by Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chockfull said:

The hippie element was "systematically removed".  Wow.  From 1972 on.  VPW retired in 1981, right?  So who exactly was it that spearheaded the "systematic removal of the hippies"?  Ding ding ding - yes that would be old shyster VP himself. 

Actually, it was VPW who went to San Francisco right after making the film class. If you can find any old SNS tapes from the weeks after he returned, and also just prior to the hippies coming to New Knoxville, you'll hear in the announcements VPW extolling the virtues of these strange beasts. He had to prepare all the rednecks in Ohio that this would be a good thing for the ministry. Most surviving tapes, though, are the "teaching only" type, with most announcements deleted.

In 1977 VPW announced at lunch (I posted extensively on this event) that he had allowed a lot his leaders to wrongly convince him to re-do the class in PFAL '77.  The POP paper is loaded with details of how VPW did not get his way, especially after 1982 and Craig's installation.  When I started work at HQ in 1976 my co-worker (very long time grad) told me it was general older ministry leadership, and a lot of them, that were behind the hippie sterilization.  So, I'm not at all convinced it was VPW who led that charge.

 

Edited by Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mike said:

When I started work at HQ in 1976 my co-worker (very long time grad) told me it was general older ministry leadership, and a lot of them, that were behind the hippie sterilization.  So, I'm not at all convinced it was VPW who led that charge.

You don't think VP was completely at the reins in 1967?

:biglaugh:

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

You don't think VP was completely at the reins in 1967?

:biglaugh:

No. He struggled some for control. There were major disagreements prior to 1967, where he did not have complete control. The move to New Knoxville was a major battle with major losses.

The hippies didn't start coming till late '68 and '69.  It grew constantly up to the 1972 ROA. Then the early hippie sterilization started as leaders were fitted for suits and ties.

The ultimate non-hippie was LCM and by the early 80s he was the example how leadership had to be.  I bought his leadership all the way until the POP. I could see that Geer had manipulated him.  I liked Geer in the 70s. I knew him a little at Rye NY before he went Corps.  He helped me greatly with something once.  I was sad at how two of my heros went sour.

I visited a TWI twig somewhere in the 90s because Donnie Fugit was a special guest. I wore a tie dye shirt and he was ecstatic upon seeing it.

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

" I know VPW tolerated no compromise "    ....and yet you said this just 10 minutes earlier.

This was a big beef I had with VPW.  I understood why he took that stand, but it was never fine tuned, and it was needed.

Thousands of grads grew up with a bad taste associated with the word "compromise." It was never explained to them that sometimes compromise is good and essential. I wonder how many grads think the Missouri Compromise was a bad thing, yet still think the Constitution and it compromised bicameral make-up is God-inspired.

 

Errata:  I got the name wrong. The Missouri Compromise was later. I can't find the name of the bicameral compromise.   Was that called the Great Compromise?   I  forget.

Edited by Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mike said:

Thousands of grads grew up with a bad taste associated with the word "compromise."

I think all we have to do is look to how the ministry defined compromise for an answer to the above statement.

In the real world compromise means both sides give a little to reach an agreement.

However, with Saint Vic and the ministry leadership, compromise meant what's mine is mine and what's yours in negotionable. 

In other words, they wanted it their way and, not giving an inch, expected you to "compromise" to their position.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to say here, except: Such a shameful act to steal one's work and put your own name on it!

Actually, I wanted you all to ENJOY something appropriate: (It's only about 3 minutes --- AND WELL WORTH IT!:biglaugh:

 

Edited by spectrum49
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spectrum49 said:

Nothing to say here, except: Such a shameful act to steal one's work and put your own name on it!

Actually, I wanted you all to ENJOY something appropriate: (It's only about 3 minutes --- AND WELL WORTH IT!:biglaugh:

 

49, great video!  Thanks for posting it!

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

I think all we have to do is look to how the ministry defined compromise for an answer to the above statement.

In the real world compromise means both sides give a little to reach an agreement.

However, with Saint Vic and the ministry leadership, compromise meant what's mine is mine and what's yours in negotionable. 

In other words, they wanted it their way and, not giving an inch, expected you to "compromise" to their position.

 

I think  you left out some important information.

Here’s how I’d re-write it:

In the dull, natural 5-senses world, where no true authority whatsoever prevails,  compromise means both sides give a little to reach an agreement. Probably, both sides have some things wrong and some things right.

However, with genuine spiritual leaders, compromise means what's right with God is the way we do it, and what's not at all contradictory to that might be negotiable.

Addendum:  Do you think there is a record of Jesus Christ compromising?   In the Epistles we are told to "...let our moderation be known..." and we were taught that moderation meant YIELDINGNESS on small matters.  So, in a sense we had the two words re-defined a little: no compromising was for big matters and moderation for small matters.  I always saw young newbies pick up on "compromise" being a negative word, when it is not treated that way in the general population.

 

 

Edited by Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mike said:

No. He struggled some for control. There were major disagreements prior to 1967, where he did not have complete control. The move to New Knoxville was a major battle with major losses.

 

Struggled with whom? It was his friggin' ministry, for crying out loud.

 

39 minutes ago, Mike said:

I think  you left out some important information.

Here’s how I’d re-write it:

In the dull, natural 5-senses world, where no true authority whatsoever prevails,  compromise means both sides give a little to reach an agreement. Probably, both sides have some things wrong and some things right.

However, with genuine spiritual leaders, compromise means what's right with God is the way we do it, and what's not at all contradictory to that might be negotiable.

I think YOU left out some important information. In your world (with allegedly "genuine spiritual leaders"), how does one determine "what's right with God," other than simply declining to question or challenge VeePee? How do you measure the standard?

The way most of us saw it play out is that a malignant narcissist with a gift for conning young people demanded loyalty and if someone didn't like it, then to hell with them.

IOW, people didn't stay in Wierwille's notion of the household of God based on anything other than that they bought into a confidence game and continued along because they found a place to belong.

Edited by Rocky
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike said:

I think  you left out some important information.

Here’s how I’d re-write it:

In the dull, natural 5-senses world, where no true authority whatsoever prevails,  compromise means both sides give a little to reach an agreement. Probably, both sides have some things wrong and some things right.

However, with genuine spiritual leaders, compromise means what's right with God is the way we do it, and what's not at all contradictory to that might be negotiable.

(SNIP)

Call me old fashion but I tend to think in courts of law, in business, in science, in history - the prevailing authority are the facts.

As far as determining who are genuine spiritual leaders – and me being just your typical, dull,  5-senses oriented schlub, I guess I’d have to find out a few things. Like ask what religion do these supposed spiritual or religious leaders represent? Then review the basic tenets and sacred documents of that religion. Next look into the personal and professional life of that leader – the body of their work and the example they have set – looking to see if they have done the due diligence to actually achieve the status of being a genuine spiritual leader…

…not like I have a whole lot of free time and would do that before the next ecclesiastic conference when clerics might get together to negotiate an official stance on whatever…I guess it has to do with the fact that I’ve been fooled before by one certain  unabashed plagiarist, sexual predator and hypocrite…just sayin’.

Edited by T-Bone
grandma...I mean grammar...still not sure I got it right...write?
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike said:

I think  you left out some important information.

Here’s how I’d re-write it:

In the dull, natural 5-senses world, where no true authority whatsoever prevails,  compromise means both sides give a little to reach an agreement. Probably, both sides have some things wrong and some things right.

However, with genuine spiritual leaders, compromise means what's right with God is the way we do it, and what's not at all contradictory to that might be negotiable.

Addendum:  Do you think there is a record of Jesus Christ compromising?   In the Epistles we are told to "...let our moderation be known..." and we were taught that moderation meant YIELDINGNESS on small matters.  So, in a sense we had the two words re-defined a little: no compromising was for big matters and moderation for small matters.  I always saw young newbies pick up on "compromise" being a negative word, when it is not treated that way in the general population.

 

 

King Solomon apparently disagreed with your (il)logic. What do you do with Proverbs 11:14?

"Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety." ESV

And what about Proverbs 16:18?

"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." NIV

Mike, I think the scriptures are calling BULL$hit on you.
 

VeePee was as arrogant as they come and clearly, he eschewed wise counsel when he needed it most.

Edited by Rocky
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mike said:

I know VPW tolerated no compromise. We all knew that long before getting deeply involved.

On the contrary, Saint Vic tolerated a lot of compromise.

 

2 hours ago, Mike said:

However, with genuine spiritual leaders, compromise means what's right with God is the way we do it, and what's not at all contradictory to that might be negotiable.

God is the right way we do it?

You mean like when he stole others works and claiming he wrote them, compromising God's Word on stealing?

Or how about when he forced himself on ministry women, compromising God's Word on adultry?

Saint Vic seemed to have no trouble compromising on those.

2 hours ago, Mike said:

In the dull, natural 5-senses world, where no true authority whatsoever prevails,  compromise means both sides give a little to reach an agreement. Probably, both sides have some things wrong and some things right.

But, of course, when it comes to 5 senses things, specifically money and power, Saint Vic felt there was no compromise, as proven by your anecdote

In an earlier post you wrote:

Jesus tolerated no compromises either, not on important issues

What Jesus didn't compromise on, unlike Saint Vic, was God's Word.

So, by your compromise proving priorities argument we can see God's Word wasn't important to Saint Vic, as he repeatedly compromised on it. However, Saint Vic's desire for money and power were important as he refused to compromise on it.

Edited by So_crates
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike....

let us hear YOUR version of dictor paul’s rabid anti-semitism, racism, and ideological sentiment for Hitler and Naziism. I’m interested to see if your revisionist “history” is as “accurate” on dictor as it was on Steve Heefner. Which was “the wrong side” in WW II, according to dictor paul, mike??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I asked questions I want to know the answers to from Mike, regarding the revisionist history he uses freely re: DP Wierwille, Heefner, etc. Mike was there and so was I. Mike is inaccurate in his alternative facts RE: dictor’s plagiarism and I asked him to give us his VERSION of dp’s plagiarism and revisionist history of WW II and Heefner’s “leave of absence request”(sic!). You ask your own questions and I’ll ask mine. Let the moderators do the moderating. TY.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a bit off topic, but I have something to say:

There's been talk here about how to define just who "your spiritual leaders" are. I have a story which might shed some light on this:

First, let us keep in mind Heb 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and IS a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

From the above, we understand it's entirely possible to actually perceive what's going on in people's hearts and minds by understanding appropriate related scriptures. And that's still true --- even when they themselves may not be fully aware of it! This is a very important part of discerning spiritual situations.

I once had a Twig Coordinator (name withheld) who wasn't very nice to me personally. It seems he never had much good to say of me --- if anything at all! But still, I put up with his often rudeness the best I could. While it's true I did much to help in the fellowship and conducted myself well, I never heard even one word of thanks, or "good job" from him.

However, he was very quick to point out each and every fault he could find on me (like a fly on .... :realmad:). And many times it wasn't even justified, meaning that he was accusing me falsely! [This is one of the so-called 7 deadly sins from Prov 6:19 (#7) "and he that soweth discord among brethren.". It also relates with the 8th commandment --- from Ex 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."]

Anyway, one time I was reading in Galatians and something stuck out to me. I've bolded the part which struck a chord in my heart:

Rom 13:1-3 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and THOU SHALT HAVE praise of the same:"

According to this, true spiritual leaders are defined by God himself --- and NOT because someone has a corpse ring on his finger and sanction by some earthly ministry to be my leader! This is done in heaven --- and is in accordance with what the Word declares. (Remember Heb 4:12?)

Simply because this guy didn't give me praise when it was warranted, it was revealed to my heart that he was NOT REALLY MY LEADER at all; for if he truly was, he would have conducted himself accordingly.

So one day (when I had enough of his BS) I confronted him about denying me those "words of praise" when they were due. And he laughed at me. So I took him to the section in Romans 13 and showed it to him. And I told him that I no longer considered him my spiritual leader because of it. And he laughed me to scorn!

And from then on, I made it a point "not to obey him in all things". Instead of putting up with his nonsense during fellowship, I constantly confronted him (in front of everyone) when he would accuse me falsely.

In a short time, he became very frustrated! In fact, he got so upset that he actually left the area. (He even divorced his wife, quit the ministry all together --- and moved back to Louisiana where he was brought up!)

And thus: The truth I had boldly declared became true upon earth, even as in heaven --- that he was no longer my leader, or for that matter, anyone's leader! (Actually, he never was anyway --- get it?)

There are many similar parameters like this within the Word --- which truly define life's situations. And the more of them we notice, the wiser we shall be in evaluating the proper associations we should make among people --- and choices which will enhance our lives for the better. :rolleyes:

Edited by spectrum49
grammar
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Rocky said:

Struggled with whom? It was his friggin' ministry, for crying out loud.

 

I think YOU left out some important information. In your world (with allegedly "genuine spiritual leaders"), how does one determine "what's right with God," other than simply declining to question or challenge VeePee? How do you measure the standard?

The way most of us saw it play out is that a malignant narcissist with a gift for conning young people demanded loyalty and if someone didn't like it, then to hell with them.

IOW, people didn't stay in Wierwille's notion of the household of God based on anything other than that they bought into a confidence game and continued along because they found a place to belong.

Rocky, bingo!!  Excellent post!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I asked questions I want to know the answers to from Mike, regarding the revisionist history he uses freely re: DP Wierwille, Heefner, etc. Mike was there and so was I. Mike is inaccurate in his alternative facts RE: dictor’s plagiarism and I asked him to give us his VERSION of dp’s plagiarism and revisionist history of WW II and Heefner’s “leave of absence request”(sic!). You ask your own questions and I’ll ask mine. Let the moderators do the moderating. TY.

DWBH, I understand that you and Mike "were there."  But, quite frankly, I think Mike "plays fast, and loose" with the truth.  Whereas, you tell it, the way it really was. When you post, you know what you are talking about; you don't post a lot of Donkey Dung.  Both you and Mike, "were there," but Mike posts as though life in TWI, was nothing but peace, and love.  I think much of what he says is Dung.  Shalom.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

Mike....

let us hear YOUR version of dictor paul’s rabid anti-semitism, racism, and ideological sentiment for Hitler and Naziism. I’m interested to see if your revisionist “history” is as “accurate” on dictor as it was on Steve Heefner. Which was “the wrong side” in WW II, according to dictor paul, mike??

DWBH, Mike's mind is all ready made up.  Please don't confuse him, with any facts.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2018 at 7:02 PM, Bolshevik said:

 

On 3/20/2018 at 7:02 PM, Bolshevik said:

 

TWI started out as a radio broadcast didn't it?

So, who invented the radio and who made the money on it?

 

 

I guess Bolshevik thinks this question was totally “on topic”, eh GVC? LOL!

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, spectrum49 said:

Maybe a bit off topic, but I have something to say:

There's been talk here about how to define just who "your spiritual leaders" are. I have a story which might shed some light on this:

First, let us keep in mind Heb 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and IS a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

From the above, we understand it's entirely possible to actually perceive what's going on in people's hearts and minds by understanding appropriate related scriptures. And that's still true --- even when they themselves may not be fully aware of it! This is a very important part of discerning spiritual situations.

I once had a Twig Coordinator (name withheld) who wasn't very nice to me personally. It seems he never had much good to say of me --- if anything at all! But still, I put up with his often rudeness the best I could. While it's true I did much to help in the fellowship and conducted myself well, I never heard even one word of thanks, or "good job" from him.

However, he was very quick to point out each and every fault he could find on me (like a fly on .... :realmad:). And many times it wasn't even justified, meaning that he was accusing me falsely! [This is one of the so-called 7 deadly sins from Prov 6:19 (#7) "and he that soweth discord among brethren.". It also relates with the 8th commandment --- from Ex 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."]

Anyway, one time I was reading in Galatians and something stuck out to me. I've bolded the part which struck a chord in my heart:

Rom 13:1-3 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and THOU SHALT HAVE praise of the same:"

According to this, true spiritual leaders are defined by God himself --- and NOT because someone has a corpse ring on his finger and sanction by some earthly ministry to be my leader! This is done in heaven --- and is in accordance with what the Word declares. (Remember Heb 4:12?)

Simply because this guy didn't give me praise when it was warranted, it was revealed to my heart that he was NOT REALLY MY LEADER at all; for if he truly was, he would have conducted himself accordingly.

So one day (when I had enough of his BS) I confronted him about denying me those "words of praise" when they were due. And he laughed at me. So I took him to the section in Romans 13 and showed it to him. And I told him that I no longer considered him my spiritual leader because of it. And he laughed me to scorn!

And from then on, I made it a point "not to obey him in all things". Instead of putting up with his nonsense during fellowship, I constantly confronted him (in front of everyone) when he would accuse me falsely.

In a short time, he became very frustrated! In fact, he got so upset that he actually left the area. (He even divorced his wife, quit the ministry all together --- and moved back to Louisiana where he was brought up!)

And thus: The truth I had boldly declared became true upon earth, even as in heaven --- that he was no longer my leader, or for that matter, anyone's leader! (Actually, he never was anyway --- get it?)

There are many similar parameters like this within the Word --- which truly define life's situations. And the more of them we notice, the wiser we shall be in evaluating the proper associations we should make among people --- and choices which will enhance our lives for the better. :rolleyes:

49, WOW!  Great post! I knew a few leaders, who were jerks.  I think some of them, were on power trips.  I stayed as far away from them, as possible.

  • Like 1
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...