BG Leonard's book "foundations"/Plagiarism

[Dot Matrix]

OM and M -

It's not plagerism?

So, Weirwille can change a word, add a word or delete a word...

Sounds like what he told us the devil did to Eve in Genisis.

Even if you do not want to call it plagerism, what do you want to call it? What are you comfortable with?

Copied it "almost" word for word? The point is he did not research this, get a special promise from God and invent the class. Leonard GOT a promise from God, researched it and started a class...

Not sure of what the hang up is? Bottom line VPW took his info from Leonard, changed the promise from God slightly, altered a few words, and claimed he got all this info from God!

That is not an honorable thing to do. It is despicable for a man who was suppose to represent GOD, to steal another man who did represent God's work and sell it as his own.

Why is this concept so hard to get?

When my husband worked in California, he did research on an idea he had. He had a few people fax over some info to support the idea.

This guy, his nemisis, heard him on the phone and stood at the fax machine. When my husband went to the fax he saw the tail end of Fred walking into the President's office. Suspicious, he placed himself in ear shot and heard Fred hand "Robert" all the information and present my hub's idea as his own.

IT'S JUST WRONG. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

So, if plagerism bothers you then how about unethical? Dishonorable? Liar?

Pick another word. Just not MOG or author.

[Dot Matrix]

I got it Raf. Give me a minute. I posted it in Help the PFAL class is stolen.

Here, the Promise to BG Leonard

"One day God spoke to me. "If thou wilt wait patiently before me, I will give thee the revelation concerning that which is written in my Word touching these things; the revelation my people need to bring them out of their chaos and confusion." I believed God. For months I waited before His presence in solitude. During those wonderful days, He revealed the truth to me concerning the gifts of the Spirit. As He did, these things were proven by acting upon the knowledge thus received, and by examining the results in light of His Word."

[Raf]

Don't you just love it? The only thing missing was an early October invisible snowstorm.

Then later on, he hears God tell him, "Write."

Riiiiiight. :)-->

[TheEvan]

And in Leonard's work I find a thing that is utterly original. I don't agree with everything he taught, or some of his approaches. But still, his body of teaching had an integrity and a cohesiveness that Wierwille's never had.

He taught it more convincingly because the material was his.

Leonard was a master in the field of healing (among many others). I'll say it plainly. What he taught works. The reason Wierwille's didn't, by and large (the results were always, at best, spotty) is because of the changes he made where he deemed Leonard "inaccurate".

But I don't think it's accuracy, per se, that gives a spark to a person's ministry. It is, rather, their integrity and honesty with people and before God. If a person has a genuine call of God and walks it out this will be evident to others. One can argue whether Wierwille had a genuine call or not. But I can definiteively say he did not walk it out. His behavior gave ample proof of that

[Dot Matrix]

Hahahahaha

Raf, I do love it! Unreal.

Why do these people cling blindly to a horror story? Gosh, wake up admit you were duped and keep looking! Is it pride? They cannot admit they were wrong? I have never seen such blind head strong people in my life.

I was WRONG to believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny and in a Hallowed farm in Ohio with a Holy man who saw a storm and got a promise from God!

Not so hard to say.

[Dot Matrix]

Amen Evan!

The man who ministered to me was a Leonard graduate. He prayed over the phone from Greece for me. The medical community could not see what was going on and he called FROM GREECE and hit it right on the money and I got healed!

Which of Leonard's books teach on healing?

[shazdancer]

So we now have a "spiritual" reason why VPW's plagiarism is so wrong. If VPW stole words and concepts from someone from his generation (Stiles and Leonard), then he cannot be an apostle by his own definition, since an apostle is supposed to "bring new light to his generation. It may be old light, but it is new to that generation."

Did VPW SAY he was an apostle? I dunno, but he sure hinted at it. And in a private conversation with me, he said he had gift ministrieS. Let's see, he called himself The Teacher -- that's one. Hmm, prophet? Nah. Evangelist? Not exactly his area of concentration. Pastor? Hardly! Unless you think that sexual ministrations are therapeutic. Having heard from a few that he "ministered" to, I would say NOT!

That leaves us with apostle. And Wierwille didn't fit his own definition, because he taught OLD light. Out of his own mouth he condemns himself.

Regards,

Shaz

[WordWolf]

Shaz,

He DESIGNED his own definition specifically so people WOULD

leap upon that conclusion.

There was a Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert had to define his job

requirements, so he wrote them so specifically that he was the

only person who could fit them. He included things like

"overwhelming cynicism" and so on. With the exception that

this was a work of fictional comedy, it's the same thing.

Wierwille's definitions look different because he slapped on

wordier and wordier additions to the beginning and end of them.

That definition of tongues above-Leonard's-is straightforward

and makes more sense to me than Wierwille's.

Wierwille, for example, felt the need to tack the following

prefix to the beginning of the definition of EACH manifestation:

"The manifestation of (name of manifestation) is your operation

of the God-given ability whereby you may receive from God,

by His revealing unto you,...."

The words "by His revealing unto you" don't show up on tongues

because it bypasses the conscious mind. Other than that, it's a

"high-faluting" rewording of the simpler way Leonard said it.

Can we get Leonard's definitions on the revelation manifestations?

I can quote the vpw and cg versions for them, and I want to see

if the problems I had with vpw's were entirely vpw's or if they're

in the Leonard version. cg fixed them in his before I heard his,

and then couldn't resist tweaking them further and adding something

I consider error. (I'll explain when outlining them.)

[Raf]

I'll get to the rest tonight, unless Dot wants to post them now.

[diazbro]

Dot Matrix said:

So, Weirwille can change a word, add a word or delete a word...

Sounds like what he told us the devil did to Eve in Genisis.

>>

Yes exactly ! VPW went to lengths to explain how adding and changing words can impact the truth of something but his supporters want us

to let it slide when we observe the same practice in the books of VPW. Worse yet its

more than just a case of adding and deleting

a single word or even several. We are talking

about entire paragraphs and sections ! Are

we to apply a different standard to VPW simply

because some consider him to be their "father

in the word" ? No we should not.

[diazbro]

Wow I didn't know that VPW's moment of

epiphany was also taken and rewritten.

I thought he just came up with that one

by himself since its common for aggressive preachers and evangelists to make similar claims.

[Raf]

You guys are missing the point here:

If you change a Word of God's Word, then you no longer have God's Word, right?

So by the same token, if you add a word, delete a word, or change a word of the word of man, you no longer have that man's word, right? So Oldiesman can look at the section I quoted and see no evidence of plagiarism because there are sufficient "differences," never mind the blatant similarities. That's why I challenge Oldiesman to re-think his definition of plagiarism, because (I believe) it is based on a false standard making plagiarism just about impossible to commit.

Wierwille plagiarized Leonard. Period. It's not even arguable, unless your definition of plagiarism is so permissive that the only way it can be committed is with carbon paper and a typewriter.

[oldiesman]

Raf, I hear what you're saying and think you're making good arguments...

Am still working thru this in my head.

Thanks as always for your (and others') input.

[Goey]

Rafael Asked,

quote:

---

If you change a Word of God's Word, then you no longer have God's Word, right?

---

Actutally, I'd say no.

Translation many times changes words and reorders them, yet if the idea, thought, concept or intended message is accuratey relayed then nothing is lost -it remains God's Word.

Plagiarism does not just involve words, sentence scructure, phrases or paragraphs. It applies to ideas and concepts as well.

Leonard Wrote:

quote:

---

"One day God spoke to me. "If thou wilt wait patiently before me, I will give thee the revelation concerning that which is written in my Word touching these things; the revelation my people need to bring them out of their chaos and confusion."

---

Wierwille said in SNS #214

quote:

---

"...God revealed Himself to me and talked to me and told me as plain as day that, if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to teach it to anybody since the first generation,..."

---

Amazing. It seems that VPW not only plagiarized Leonard's class and books, but he also may have stolen (plagiarized) the account of God speaking to him in 1942. The similarities are undeniable.

Goey

"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

[Raf]

Oldiesman,

Take your time. I'm sure if you approach this with an open heart, you'll find that there's more bathwater than you anticipated, but by God's grace, there's plenty of baby too.

Goey,

Good point. I was referring, of course, to Wierwille's internal consistency, not to objective reality. I was only trying to come up with Wierwille's possible justification of plagiarism: "it's not plagiarism if I add a word, delete a word, or change a word."

Yes it is.

[excathedra]

those two quotes posted by goey by b.g. and v.p. are truly bizarre !!!!!

did they call b.g. "b.g." he may have even stolen "v.p."

i would hardly doubt for a second !!!!!!

i mean of course he became DOCTOR. how weird is all this. i've seen some of it before but that was in my previous fog years

?

[Dot Matrix]

Look, I am going to share some personal things to make a point. You do not have to read them. I share them so Oldies man Knows where I am coming from.

The reason, I believe it is so hard for people to recognize what a louse VPW was, is because they got delivered in the PFAL class. I also had great deliverance.

Took out personal stuff!

[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on December 01, 2003 at 5:13.]

[Goey]

Nice Post Dot,

Thanks for sharing that.

Goey

"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

[Dot Matrix]

Thanks, :)-->

[Raf]

Don't tell me I have to start an Actual Errors in the works of BG Leonard thread. :P-->

[excathedra]

i think you're all outta your minds

just kidding

sorta ;)-->

?

[Raf]

So Dot, what you're saying is, VPW put something in the brownies.

It would explain all the invisible snowstorms.

[Dot Matrix]

Raf

Oh my I am laughing to death here Raf!

:D-->

[Dot Matrix]

Raf

I do not care about the errors in Leonard's works. He was looking to serve God and help people.

And because he had a heart to help and serve much of what he taught delivered many.

I am not trying to make Leonard the new "god" but instead trying to give him long over due credit, for the wonderful ministry his life stood for.

We can always find things we disagree with, this is about figuring out who reached out to us with the class -- but we did not know it.

I think you know that. ;)-->

[Dot Matrix]

This does not mean I am not interested in hearing more truth, that passes some of his research, just it was not the point of what I was saying.