Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Why Plagiarism is a Big Deal


Hope R.
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is posted with permission from John Juedes, who wrote the article. I thought it was one of the best explanations of why it is dead wrong to take credit for someone else's work. You may have read it all before - but I thought it would be a good thing to post here.


Why Plagiarism is a Big Deal

Some ex-followers of TWI excuse VP Wierwille's plagiarism, saying that VPW admitted that he learned things from others, and once in a while he mentioned them or their books by name. But this shows that the ex-followers misunderstand what plagiarism is. Everyone learns from others, but only a few dishonest writers plagiarize.

Plagiarism is COPYING from an author. When VP wrote books, he put his name on the cover, saying "I wrote this-- no one else." When writers quote another authors, they cite the source, saying "I wrote this book-- but not this paragraph, I'm only copying this part from the author I'm naming now."

VPW copied A LOT from other authors, but didn't admit that he did by putting their names in the text or notes. So readers all assumed, "VPW wrote this whole book," which is one thing that impressed people. They figured that if VPW could write lots of books, he must have studied the Word a lot and found out stuff himself. This drew a lot of followers. But this was all a lie, because vast sections of "VPW's" writings weren't his-- they were copied word for word, without references. VP lied like this for 30 years, from the 1st or 2nd edition of RTHST to a Way Magazine article just before he died.

VP doubled the lie by saying often that he learned on his own. Remember the part of Power for Abundant Living when VP said he took ALL his books to the dump and read the Word alone? He said, "I hauled over 3,000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around the Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying the Word..." (P. 119-120). Or the great story in The Way Living in Love in which VP tells a fawning Elena Whiteside that "He (God) spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others" (p. 178). TWI thought this was so fantastic that it dates its anniversary to this alleged event rather than to the formation of TWI.

Have you read the intro of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today in which he says he "put aside all I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with The Bible as my handbook as well a my textbook" (p. X). Then VPW copied 70% of RTHST directly from other authors. He wrote that in the 3rd edition, but in the second edition he admitted learning from "someone." The fact that he replaced his statement that he learned from someone (J.E. Stiles, whom he never mentioned by name) with a statement that he learned it all himself from the Bible alone shows how consciously he lied for his own self-promotion. This isn't the kind of character or spiritual leader to admire.

Why didn't Stiles, E.W. Bullinger, E.W. Kenyon, B.G. Leonard and others make a fuss when VP stole their work? VP is the small-timer here. By the time VPW got more than a couple thousand followers (the size of literally thousands of individual churches across the country) it was already the mid-1970s. By that time, Stiles, Kenyon, Cliffe, Starr, and Bullinger, had long lost track of VP and were probably all dead. When Leonard finally found out about VP's plagiarism, he started adding explicit and blunt copyright notes in his books warning people not to plagiarize.

Even at TWI's peak, VP was basically an unknown outside of towns which hosted his "root locations." VP's books were never available in bookstores or offered for sale via radio ads (although this may have been attempted once without success) -- only by taking the class and getting on TWI's mailing list. By controlling sale of the books closely, VP limited his exposure. If TWI hadn't been mentioned in articles along with many other cults during the cults craze of the 1970's, it'd been almost totally unknown on a national scale. I've spent 20 years dropping the names VPW and TWI and getting just blank stares. VPW and TWI have always had greatly inflated views of themselves, their influence and nature.

At it's core, plagiarism is laziness, lying and egotistic self-promotion. Plagiarism is laziness because VP seldom studied the Bible on his own, but copied and read others' writings. Plagiarism is lying because he led readers to believe that he wrote the books himself, rather than making clear in footnotes that he copied others' words and ideas. Plagiarism is egotistic self-promotion, because VP tried to make himself look like a prodigious author when he was only a deceptive copyist.

Many of the authors VP copied from were cultic and recognized only by nonChristians. For instance, Albert ("Let go and Let God") Cliffe, was a full blown spiritist (medium who tried to contact spirits, which TWI condemned) and George Lamsa promoted wild theories accepted mainly by New Thought groups like Unity School of Christianity.

But Noting WHAT VP copied from them is as important than who he copied from. He didn't copy "normal" biblical teachings from them (for instance, Bullinger, Stiles and others believed that Jesus had a God-nature as well as a human nature).

He mainly copied teachings that were peculiar, unusual, bizarre. Lots of Pentecostals taught receiving the Spirit and speaking in tongues, but Stiles alone taught Inhaling the Spirit, which VPW thought was peculiar enough to copy. Lots of people teach there is a Semitic/Hebrew influence in the Gospels, but only Lamsa taught the extreme and bizarre teaching that the whole Bible was originally authored in Aramaic. He didn't take the part of Bullinger that said that "Son of God" was a divine title- he took the part about four crucified, with slanted and inaccurate definitions of allos/heteros. Many more examples could be listed.

VPW fit the description in 2 Timothy 4: "the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." VPW had itching ears and wanted peculiar things to say. Then he could "prove" that he alone read the Bible for himself without "tradition" to slant his reading. Then he could gain followers for himself alone.

Craig Martindale, who succeeded VP as "the Teacher," had to stretch to come up with other bizarre stuff, but he managed with Eve a lesbian, and the idea that all military metaphors in the New Testament must be athletic, and others. VP taught him well.

Dr. John Juedes, 2000

Hope R. color>size>face>

"And I'm on my way, I don't know where I'm going.I'm on my way, takin' my time but I don't know where." P. Simonsize>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
But Noting WHAT VP copied from them is as important than who he copied from. He didn't copy "normal" biblical teachings from them (for instance, Bullinger, Stiles and others believed that Jesus had a God-nature as well as a human nature).

I think this has always been key to Dr. John Juedes' unrelenting attack against TWI. We never believed the trinity, and because of that, we've always been illegitimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
Then VPW copied 70% of RTHST directly from other authors.

Lying and copying other peoples texts are wrong. But one point I'd like to make is that if Dr. John Juedes is going to quote statistics like 70%, he has to come up with proof of that. "Where's the beef"?

I did a comparison of my copy of J.E. Stiles book to my copy of RTHST, and didn't find anything near what he's claiming.

I'm open to hearing and reading facts; not wild statements that can't be proved.

I think the vast majority of VPW's writings aren't plagiarized. Prove me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oldiesman,

Juedes doesn't say that Wierwille copied 70% of RTHST from Stiles; he says "from other authors [plural]."

Your ignorance of those other authors, including Bullinger and Leonard, doesn't make Juedes' statement "wild."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long Gone,

Shortly after the time I read that VPW plagiarized material (I read this from Dr. John Juedes' website), I bought my own copy of J.E. Stiles book, and compared it with my own copy of RHST (3rd edition from 1972). As I recall, I couldn't find anything that was plagiarized, or if I did, it was only a few sentences. I guess that was because Dr. John Juedes was referring to the 2nd edition of RHST, a book that I didn't have, and nobody else seems to have.

I want to see plagiarism in my face, so there's no mistake. THEN I will call it plagiarism.

Where I will agree with Dr. John Juedes is the overall assumption that most of us, as new believers, thought VPW'S stuff was completely original. Sort of like starry-eyed PFAL students thinking VPW got everything by revelation. But as we stayed around long enough, we knew it wasn't like that.

Long Gone, have you made a personal comparison of Bullinger's "Giver and Gifts" with your copy of RHST, and came up with massive plagiarism? If so let me know, I will gladly buy a copy so I can see it for myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope --- Great point

one word---------INTEGRITY--------

or lack of.

and Oldies, if you recall....can't remember if you were here then or not...(you're not the only oldy icon_smile.gif:)-->)....but Research Geek and many of us did a thread on all the books we knew that had been plagerized...it was well over 30 different authors....I will see if I save that one...

Anyone else remember us doing that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heres a few still on my shelves:

E W Kenyon

---The Blood Covenent

---The Wonderful Name of Jesus

Albert E Cliffe

---Let Go and Let God; Steps in Victorious Living

Glenn Clark

---The Man who Talked with the Flowers

Ben Sweetland

---I Can! The key to Life's Golden Secrets

Not to mention the repackaged Dale Carnegie stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not tell you word for word right now...further it bores and nauseates me to peruse the works of the abusive vpw anymore.

But, in the same way he repackaged Dale Carnegie, he repackaged Bullinger, Kenyon, Stiles, Skinner and so many others and then called them his own....much like kids copy from encyclopedias ..change a few words and then call it their own....I am not a hair splitting research type of person...but we have many here who are and I believe there have been several threads regarding this fallacy of TWI and much or it's "original" research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope Juedes doesn't mind me copying and pasting from his site (I could just as easliy waited until I got home and retyped it myself, using the later edition of RTHST)...

quote:
Stiles, 1948:

8. Is it not possible for a Christian to receive false tongues or a false spirit when seeking to receive the Holy Spirit? Answer:

When people ask that question, we know that they have somewhere come in contact with one of these "faith blasters" who go about making statements which have no foundation in Scripture. When we suggest to earnest Christians that they may get something false, when seeking more of the fulness of God, we sinfully dishonor God and His Holy Spirit.'

Wierwille, 2nd, edition, 1955:

8. Is it possible for a Christian to receive false tongues or a false spirit when seeking the Holy Spirit?

The answer is no. When people ask that question, I know that they have somewhere come in contact with one of these faith blasters who go about making statements which have no foundation in Scripture. When someone suggests to earnest Christians that they may get something false, when seeking more of the fullness of God according to God's Word, he sinfully dishonors God and His Holy Spirit."


Does anyone ever recall Wierwille ever calling someone a "faith blaster," ever? It's inconsistent with his vocabulary. Wierwille would use the term "believing blaster," if anything. Faith can't be blasted in Wierwillian theology.

The word for word theft of that section is conclusive.

As I've written before, many a time, the issue is not WHETHER Wierwille plagiarized. He did. Period. The issue is, what importance do we place on his plagiarism?

In terms of our appreciation of Wierwille as a researcher, it is greatly diminished.

But in terms of our appreciation for THAT WHICH WAS TAUGHT, it should not matter a single bit. The doctrine rises or falls on its own merits.

I think arguing about WHETHER Wierwille plagiarized is a waste of time. If you don't believe he did, it's because you're not looking at the evidence. If you want to argue about the EXTENT of his plagiarism, that's another story. But for me, it only distracts from the true issue at hand:

What do you think of what was taught? Not the source of it, but the actual doctrine? If it's right, it's right whether it was plagiarized or not. If it's wrong, it's wrong whether it was plagiarized or not.

If you want to judge Wierwille, fine, go right ahead. He plagiarized. But that's about the man. If you're worshipping the man, it's necessary to confront this fact.

But if you're not worshipping the man, then the doctrine is the issue. My nickel. Keep the change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oldiesman said:

I think this has always been key to Dr. John Juedes' unrelenting attack against TWI. We never believed the trinity, and because of that, we've always been illegitimate.

>>

How does this relate to the issue of plagiarism ? If ones doesn't like (JJ's) approach then fine but that is no reason to suspend investigation into VPW's literary practices. The question of VPW's liberal

borrowing of the works of others exsited

long before that site or this one existed

so its not permissible to drop the issue

altogehter just because JJ's site takes it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only criticism of JJ (and God, forgive me for saying it here and not to him directly) is that he lists some things as plagiarism that, by themselves, are not.

For example, Bullinger writes that the natural man cannot receive the things of God, that they are foolishness to him, because they need to be spiritually discerned. Wierwille writes a remarkably similar sentence. JJ cries plagiarism. Well, DUH, they're both quoting scripture!

I think Oldiesman correctly notes that JJ is willing to see infractions where none exists because of his feelings of Wierwille's "heresy."

I would encourage Oldiesman and others to do the same thing with JJ (and with myself) that I would have you do to the writings of VPW:

Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'd like the Mother Lode, oldies, get a copy of Leonard's The Gifts of the Spirit

Now, lots of years separate the two works these days & due to editions & revisions they've drifted significantly apart. Still, the format (What it is Not, What It IS, etc) and the definitions will set you back on your heels. It will prove tou you, once and for all, that Wierwille's work is merely derivative at best. And certainly not better! Leonard's writing, meantal grasp, power of expression and complete scope of the subject makes Wierwilles' work look like the hackneyed piece of excrement it really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently received a pamphlet from John Juedes called "Will The Real Author Please Stand Up".

In it, he compares VP's 1972 and 1957 RTHST books with Stiles 1948 book. There are 3 columns side by side. The 1957 version is 90% word-for-word plagiarized. The 1972 version has been edited a bit - the words are the same but they are placed in a different order. Sort of like: "He also stole Kenyon's work" vs. "Kenyon's work was stolen as well" - but the gist is the same.

He also compares, side by side, chapter 3 in "The New Dynamic Church" (aka "the green book") - "How to Be A Christian" (pages 35-41) with a chapter in Kenyon's book called "The Father and His Family" (page 229).

Here's just one example:

VPW: "Did you ever realize that salvation is a gift, that it is not necessary that you go any place to get it."

Kenyon: "Did you ever stop to think that salvation is a gift, that it is unnecessary for you to go anywhere to get it?"

He also compares VP's work to Bullinger's "How to Enjoy The Bible", "Selected Writings" and "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" and many others.

No where did VP use quotes or footnote any of his "borrowed" writings.

John also sent me photocopies of Stiles pages and VP's pages so I could see them for myself.

You may not like John Juede's delivery - but the facts speak louder than his opinions. Like it or not, VP took what wasn't his and claimed it as his own.

Hope R. color>size>face>

"And I'm on my way, I don't know where I'm going.I'm on my way, takin' my time but I don't know where." P. Simonsize>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Sixth Edition:

quote:
8. Is it possible for a Christian to receive false

tongues or a false spirit when believing for the

holy spirit?

The answer is a loud and clear no. As a matter of fact, speaking in tongues is the only manifestation which basically Satan cannot counterfeit. When I am asked that question, I know that person has come into contact with those whom I term ?faith blasters,? who go about making statements which have no foundation in Scripture. When someone suggests to earnest Christians that they are in danger of receiving some-thing false when believing to manifest the fullness of God according to God?s Word, he sinfully dishonors God.


Receiving The Holy Spirit Today, Victor Paul Wierwille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to eat with Rhoda W. all the time while at HQ. Since I never went on ex-way sites before leaving HQ, I never thought to ask her questions. I wonder if VP had her type from the books of those other men, or if he actually copied it down himself. That would be an interesting question to pose to her; maybe I'll get the guts to call her up. She is very alert for her age and has the memory of an elephant. (Elephant? Where did that come from? Anybody know?) Anyway, she use to tell me all kinds of things. She was the official Way slave from the early days. Bless her heart.

Laughter is a tranquilizer with no side effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
I would encourage Oldiesman and others to do the same thing with JJ (and with myself) that I would have you do to the writings of VPW:

Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.


Rafael,

Thanks for your input, as usual you give excellent advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Oldiesman!

I will vouch for the quote that Rafael gives on the "faith blasters" section of RTHST. I also had obtained a copy of Stiles' book, compared it to my 1972 version of the Holy Spirit book, and saw the plagiarism in black and white. I cannot confirm Juedes' claim of 70% plagiarism, but plagiarism there was, for sure! And yes, I too would say that particular plagiarism stuck out to me because VPW never used that vocabulary.

Mike would have us excuse VPW quoting Stiles in that passage without credit. He thinks they are both quoting GOD who gave the revelation to both of them to write that. (If I am misrepresenting Mike's view, he can feel free to clarify.) I would counter that revelation does not work like that, according to what VPW taught in PFAL. According to Mr. Wierwille, "God moved...then men spoke, using their own vocabularies...." If so, then two different men, inspired by God, would definitely NOT use the same word-for-word paragraph in their inspired writings. Especially so when that paragraph sounds nothing like the vocabulary of the speaker.

Regards,

shaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was amazed when I recently learned that Stiles wrote a book at all. He is presented in The Way, Living in Love as being a guy who happened to be at that conference in Tulsa who led Wierwille into speaking in tongues. Surprised I was to learn that parts of RHST is copied from his book.

BG Leonard is another one. He is presented in TWI mythology as a guy who ran a class that was long on practical experience and short on the Word. We find out that parts of his books are copied directly into Wierwille's.

So Wierwille kind of, sort of acknowledges these men, but not really.

Then there's Bullinger. Wierwille refers to Bullinger all the time, he sold his books and commentaries in his bookstore, yet Wierwille claimed that he came to the conclusions that Bullinger did independently.

What is funny sometimes about Wierwille's use of Bullinger is that he doesn't always understand Bullinger's point. He'll mouth something that Bullinger said to support a point, yet Bullinger was of an opposing opinion.

Something that always puzzled me, but doesn't now, is the widely varying styles in Wierwille's different books. Some are relatively scholarly in tone, some sound like a C - minus seventh grader. Some contain copious notes and references, others just spout things that seem to come out of thin air. Some are logically put together, others are gobbledy-gook of the worst sort.

Oakspear icon_cool.gif

"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"

Henri Poincare

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...