Yeah...Vic claimed to have spent time with all sorts of "spiritually enlightened" folks. I recall during an advanced class I took, that they had a "seed boy" come in to speak...just so that everyone could learn from the experience.
A lot of the people that Vic names, were considered outside the pail of accepted Christianity (surprise, surprise)...probably because those with any credibility showed Wierwille the door and told him not to let it hit him in the foot as he walked out.
Wierwille spoke of Arthur Ford...the spiritualist who would show up drunker than a skunk...go into a trance and suddenly be as sober as a judge, as he "channeled" other people who were dead...( I suppose if dead people were speaking through my mouth, I'd be doing a lot of drinking too )
Wierwille seemed to gravitate towards people on the "fringe"...Rufus Mosley, Bishop Pillai, E. Stanley Jones (who wrote extensively about his ashram experiences, in a book entitled "Abundant Living"...where teachers and students live together year round...sound familiar?)
...Even Bullinger was considered somewhat controversial because of his views on dispensationalism...that's where Vic stole his ideas about the 7 administrations.
I suppose because Vic was rejected from the mainstream church (because of his adulterous affairs)...he sought out others who would allow him into their meetings...and I also believe that Wierwille was in search of something that would "make him different and unique" from other churches and other ministers...his enormous ego and his extreme insecurity compelled him to "develope" something that would make him stand out from the rest of the crowd...he wanted so badly to be the MOG...that's why he stole portions of various teachings from other fringe players, creating his own hybrid version of Christianity.
Kenyon is NOT very respected in mainstream Christian circles, Oldiesman. Bullinger is a bit more respected. Stiles isn't even on the radar.
On the other hand, I wouldn't say Wierwille "stole" the idea of 7 administrations from Bullinger. If you accept dispensationalism and adopt the belief, then you adopt the belief. It's not stealing.
A good chunk of the chapter on The Counsel of the Lord was stolen from Bullinger, in that it was word for word taken from Bullinger's writing without credit. But that's different from dispensationalism.
Perhaps a little off-topic, I remember Del Duncan saying that he sent VPW copies of "The Berkeley Barb" on a regular basis. The context was that California was "hot" spiritually and before trends happened across the country they would appear there.
If you accept dispensationalism and adopt the belief, then you adopt the belief. It's not stealing.
Interesting! Raf, this is what I thought about most of VP's writings, he adopted the belief of those who he learned from.
But then there are those who advance the theory that if one writes about the same ideas as the one one learns from, but not giving the proper written acknowledgement along with it, it's called plagiarism.
So would it be fair for me to believe that actual plagiarism is a word for word lifting, rather than the written acknowledgement or adaptation of beliefs?
...there are those who advance the theory that if one writes about the same ideas as the one one learns from, but not giving the proper written acknowledgement along with it, it's called plagiarism.
So would it be fair for me to believe that actual plagiarism is a word for word lifting, rather than the written acknowledgement or adaptation of beliefs?
Word-for-word is definitely plagiarism. No question there.
Here's a definition of plagiarism from Georgetown University
It's not just word-for-word. For example, sections of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today are very close to word-for-word. Some words are changed, but it is very obvious that he took Stiles' work and adapted it. Wierwille's teachings on dispensationalism are not plagiarism. For one, he differs from Bullinger on important aspects , and two, dispensationalism is a school of thought, wherein there can be many variations. A theologian or teacher is free to take the idea and put there own spin on it. It would have been plagiarism if Wierwille had copied Bullinger's writings with little or no changes and claimed them for his own.
Note that this links indicates that even paraphrse is plagiarism if ciations are not provided.
Interesting! Raf, this is what I thought about most of VP's writings, he adopted the belief of those who he learned from.
I thought that about some of what he wrote and taught, but there were large chunks that he claimed, or at least implied, that he came up with on his own, and which he clearly got from others.
To bring up Receiving the Holy Spirit Today again: Wierwille mentioned learning from others and studying the "holy sppirit field" for years, but he presented RHST as his own, his masterpiece, so to speak.
Maybe I believe that the popes are infallible when speaking on matters of doctrine. There's nothing wrong with me telling other people what a great thing that is, or how much I believe it, as long as I don't claim (overtly or by implication), that I came up with the idea independently, or that God said that he'd teach me all about papal infallibility, as long as I would teach others, complete with snow on the gas pumps!
... that I[ came up with the idea independently, or that God said that he'd teach me all about papal infallibility, as long as I would teach others, complete with snow on the gas pumps!
I don't think VP ever said that he came up with the idea independently.
He said numerous times (and wrote) that he learned from various men of God, scattered across the continent.
As far as him saying that God would teach him the Word as it hadn't been known since the first century if he would teach others:
God teaching him the Word doesn't have to be direct revelation without human contact.
His statement could also mean that God taught him the Word, thru men of God, scattered across the continent, along with his own study and reasoning ability.
God teaching him the Word doesn't have to be direct revelation without human contact.
His statement could also mean that God taught him the Word, thru men of God, scattered across the continent, along with his own study and reasoning ability.
Your bubble thinking never ceases to amaze me! -->
It sure doesn`t say much for a God or his message, if all he could find to represent him and teach it, was the likes of vpw.
VPW gave God and Christianity a great big black eye in my opinion....when he endulged in more evil, found more ways to justify the sating of his lusts, was more relentless in his destruction of people than the vilest of unbelievers....
Geeze with a God and a minister like that...who`s afraid of Satan?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
7
16
15
Popular Days
Sep 20
33
Sep 22
18
Dec 19
13
Sep 21
10
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 12 posts
TheEvan 7 posts
WordWolf 16 posts
Ham 15 posts
Popular Days
Sep 20 2005
33 posts
Sep 22 2005
18 posts
Dec 19 2006
13 posts
Sep 21 2005
10 posts
GrouchoMarxJr
Yeah...Vic claimed to have spent time with all sorts of "spiritually enlightened" folks. I recall during an advanced class I took, that they had a "seed boy" come in to speak...just so that everyone could learn from the experience.
A lot of the people that Vic names, were considered outside the pail of accepted Christianity (surprise, surprise)...probably because those with any credibility showed Wierwille the door and told him not to let it hit him in the foot as he walked out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yeah, the guy was supposed to be some kind of big "spiritualist". Forget the name..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In one of the low-number tapes, he said he'd sat in on
spiritualist stuff, and that he'd shaken hands with an
apparition. He said it was like
"shaking hands with someone who doesn't shake hands".
=======
In other news, he did borrow from people who WEREN'T
Christians to assemble his "Law" of believing (which failed
to work a lot of the time, proving it wasn't a "Law".)
The names "Albert Cliff" and "Glenn Clark" spring to mind.
Or was it "Albert Cliffe"?
Someone also mentioned that vpw said his stuff wasn't
"psycho-cybernetics", but they read some "psycho-cybernetics"
and it looked like it was right from vpw's stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Wierwille spoke of Arthur Ford...the spiritualist who would show up drunker than a skunk...go into a trance and suddenly be as sober as a judge, as he "channeled" other people who were dead...( I suppose if dead people were speaking through my mouth, I'd be doing a lot of drinking too
)
Wierwille seemed to gravitate towards people on the "fringe"...Rufus Mosley, Bishop Pillai, E. Stanley Jones (who wrote extensively about his ashram experiences, in a book entitled "Abundant Living"...where teachers and students live together year round...sound familiar?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...Even Bullinger was considered somewhat controversial because of his views on dispensationalism...that's where Vic stole his ideas about the 7 administrations.
I suppose because Vic was rejected from the mainstream church (because of his adulterous affairs)...he sought out others who would allow him into their meetings...and I also believe that Wierwille was in search of something that would "make him different and unique" from other churches and other ministers...his enormous ego and his extreme insecurity compelled him to "develope" something that would make him stand out from the rest of the crowd...he wanted so badly to be the MOG...that's why he stole portions of various teachings from other fringe players, creating his own hybrid version of Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
That's the character!
I remember something about him giving "rev" moon his big start- may have been another one of vic's tall tales..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
B.G. Leonard, E.W. Kenyon, Stiles, Bullinger, Pillai, Martin Luther, etc. those are the biggies, yes they are all glassy eyed cultists on the fringe.
Me too.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
No, it was Edgar Cayce who gave Moon a reading long ago back when he was a very secular 'bidnissman' in South Korea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Who said anything about Martin Luther?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Not quite what I read.. I thought he said "fringe players".
Can't accuse Bullinger/Stiles/Leonard/etc. of being exactly mainstream..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Kenyon is NOT very respected in mainstream Christian circles, Oldiesman. Bullinger is a bit more respected. Stiles isn't even on the radar.
On the other hand, I wouldn't say Wierwille "stole" the idea of 7 administrations from Bullinger. If you accept dispensationalism and adopt the belief, then you adopt the belief. It's not stealing.
A good chunk of the chapter on The Counsel of the Lord was stolen from Bullinger, in that it was word for word taken from Bullinger's writing without credit. But that's different from dispensationalism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
You forgot Charles H Welch who did The Prize of the High Calling, Just and the Justifier,Dispensational Truth and In Heavenly Places.
The High Calling appears in The New Dynamic Church Chp 14
Glenn Clark founder of Camps Farthest Out was where the family camp idea came from.
http://glennclark.wwwhubs.com/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Perhaps a little off-topic, I remember Del Duncan saying that he sent VPW copies of "The Berkeley Barb" on a regular basis. The context was that California was "hot" spiritually and before trends happened across the country they would appear there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
But then there are those who advance the theory that if one writes about the same ideas as the one one learns from, but not giving the proper written acknowledgement along with it, it's called plagiarism.
So would it be fair for me to believe that actual plagiarism is a word for word lifting, rather than the written acknowledgement or adaptation of beliefs?
Do you concur?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Here's a definition of plagiarism from Georgetown University
http://www.georgetown.edu/honor/plagiarism.html
It's not just word-for-word. For example, sections of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today are very close to word-for-word. Some words are changed, but it is very obvious that he took Stiles' work and adapted it. Wierwille's teachings on dispensationalism are not plagiarism. For one, he differs from Bullinger on important aspects , and two, dispensationalism is a school of thought, wherein there can be many variations. A theologian or teacher is free to take the idea and put there own spin on it. It would have been plagiarism if Wierwille had copied Bullinger's writings with little or no changes and claimed them for his own.
Note that this links indicates that even paraphrse is plagiarism if ciations are not provided.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
To bring up Receiving the Holy Spirit Today again: Wierwille mentioned learning from others and studying the "holy sppirit field" for years, but he presented RHST as his own, his masterpiece, so to speak.
Maybe I believe that the popes are infallible when speaking on matters of doctrine. There's nothing wrong with me telling other people what a great thing that is, or how much I believe it, as long as I don't claim (overtly or by implication), that I came up with the idea independently, or that God said that he'd teach me all about papal infallibility, as long as I would teach others, complete with snow on the gas pumps!
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
He said numerous times (and wrote) that he learned from various men of God, scattered across the continent.
As far as him saying that God would teach him the Word as it hadn't been known since the first century if he would teach others:
God teaching him the Word doesn't have to be direct revelation without human contact.
His statement could also mean that God taught him the Word, thru men of God, scattered across the continent, along with his own study and reasoning ability.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A la prochaine
OM,
Your bubble thinking never ceases to amaze me!
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
Look's like VP got his law of believing from Albert Cliffe.
A good article on it: http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/rsr_lawbelieve.htm
Cliffe's books:
"Let Go and Let God"
Chapters include:
"Lessons in Successful Living"
Doesn't take much to see how VPW took it, reworded it with some Bible verses, and called it his own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
It sure doesn`t say much for a God or his message, if all he could find to represent him and teach it, was the likes of vpw.
VPW gave God and Christianity a great big black eye in my opinion....when he endulged in more evil, found more ways to justify the sating of his lusts, was more relentless in his destruction of people than the vilest of unbelievers....
Geeze with a God and a minister like that...who`s afraid of Satan?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Look at how great loving and merciful God is, to entrust his Word with someone as fallable as VP.
Additionally Saul was a raving murderer...can't get much worse than that...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A la prochaine
OM,
You've got to be kidding me
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone
Women seem wicked, when you're unwanted
Streets are uneven, when you're down
When you're strange- faces come out of the rain (rain, rain)
When you're strange- no one remembers your name
When you're strange, when you're strange, when you're str-ange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Sorry, seemed to fit a "strange people" thread.
:)-->
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.