Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

vpw on the sources of his books.


WordWolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

When looking at vpw's acknowledgements and bibliographies,

we can see who he gives credit to, and who he doesn't.

For those who've missed previous discussions,

it might be worth going over his official statements

and what they mean in plain English.

==========

Ok, the Orange Book.

There IS NO bibliography to this book.

In case you're wondering, that would be one reason

a donated book would be refused for a college

library.

The dedication is to his daughter.

Remembering that this book is part Bullinger,

part Leonard, and part Norman Vincent Peale/

positive thinking, we have seen no mention of

any of them in the book. Even the

"about the author" leaves out all 3 names.

What DOES the introduction say?

Here it is in its entirety.

===

"Introduction: the Abundant Life.

Jesus' proclamation as recorded in John 10:10 is the foundational

Scripture for this book.

...I am come that they [believers] might have life, and that

they might have it more abundantly.

This verse literally changed my life. My wife and I began in

the Christian ministry, plodding ahead with the things of God,

but somehow we lacked an abundant life.

Then one time I was especially alerted when I read from the

Word of God that Jesus said He had come to give us life more

abundant. I was startled into awareness. As I looked about me

at communities where I had served and among the ministers with

whom I had worked, the abundant life was frequently not

evident. In contrast to these Christian people, I could see that

the secular world of non-Christians were manifesting a more

abundant life than were members of the Church. Thus I

earnestly began to pursue the question:

'If Jesus Christ came that men and women might have a

MORE ABUNDANT LIFE, then why is it that the Christian

believers do not manifest even an ABUNDANT LIFE?'

I believe most people would be thankful if they ever lived

an abundant life; but The Word says Jesus Christ came that

we might have life not just abundant, but more abundant.

If His Word is not reliable here in John 10:10, how can we

trust it anywhere else? But, on the other hand, if

Jesus told the truth, if He meant what He said and said what

He meant in this declaration, then surely there must be

keys, signposts, to guide us to the understanding and the

receiving of this life which is more than abundant.

This book, POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING, is one way of

showing interested people the abundany life which Jesus

Christ lived and which He came to make available to

believers as it is revealed in the Word of God.

This is a book containing Biblical keys. The contents herein

do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to

Revelation 22:21; rather, it is designed to set before the

reader the basic keys in the Word of God so that

Genesis to Revelation will unfold and so that the

abundant life which Jesus Christ came to make available will

become evident to those who want to appropriate

God's abundance to their lives. "

===========

That is the ENTIRE introduction.

There is no other prefix, appendix, etc to the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ELSE did the Orange Book say on the subject?

[pg-119-120.]

=====

"For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I

used to read two or three theological works weekly for month

after month and year after year. I knew what Professor

so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend

so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had

not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired

of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3000 volumes

of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit

reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent

years studying The Word- its integrity, its meaning,

its words.

Why do we study? Because God expects us as workmen to

know what His Word says."

=============

As a sidenote, if he read FOUR books a week (one more than

he claimed), every week, every year, it would take 15 years

to make it thru 3000 volumes without rereading any.

(4 books times 52 weeks is 208 books a year. 15 years at that

pace should do it.) That's while he was completing his education,

working, travelling to India, and so on.

That's leaving aside the issue of where one keeps 3000 books...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, the White Book's Preface,

pages ix to xi, which is the ENTIRE preface.)

========

"When I was serving my first congregation, a Korean

missionary asked me, 'Why don't you search for the

greatest of all things in life which would teach Christian

believers the HOW of a really victorious life?'

This challenge was the beginning of a search which led

me through many, many hours of examining different

English translations, the various critical Greek texts,

and Aramaic 'originals', looking for the source of the

power which was manifested in the early Church.

Finally I realized that the experience referred to as

'receiving the holy spirit' in the Scriptures WAS and IS

actually available to every born-again believer today.

I believed to receive the gift of holy spirit and I, too,

manifested.

Ever since receiving into manifestation the holy spirit,

I have had the desire to put in written form the longings

and fears that were mine regarding the receiving thereof.

I believe that sharing my quest with the believers who are

today seeking to be endued with power from on high may

be instrumental in leading them to the answer of their

hearts' desires.

I knew from the Bible that what God sent at Pentecost was

still available. It had to be, for God does not change. I knew that

the receiving of the power from on high on the day of

Pentecost had meant increased ability for the apostles and

disciples years ago, and that I needed and wanted the same

blessing. I knew that if the Church ever needed the holy

spirit in manifestation it needed it now.

Throughout my academic training in a college, a university,

four seminaries, from the commentaries I studied,

and from my years of questing and research among the

various religious groups claiming adherence to the holy

spirit's availability, there appeared many things

contradictory to the accuracy of the recorded Word of

God. I knew their teachings were sincere, but sincerity

is no guarantee for truth.

The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all

that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew

with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook.

I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for,

the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must

fit like a hand in a glove.

If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to

study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or feelings

to discourage you from going on to receive God's best.

If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of

this live, you may find your answer while reading this book.

It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted, and

comforted.

For those searching the Scriptures, desiring to know the

reasons why, how, what or where, I suggest you do a

careful study of the introductions as well as the

appendices in this volume. For those who simply desire

to receive, read chapters 1 though 5 and enjoy God's

great presence and power.

"II Timothy 2:15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman

that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the

word of truth."

To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound

debt. This seventh edition has been read and studies carefully

by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability.

To all of these I am most grateful."

=========

End of Preface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, the debate is ongoing, and has never really stopped. WW has done a good job IMHO of documenting what Wierwille actually said about various TWI doctrines and positions, as opposed to what we remember about them, all in TWI-published materials.

No matter what debate it engenders, it gets it out there.

Throughout my academic training in a college, a university, four seminaries
never noticed this before.

Let's see, he went to Mission House/Lakeland Collge for his bachelor's (I guess that's the college)

He went to Princeton Theological Seminary for his Master's (That's either the university or the seminary, maybe both)

He got his "doctorate" from Pike's Peak (Maybe he's considering this a seminary too)

Where else does he mention any others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Wierwille actually intend these things as 'real books'?

Is that why he skipped putting in all the real "serious" stuff?

Or was he just being plain cheap?

I bring this up because when I took the class in '78, I received the softcover versions of everything

(blue book, orange book, green book, brownish book, white book, the thicker orange book).

Just about every single one of those damn things fell apart.

And NOT from over-reading.

The covers fell off. The pages fell out. The books split asunder down the middle, and even into 3-4 parts.

"Real", high-quality books don't usually do this.

Nor do they misspell "chapter thirteeen" for a section concerned with the number of criminals actually crucified with Jesus.

Talk about "lack of detail".

How did they bind these things at "American Christian Press"? Did Emogene mix flour and water while Rhoda slapped them together?

Talk about "cheap"!

Something ain't right there.

It wouldn't surprise me if these things originally did include bibliographies, - they just fell out out! (lol)

Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, the debate is ongoing, and has never really stopped. WW has done a good job IMHO of documenting what Wierwille actually said about various TWI doctrines and positions, as opposed to what we remember about them, all in TWI-published materials.

No matter what debate it engenders, it gets it out there.

I keep hearing that he supposedly gave "proper credit" in his books,

and I thought it was worth the time as a refresher,

and to make it handy for the next time someone makes

this ridiculous claim.

Let's see, he went to Mission House/Lakeland Collge for his bachelor's (I guess that's the college)

He went to Princeton Theological Seminary for his Master's (That's either the university or the seminary, maybe both)

He got his "doctorate" from Pike's Peak (Maybe he's considering this a seminary too)

Where else does he mention any others?

The Way:Living in Love,

pg-174. (Same page as the basketball team.)

"I don't remember much of the past. I'll have to renew my mind. Oh, yes,

did I tell you I taught at Gordon Divinity School? Homiletics was my specialty-

that's preaching. I took everything I could take at the Moody's Bible

Institute, too, through their correspondence courses."

I'm guessing he counted both of these.

We know for a fact the Moody thing was a boldfaced lie,

since Moody has NO record of him at ALL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew from the Bible that what God sent at Pentecost was still available. It had to be, for God does not change.
But, according to Wierwille, there will be a time when what was available at Pentecost will not be available, and there was a time when it was not, so I guess God does change! Either that, or maybe he should have either thought again about whether it's still available, or have come up with a better argument. Bullinger and others have made the case biblically that tongues are not avilable today.

********************************************************************************

*********

The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook.
Okay, so, according to Wierwille himself he didn't learn from other people, he figgered it all out hisself from the bible.

This is where the idea that Wierwille claimed that he originated it all, the quotes from The Way: Living in Love notwithstanding.

So, how can we reconcile these two statements?

Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.
and
The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook

They appear to be contradictory? Was Wierwille, perhaps, lying? If so, why print these two apparently contradictory statements in his own publications?

And then, of course, there's this:

One day I finally became so disgusted and tired

of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word- its integrity, its meaning, its words.

Edited by Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to compare the Preface to the White Book, 7th Edition,

which I already quoted,

with the Preface in the 2nd edition.

=====

Here's how one paragraph ORIGINALLY read in

the 2nd edition, (pg-8):

"The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all

I had been taught and start anew with the Bible as my

handbook as well as my textbook. It took me seven years to

find a man of God schooled in the Holy Spirit, a man who knew

the Scripture on the Holy Spirit, and could fit it together so that

I dod not have to omit, deny or change any one passage.

He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove,

and when you can do that, you can be assured of having

truth."

========

Here's the corresponding paragraph in the 7th Edition,

the one most of us got to read:

======

"The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all

that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew

with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook.

I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for,

the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must

fit like a hand in a glove."

======

Interesting how the other man just VANISHES from the picture,

no? It's as if vpw later wants to take exclusive credit

("I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well

as my textbook") for something that was exclusively

the result of Stiles-the UNNAMED Christian-working for

God ("...He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a

glove...")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the only time I regret throwing out my TWI books is when we have one of these discussions.

Interesting how the other man just VANISHES from the picture,

no? It's as if vpw later wants to take exclusive credit

("I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well

as my textbook") for something that was exclusively

the result of Stiles-the UNNAMED Christian-working for

God ("...He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a

glove...")

Think about when Wierwille does mention other people, often he pays them left-handed compliments, like saying BG Leonard was great on experience, and poor on documentation, or how Stiles is never mentioned again after that passage in TW:LIL.

Does he ever say "So-and-so taught me such-and-such", no, he throws out names, then about the best he can bring himself to say is that he kept what was accurate and threw out the rest. Specific credit and recognition was not ever given. Forget about footnotes, forget about endnotes, forget about a bibliography, he never, ever, mentions what he learned from whom, all he says is "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped." - a pretty lukewarm recognition of men that he copied from!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TW:LIL, pg-179.

"The Word is buried today. If there's no one around to teach it,

God has to teach it Himself. You see, I am a product of my times.

God knew me before the foundations of the world, just like He knew

you and everyone else. We were all in God's foreknowledge from the

beginnings.

God knew I would believe His Word. And every day I am more and

more deeply convinced of this ministry which teaches people the

accuracy and integrity of God's Word."

pg-181, reminscing after the 1942 promise...

"That's where I was sitting when I prayed to God to teach me the

Word and show me how."

(Mind you, page 178, he said

"I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there

were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on."

So, this watershed experience in his life,

the details seem flexible. He even asked at least 2 different

things...)

pg-190.

"If no one is around to teach you the Word, and you are hungry,

then God has to teach you in the framework of your knowledgeable

experience. For example, if you're an athlete, He'll do it through

athletics. If you're a farmer, He'll teach you through farming."

pg-201.

"You see, learning is a process. You don't learn overnight.

The holy spirit field-that's the field God raised me up for.

There's not a question that cannot be answered biblically.

And there's no one I can't lead into speaking in tongues if they are

Christian and want to do it.

No matter how much knowledge you have of God, God seldom allows you

to teach more than people are able to receive.

Some things God taught me that night in Tulsa, I've never taught-

no one would have been able to receive them."

Go ahead, stop implying and suggesting,

come right out and say it instead...

"Everything I learned, God taught me. That's what I teach you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about BG Leonard?

vpw took the ENTIRE contents of pfal class 1.0

from Leonard's class, UNALTERED. What did he say about Leonard?

TW:LIL, pg-207.

"He loved me, and I learned some stuff from him. He had tremendous believing.

That's why I love the guy."

"The summer of 1953, our whole ministry went up-Dotsie and Donnie and some of the

others from Van Wert. We took his whole trip- really learned a lot about the other

manifestations of the holy spirit. But he worked from personal experiences.

I worked what he taught from the accuracy of the Scriptures. When I came home,

I made up my mind that I was going to tie the whole thing together from Genesis to

Revelation. So I did, and in October, I had the very first 'Power for Abundant Living' class.

At that time, the Foundational Class and Advanced Class were together-the whole thing

in two weeks. But the syllabus today is basically the same. The basic principles from

the Word are the same. The class has filled out. But I knew the greatness of our

age-the age of holy spirit and that every truth must fit in the framework of the

manifestations. I just had to teach it to somebody."

"I taught without a syllabus, but the class was the same.

You could throw the syllabus away now and I could still teach it.

It's a burning reality in my soul."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does he ever say "So-and-so taught me such-and-such", no, he throws out names, then about the best he can bring himself to say is that he kept what was accurate and threw out the rest. Specific credit and recognition was not ever given.

And that's what it is all about. Ambiguous credit given to no one in particular.

Dan -- my copies were all soft cover too (paperbacks). The orange book is in pieces,

but the others are kinda intact (lack of use I guess!)

The intact ones have no bibliography. ;)

Edited by dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did he say directly about how he got the 1st edition

of RTHST, which was Stiles' book plus some books by

Bullinger, and ONLY what they contained? (Mostly Stiles.)

(1954)

TW:LIL, pg-209.

"Somewhere in there I wrote the first holy spirit book. I can't

remember exactly what year.

I'd been working those 385 scriptures and they began to all

fall into place."

"We're having the sixth edition printed now of

that book: Receiving the Holy Spirit Today.

It's a great piece of research."

And,

after having lied so thoroughly (and throughly) about

it, he makes the following "disclaimer":

"Lots of the stuff I teach is not original.

Putting it together so that it fit-that was the original work.

I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with

the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I

kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.

Vale from Florida was the one who taught us about

interpretation and prophecy. But he didn't understand the

other manifestations. It took BG Leonard and others to teach

us healing and believing.

But in the holy spirit field, our piece of research is the most

thorough and original coverage of the subject. And believe me,

I've seen about everything in that field. No one really goes into it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder if Lennon/ McCartney had docvic in mind when they wrote:

Lennon/McCartney

Paperback writer

Dear Sir or Madam will you read my book

It took me years to write, will you take a look

based on a novel by a man named Lear

and I need a job

so I want to be a paperback writer

Paperback writer

It's the dirty story of a dirty man

and his clinging wife doesn't understand

His son is working for the Daily Mail

It's a steady job

But he want to be a paperback writer

Paperback writer

Paperback writer

It's a thousand pages, give or take a few

I'll be writing more in a week or two

I can make it longer if you like the style

I can change it 'round

and I want to be a paperback writer

Paperback writer

If you really like it you can have the rights

It could make a million for you overnight

If you must return if you can send it here

But I need a break

and I want to be a paperback writer

Paperback writer

Paperback writer

Paperback writer

Paperback writer

:dance: :dance: :dance:

Edited by dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what did he say about how he ripped off

Bullinger's books to form pfal and RTHST?

TW:LIL,

pg-210.

"She gave me my first copy of Bullinger's

How to Enjoy the Bible. She said, when she first

heard me teach, that I taught like he wrote, and I'd never

met the man or even read his stuff."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Wierwille actually intend these things as 'real books'?

Is that why he skipped putting in all the real "serious" stuff?

Or was he just being plain cheap?

This is an interesting point that Mike also makes that I've been tossing around in my head.

The possibility exists that the books and collaterals from PFAL were not designed for the masses, but designed only for "our household", which could be a possible explanation why he didn't execute proper written acknowledgement in them.

I remember twi actively asking us not to distribute the PFAL books by themselves...i.e., they were just for us who already took the class.

The rationale: "why give someone crumbs when they may eat the whole loaf."

On the other hand, a book that was apparently designed for the masses that was never discouraged from distribution by itself, i.e., Jesus Christ is not God, does have proper written acknowledgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where the idea that Wierwille claimed that he originated it all, the quotes from The Way: Living in Love notwithstanding.

They appear to be contradictory? Was Wierwille, perhaps, lying? If so, why print these two apparently contradictory statements in his own publications?

The way I see it, if he wanted to hide and lie and steal and deceive us into thinking that all his teachings were original, he would not have made the statement that his stuff was not original, and would not have included the books he learned from, right there in the bookstore for all to research.

Why is this so hard to some to recognize?

Perhaps because some folks just don't want to admit the obvious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He included a few of the books he "learned" from. But he excluded many others. It's like having a serial burglar confess to two robberies when he committed 50. Fine, give him credit for acknowledging the two. But there are 48 more that he never confessed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is NOT a confession. It is a poor excuse for a confession.

Once again, there is a big difference between "lots of stuff I teach is not original" and swiping the specific language and paragraphs of other writers without attribution.

NONE of the stuff I teach is original. I come to conclusions based on what I read and what I deduce. But I do not plagiarize. Haven't done it since a really bad third grade book report. I daresay none of what you teach is original either. But I don't suspect you are a plagiarist.

I hope you see the difference. This attempted exoneration of VPW based on the flimsiest of evidence is frustrating. I'm much happier when people just say "so what?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where the idea that Wierwille claimed that he originated it all, the quotes from The Way: Living in Love notwithstanding.

They appear to be contradictory? Was Wierwille, perhaps, lying? If so, why print these two apparently contradictory statements in his own publications?

The way I see it, if he wanted to hide and lie and steal and deceive us into thinking that all his teachings were original, he would not have made the statement that his stuff was not original, and would not have included the books he learned from, right there in the bookstore for all to research.

Why is this so hard to some to recognize?

Perhaps because some folks just don't want to admit the obvious?

So we still are back to the question: "Why did he make these apparently contradictory statements?"

What did he mean when he said "Not everything that I teach is original", or that he learned from others, in light of his other statements that he threw out all of his books, and used only the bible as his textbook?

Or this statement about Leonard: "really learned a lot about the other manifestations of the holy spirit. But he worked from personal experiences. I worked what he taught from the accuracy of the Scriptures"

Oldies, the reason that it appears to you that "it is hard to recognize", is that it doesn't add up. There's a lot more context than the appearingly simple statement: "lots of the stuff I teach is not original". Putting Bullinger on the shelf when you are also saying that you were teaching the same stuff before you had ever heard of him, is not the same as saying that you learnd from Bullinger. Crediting Leonard with providing experiential teaching which you later "worked from the Word", while presnted his class as your own, is claiming credit for the research yourself.

I don't know why you can't see this as a contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep seeing this ridiculous notion that acknowledging a teaching is "not original" absolves one of plagiarism.

Plagiarism is NOT the restatement of someone else's ideas, or everyone would be a plagiarist.

Plagiarism is taking what someone else wrote, maybe tinkering with a few words here or there, at most, and then passing it off as if you wrote it. Wierwille did this plenty of times. Sometimes he did it on the sentence level, sometimes the paragraph level, and sometimes on the chapter level. He did it in the structure of the first PFAL class, evidently.

The "originality" of his work is a distinct issue, and I agree with Oakspear in that he made contradictory statements on the matter. You can't get around the fact that he claimed to throw all these other works away and use the Bible as his textbook. He did nothing of the kind. He had plenty of other texts. He acknowledged some of them, derided others, and flat out lied about still others.

Edited by Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plagiarism itself has a stigma attached to it of the plagiarist intentionally being deceptive.

This is what I am questioning: the intent and motive to deceive.

If VP Wierwille was intentionally deceptive, wanting to deceive us into believing that his teachings were all original, why would he say, in 1972, "lots of the stuff I teach is not original"?

Doesn't sound to me like it was his intent to deceive, when you consider other important evidence.

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...