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"?
If Mr. Wierwille was being honest, why would he say that he threw out all his theology books, and used the bible as his only textbook?
I think the answer to the question, Oldies, is that Wierwille said different things depending on what image he was trying to put forward at the time. He said contradictory things because I doubt that he was keeping track of his lies, or expected anyone to question him. And few did during his lifetime.
It's obvious that much of what he taught was not original, not even "putting it all together so that it fit", he said that someone (presumably Stiles) did that for him in the 2nd edition of RTHST. But we have him implying that what everyone else taught was second rate, so that he had to "fit it together" on one hand, and claiming that he got all of his info straight from the bible on the other hand, and a possibly third hand, that God taught it to him. And if it wasn't original, then I guess it had been taught "since the first century".
First is the distinction between "claiming originality" and "plagiarism." Second is this nonsense about "intent to deceive."
Oakspear is absolutely right about the originality claim: Wierwille tried to have it both ways by first claiming to have thrown out all those other books, then claiming that his work was not "original." The latter claim would lead you to believe he learned from other men and re-taught concepts he had learned from them. There's nothing wrong with that claim, except it puts the lie to the "I used the Bible as my textbook" claim. Clearly, he used many other books. He says he threw out 3,000 books. What he failed to say is that his library contained more than 3,000 books. :)
As far as learning from other people and re-teaching what you've learned: Big fat hairy deal, man. Everyone does that. "Putting it together so that it fit, that was the original work." Okay, no problem. But it's STILL PLAGIARISM if you take sentences, paragraphs and chapters of what someone else wrote and claim that you wrote it.
The "intent to deceive" argument is a distraction from the point. It's a grasp at straws to deny Wierwille's culpability. What you're trying to do is find one vague, nonsensical "confession" that Wierwille learned from other people, and turn that into a blanket excuse for plagiarism. You can believe that if you wish, but I'm not falling for it. Not for a second. You can accidentally plagiarize a sentence. But what Wierwille did was serial in nature. A sentence here, a sentence there, a paragraph here, a chapter there.
Here's the groundwork Wierwille laid: If you change one word of the Word of God, you no longer have the Word of God. So he changed a few words of the writings he plagiarized and, using the same logic, he could say he "made it his own." Voila! No more plagiarism, because Kenyon used the word "banana" and Wierwille used "plantain"; because Bullinger said "pine tree" and Wierwille said "evergreen." Wasn't he just the cleverest thing?
The fact that he made the subtle changes is, in and of itself, proof of intent to deceive, namely, proof that he knew what he was doing, and had not accidentally included other people's writings in his own notes (which happens to honest people).
If you're going to do whatever is in your power to disprove the notion that Wierwille plagiarized, be my guest. No one's stopping you. But in the words of Judge Judy, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
(P.S. Big fat hairy deal is a little phrase I picked up from the Garfield comic strip. ;) )
But it's STILL PLAGIARISM if you take sentences, paragraphs and chapters of what someone else wrote and claim that you wrote it.
And ---
The "intent to deceive" argument is a distraction from the point. It's a grasp at straws to deny Wierwille's culpability. What you're trying to do is find one vague, nonsensical "confession" that Wierwille learned from other people, and turn that into a blanket excuse for plagiarism.
When someone deliberately takes from others works, prints it as their own work,
and sells the product for money
(And NONE of that money goes to the original contributors/ teachers ---)
It's stealing.
Regardless if (on occasion) the claim was made that
The four (later five) Studies in Abundant Living books were originally tracts. Do you remember in PFAL, Wierwille holding up those little booklets? They all later were incorporated into books. PFAL itself was a "novelization" of the film class, with grammar cleaned up a little, and most of the jokes taken out.
Besides the fact of how unscrupulous VPW's plagiarism is, there's another aspect to consider – the affect it can have on the reader – in terms of mental development and point of view. During the crisis management phase [after Geer's "Patriarch" Epistle] I was trying to think outside the box – which for someone entrenched in TWI programming is just about impossible. Like a rebellious kid I would find things he said in PFAL and try to pick them apart or do the opposite. When he talked about commentaries and how it was reading around the Word and people wanting to hear what the Right Reverend So-and-So said about that verse – I thought it would be a good idea to check out a commentary.
There was an estate sale at an old pastor's home around the block from my house. I bought two commentaries for a dollar: "The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament" by Kenneth Wuest and "Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of Matthew" by R.C.H. Lenski. At this time I was becoming very leery of what anybody wrote on the Bible [even VPW]. Here's a few thoughts about my reading experience. Some interesting points were made by argument disagreeing with another author . I become aware of more than one viewpoint on things. Some authors would list other viewpoints and give the pros and cons of each with Scripture references and logical arguments. I found myself reading the Bible with a little more open-mindedness while starting to develop my own critical thinking skills.
So, besides the fact that VPW's brand of plagiarism is stealing and lying – it can real do a number on your head if you think that PFAL is all you need to understand the Bible. Grease Spot is a great place to come – there's a lot of different points of view. And it's a great place to experience the critical thinking process – WordWolf, thanks for the fantastic work you've done on The Way, Living in Wonderland, VP and Me in Wonderland and so many other threads.
Recommended Posts
Oakspear
I think the answer to the question, Oldies, is that Wierwille said different things depending on what image he was trying to put forward at the time. He said contradictory things because I doubt that he was keeping track of his lies, or expected anyone to question him. And few did during his lifetime.
It's obvious that much of what he taught was not original, not even "putting it all together so that it fit", he said that someone (presumably Stiles) did that for him in the 2nd edition of RTHST. But we have him implying that what everyone else taught was second rate, so that he had to "fit it together" on one hand, and claiming that he got all of his info straight from the bible on the other hand, and a possibly third hand, that God taught it to him. And if it wasn't original, then I guess it had been taught "since the first century".
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Two things are getting mixed up here.
First is the distinction between "claiming originality" and "plagiarism." Second is this nonsense about "intent to deceive."
Oakspear is absolutely right about the originality claim: Wierwille tried to have it both ways by first claiming to have thrown out all those other books, then claiming that his work was not "original." The latter claim would lead you to believe he learned from other men and re-taught concepts he had learned from them. There's nothing wrong with that claim, except it puts the lie to the "I used the Bible as my textbook" claim. Clearly, he used many other books. He says he threw out 3,000 books. What he failed to say is that his library contained more than 3,000 books. :)
As far as learning from other people and re-teaching what you've learned: Big fat hairy deal, man. Everyone does that. "Putting it together so that it fit, that was the original work." Okay, no problem. But it's STILL PLAGIARISM if you take sentences, paragraphs and chapters of what someone else wrote and claim that you wrote it.
The "intent to deceive" argument is a distraction from the point. It's a grasp at straws to deny Wierwille's culpability. What you're trying to do is find one vague, nonsensical "confession" that Wierwille learned from other people, and turn that into a blanket excuse for plagiarism. You can believe that if you wish, but I'm not falling for it. Not for a second. You can accidentally plagiarize a sentence. But what Wierwille did was serial in nature. A sentence here, a sentence there, a paragraph here, a chapter there.
Here's the groundwork Wierwille laid: If you change one word of the Word of God, you no longer have the Word of God. So he changed a few words of the writings he plagiarized and, using the same logic, he could say he "made it his own." Voila! No more plagiarism, because Kenyon used the word "banana" and Wierwille used "plantain"; because Bullinger said "pine tree" and Wierwille said "evergreen." Wasn't he just the cleverest thing?
The fact that he made the subtle changes is, in and of itself, proof of intent to deceive, namely, proof that he knew what he was doing, and had not accidentally included other people's writings in his own notes (which happens to honest people).
If you're going to do whatever is in your power to disprove the notion that Wierwille plagiarized, be my guest. No one's stopping you. But in the words of Judge Judy, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
(P.S. Big fat hairy deal is a little phrase I picked up from the Garfield comic strip. ;) )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Ahhh Raf. Didn't you haul over 3,000 comic strips of yours to the dump?
And study The Gospel according to Peanuts only after that?
Didn't Charlie Brown tell you he would teach you comics,
like they hadn't been known since comics were invented?
Shucks -- with all that going for you,
You could have said ---
*Large, obese, pigmented filament occurance*
Claimed it as your own,
And made your *original* point
Without plagiarizing, or citing sources. ;)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
When someone deliberately takes from others works, prints it as their own work,
and sells the product for money
(And NONE of that money goes to the original contributors/ teachers ---)
It's stealing.
Regardless if (on occasion) the claim was made that
The things I teach are not all mine --
(But I sure am making a pile of dough off of it).
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Perhaps the bibliographies dropped off the gally proofs on the way to the barn...
in all seriousness, these "books" strike me more now as overstuffed "tracts" than
they do as serious works of "biblical research".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Amen.
Over-stuffed tracts is being kind. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The four (later five) Studies in Abundant Living books were originally tracts. Do you remember in PFAL, Wierwille holding up those little booklets? They all later were incorporated into books. PFAL itself was a "novelization" of the film class, with grammar cleaned up a little, and most of the jokes taken out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yes --- I do remember that.
Matter-of-fact --- I have (not a few) here at the house still.
Along with the later compilations -- the book format.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Please note that "making a profit" is not a requirement for plagiarism.
Presenting it as your own work, period, is plagiarism.
Making a profit is one reason to commit the crime of plagiarism,
although hardly the SOLE reason.
Some more are mentioned here:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oakspear's fingertips needed this thread. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
thanks WW
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Besides the fact of how unscrupulous VPW's plagiarism is, there's another aspect to consider – the affect it can have on the reader – in terms of mental development and point of view. During the crisis management phase [after Geer's "Patriarch" Epistle] I was trying to think outside the box – which for someone entrenched in TWI programming is just about impossible. Like a rebellious kid I would find things he said in PFAL and try to pick them apart or do the opposite. When he talked about commentaries and how it was reading around the Word and people wanting to hear what the Right Reverend So-and-So said about that verse – I thought it would be a good idea to check out a commentary.
There was an estate sale at an old pastor's home around the block from my house. I bought two commentaries for a dollar: "The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament" by Kenneth Wuest and "Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of Matthew" by R.C.H. Lenski. At this time I was becoming very leery of what anybody wrote on the Bible [even VPW]. Here's a few thoughts about my reading experience. Some interesting points were made by argument disagreeing with another author . I become aware of more than one viewpoint on things. Some authors would list other viewpoints and give the pros and cons of each with Scripture references and logical arguments. I found myself reading the Bible with a little more open-mindedness while starting to develop my own critical thinking skills.
So, besides the fact that VPW's brand of plagiarism is stealing and lying – it can real do a number on your head if you think that PFAL is all you need to understand the Bible. Grease Spot is a great place to come – there's a lot of different points of view. And it's a great place to experience the critical thinking process – WordWolf, thanks for the fantastic work you've done on The Way, Living in Wonderland, VP and Me in Wonderland and so many other threads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MountainTopCO
HHHmmmmm... sounds like the self acclaimed Man of God of Our Times.
Nothing more then "False Humility".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Most of you are aware that there were 2
types of book that say "by Victor Paul Wierwille" on the cover.
The SECOND type-which came later-were written by committee, and the
research staff wrote 100% of the contents except the introduction/preface.
That's books like "Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed" and
"Jesus Christ Our Passover."
vpw himself otherwise provided zero percent of the contents.
The FIRST type-which describes most of "vpw's" books-
were the result of taking one book of one author and retyping its contents,
or taking more than one book and inserting chapters and retyping their
aggregate contents.
Almost all of vpw's "signature books" fall in this category.
===========
Ok, then, starting off....
The White Book, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today"...
RTHST's 1st edition was Jack E. Stiles' "the Gift of the Holy Spirit",
with a few words moved around.
Its introduction included an anonymous reference to a man of God
who taught him on this subject. That's the Stiles whose book
this was a complete photocopy of.
Later editions deleted all mention of ANY man teaching him
on the subject (3rd edition and later). Later editions also
featured EW Bullinger's "the Giver and His Gifts".
(This book is currently available under the name
"Word Studies on the Holy Spirit.")
The Bullinger book is the source of the 385 occurrences
of "pneuma" in the New Testament.
(Which vpw was unable to even pronounce correctly.)
=========
Juedes documented some of this very well, years ago...
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stolenrthst.htm
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stiles.htm
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_sources.htm
=================
The "Power For Abundant Living" book was, of course, a transcription from
the class of the same name. The Orange Book's origins therefore are the
same as the origins of the class. In its first iteration, that meant it was
the exact same thing as Leonard's CTC Gifts of the Spirit course.
Later iterations pruned out the Advanced class from the
"PFAL Foundation" class, and filled in the remaining space with
Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible", and culminating the class
with Sessions 9-12, which were Stiles and Bullinger's works on
Holy Spirit.
dmiller:
"I have a few books by Bullinger, including Word Studies on the Holy Spirit
and How To Enjoy the Bible.
Word Studies is the list of the 385 usages of pneuma hagion,
with a short commentary on each verse.
Imo -- everything you have ever heard docvic say about the various usages of PH,
seem to have come directly from this book by Bullinger.
How To Enjoy The Bible has many sections with familiar headings:
*No Private Interpretation*;
*define words by their biblical uage*;
*All scripture .....*;
*context of where it is written*;
*absent from the body, present with the Lord*;
and more."
=============
The "original" PFAL (what I call its first iteration)
was a clone of Leonard's class in EVERY detail.
Leonard's class had imaginary characters called Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup and
Henry Belocco. (I'm not sure about Snowball Pete or Herman B.)
Leonard was Canadian. Maggie Muggins was a children's television character
easily recognizable by his audience by name.
(As if you said "Captain Kangaroo then said..." or "then Big Bird said...)
Johnny Jumpup is the name of a plant.
Using those 2 names as characters in a class, however, that was straight
out of Leonard.
Herman Belocco probably started due to an inability of vpw to precisely
recall EXACTLY what was in Leonard's class-so sometimes it was Henry,
sometimes it was Herman.
Snowball Pete was mentioned ONCE in pfal, and doesn't match the pattern
Leonard normally used-normal first name, possible normal last name.
This suggests-if I may engage in wild speculation-that this was made up
by vpw in a pitiful attempt at originality.
One of our posters-who took Leonard's class-said that vpw even ripped off
Leonard's speech patterns and style, which made it eerie to hear Leonard
teach after hearing vpw imitate him.
Leonard handled publishing under Canadian Christian Press.
vpw handled publishing under American Christian Press.
Someone also pointed out that one of Leonard's books contains an
introduction that slightly resembles one of vpw's claims.
Expand it, add grandiose claims, and an imaginary snowstorm,
and you have the 1943 promise.
(Leonard never claimed God told him he was unique nor mentioned
the 1st century church to him.)
Leonard never made a claim of a "miraculous" event.
This, however, is from Leonard's foreword to his book "Gifts of the Spirit"...
"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."
=================
In other news....
"Are the Dead Alive Now?" is a compilation of some of Bullinger's
works,
most notably "the Rich Man and Lazarus: an Intermediate State?"
and "King Saul and the Witch of Endor: Did the Prophet Samuel Rise at Her Bidding?"
Most readers will note that vpw also ripped off the "title with question mark"
in addition to the content of the books.
"Studies in Human Suffering", later called "Job: Victim to Victor",
was taken from Bullinger's book "the Book of Job".
That became a large chapter in one of the "Studies in Abundant Living".
====================
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.