Talk:The Way International/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Wierwille's Own Words

This section will be for links to recordings of Wierwille's teachings and webpages with excerpts from his books.

• Religion Enslaves People
• Sincere Religious People
• Love God Above All Else

Before 68.191.109.199 adds more and more here perhaps these should be discussed for why they are being included. They have longer load times so I only listened to the 1st one and know what it says. The mp3.s should have a point to the article and why they out of other recordings are being placed up here. Merci. Lsjzl 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally unnecesary IMHO. Ten of Swords 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to let his section go until there's more discussion or I can find some better links. I thought a section where people could hear the man speak for himself would definitely enhance the article. Stanleygoodspeed777 05:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kindly refresh your reading on NPOV and Wikipedia article standards. It's important to do this from time to time. (I do.) Pushing the article into an advertisement is still not allowed, no matter the motivation.Pete Snowball 19:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Victor Paul Wierwille's Own Words

The article is really shaping up well. I've added a V.P. Wierwille section again to generate interest in posting his actual words and teachings. Nothing gets to the heart and substance of the Way like the founding president's own words.

Is "letting the man speak for himself" NPOV? Or is this just an excuse to insert a teaching into the article? Frankly I don't see where cramming in as much Way doctrine as possible is what this article should be about. And Stanley, aren't you the guy who said that what the current leadership is teaching is most important? If someone wants in-depth Wierwille teachings, let him go to a TWI fellowship, or one of the offshoot groups that still use his teachings. I'm yanking the section. Ten of Swords 15:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved a new section on this same topic and combined it with this one. Unsigned again. Who are you? Ten of Swords 23:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Passing of Patriarch + Firings

The following section was deleted from the main page: (It was prodded with the {fact} tag since November) and moved here for discussion. The first sentence was also removed but will be placed below with my reasonings for discussion.

"Shortly afterwards, he sent a letter to all members announcing the firings, which resulted in approximately 80% of the current membership to leave en masse with their local leaders. At present,some ex-TWI groups either rival or surpass TWI in current membership numbers."

If we can source those 2 items then this section can go back in.

"Their presence as organizations became significant in 1989, when L. Craig Martindale fired all Way staff-including local "branch", "territory", "limb" and "region" leaders who did not swear an oath of allegiance to him."

That line was removed as well for discussion only. Are we sure he fired them? Were they all paid staff of The Way International? I am asking for clarity sake and especially because I removed the other sections. I don't have a problem with the sentence I just didn't know how to correct it. Actually wait.. I shouldn't delete it. I will re-enter that line into the article and leave it here as a reference to discuss the word 'fired'. Thanks for understanding! Lsjzl 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we could get citations for this information but Martindale himself used the 80% figure when discussing the "exodus" of leadership and followers at Word in Business conferences in the 90's, although my notes show the term 4/5 (same thing math fans!)

I don't know if we'll ever know how many paid staff were fired and how many left under their own steam. Probably depends on who you talk to, but I've seen copies of a letter that Martindale sent to paid staff and clergy; lack of what he considered the proper response resulted in dismissal from the Way Corps.

The term "oath of allegience" irks me somewhat, in some peoples' minds, that's what it amounted to, but calling it that is not NPOV IMHO.

Copies of these letters could possibly be stored on the Messiah Lutheran church site, or Grease Spot Cafe. I don't know when I'll have time, but I'll check.

As far as membership numbers go, TWI doesn't consider it's followers members and doesn't release numbers, have never seen estimates of offshoot membership either. Ten of Swords 00:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, if LCM said it then maybe it should just go back in with that as a tagline. That he said it at a conference etc? Lsjzl 13:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording and added the citation that Martindale supplied the 80& figure at WIB in '94. I also expanded a bit on what the "oath of allegience" was. Ten of Swords 23:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

1. Please put in link.

2. Proposed change (Unsure if John is an ex-member or not - I feel this change better reflects the tone of an article.) "The Messiah Lutheran Church website (by ex-member John Juedes) provides side-by-side examples of Wierwille's writings to other published works. (The if John or others say so put in a quote about how similiar or identical it is otherwise simply add the link. But either way add the link!) Lsjzl 19:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Juedes is not an ex-member. The link is inTen of Swords 16:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor: What is in dispute? Juedes does supply side-by-side examples from Wierwille's boks and those he is alleged to ahve plagiarized from; the Way Int'l bookstore does sell books by Bullinger; How to Enjoy the Bible by Bullinger does cover much of the same doctrinal ground as PFAL; Stiles and Leonard are mentioned by Wierwille (in The Way: Living in Love); their books aren't now and never have been available in the TWI bookstore; Jesus Christ is Not God, Jesus Christ Our Passover and Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed ARE extensively footnoted; Wierwille's earlier books are not. None of those things are under dispute. Apparently what is under dispute is whether you think that plagiarism is significant or allowable. Ten of Swords 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Learning involves taking what others have taught and making it your own. That is not plagiarism." I have removed this quote from the article since it is irrelevant to the discussion. Wierwille clearly went beyond learning and into plagiarism. Even if you do not agree with this Juedes clerarly alleges it and provides evidense.

I am also deleting the definition of plagiarism, which, by the way, defines what Wierwille did by publishing as his own the work of Stiles, Leonard and Bullinger. provide a link to your definition if you'd like so it won't clutter up the article.Ten of Swords 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The remarks on Juedes' motivations are also pulled. What's a "militant" trinitarian anyway? Ten of Swords 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to debate the appropriateness of including a subsection on plagiarism charges under "Cult Allegations", discuss it here, don't debate it within the article.Ten of Swords 17:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why there is a subsection on plagriarism

I included a subsection on plagiarism within the Criticism & Cult Allegations section for several reasons. One is that plagiarism is one aspect of the criticism of The Way that often crops up from both ex-Way members and never-been-Way (NBW) critics. Criticism and skepticism about a group's claims is an important part of the information package. Another reason is that it puts the whole claim of "research" in a more balanced light.

The way the subsection of the article is written is based somewhat on the input of Lsjzl, who as far as I know is an active participant in TWI. The language is NPOV and includes information that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions, such as the mention that writers that Wierwille is alleged to have plagiarized from are mentioned by him, and at least one's books were sold in the Way bookstore.

The link to Juedes' website is provided, not because he is necessarily a completely neutral or disinterested party, but because he provides handy access to side-by-side comparisons of passages in Wierwille's works that closely match passages in others' books. Providing the link is not an endorsement of John Juedes.

How about adding the following?:

Wierwille admitted (in The Way: Living in Love) that he learned from others, and that the original work was putting it all together so that it "fit". In PFAL he suggests that he came to the same conclusions as Bullinger independently. He also claimed to have dragged over 3000 volumes of theological works to the city dump, returning to the bible and using it as his workbook and only source. Ten of Swords 20:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stanley - I deleted the sentence: (although Mr. Wierwille never passed off the ideas or writings of E.W. Bullinger as his own, or put forth as original to himself the ideas or words of E.W. Bullinger or any other author). because it is in dispute and reflects a non-NPOV. Wierwille certainly passed off the ideas and words of several authors as his own by the simple fact of the words "by Victor Paul Wierwille" on the cover without any attribution. And as usual, your note on the edit only mentions that you were adding a link (thanks for the link btw) and not that your were adding additional informationTen of Swords 18:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Particleman and anonymous contributor 4.236.27.81 - The article is not a discussion forum where people argue their points back and forth. To some extent that's what the discussion page (where we are now) is for. The way the article in general, and the plagiarism subsection in particular, is written is an honest attempt to maintain the Wikipedia standard of Neutral Point of View (NPOV). If you will read the subsection carefully, you will see that it reports that Wierwille is alleged to have plagiarized, not that he did plagiarize. Readers are directed to a website that claims to have evidence of this and make up their own minds.

ParticleMan - not sure if you are supporting anon's contribution or not, that's why I included you in my address

• Correction: John Juedes took the PFAL class, but was never active in TWI.

I'm the one who majorly-edited the Plagiarism Section

For all the blah-blah-blah about this short section, maybe someone can clue me in: What do these sentences mean, in plain English?

The Way International bookstore sold books by one author that he [Wierwille, I'm assuming] was alleged [in 50 B.C.? Should be "is alleged" as most of the accusers are still alive.] to have plagiarized from [it's not "plagiarize from," P-L-E-A-S-E, it's just plain old "plagiarize". Thank you.], E.W. Bullinger. Bullinger's book How to Enjoy the Bible covered much of the same doctrinal ground as Power for Abundant Living. J.E. Stiles and B.G. Leonard, other authors who Wierwille was said to have borrowed from, are mentioned at various times, but their books were not available in The Way bookstore.

Do these sentences mean that The Way sold Bullinger's book and not the others'? So what? And since when does covering the same doctrinal ground constitute plagiarism? People can "allege" anything they want; for instance, if I met you I might afterwards allege that you're butt-ugly. But that doesn't mean my allegation belongs on Wikipedia.

I've sat through the Power for Abundant Living class twenty times, and I'm looking at How to Enjoy the Bible right now as it sits on my bookshelf. Yes PFAL plagiarizes Bullinger's book, in the exact same way that America Heritage plagiarizes Merriam-Webster and that Merriam-Webster plagiarizes The Oxford English Dictionary. After all, they all "cover the same lexicographical ground."

Speaking of dictionary, whoever wrote this section needs to go ahead and take the plunge and invest in one.

I've seen Juedes' side-by-side, and that's gotta stay (though its accuracy probably needs to be checked beyond what I've got time to do, seeing as how the dude quite obviously as a burr under his saddle). And the last sentence is factually correct. But I've deleted the above from the section and edited the rest, not to start a revert war, but to allow you people to get your terms straight. As it stood before my edit, it was way below Wikipedia standards. ô¿ô 00:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If your main beef is with my grammar or spelling, P-L-E-A-S-E make the grammar & spelling fixes and be done with it. Even differences of opinion can be discussed without resorting to using terms such as "senseless" and childish implications (for instance, if I met you I might afterwards allege that you're butt-ugly. But that doesn't mean my allegation belongs on Wikipedia.) or smart*ss comments like "Speaking of dictionary, whoever wrote this section needs to go ahead and take the plunge and invest in one." Why don't you restrict yourself to the actual subject at hand?

Now, to answer your questions about this sentence:

Bullinger's book How to Enjoy the Bible covered much of the same doctrinal ground as Power for Abundant Living. J.E. Stiles and B.G. Leonard, other authors who Wierwille was said to have borrowed from, are mentioned at various times, but their books were not available in The Way bookstore.''

• The Way International bookstore sold books by one author that he [Wierwille, I'm assuming]You assume correctly. In the context, who else could it be?
• was alleged [in 50 B.C.? Should be "is alleged" as most of the accusers are still alive.]Okay, point made.
• to have plagiarized from [it's not "plagiarize from," P-L-E-A-S-E, it's just plain old "plagiarize". Thank you.]Okay.
• Do these sentences mean that The Way sold Bullinger's book and not the others'? Yes
• So what? And since when does covering the same doctrinal ground constitute plagiarism? It doesn't. While plagiarism allegations often include Bullinger's "How To Enjoy The Bible", the fact that The Way International bookstore sold not only that book, but "The Companion Bible", "Witness of the Stars", and "Also", all by Bullinger, weakens the case for plagiarism in the case of those books. It's an effort to be even-handed.

I have gone back and made some of the grammatical edits that you brought up.

Ten of Swords 23:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

...and it's "asterisk", not "asterick" ; - )Ten of Swords 14:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mucho better, Ten. And I apologize to you for my thinly-veiled exasperation and its resulting imprecations against your most august person.

Lemme see. I think I'll blame it on too much lurking at ... uh ... what's the name of that site? "Sour Grapes Cafe"? No wait, "Stone Throwers' Cafe"? That's not it. You know the one I'm talking about, where they "spill the beans" (and somehow manage to get each and every one of them to spin)? Besides, since writing the above uncalled-for diatribe, I have received information that you are not only fabulously good-looking, but that you are rich and famous too, and have a sparkling personality to boot.

Actually the NPOV ain't bad overall on this article, given the controversy that still swirls around and about "The Way" (which I've been observing since ROA 1975). And no small thanks for the accomplishment goes to you. (Kudos. Now, go get a life.) Makes me proud to be a sometimes-Wikipedian. (User wipes feigned tear from his cheek here.) Heck, I even link this thing on my bio page of VPW on my website. ô¿ô 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My faith in humanity is restored. Ten of Swords

Now that may be going a little overboard. ô¿ô 14:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Members, ex-members

Rewgarding MDVADEN's changing of "members" to "followers" - Those who The Way refers to as "followers" meet every criteria for "members": they participate in the groups classes and activities, pay tithes and subject themselves to the leadership and discipline by the group. Saying that The Way has no members is not reasonable using widely understood definitions of the word.

Changing the term "members" to "followers", and especially noting that the Way has no members is promoting The Way's POV. Ten of Swords 05:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to combine this section with two following sections that MDVADEN started since he is basically responding to some changes that I have made:Ten of Swords 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This section was fine-tuned to the "encylopedic" nature of Wikipedia, with vocabulary of "followers" and "ex-followers".

Hopefully, we all want to maintain a consistency and accuracy within a topic or article.

PLEASE NOTE OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENT FOLLOWING : - )

The "understanding" of individuals is not factual or reliable.

Tithes of any church's followers may not be payments for membership.

Mdvaden 05:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Supplement comment:

"Membership" may figuratively refer to groups, but becomes figurative, subjective or "fluid" in nature. It can mean something different to each person.

Purchased memberships on the other hand, are clearly understood and acknowledged - all acknowledged.

Paid memberships can be documented.

Not all followers are tithers. But all followers are followers.

Subjective definitions that are "widely understood" can just as easily be "widely misunderstood".

One solution that is practical, is listing link categories as:

Links of members (followers)

Links of ex-members (ex-followers)

That is a universal protocol accepted in our culture when figurative ideas are to be included with documented information.

Mdvaden 05:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll go along with your last change. It conveys TWI's claim that it has no members as well as the common perception and understanding of what a "member" is.

Frankly, my biggest beef was not so much with the term "followers", and if it had been in there initially, I may not have changed it. My complaint was more with what looked like yet another attempt to conform this article with the TWI POV.

The articles on The Catholic Church, Methodist Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarian Universalist Association all use the term "members", although none utilize paid or purchased memberships, and the relevant Merriam Webster Online dictionary definition of "member" is:

• one of the individuals composing a group
• a person baptized or enrolled in a church

TWI followers certainly meet that broad definition.

Anyway...yada, yada, yada...I accept your solution to the disagreementTen of Swords

This has come up again, so here we go:

TWI doesn't claim to be a denomination but is indistinguishable from groups that say that they are. Same with members; they can throw you out, they require your money and your allegience, so by any resonable definition, they have members, reflexively using TWI's jargon and terminology subtly promotes their POV. I think MDVADEN proposed a workable compromiseTen of Swords 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

LINKS

For:

TEN OF SWORDS, or whoever,

I have an idea that you might like to work on, but this first:

When I discovered this category, I saw the "ex-members" links. As such, a page in my website would fit. But I never considered myself a member in the past, or an ex-member currently - hence, my first editing.

At first, I "plugged" my site's link into a links category because it was there. But after mulling-over this links thing the past day or two, I decided that my website should not even be included.

The category is "The Way International", and honestly, my website has nothing about The Way International. So I feel that it's appropriate to keep my link off the page. And I deleted my page link last night.

I can see from the discussion page history that you (Ten of Swords) edit this subject frequently. And your reasoning sounds good.

So I'm offering a suggestion that "member" or "ex-member" links be removed if they don't have anything to do with the Way International. Not removal of entire link categories; just a few that may have no substantial information on The Way.

But I'm going to keep clear of editing the links of others. And with the experience you have with this, you will probably handle it great.

I noticed the sociable nature of one of your posts listed earlier - nice. I have no idea who you are. But you can probably guess from my signature that I'm not very anonymous on the internet. In my case, there is no reason to be anonymous. Our website is one of the best known on the internet for it's type, and I never write anything on the internet that would come back to bite me.

As far as my experience with TWI, I attended fellowships from 1983 to 2005. I have no "gripe" about The Way. The fellowships for us, were not edifying anymore. I think its fine for others to keep attending if its edifying for them. So from an editing standpoint, I believe I'm about as impartial as they come.

Should you ever wish to email - feel free. With Google and a search for "M. D. Vaden", you can always find me.

Thanks,

M. D. Vaden

Mdvaden 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points. Other than the Messiah Lutheran Link and the pictures, I haven't looked into any of the others. If the link has nothing to do with TWI, why should it be included?Ten of Swords 16:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the link in the ex-follower's section referring to Christian Educational Services. GreaseSpot Cafe is not Christian Educational Services (an off-shoot of TWI). Also removed the link to GreaseSpot in the off-shoots section. I'll put in a link to CES's current web site.

Rojs 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)