Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
March 29, 2024, 07:53:14 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: FOX 9 Investigators  (Read 61839 times)
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1062



« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2018, 07:45:07 am »

Both sides do it, yet still try to blame the other side for it. 

I'm trying to be as objective as I can, but I've been giving this a lot of thought for quite a while, and I just don't believe both sides deserve an equal share of blame here. Sometimes, in a conflict, it's not equal. Sometimes there truly is one party that bears the majority of the blame. The kind of sin-levelling that makes all parties equally to blame strikes me as an outworking of the "unity trumps truth" school of thought, where the final result (artificially imposed peace) matters more than justice and reality.

In my son's grade school, there was a rule: if you physically attacked another kid, you were expelled. But guess what? If the kid who was physically attacked tried to defend himself, he got expelled, too! This rule had nothing to do with fairness or protecting the innocent; it was solely for the benefit of the school and the principal. I see the same principle here when someone steps in to say, "Both sides are at fault," in a way that implies both sides have generally behaved equally badly.
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1062



« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2018, 07:54:00 am »

Prince usually has the bully smart alicyclics posts that attempt to humiliate. This is not a humorous matter, and many are suffering horrendous pain in this. I couldn’t imagine the pain of what some have taken this whole situation to.

This is an example of why these things are so hard to hash out in an internet forum. I've always found G_Prince's remarks to be gentle, upbeat, and on point. But when you come here expecting the worst from us, and determined to find it, then naturally you'll interpret them in the worst possible light.

Some here have been hurt, but they have not had the humiliation of the extent or degree Mark and his family have had in the social media etc.  They have been accused,judged, and sentenced on this form and social media. Something I have never witnessed in my life.

If it turns out that Mark is innocent, then your sympathy will be well deserved. If he's guilty, then he he will have brought this suffering on himself by his own free choices.

But thank you for acknowledging that some of us here really have been hurt. I just wish you could see your own role (that's a plural "you," which includes a number of other ECC members here) in prolonging and adding to that hurt.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 08:01:13 am by Huldah » Logged
Greentruth
Guest

« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2018, 07:57:36 am »

This is the consequence of social media. Facts from both sides should have been shown and proved before any social discussion ever occurred. That’s not only Biblical, but from what I know, the law of the land. This will hurt, more than help anyone who actually is abused. When this is all said and done, the damage will overshadow anything gained. This is already horribly obvious
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #23 on: May 01, 2018, 08:41:34 am »

The great irony here is that when this report happens, it will be a 3rd party, independent investigation with transparency.

We will all see the results of the investigation at the same time tomorrow at 9:00 on Fox 9.

And, for the record, no matter how the investigation goes, sorrow will be the only proper response.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
G_Prince
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417



« Reply #24 on: May 01, 2018, 08:46:32 am »

Just to clarify, I was responding to isthisreal's suggesting that we are all going to face legal action for posting on an internet forum. I found that to be ding-dang doodily.
Logged

Here's an easy way to find out if you're in a cult. If you find yourself asking the question, "am I in a cult?" the answer is yes. -Stephen Colbert
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #25 on: May 01, 2018, 09:18:54 am »

If the allegations are correct, ECC pastors and Mark Darling had the ability to take responsibility and address this situation in a more private manner.  As has already been noted by multiple users on this forum, there is scriptural support to handle abuses by church leadership publicly.  History and past events indicate that church leaders - in and outside of GCX churches - have used Biblical passages like Matthew 18 to silence victims and allow abusive clergy to continue to abuse.

While I don't agree with every forum member's posts, I am not going to try to police what they say.  Anger is a part of the grieving process and is a natural reaction to abuse experienced by an individual.  GCC churches have harmed people.  The universal Church has harmed people.  We have harmed the way people view God.  It is not just that they have been hurt by individuals.  It is not the fact that they just can't handle the "hard truth."  "god" has been used against individuals in an unbiblical and unloving manner - (I use small "g" god to indicate that I don't think leaders represent God when they use god to abuse).  I am glad people who have been harmed by the church are still part of this forum.  I think it is important to listen to how the church has failed them.  I also think it is okay to have friends outside your personal religious beliefs system.

If you disagree with listening to dissenting voices and vilifying them in the way they express it, you may be interested to note that GCAC has acknowledged their error in this regard in 1991.  Whether or not their churches adhere to this principle is another question.

Quote
We confess that we have too often responded defensively to those both within and outside of our churches who questioned or criticized us, and at times exhibited an unwillingness to listen to their perspective. Instead of too quickly concluding that these individuals were acting divisively or irresponsibly, we should have made a greater effort to carefully consider and respond to their views.
-1991 A STATEMENT RECOGNIZING EARLY ERRORS AND WEAKNESSES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREAT COMMISSION ASSOCIATION OF CHURCHES

NOTE:  GCAC included people "within and OUTSIDE of [their] churches."  (emphasis mine)
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #26 on: May 01, 2018, 09:19:56 am »

G_Prince, since you had quoted that statement in bold, it should have been obvious to which specific issue you were referring.  I prefer ding-dang diddily myself.
Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2018, 09:47:50 am »

The great irony here is that when this report happens, it will be a 3rd party, independent investigation with transparency.

We will all see the results of the investigation at the same time tomorrow at 9:00 on Fox 9.

Hardly. Have you ever seen one of Tom Lyden's pieces? They are typically hit pieces meant to sensationalize. Their, so called, investigation consisted of interviewing Suzanne and no one else. Because there actually is a real investigation going on, Evergreen simple gave a statement saying they would have no comment until the investigation was completed. If Fox 9 was concerned about being fair and factual they would have waited to run this report until the real investigation was completed. Instead they rushed this out for ratings and to jump on the #metoo bandwagon.
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #28 on: May 01, 2018, 09:59:42 am »

I wonder if, if the news story shares evidence that Joan Harris doesn't have, if she will need to take that in to account?
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2018, 10:01:58 am »

Quote from: Digital Lynch Mob
Hardly. Have you ever seen one of Tom Lyden's pieces? They are typically hit pieces meant to sensationalize. Their, so called, investigation consisted of interviewing Suzanne and no one else. Because there actually is a real investigation going on, Evergreen simple gave a statement saying they would have no comment until the investigation was completed. If Fox 9 was concerned about being fair and factual they would have waited to run this report until the real investigation was completed. Instead they rushed this out for ratings and to jump on the #metoo bandwagon.

Answers.

Yes. I watched this one a few weeks ago. I thought it was well done and very sad.

https://vimeo.com/187031415

How do you know they interviewed Suzanne and no one else? Do you have inside information from Fox 9?

No matter what you think this is an independent, 3rd party investigation.

My very limited understanding is that those interviewed have no control over the investigation or the results and will see it when we all see it. Therefore it is independent.

Fox 9 is not one of the parties in the dispute, therefore it is a 3rd party.

And the fact that we will all see it shows that it is transparent.

You may not think it's fair, I understand that part.

How do you know they rushed this out? I saw something about it posted here a few weeks ago.
 
What I find sad is that Suzanne's call for finding someone all parties involved would agree on to investigate was disregarded and ECC chose to hire an attorney (with attorney client privilege) and no transparency.







« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 10:13:44 am by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Godtrumpsall
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142



« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2018, 11:24:20 am »

Quote from: Digital Lynch Mob
Hardly. Have you ever seen one of Tom Lyden's pieces? They are typically hit pieces meant to sensationalize. Their, so called, investigation consisted of interviewing Suzanne and no one else. Because there actually is a real investigation going on, Evergreen simple gave a statement saying they would have no comment until the investigation was completed. If Fox 9 was concerned about being fair and factual they would have waited to run this report until the real investigation was completed. Instead they rushed this out for ratings and to jump on the #metoo bandwagon.

Answers.

Yes. I watched this one a few weeks ago. I thought it was well done and very sad.

https://vimeo.com/187031415

How do you know they interviewed Suzanne and no one else? Do you have inside information from Fox 9?

No matter what you think this is an independent, 3rd party investigation.

My very limited understanding is that those interviewed have no control over the investigation or the results and will see it when we all see it. Therefore it is independent.

Fox 9 is not one of the parties in the dispute, therefore it is a 3rd party.

And the fact that we will all see it shows that it is transparent.

You may not think it's fair, I understand that part.

How do you know they rushed this out? I saw something about it posted here a few weeks ago.
 
What I find sad is that Suzanne's call for finding someone all parties involved would agree on to investigate was disregarded and ECC chose to hire an attorney (with attorney client privilege) and no transparency.









There are several obvious issues in the absurdity of calling this a 3rd party independent investigation.   What drives the local news station investigator, what is his motivation....um, ratings,  and money and recognition, awards to be won, to advance his career.  They want the juiciest stories, they want to bring in the ratings, that equals money and status.  Integrity is not very high on the list of standards.  The story matters more than truth, the spin matters for ratings.  They pick and choose what they put in the story, to make is sound how they want to make is sound.  Sure Tom is a 3rd party, but what is his end goal?  What is Joan Harris' end goal (and she is still technically a 3rd party, just because she communicates with one member of the BOT and expressed frustration with Suzanne continual questioning over the same issue, does undo her 3rd party status).

So are you saying you believe all news reports to be the absolute truth and unbiased?  Because your statements would leave us believing so, but we all know this is absurd. 

What are attorney Joan Harris' motivations?  To do her job, find facts.  To maintain her own integrity and the integrity of her law firm (she is an ethics law professor as well).  There will be no public recognition for what she has been hired to do.  Her investigation has no impact on financial gain for her or her firm (as in a trial case where law firm benefits financially in winning cases). 

Below a few quotes found regarding Tom Lynden's reporting and history at an investigator:

Lyden, one of the market's highest-profile TV reporters. He's known for his aggressiveness, determination and competitive spirit -- traits that have made him a standout on KMSP's fast-rising nightly news shows and led some to brand him a showboat more interested in sensationalism than substance.

Police officials aren't the only ones who have had problems with Lyden. Jon Austin, a longtime spokesman for Northwest Airlines, said he would be "very hesitant" to work with Lyden after a couple of shaky experiences, including one about 10 years ago in which he believes the reporter agreed to an off-the-record conversation for background and then reneged.

There is one incident in which there is little disagreement that Lyden crossed the line. In May 2000, Lyden was tipped off about a police raid on a local boxer suspected of organizing dogfights. When Lyden got to the scene, he noticed a videotape inside the boxer's unlocked car. He swiped it.
The tape, which included dogfight footage, led to a red-hot story. It also led to criminal charges and the possible end of his career.
But Lyden's digging went from scoop to oops by the end of business Monday. Fox 9 has scrubbed the story from its site after serious doubts were raised about the report's veracity. Those doubts came from Andy Luger himself.

According to Fox 9's website, the investigative reporter is "a few parts Sherlock Holmes and a few parts storyteller" and "there's nothing more he loves than the thrill of the chase."
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #31 on: May 01, 2018, 11:41:59 am »

Quote from: GTA
So are you saying you believe all news reports to be the absolute truth and unbiased?
Ding-Dang Doodily.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 06:14:08 pm by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #32 on: May 01, 2018, 11:50:57 am »

And then there is this about Lyden
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.fox9.com/about-us/fox-9-wins-emmy-awards-for-news-excellence-investigations

And this
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.fox9.com/about-us/pair-of-tom-lyden-investigations-earn-1st-place-at-spj-page-one-awards

I wouldn’t be too quick to label him a poor journalist.

Logged
Godtrumpsall
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142



« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2018, 12:22:52 pm »


My point, the motivation is awards, recognition. So you support that news media is a valid form of truth in every story? 
Logged
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #34 on: May 01, 2018, 12:26:05 pm »

There are several obvious issues in the absurdity of calling this a 3rd party independent investigation.   What drives the local news station investigator, what is his motivation....um, ratings,  and money and recognition, awards to be won, to advance his career.  They want the juiciest stories, they want to bring in the ratings, that equals money and status.  Integrity is not very high on the list of standards.  The story matters more than truth, the spin matters for ratings. 
According to Fox 9's website, the investigative reporter is "a few parts Sherlock Holmes and a few parts storyteller" and "there's nothing more he loves than the thrill of the chase."

GTA, if the allegations against ECC pastors and Mark Darling are found to have merit, what have their motivations been in keeping victims quiet?  Power?  Church image?  Self image?  Revenue?  Loss of respect?  Loss of followers?

Darthvader brought up an excellent point in asking who the Board of Trustee's member from the Rock was.  Most likely this individual, if he hasn't recused himself from the current BOT, was put in place by Mark Darling himself.  How can this BOT member be free from bias when the BOT decides how to investigate and what to do with the confidential findings afterwards?

If Jeromy is completely correct in his quote below, Evergreen started their investigation "to show the world that the church was listening" - and to "simultaneously exonerate my father [Mark Darling]" (doesn't sound like an investigation free from bias to me).



So you're saying that the board did not take your voice into consideration but that you were allowed to express your concerns to them? Was Suzanne or any of the other accusers allowed that same option? Please clarify if you can.
The board did not consult our family and was not obligated to do so - they made the decision, started the process and informed us when it began. They believed that in the current toxic climate surrounding #metoo that an investigation was the best way to show the world that the church was listening AND simultaneously exonerate my father. I disagreed but still love all those men. There were NO other "accusers" when this all began, or even a hint of accusers. Suzanne has refused all attempts to contact her (and has blocked my entire family from her FB page)

Also, I am so sorry that your wife and mother have to relieve their abuse. Would it be better if Gretchen refrained from posting on social media? I would not want her to be re-victimized or have to continually retell that story.
She has a voice, she can use it however she feels is best to defend her father-in-law (the man who lead her to Christ). She has no issue discussing her past and the great healing that she found in Christ, but imagine writing about it would cause one to THINK about it and I doubt that's very much fun.
Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #35 on: May 01, 2018, 12:32:59 pm »


My point, the motivation is awards, recognition. So you support that news media is a valid form of truth in every story?  

Nope. Never said that.
Logged
Godtrumpsall
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142



« Reply #36 on: May 01, 2018, 12:37:23 pm »

There are several obvious issues in the absurdity of calling this a 3rd party independent investigation.   What drives the local news station investigator, what is his motivation....um, ratings,  and money and recognition, awards to be won, to advance his career.  They want the juiciest stories, they want to bring in the ratings, that equals money and status.  Integrity is not very high on the list of standards.  The story matters more than truth, the spin matters for ratings. 
According to Fox 9's website, the investigative reporter is "a few parts Sherlock Holmes and a few parts storyteller" and "there's nothing more he loves than the thrill of the chase."

GTA, if the allegations against ECC pastors and Mark Darling are found to have merit, what have their motivations been in keeping victims quiet?  Power?  Church image?  Self image?  Revenue?  Loss of respect?  Loss of followers?

Darthvader brought up an excellent point in asking who the Board of Trustee's member from the Rock was.  Most likely this individual, if he hasn't recused himself from the current BOT, was put in place by Mark Darling himself.  How can this BOT member be free from bias when the BOT decides how to investigate and what to do with the confidential findings afterwards?

If Jeromy is completely correct in his quote below, Evergreen started their investigation "to show the world that the church was listening" - and to "simultaneously exonerate my father [Mark Darling]" (doesn't sound like an investigation free from bias to me).



So you're saying that the board did not take your voice into consideration but that you were allowed to express your concerns to them? Was Suzanne or any of the other accusers allowed that same option? Please clarify if you can.
The board did not consult our family and was not obligated to do so - they made the decision, started the process and informed us when it began. They believed that in the current toxic climate surrounding #metoo that an investigation was the best way to show the world that the church was listening AND simultaneously exonerate my father. I disagreed but still love all those men. There were NO other "accusers" when this all began, or even a hint of accusers. Suzanne has refused all attempts to contact her (and has blocked my entire family from her FB page)

Also, I am so sorry that your wife and mother have to relieve their abuse. Would it be better if Gretchen refrained from posting on social media? I would not want her to be re-victimized or have to continually retell that story.
She has a voice, she can use it however she feels is best to defend her father-in-law (the man who lead her to Christ). She has no issue discussing her past and the great healing that she found in Christ, but imagine writing about it would cause one to THINK about it and I doubt that's very much fun.

There are 2 other pastors at The Rock.   
Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #37 on: May 01, 2018, 12:42:43 pm »

The answer to your question was no. The “never said that” was for your question that implied that I believed that. I’ve taught my children that “just asking a question” isn’t always innocent. Sometimes questions are asked to make implications. I’m sorry if I misread the intent of your question. My answer to it is no.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #38 on: May 01, 2018, 12:47:57 pm »

Quote from: GTA
My point, the motivation is awards, recognition. So you support that news media is a valid form of truth in every story?
Ding-Dang Doodily.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 06:15:32 pm by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #39 on: May 01, 2018, 12:49:40 pm »

Will we now start investigating Tom's background?  Marital history?  Whether or not we think he is a gossip?


Here comes the religious police force again.  Will it matter that Tom is gay?  Will it matter if he had a cheeseburger for lunch?  Perhaps he should not have mixed his meat and dairy?  Does he eat pork?  Did he remind Suzanne she should have had more witnesses or should have been with her male protector during pastoral counseling sessions? Does Tom tithe from his mint, dill, and cumin?

Anything to discredit the bearer of messages we don't like.

We've seen Suzanne's character shredded here.  Looks like Tom's up next.

Maybe he'll be on MD's side?  He really might be.  We have no idea here on this board.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 12:59:02 pm by AgathaL'Orange » Logged

Glad to be free.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1