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
July 16, 2024, 05:38:03 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New update from Suzanne on FB  (Read 35848 times)
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« on: May 20, 2018, 07:05:12 pm »

See below from Suzanne's FB page - looks like she has decided to participate in the investigation, which I'm sure is welcome news for all seeking truth.


An update for those following my story of abuse by pastor Mark Darling and the cover up by other pastors at Evergreen Church.
After the airing of the Fox9 news story, another victim of sexual abuse by pastor Mark Darling messaged me on Facebook. I felt sick that there was another victim. Through her story and the dates she shared, I had a hunch that it was the victim that the other pastors had signed a confidentiality/NDA about in 1996.
When we left Evergreen in 2003ish, John told me in 1996 he and the other pastors (Doug Patterson, Brent Knox, Ken Johnson, Charlie Meyer) signed an agreement stating they would not reveal the details of what Mark Darling did to this woman. Over all these years John has upheld that agreement and not disclosed that information. Around that same time in 1996, Kathy Darling, Mark's wife had asked me on several occasions to pray for Mark because some woman was accusing Mark of sexual things. I have often felt this was the same woman.
Over the years, I have thought of her. I wondered when I came forward again (January 5, 2018) if she would see it on FB or Twitter and contact me. She did not until the Fox9 report aired. She had no idea that any of this was going on. Her husband was watching the nightly news and went and got her from another room. She Facebook messaged me almost immediately. The woman I referred to as the "NDA woman" had found me.
After the story aired and this woman contacted me, I finally felt comfortable talking with Evergreen Church Board of Trustee investigative attorney, Joan Harris.
Because Evergreen has chosen to not collaboratively select an investigator together and, maybe more importantly has mandated that Joan Harris' report will remain confidential only to the Board of Trustees, I felt it was not in my best interests to speak with Joan. If I did the BOT could, because they alone would see the final report, say Joan found the allegations false and no cover up by the other pastors even if the report said otherwise. Since the story aired though, Evergreen Church, is not able to control the narrative. The story is out. People still get to believe what they want. But in the end they were not allowed to only tell their side of the story.
This newly found victim had gone to pastor Brent Knox in 1996 and was assured "it" would be taken care of. How Brent Knox handled Mark's abuse of her was have the pastors sign a confidentiality/NDA agreement. In essence he ensured that the other pastors would not be able to speak of it instead of Mark Darling receiving the help he needed. She has since spoken with Joan Harris. This too, gave me more impetus to speak with Joan.
Logged
Greentruth
Guest

« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2018, 07:34:41 pm »

Why update now, tonight, after watching this forum discussion for quite sometime Suzanne? Why weeks after it’s disclosure? Why did John bother going on tv and not share this? Why did you not make this accusation along with the others? This is a huge allegation, and I don’t understand why now?
Logged
LisaFeist
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 39



« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2018, 07:39:05 pm »

If reading comprehension is difficult for you this victim came forward to Suzanne after the story aired. If an NDA was signed by John he could not speak of it prior. But victim contacted Suzanne. Hope that brings some clarity.
Logged
Greentruth
Guest

« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2018, 07:41:21 pm »

If reading comprehension is difficult for you this victim came forward to Suzanne after the story aired. If an NDA was signed by John he could not speak of it prior. But victim contacted Suzanne. Hope that brings some clarity.

Over two weeks ago? And are you Suzanne new spokesperson?
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2526



« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2018, 07:48:29 pm »

GT,

As Lisa pointed out, if you bothered to read the post, you would have read "After the airing of the Fox9 news story, another victim of sexual abuse by pastor Mark Darling messaged me on Facebook." Suzanne was unaware of the identity of this person till after the interview.

Is it a teeny bit concerning to you that there is an allegation of an NDA signed by pastors to cover up "sexual accusations"? This speaks of a cover up by pastors that she alleged in her very first tweet in January when she wrote:

"Pastor who abused me is still in pulpit though he was outed to other pastors that are still there.  Tweet is for me and other women abused by Mark Darling and Evergreen Community Church."

If this happened, and there is an NDA/cover up of sexual impropriety, the entire system of "character matters" as the main criteria for choosing pastors will come tumbling down. This is huge. I'm glad she talked with Joan.






Logged

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

Posts: 39



« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2018, 07:50:29 pm »

Thank you, Linda. I am very glad she spoke with Joan as well.
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2018, 07:55:12 pm »

I hope this is true but systems like this don't topple easily.

And just to be clear, hoping that an abusive system topples is not the same as wanting to destroy a church.  



GT,

As Lisa pointed out, if you bothered to read the post, you would have read "After the airing of the Fox9 news story, another victim of sexual abuse by pastor Mark Darling messaged me on Facebook." Suzanne was unaware of the identity of this person till after the interview.

Is it a teeny bit concerning to you that there is an allegation of an NDA signed by pastors to cover up "sexual accusations"? This speaks of a cover up by pastors that she alleged in her very first tweet in January when she wrote:

"Pastor who abused me is still in pulpit though he was outed to other pastors that are still there.  Tweet is for me and other women abused by Mark Darling and Evergreen Community Church."

If this happened, and there is an NDA/cover up of sexual impropriety, the entire system of "character matters" as the main criteria for choosing pastors will come tumbling down. This is huge. I'm glad she talked with Joan.







Logged
Greentruth
Guest

« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2018, 07:59:15 pm »

Linda, yes IF 5his is true it would be very disturbing. Are you Suzanne spokesperson now? I know John well. I spent a lot of time with John and I find it really hard to believe he would even sign such a document if his wife had been abused. He is not this dumb

And why tonight, after Suzanne monitored this forum, where exposing the bot was being discussed? I watch close who is logged on. This falls into the category of if it looks to sensational, it probably is too sensational.

NOW, more than ever, I will wait for the results of the investigation.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2526



« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2018, 08:02:47 pm »

Quote from: GT
Linda, yes IF this is true it would be very disturbing.

Thank you for admitting this.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2018, 08:10:46 pm »

NOW, more than ever, I will wait for the results of the investigation.

Please do!  You have said that before that you would wait and yet here you are still jumping to your own conclusions.  You have said before that it is best for you not to be on this forum and that you would stop commenting, yet here you are.

It's interesting how much blind faith you have for Mark Darling and yet so much skepticism for the growing amount of individuals claiming abuse.  Perhaps it would be a good exercise for you to wait for the results of the investigation.
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071



« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2018, 08:11:59 pm »

I'm glad Suzanne has finally decided to tell her story to Joan Harris. I understand why she refused before, but still, I think it's fitting and important that the person who first brought the problem to light is cooperating with the investigation.
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2018, 08:25:57 pm »

I agree.  Honestly I'm surprised, I didn't think she would but I think this decreases the chances for a "false negative."  This is, according to my count, at least 5 women who have spoken with Joan.  Before the news story Suzanne said there were 3, and since then there is the NDA woman and Suzanne. 

Although I can't for the life of me picture what the BOT will do if they receive the results and it is written that Mark did commit clergy sexual abuse or misconduct.  First of all, I feel bad for them because it will be devastating news on many levels.  Second, they will be faced with a very tough choice.  If NDA's have been signed and this cover-up has been going on for YEARS, who knows how the BOT is being "influenced" internally.  I don't think strangers are going to be their biggest source of pressure at this point.  Who knows what methods would be used to continue the cover-up?



I'm glad Suzanne has finally decided to tell her story to Joan Harris. I understand why she refused before, but still, I think it's fitting and important that the person who first brought the problem to light is cooperating with the investigation.
Logged
LisaFeist
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 39



« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2018, 10:00:17 pm »

GTA. You are getting too good at posting things like “I thought”. I understand defending “your side” I guess, but only to a certain point. (clearly I am doing the same) but you do not know this side whatsoever. So poking holes in details or whatever you are trying to do is not helping you and your “side” at all. People on “the inside” are most definitely watching. People may be ready to cut all ties simply by how you and others have responded to this. I am gathering that that doesn’t bother you or others at all, but it is happening. And you cannot blame it on being attacked for the sake of the gospel.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2526



« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2018, 04:25:04 am »

Quote from: GTA
I thought Suzanne said they're were 7, not 3, on one of her fb posts.

The number of women who have contacted Suzanne is different than the number of women who have spoken to Joan. As is evident from reading Rebel’s comment, she is referring to women who have spoken with Joan.

Quote from: RIAGW
This is, according to my count, at least 5 women who have spoken with Joan.  Before the news story Suzanne said there were 3, and since then there is the NDA woman and Suzanne.

My understanding is prior to the report, 7 women had contacted Suzanne. After the report, 2 more came forward. 5 of the 9 have spoken with Joan. 4 do not wish to speak with her, but I don’t know that for sure.

Question: Will you at all be troubled if an NDA exists that was signed by several pastors that involved accusations of sexual impropriety?

 





Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Greentruth
Guest

« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2018, 04:52:39 am »

NOW, more than ever, I will wait for the results of the investigation.

Please do!  You have said that before that you would wait and yet here you are still jumping to your own conclusions.  You have said before that it is best for you not to be on this forum and that you would stop commenting, yet here you are.

It's interesting how much blind faith you have for Mark Darling and yet so much skepticism for the growing amount of individuals claiming abuse.  Perhaps it would be a good exercise for you to wait for the results of the investigation.

Your right, I said I was going to hold back until the results of the investigation came out. And I did until a Prince brought up one of my old posts for the purpose to smear me, or draw me back in, not sure which but probably both. It looked like everyone was going to wait, until the absurdity of trying to force the disclosure of the bot through congregational tithe,

And if jumping to conclusions is negative, which I agree is, everyone on this forum is guilty, including you. It may be wise for everyone to now wait on the investigation results, as this really does not add up. We are led to believe that from the start Suzanne and John knew about this NDA that John signed, along with several other pastors.  It is immeasurably hard to believe that everyone involved would be silent about this and put everyone through what has transpired. And that this would have been left out on the news cast. There has been much more serious actions then breaking an NDA to bring out the supposed truth. What would be the consequences of breaking the NDA by John in this circumstance, nothing except all knowing if it was enforced. I really don’t think a John would hold that back and put everyone involved through all this. Especially if he also knew at the time his wife had been assaulted. And I’m also led to believe that Suzanne knew about this and left it out until now? Did she also sign an NDA? Sorry, but this makes no sense, and just adds to the already confusing accusations. Just stating simple facts of this. A NDA will be provable,which would settle much confusion and argument. If there was a fear of breaking an NDA, then I’m sure there is proof. If not, then this to will be unbelievable.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2526



« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2018, 05:04:24 am »

The question remains: Will you at all be troubled if an NDA involving sexual abuse accusations exists and was signed by several pastors?

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Greentruth
Guest

« Reply #16 on: May 21, 2018, 05:10:26 am »

The question remains: Will you at all be troubled if an NDA involving sexual abuse accusations exists and was signed by several pastors?



What did I just say? This whole assorted table of accusations is troubling, and even more troubling that this latest accusation was left out, as this would be easily proven.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2526



« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2018, 05:12:41 am »

So that’s a yes? You would find an NDA troubling?
Logged

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

Posts: 65



« Reply #18 on: May 21, 2018, 05:19:55 am »

GT, so you think John should have dishonored his word and discuss what he signed an NDA over? Doesn’t that reek of situational ethics? Shouldn’t a man be praised for keeping his word even when it hurts...seems I read that in the Bible.

Logged
Greentruth
Guest

« Reply #19 on: May 21, 2018, 05:45:02 am »

GT, so you think John should have dishonored his word and discuss what he signed an NDA over? Doesn’t that reek of situational ethics? Shouldn’t a man be praised for keeping his word even when it hurts...seems I read that in the Bible.



Considering the accusations I think God would desire the truth be told.  No, I would never put Gods people through something like this over a dishonorable NDA. I would personally go to jail first. Many in the world give their life for truth to be told. I would say it is more dishonorableto be silent in this situation, of which I have a hard time believing John would.This is no small accusation, and if it’s so sacred,why is it now being exposed, after putting so many through so much. You are leading me to believe this was left out for fear of dishonor? Sorry, doesn’t add up.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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