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, 05:57:32 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 35849 times)
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #60 on: May 22, 2018, 03:07:38 pm »

Thanks DLM - this is the best articulation of "the other side" that I've seen.  Didn't Victim C say Mark put his hand on her leg though?
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2526



« Reply #61 on: May 22, 2018, 03:11:05 pm »

DLM, you haven't yet answered my question. How do you know for certain we're talking about a hug in a karate class, nothing more, full stop? You stated this as a fact. What is your source?
I decline to answer. However, it is the truth.

I call your bluff, DLM.

If you know for certain that it was merely a "karate class hug" then either you are not talking about the 1996 NDA that was referenced here, or someone who signed that NDA told you that. If they told you that, they are either in violation of the NDA (and could have to pay the consequences for violating an NDA), or they are making it up.

I say, you have been told a fib by someone who claims to know about the situation.

Quote from: DLM
Mark denies any wrongdoing. We don't know the context of any of these conversations. As for being alone at a park, there were many single's events at Fort Snelling Park where these conversations took place. They were not alone other than at a separate picnic table for a brief time.

There are 5 victims that have come forward and to my knowledge they have spoken with Joan. Suzanne, Natalie, Loey, Victim A, and Victim C. I challenge your assumption that Natalie is Victim A. Pretty sure she is someone else.

And how, pray tell do you know they were not alone other than at a separate picnic table for a brief time? How do you explain women who have witnessed MD picking up women alone? Let me guess. They were without transportation and had to get a ride to the singles picnic at Ft. Snelling.
Logged

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

Posts: 30



« Reply #62 on: May 22, 2018, 03:32:04 pm »

Not to nitpick and I respect your right to protect your source...but it seems strange to say "I know the story behind NDA woman was a hug at karate" and then question if there was an NDA..did you not know that there was an NDA? or is it possible they are two separate incidents..there hasn't exactly been a shortage of women making allegations..

It is the same incident and the same person. There are four alleged victims here. None of them claim sexual contact.
1. Suzanne (claimed an inappropriate hug and conversation)
2. Natalie (said it was "not sexual abuse" - also called victim A)
3. Loey (was hugged at a karate class with both families right there - also called NDA victim)
4. Victim C (claimed inappropriate conversation took place)

Mark denies any wrongdoing. We don't know the context of any of these conversations. As for being alone at a park, there were many single's events at Fort Snelling Park where these conversations took place. They were not alone other than possibly at a separate picnic table for a brief time.


Oh to be a fly on the picnic table
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #63 on: May 22, 2018, 03:43:59 pm »

Hey DLM - you are one of the few folks defending MD & Family who is articulate, reasonable and who I can have a meaningful back-n-forth dialog with, even though we see this situation very differently. If you're in an engaging state of mind..some questions..

1. The mystery of the fireplace upon which The Reckoning was built - is Heidi who was in her 20's (not 7) and says she has 5 people to back her up lying or just has bad memory when she says it worked at least on occasion?

2. For those who are not "Suzanne" or "Mark" partisans (if there are any on this site) how do you think they should feel knowing that Todd Goodwin work works side by side in a house church with Mark's son-in-law, will sit as judge and jury?  Many might assume he shares your attitude or Mark's son-in-law and will give Mark a pass - is that wrong to assume? - is Todd really independent enough to judge MD?  I can tell you not many of our small group leaders would feel they were independent enough to judge our pastors...

3. How should those same neutral folks feel knowing multiple ECC pastors/staff and GCM Board members have "liked" The Reckoning" presumably without having heard any of the "victims" side?  Is the investigation just for show and has GCM already decided how this will shake out?

Thanks - I admire your dedication.
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071



« Reply #64 on: May 22, 2018, 04:07:15 pm »

Suzanne (claimed an inappropriate hug and conversation)

You're considerably understating her claims, don't you think?

Suzanne claims that Mark drove her to remote locations on multiple occasions, for the purpose of having sexual conversations in which he asked her intrusive personal questions. ("What do you sound like when you're having an orgasm?") She claims that on one occasion when she was at his house, he took his wife downstairs and had loud sex with her, knowing that Suzanne could hear them from upstairs. This may or may not be true, but you can't reduce it down to "an inappropriate hug and conversation" (singular) as if that were the sum total of it. The fact that you're trying to do so makes me question whether "a hug at a karate class" is a similar whitewashing of the facts.

 
As for being alone at a park, there were many single's events at Fort Snelling Park where these conversations took place. They were not alone other than possibly at a separate picnic table for a brief time.

Unless you were with Mark 24/7, every single day for a couple of decades, there's no way you can say this with certainty. Maybe this is what Mark told you, and maybe you feel he's being truthful, and maybe he really is being truthful, but it's not in your power to know for certain what Mark did when you weren't present.
Logged
JessicaNoelDarling
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 37



« Reply #65 on: May 22, 2018, 04:42:01 pm »

Suzanne (claimed an inappropriate hug and conversation)

You're considerably understating her claims, don't you think?

Suzanne claims that Mark drove her to remote locations on multiple occasions, for the purpose of having sexual conversations in which he asked her intrusive personal questions. ("What do you sound like when you're having an orgasm?") She claims that on one occasion when she was at his house, he took his wife downstairs and had loud sex with her, knowing that Suzanne could hear them from upstairs. This may or may not be true, but you can't reduce it down to "an inappropriate hug and conversation" (singular) as if that were the sum total of it. The fact that you're trying to do so makes me question whether "a hug at a karate class" is a similar whitewashing of the facts.

 
As for being alone at a park, there were many single's events at Fort Snelling Park where these conversations took place. They were not alone other than possibly at a separate picnic table for a brief time.

Unless you were with Mark 24/7, every single day for a couple of decades, there's no way you can say this with certainty. Maybe this is what Mark told you, and maybe you feel he's being truthful, and maybe he really is being truthful, but it's not in your power to know for certain what Mark did when you weren't present.

So who do you think would be the authority on finding out what someone does or doesn't do? Discussing gossip seems to be the main function of this forum (and slander). Say for a minute I am a historian. Where do you think I'm going to go first to figure out who someone was– people who have spent relatively little time with the person? Or people who have actually observed personal, professional, and/or other aspects of the persons life over the longest period of time? All of the people who have observed my dad the most, over long periods of time in and outside of the context of his job, those who actually know the man, don't think there is any credibility to the the claims that have been made against him. Why do you think that is? Grand conspiracy? The more obvious answer is that the claims are simply not credible in light of the evidence. What's more amazing is the ability for people to tune out what they don't want to hear, even when it makes perfect sense, elevating gossip wherever they can. I'm also amazed at how people will tell me they know more about my former home than I do. Just absolutely amazing. Facts and evidence are clearly not valued on this forum and apparently the loudest voice wins. Can we get back to valuing actual, substantive truth backed by substantive evidence? Do we not value innocence until proven guilty? (For the record, I write here for those reasonable people who are reading this because they are curious about what's going on. May God's truth win. May you hear the truth and your ears ring because of it.)
Logged
arrogantcat
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #66 on: May 22, 2018, 04:44:09 pm »

The whole question about whether there was an NDA could be settled by someone producing an NDA.
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #67 on: May 22, 2018, 04:58:43 pm »

1) DLM who is about as fervent a MD defender as possible acknowledges the incident upon which said NDA may/may not have sprung from (to be fair he says it was basically a non-event)..so it wasn't made up by the VDs out of thin air was it?

2) I'm not sure if I were Brent or whoever drove getting an NDA prepared and signed that I would let everyone have copies for their records and to have laying around..the signed copy in the church file or with an ECC attorney if it exists would be enough for legal action if violated, no?
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2526



« Reply #68 on: May 22, 2018, 05:00:05 pm »

Quote from: arrogantcat
The whole question about whether there was an NDA could be settled by someone producing an NDA.
I agree. Hopefully, Joan Harris has a copy. Hopefully the BOT will release all documentation like that. Again, BOT members put in position by the pastors who are under investigation are the only ones who will determine what documents are made public.
Logged

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

Posts: 238



« Reply #69 on: May 22, 2018, 07:25:30 pm »

Hey DLM - you are one of the few folks defending MD & Family who is articulate, reasonable and who I can have a meaningful back-n-forth dialog with, even though we see this situation very differently. If you're in an engaging state of mind..some questions..

1. The mystery of the fireplace upon which The Reckoning was built - is Heidi who was in her 20's (not 7) and says she has 5 people to back her up lying or just has bad memory when she says it worked at least on occasion?

2. For those who are not "Suzanne" or "Mark" partisans (if there are any on this site) how do you think they should feel knowing that Todd Goodwin work works side by side in a house church with Mark's son-in-law, will sit as judge and jury?  Many might assume he shares your attitude or Mark's son-in-law and will give Mark a pass - is that wrong to assume? - is Todd really independent enough to judge MD?  I can tell you not many of our small group leaders would feel they were independent enough to judge our pastors...

3. How should those same neutral folks feel knowing multiple ECC pastors/staff and GCM Board members have "liked" The Reckoning" presumably without having heard any of the "victims" side?  Is the investigation just for show and has GCM already decided how this will shake out?

Thanks - I admire your dedication.

Darth, my brief thoughts
1. Fireplace. I would tend to believe those who lived there. I know Heidi, and I would not accuse her a lying. I can't explain the different recollections. However, if bats are getting into the house then I'm all about closing that sucker up and never opening it again. At the end of the day, I'm not sure it's all that important of a point anyway. Even if Mark talked to her in the basement others were around.

2. I would not want to be on the board and would have recused myself if I were. Todd has shut himself off from others in the church so as to be as unbiased as possible. Mark's son in-law is not on the board. This isn't a perfect situation I admit, but I trust the integrity of those on the board to be open transparent and to do what is right. Those in charge truly are waiting for the investigation to conclude before making comment or judgement. I am told the board will be as transparent as possible in terms of releasing information.

3. The Pastors are not in charge of this investigation, so if a few liked the Reckoning that doesn't trouble me. The investigation is as serious and real as it gets. Ask any of the Darlings if they think Evergreen has supported them or their father in any way whatsoever. They will unequivocally say NO. They have been alone throughout this. I don't think the church has supported Mark in the least, which is the main reason I've posted. I know enough facts to defend him in some of these areas. Like you, I want the truth to be told. Joan has interviewed some 40+ people, finally including Suzanne. This has been a thorough, serious investigation. Joan is no slouch or pushover. Soon it will be over. It can't come soon enough.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 07:49:35 pm by Digital Lynch Mob » Logged
margaret
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 197



« Reply #70 on: May 22, 2018, 07:36:18 pm »

Good post, DLM. Thanks.
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #71 on: May 22, 2018, 07:47:19 pm »

Agree. Clear and reasonable even if I disagree with parts. Thanks!
Logged
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #72 on: May 22, 2018, 08:58:35 pm »

I loved "The Reckoning". The reason why is because of the verse "The first to plead his case seems right until another comes and examines him".  I'm sure many liked it on FB for that reason alone. The fact that for once social media wasn't dominated by one side, by people who don't even know Mark, people that don't attend his church, people that don't know Suzanne either but miraculously happen to know everything about the issue. 

And perhaps as much as GCC loves "The Reckoning" does she love to quote the book of Proverbs. Smiley

I might as well:
Quote
The poor plead for mercy, but the rich answer harshly. - Same chapter (18) different verse (23)
Logged
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #73 on: May 22, 2018, 09:13:20 pm »

Yes.....the talk on your forum "answers harshly"  Very good verse.

...and immediately taking it out of context.  Well played; I should have seen that coming...  You've been taught well
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