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
November 30, 2022, 06:19:01 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] 6 7 8 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What if MD is found to NOT be....  (Read 151628 times)
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #80 on: March 25, 2018, 07:24:11 am »

Jeromy: You have repeatedly said people are in the wrong for being anonymous on this site. I'm just curious, if you knew my name, or the name of Mapleleaf (or insert any other user here), how would this change your opinions of us, and why? What, if any, information do you think our names would provide you that would cause a change in your opinions, your perspective of our ideas and arguments, or your response towards us?
Knowing a person is not a coward changes my view of that person entirely - how would it not??? Also, knowing what church you went to (so I could actually talk to the pastors and get the other side of the story) would help me get a full picture of what actually happened. Lobbing bombs from an ivory tower where no pastor is allowed to respond is literally the definition of being a coward. Also, many anonymous users on this site have known me personally for years and it's an incredible betrayal to hide behind anonymity instead of calling me on the phone or meeting with me in person to talk to me face to face. It has no Biblical precedent. If people in the original church were walking around posting anonymous letters on people's door about how Paul was a false teacher, let me ask you - how do you think he would have responded to THAT?

Related: Do you think it is appropriate for the Evergreen Board of Trustees members to be anonymous? Why or why not?
Related? The BOT isn't lobbing bombs from an ivory tower on the heads of innocent people. So why don't you explain to me how this is related?

Also, I see Matthew 18 thrown around a lot as the only biblical model for addressing concerns with another Christian or church. I am pretty certain I have a substantially different interpretation of the meaning of that passage than you do. But based on your understanding of it, where does your presence on this board fit in with your views of what Matthew 18 instructs you to do because you think we have wronged you?
I have never once quoted that passage. I've consistently quoted Jesus' forceful interactions with the Pharisees (who's whisperings and slander turned an entire crowd against Jesus and led to his crucifixion) and Pauls aggressive tactics with the false Christians at Corinth and Galatia as my reason for being here and writing the way I do. That and the fact THAT MY FATHER IS BEING FALSELY ACCUSED OF ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING BEHAVIOR, AND MY MOM FOR COVERING IT UP. If you don't think I have Biblical precedent for defending my parents on a public platform then we have nothing left to talk about

Finally, do you believe that your presence on this site has helped your father's case?
Why would I continue posting if I didn't believe this?

Do you think continuing to engage here is the best way to make the chatter die down?
I've been off for days only to have users on this board come back around with more bombs, insinuations and personal attacks. I will defend my father from every single one whether it dies down or not.

Do you think that part of the reason this site now comes up first when you search for Mark Darling is because of all the times you have said his name here and all the extra traffic to the site you have fueled by posting?
Well since I was a web designer by trade for 15 years, I would know a thing or 2 about this. 1. THIS SITE RANKED #1 FOR MY DAD'S NAME BEFORE I POSTED SINGLE THING. 2. I've never typed my father's name on this website FOR THAT VERY REASON. 3. I'm now a content creator on the #1 ranked website for my father's name - so I plan on posting as much as I can to combat the unmitigated vitriol being written about him here.
Logged
JessicaNoelDarling
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 37



« Reply #81 on: March 25, 2018, 08:14:05 am »

Mapleleaf, The other thing is, even though Jeromy is my brother, he doesn't even represent me. I have my own mind and own opinion, but in this case we, and many other individuals with their own minds and opinions have come to the same or similar conclusions. I suppose it's easier for you to group us all together as "followers", but it's really not the case. I suppose its easier for you to characterize our actions as a "witch hunt" if we are just simple-minded "followers". Also, your tone is very telling. You've clearly made up your mind. In a conversation with sides, wouldn't you want to give good reasons for taking a side? How well do you even know my dad? I know him extremely well. I know his character, I know what he does in his daily life, probably better than my siblings because of having to live at home for nearly an extra decade (due to illness). I know this man. Do you? Tell me why this man is capable of what you're claiming and what type of previous and known action would support these allegations– like, actual non-debatable things that have taken place? Remember, he's been a pastor for decades. So many people have seen him, his life, and know his character.  I have plenty of reasons to believe my father (who is NOT guilty until proven innocent, despite how people are acting on this forum). Furthermore, I have plenty of reasons to doubt Suzanne's story. There are so many inconsistencies with the accusers story that everyone keeps side-stepping. I knew her and her family personally for years and this, in my opinion, is a lie. My dad would NEVER counsel or meet with a woman alone. The timing of the story is silly too. Suzanne had 3 young kids at the time, and my dad was in the same boat. HOW, practically speaking, do you explain either of them meeting up consistently for hours at a time with both of their spouses not knowing? Cmon, this falls apart immediately. Honestly, it's laughable, and that's just scratching the surface. Give me some plausible explanation for how this happened? It seems like the majority of the people who believe Suzanne are doing so based on emotion alone and that is unstable ground. My point in all of this is, instead of making big claims about how Evergreen is doubting my dad or being frustrated with the process, why not give actual substance so you can convince me? Is there some amazing tidbit of information that has brought you to such a solid position? "I believe the accuser" is not a solid position. My sense is that based on your tone, and assuming you're not lying about being part of Evergreen in the past and present (including The Rock), you've been frustrated by completely unrelated things, and supporting the accusers is your catharsis (just my guess). Also, if you think I enjoy participating on this forum, you're incorrect. This is the most inappropriate place to have these types of conversations, but no one is willing to stop slandering my parents (my mom got brought into this too). Why don't we have real conversations anymore? A phone call or face to face...The only reason why people are supporting my dad in this forum and this way is because 1) they are witnessing something terrible happening to an innocent man, 2) their consciences are bothered by not speaking up and defending this mans innocence, 3) and most importantly, they KNOW my dad and understand the false nature of these accusations. We shouldn't be frustrated by people acting on their convictions based on solid reasoning. The moment solid reasoning came into the mix, it stopped being a witch hunt.
Logged
araignee19
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 278



« Reply #82 on: March 25, 2018, 08:24:58 am »

Jeromy: You have repeatedly said people are in the wrong for being anonymous on this site. I'm just curious, if you knew my name, or the name of Mapleleaf (or insert any other user here), how would this change your opinions of us, and why? What, if any, information do you think our names would provide you that would cause a change in your opinions, your perspective of our ideas and arguments, or your response towards us?
Knowing a person is not a coward changes my view of that person entirely - how would it not??? Also, knowing what church you went to (so I could actually talk to the pastors and get the other side of the story) would help me get a full picture of what actually happened. Lobbing bombs from an ivory tower where no pastor is allowed to respond is literally the definition of being a coward. Also, many anonymous users on this site have known me personally for years and it's an incredible betrayal to hide behind anonymity instead of calling me on the phone or meeting with me in person to talk to me face to face. It has no Biblical precedent. If people in the original church were walking around posting anonymous letters on people's door about how Paul was a false teacher, let me ask you - how do you think he would have responded to THAT?

Related: Do you think it is appropriate for the Evergreen Board of Trustees members to be anonymous? Why or why not?
Related? The BOT isn't lobbing bombs from an ivory tower on the heads of innocent people. So why don't you explain to me how this is related?

Also, I see Matthew 18 thrown around a lot as the only biblical model for addressing concerns with another Christian or church. I am pretty certain I have a substantially different interpretation of the meaning of that passage than you do. But based on your understanding of it, where does your presence on this board fit in with your views of what Matthew 18 instructs you to do because you think we have wronged you?
I have never once quoted that passage. I've consistently quoted Jesus' forceful interactions with the Pharisees (who's whisperings and slander turned an entire crowd against Jesus and led to his crucifixion) and Pauls aggressive tactics with the false Christians at Corinth and Galatia as my reason for being here and writing the way I do. That and the fact THAT MY FATHER IS BEING FALSELY ACCUSED OF ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING BEHAVIOR, AND MY MOM FOR COVERING IT UP. If you don't think I have Biblical precedent for defending my parents on a public platform then we have nothing left to talk about

Finally, do you believe that your presence on this site has helped your father's case?
Why would I continue posting if I didn't believe this?

Do you think continuing to engage here is the best way to make the chatter die down?
I've been off for days only to have users on this board come back around with more bombs, insinuations and personal attacks. I will defend my father from every single one whether it dies down or not.

Do you think that part of the reason this site now comes up first when you search for Mark Darling is because of all the times you have said his name here and all the extra traffic to the site you have fueled by posting?
Well since I was a web designer by trade for 15 years, I would know a thing or 2 about this. 1. THIS SITE RANKED #1 FOR MY DAD'S NAME BEFORE I POSTED SINGLE THING. 2. I've never typed my father's name on this website FOR THAT VERY REASON. 3. I'm now a content creator on the #1 ranked website for my father's name - so I plan on posting as much as I can to combat the unmitigated vitriol being written about him here.

My name and what church I went to is completely irrelevant for helping you make a determination of my bravery or character, as that information is in no way tied to my character (although if you want to know my story or where I went to church, go read my old posts or send me a personal message. I see no reason to write it all again here). I know your name and facts about you. That doesn't mean I know your personality or character. Fact of the matter is, the character of the messenger doesn't have anything to do with the message. This applies to you and me, and everyone else on this board. You can address the ideas presented without knowing (or attacking) the messengers. And if you can't, that's unfortunate for you in my opinion. I truly believe the only reason someone would need to know my name before evaluating my ideas is just to put me in a box and find some reason to dismiss or elevate my ideas based on the types of characteristics you can glean from that name, which isn't much.

Frankly, you seem like a word I can't say on this forum when you respond like this. I don't think I'd get along with you in person. But that doesn't matter in this case. I have at times defended your father on this site, both before and after these accusations were made. I agree sometimes there are people on this site who go a little overboard: but let's not assume that is representative of everyone or throw out the baby with the bathwater. It doesn't change the disagreements we have with your father's publicly available teachings. I have never once slandered anyone in any of my nearly 100 posts here (prove me wrong, and I'll gladly remove it). And remember that stating disagreements with some publicly available teaching of your father is not slander or gossip. Neither is sharing my own story and interpretation of it.

Look, I am asking you questions instead of just arguing my point because I am genuinely trying to understand your positions, and you have lashed out at me again (since you have web design background you should know that all caps makes a message seem angry, even if maybe you are not). Same as you did when I tried to argue that your father deserves presumption of innocence. It doesn't make me believe you are reading and evaluating what I write. You seem to just be lashing out because I am on this site.

You may have not used your fathers name, and that is good and smart if so (although you have sure propagated the "Darling" name with every post you make). But you have stirred waters here and drawn attention to him and this situation, and that is not going to help him in my opinion. I think it's a lesson many people need to learn: when the internet turns it's attention to you in a way you don't like, don't engage it. The internet is fickle and will forget you, unless you make it interesting. But yeah, I'm a coward so my opinions and ideas don't matter...
Logged
HughHoney
Guest

« Reply #83 on: March 25, 2018, 08:29:31 am »

Quote
Furthermore, I have plenty of reasons to doubt Suzanne's story. There are so many inconsistencies with the accusers story that everyone keeps side-stepping. I knew her and her family personally for years and this, in my opinion, is a lie. My dad would NEVER counsel or meet with a woman alone. The timing of the story is silly too. Suzanne had 3 young kids at the time, and my dad was in the same boat. HOW, practically speaking, do you explain either of them meeting up consistently for hours at a time with both of their spouses not knowing? Cmon, this falls apart immediately.

Just wondering what you think caused the original meeting with the therapist - what happened that would have caused your dad to sob for 3 hours afterwards?
Logged
araignee19
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 278



« Reply #84 on: March 25, 2018, 08:32:16 am »

Forgot to answer one question I wanted to: Correct me if I am wrong, but the BOT hired Joan Harris, is communicating directly with her, and will be the ones in control of the results of the investigation. If you think my name matters, I certainly think theirs does. If they can stay anonymous while participating in an investigation like this, I think it is pretty hypocritical to demand our names.
Logged
Rypick
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45



« Reply #85 on: March 25, 2018, 02:31:00 pm »

Quote
Furthermore, I have plenty of reasons to doubt Suzanne's story. There are so many inconsistencies with the accusers story that everyone keeps side-stepping. I knew her and her family personally for years and this, in my opinion, is a lie. My dad would NEVER counsel or meet with a woman alone. The timing of the story is silly too. Suzanne had 3 young kids at the time, and my dad was in the same boat. HOW, practically speaking, do you explain either of them meeting up consistently for hours at a time with both of their spouses not knowing? Cmon, this falls apart immediately.

Just wondering what you think caused the original meeting with the therapist - what happened that would have caused your dad to sob for 3 hours afterwards?

My understanding is that Mark sobbed for 3 hours after receiving the letter in the mail from John and Suzanne, not after the meeting with the therapist. If you have to ask why Mark would sob for 3 hours because of this situation, then you really don't know Mark. A soft and compassionate heart would be the reason.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2510



« Reply #86 on: March 25, 2018, 02:41:48 pm »

So then the letter in the mail from John was not the same statement Suzanne referred to that she submitted to the ECC executive board detailing what would be covered at the meeting with the therapist. The statement that was returned to her with things crossed off and comments written on it was something else.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
HughHoney
Guest

« Reply #87 on: March 25, 2018, 02:52:54 pm »

What was going on in the relationship to that point which caused a letter with three hours of sobbing? Followed up by an all hands on deck meeting. Explain that.

I honestly don’t question Mark’s heart but we all can make mistakes.

Something significant was going on at that point in time. What was it?

And what about that guy that Jeromy outed on here, that seemed significant. His experience was concerning. Now we have a letter to the news. It’s hard to explain all this with the “he’s a GREAT guy” defense.



Logged
Mapleleaf
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



« Reply #88 on: March 25, 2018, 03:28:00 pm »

As parties here have been accused on not responding to questions directed to them, I'll try, and then ask some of my own.  Apologies, I may have missed some questions to me along the way.

Jeromy, you again state that you don't believe I'm a member of your church, but I find that odd as that pretends that of the many people at Evergreen's five locations, you know the heart of them all, and believe that all are aligned with your allegiance to your dad, and none could choose to believe the accounts being brought forward by these three women, and believe the statement that there could be others.  That seems odd to me that you believe that all 2,000 to 3,000 people at ECC (estimating, not sure of the exact # across five locations) would come to the same conclusion as you.  Also, you accuse me of just being on here to stir the pot.  I would counter that I'm on here to provide a perspective of a member from within ECC that isn't aligned with what seems to be the an exclusive opinion of all the ECC people that are posting here, and I wanted to show that there is room for diversity of opinion from within our church.  If you still feel that is just stirring the pot, I'd counter with the fact that from my perspective, it doesn't seem that different from what you're doing here.

Al, you had a question about "acts of suppression".  In that I'm referring to the acts that I believe could cause other potential victims of abuse that are currently remaining anonymous or have not spoken yet.  The posters here from ECC can cause these parties to want to stay anonymous or stay silent out of fear for how parties from within ECC could respond with character assaults or question their credibility.  So I refer to comments on here, in "The Reckoning", and on Facebook that cause potential victims to choose to stay silent with their accounts out of fear to be "acts of suppression" of the truth we all claim to be wanting to find out.

Jessica, you state to me that "you've clearly made up your mind".  Yes, I have, I stated that in my first post, but I'd like to counter that that doesn't make us different, that makes us the same.  You've also clearly made up your mind, we've just come to different conclusions.  Also, you state that "I know this man.  Do you?"  I would never claim to know the man as well as you do.  But I do know the man.  As stated, I was at Evergreen Bloomington prior to the Rock, when he was a pastor there, and I was involved at the Rock from plant to roughly 2010 (when I went back to Evergreen), where I got to know him well as one of my pastors (I admit that I was closer to Greg for most of this time, but still knew Mark, and talked to him often).  Since then, as I'm at a different location, I admit to barely speaking to him since 2010.

OK, I've tried to respond to some of those, so now I'd like to ask those from my church a few other questions.  Since this forum is based around a What if question, I'd like to probe us all on a few What if's.

First, I'll follow the starting premise, and ask What if Mark is found completely innocent, and that Scout made the whole thing up.  I'd assume there'd be some people on this forum licking woulds, but probably not much apologizing, as that seems to not be the tone of people on the forum on both sides.  But I will just speak for myself.  I will reach out to the Darling family and apologize for all that has happened to the family.  Furthermore, I'll do one better to respect Jeromy's concerns about people here with anonymity.  I will do it in person to Jeromy and any of the other siblings, which will give up my anonymous status (and also prove to him that I am a member of the church).

Second one - What if the ECC Board returns with some form of discipline against Mark, maybe just a required leave of absense, or maybe something stronger.  How will the ECC "followers" that have been posting on this site respond.  Will they then need to attack the credibility and the anonymity of the ECC board?  Honestly, I'd like some thoughts on how we'd respond to that?

Third and final - What happens if other women are willing to come forward.  What if Victim A or Victim C give up their anonymity?  What if other women come forward and give their accounts that are similar to the three that have been made.  How will the parties from within ECC that are believing in Mark's complete innocence respond to them?  Will they also attack aspects of those women's character, or bring forward things to try to convince others to question their credibility?  What if you know them personally?  Honestly, how do you believe you'll respond to them?  And for the record, if this path ever happens, and I do see parties from within my church try to attack these other women's character or credibility, I pledge here to also give up my anonymity, as I will stand personally between those women and any opposition they find.  I will stand for their right to speak.  I will stand against any who try to push them back down.
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #89 on: March 26, 2018, 09:09:41 am »

My name and what church I went to is completely irrelevant for helping you make a determination of my bravery or character, as that information is in no way tied to my character (although if you want to know my story or where I went to church, go read my old posts or send me a personal message. I see no reason to write it all again here). I know your name and facts about you. That doesn't mean I know your personality or character. Fact of the matter is, the character of the messenger doesn't have anything to do with the message. This applies to you and me, and everyone else on this board. You can address the ideas presented without knowing (or attacking) the messengers. And if you can't, that's unfortunate for you in my opinion. I truly believe the only reason someone would need to know my name before evaluating my ideas is just to put me in a box and find some reason to dismiss or elevate my ideas based on the types of characteristics you can glean from that name, which isn't much.
Wait - knowing WHO you are DOESN'T help make a determination of your character? This defies all known data on character. The character of the messenger has EVERYTHING to do with their message. The only reason to hide your real name WHILE attacking another person is because you yourself have something to hide. Throwing stones from an ivory tower onto a person who can't fight back tells me everything I need to know about you, along with why you don't want to post under your real name.

Frankly, you seem like a word I can't say on this forum when you respond like this. I don't think I'd get along with you in person. But that doesn't matter in this case. I have at times defended your father on this site, both before and after these accusations were made. I agree sometimes there are people on this site who go a little overboard: but let's not assume that is representative of everyone or throw out the baby with the bathwater. It doesn't change the disagreements we have with your father's publicly available teachings. I have never once slandered anyone in any of my nearly 100 posts here (prove me wrong, and I'll gladly remove it). And remember that stating disagreements with some publicly available teaching of your father is not slander or gossip. Neither is sharing my own story and interpretation of it.
So that entire first sentence was unnecessary yes? Talking about another person behind their back IS gossip - that's all this site does is talk about other people behind their backs. If there were letters being passed around the Acts church, but never signed by anyone, mocking Paul's teaching, how exactly do you think he would have responded?

Look, I am asking you questions instead of just arguing my point because I am genuinely trying to understand your positions, and you have lashed out at me again (since you have web design background you should know that all caps makes a message seem angry, even if maybe you are not). Same as you did when I tried to argue that your father deserves presumption of innocence. It doesn't make me believe you are reading and evaluating what I write. You seem to just be lashing out because I am on this site.
But friend, I answered every single one of your questions. Every. Single. One.

You may have not used your fathers name, and that is good and smart if so (although you have sure propagated the "Darling" name with every post you make). But you have stirred waters here and drawn attention to him and this situation, and that is not going to help him in my opinion. I think it's a lesson many people need to learn: when the internet turns it's attention to you in a way you don't like, don't engage it. The internet is fickle and will forget you, unless you make it interesting. But yeah, I'm a coward so my opinions and ideas don't matter...
[/quote]
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #90 on: March 26, 2018, 09:28:34 am »

Jeromy, you again state that you don't believe I'm a member of your church, but I find that odd as that pretends that of the many people at Evergreen's five locations, you know the heart of them all, and believe that all are aligned with your allegiance to your dad, and none could choose to believe the accounts being brought forward by these three women, and believe the statement that there could be others.  That seems odd to me that you believe that all 2,000 to 3,000 people at ECC (estimating, not sure of the exact # across five locations) would come to the same conclusion as you.
I may not know all of them, but I know about 100x more than you do, and they all know who I am. They know my work for the Gospel and my reputation, and the consensus from all the emails, phone calls, texts and facebook messages I've received since this all went down is that an overwhelming majority find this so disgustingly false, they've not even bothered paying attention to any of it.

Also, you accuse me of just being on here to stir the pot.  I would counter that I'm on here to provide a perspective of a member from within ECC that isn't aligned with what seems to be the an exclusive opinion of all the ECC people that are posting here, and I wanted to show that there is room for diversity of opinion from within our church.  If you still feel that is just stirring the pot, I'd counter with the fact that from my perspective, it doesn't seem that different from what you're doing here.
I came on here to take my dad OUT of the pot he's being boiled alive in. You came on here to echo what every regularly on this site already stated - "we believe everything Suzanne is saying and need no proof whatsoever". How in the world would it help ANYONE on this website to come on here, anonymously claim to be a current member of our church, then proceed to say you also believe everything a woman you've never met is posting on the internet? That's the very definition of stirring the pot and helps exactly no one.

First, I'll follow the starting premise, and ask What if Mark is found completely innocent, and that Scout made the whole thing up.  I'd assume there'd be some people on this forum licking woulds, but probably not much apologizing, as that seems to not be the tone of people on the forum on both sides.  But I will just speak for myself.  I will reach out to the Darling family and apologize for all that has happened to the family.  Furthermore, I'll do one better to respect Jeromy's concerns about people here with anonymity.  I will do it in person to Jeromy and any of the other siblings, which will give up my anonymous status (and also prove to him that I am a member of the church).
Let me get this straight: you come on here, anonymously, claiming to believe, UNEQUIVOCALLY, that my father is a liar, philanderer, and perverted sexual deviant and that my mother is an idiot or enables him, then turn around and tell me you'll apologize publicly if you're wrong? That's a little like saying "I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but if it doesn't I'll eat my shorts". This may be one of the most offensive things ever written to my family on this forum and is completely and utterly hollow.

Second one - What if the ECC Board returns with some form of discipline against Mark, maybe just a required leave of absense, or maybe something stronger.  How will the ECC "followers" that have been posting on this site respond.  Will they then need to attack the credibility and the anonymity of the ECC board?  Honestly, I'd like some thoughts on how we'd respond to that?
Here I can happily state that once the investigator reviews everything I already posted in my letter about the man I lived with for 21 years, there will be no discipline. Since you apparently skimmed over my letter, maybe you should go back and pick through it with a fine toothed comb.

Third and final - What happens if other women are willing to come forward.  What if Victim A or Victim C give up their anonymity?  What if other women come forward and give their accounts that are similar to the three that have been made.  How will the parties from within ECC that are believing in Mark's complete innocence respond to them?  Will they also attack aspects of those women's character, or bring forward things to try to convince others to question their credibility?  What if you know them personally?  Honestly, how do you believe you'll respond to them?  And for the record, if this path ever happens, and I do see parties from within my church try to attack these other women's character or credibility, I pledge here to also give up my anonymity, as I will stand personally between those women and any opposition they find.  I will stand for their right to speak.  I will stand against any who try to push them back down.
Since you're new here, you probably missed this: all 3 of these women claimed to have spent HOURS alone or on the phone with my dad over the exact same period of time (and often apparently in my bedroom or Micah's). Meaning my dad must have superpowers. 1 alone would have been caught by my mother within a few weeks. 3 is basically next to impossible and 7 women would have required him to never sleep (or even really ever be home for that matter). Since Suzanne's story completely fell apart (READ MY LETTER AGAIN) and these other victims are doing something NO OTHER #METOO VICTIM HAS DONE TO DATE by not posting their own stories about the "lurid conversations" they had with my dad, anyone that does NOT have a personal vendetta against my father has already checked out of this story - cause victims of REAL sex crimes have been bravely coming forward, publicly, with proof, to out their abuser. This whole time everyone's been talking about "power differential" - well who has the power now? A woman can scribble something on a bathroom wall and completely ruin a mans life. That's a power my father has NEVER known.
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #91 on: March 26, 2018, 09:37:48 am »

Are you saying your dad never met with women alone (at home, in the basement, or anywhere else) or called them for counseling or received their calls for counseling or just general pastoral care/witnessing/etc?

Edit:  I realize this sounded aggressive, so try to imagine I'm saying this in a nice, non-aggressive way!    Smiley  I just wanted to get your take on it.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 09:39:23 am by AgathaL'Orange » Logged

Glad to be free.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2510



« Reply #92 on: March 26, 2018, 09:46:20 am »

Wait - knowing WHO you are DOESN'T help make a determination of your character?
It could, or could not. Depends. If someone identifies themselves on a forum as "Some Guy" or by their actual name "Kippy Lundberg", but you have never met Kippy, how could you determine anything about their character by knowing their name?

The character of the messenger has EVERYTHING to do with their message.

This is not necessarily true. If you think I robbed a bank, and you give an anonymous tip to the bank hot line, that doesn't necessarily mean I am not a thief. If the tip is true, whether you gave it because you hate me or because you wanted to help catch a robber doesn't change the truth of the message.


The only reason to hide your real name WHILE attacking another person is because you yourself have something to hide.

This is not necessarily true. There could be many reasons. You could have something, or someone, or some relationship you wish to protect.

If there were letters being passed around the Acts church, but never signed by anyone, mocking Paul's teaching, how exactly do you think he would have responded?

My understanding of Paul is that he reasoned with people. He didn't resort to ad hominem. I would guess he would have defended his theological position with facts and would not have thought a disagreement was necessary "mocking". To disagree isn't to mock. To disagree isn't to hate.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 09:59:11 am by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
araignee19
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 278



« Reply #93 on: March 26, 2018, 09:47:09 am »

Anyone else here think it is no longer worth it to respond to this guy? Him and several others. These last posts have pushed me there for sure. Sometimes you just have to walk away and let people keep yelling. You will not convince him of anything.

But I hope my thoughts have helped to convince others on this forum you are not evil for being anonymous. You are not slandering or gossiping anyone by respectfully discussing church teaching or practices. It is not evil to say you disagree with something someone said. Your ideas should stand or fall for their own merit, not because someone else judges you to have the right or wrong character.

Peace out Jeromy.
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #94 on: March 26, 2018, 10:02:54 am »

Are you saying your dad never met with women alone (at home, in the basement, or anywhere else) or called them for counseling or received their calls for counseling or just general pastoral care/witnessing/etc?

Edit:  I realize this sounded aggressive, so try to imagine I'm saying this in a nice, non-aggressive way!    Smiley  I just wanted to get your take on it.

I appreciate you gently clarifying. I've already answered this (as have all my siblings) so let me do it one last time for the record:

Are you saying your dad never met with women alone (at home, in the basement, or anywhere else)
YES YES YES YES. A THOUSAND TIMES YES.

or called them for counseling or received their calls for counseling or just general pastoral care/witnessing/etc?
Every single pastor on the face of the earth (including John Van Dyck) has talked to a woman on the phone as part of counseling in the 20th and 21st century. My dad got calls at all hours of the night from men and women in the throws of despair and took them when he could. No pastor in his right mind would refuse counsel to half the human race just to avoid being accused of something (but believe me, after these kinds of false accusations you better believe many are considering that exact thing). If the implication here is that a pastor should be babysat during every phone call with a woman, I think that's an insult to woman in general, much more than it is to a pastor.
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #95 on: March 26, 2018, 10:12:06 am »

Wait - knowing WHO you are DOESN'T help make a determination of your character?
It could, or could not. Depends. If someone identifies themselves on a forum as "Some Guy" or by their actual name "Kippy Lundberg", but you have never met Kippy, how could you determine anything about their character by knowing their name?
Because it shows they have nothing to hide and they have no agenda. Just like you Linda. Disagree as we may - I know much more about you because you've posted your name and given your history. As slanderous as many of your posts are, you've had the courage to stand by your own name knowing I could go to any pastor and ask about any scenario you've written to get their side of the story

The character of the messenger has EVERYTHING to do with their message.
This is not necessarily true. If you think I robbed a bank, and you give an anonymous tip to the bank hot line, that doesn't necessarily mean I am not a thief. If the tip is true, whether you gave it because you hate me or because you wanted to help catch a robber doesn't change the truth of the message.
Giving an anonymous tip about a violent criminal is a little different don't you think? I've never said anonymity was wrong in an of itself. But hiding behind it on a website to mock another person, tear a person down, tear a movement down, and lob stones from an ivory castle is wrong from every moral and ethical standpoint.

The only reason to hide your real name WHILE attacking another person is because you yourself have something to hide.
This is not necessarily true. There could be many reasons. You could have something, or someone, or some relationship you wish to protect.
While attacking a respected pastor with no criminal history? The implication you're making is that some people aren't showing their names because they think my dad will what - show up at their door with a gun? Sue them? Threaten and harass them? I can easily rule ALL those things out as reasons people aren't posting their real names.

If there were letters being passed around the Acts church, but never signed by anyone, mocking Paul's teaching, how exactly do you think he would have responded?
My understanding of Paul is that he reasoned with people. He didn't resort to ad hominem. I would guess he would have defended his theological position with facts and would not have thought a disagreement was necessary "mocking". To disagree isn't to mock. To disagree isn't to hate.
Here's Paul in Galatians 5:12 addressing the lies about him and the false teachings at their church:

"Dear brothers and sisters, if I were still preaching that you must be circumcised—as some say I do—why am I still being persecuted? If I were no longer preaching salvation through the cross of Christ, no one would be offended. I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves."

Is that an "ad hominem" attack?
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1006



« Reply #96 on: March 26, 2018, 10:12:47 am »

Editing this post because I didn't phrase the question very well at first.

Jeromy, could you clarify what "alone" means in this context?

"My dad never met with women in the basement unless there was someone else in the house at the time."

vs.

"My dad never met with women in the basement under any circumstances, not even when there was someone else present in the home."

I'd just like you to make your position as clear as possible so there's no ambiguity.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 10:21:55 am by Huldah » Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #97 on: March 26, 2018, 10:17:22 am »

Anyone else here think it is no longer worth it to respond to this guy? Him and several others. These last posts have pushed me there for sure. Sometimes you just have to walk away and let people keep yelling. You will not convince him of anything.

But I hope my thoughts have helped to convince others on this forum you are not evil for being anonymous. You are not slandering or gossiping anyone by respectfully discussing church teaching or practices. It is not evil to say you disagree with something someone said. Your ideas should stand or fall for their own merit, not because someone else judges you to have the right or wrong character.

Peace out Jeromy.

Keep yelling? I've ONLY responded to threads directed at me or my father. I started ONE thread informing the administrators that we'd all leave this site the moment the threads about my father were removed. That didn't happen. Incidentally, the world doesn't need anonymous opinions of a church or a movement posted to a website. If you think this movement is doing something wrong - go to a church you like and move on with your life. Posting relentlessly for years and years about a church you're no longer apart of helps exactly no one and just encourages a degrading form of spiritual masturbation, which has now directly contributed to the spreading of false allegations against my father. You might not like my responses, but don't refer to me as "this guy".
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #98 on: March 26, 2018, 10:17:57 am »

Jeromy, could you clarify what "alone" means in this context?

Your dad never met with women when they were alone in the basement (with other people present elsewhere in the house), or alone in the house? Which are you saying?

I'd just like you to make your position as clear as possible so there's no ambiguity.

I honestly can't tell if you're mocking me right now.
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1006



« Reply #99 on: March 26, 2018, 10:19:31 am »

No, not mocking. Just didn't phrase the question very well the first time so I modified my post. If you don't mind taking a look at the revised post, maybe it will make more sense. Sorry for the confusion.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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