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
August 10, 2020, 08:02:32 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Reckoning  (Read 99761 times)
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #180 on: March 12, 2018, 02:12:40 pm »

I just read your suggestion Peacemaker03, but it should be clarified that having a meeting with someone and their therapist does NOT make one a patient of that therapist.   

I have many friends who are practicing therapists and these incorrect ideas about confidentiality are harmful to people who might consider seeking counseling.  Who wants to go to counseling if 17 years later your therapist can compliment the person you say abused you and have it be used against you in public?  If the psychologist talked to you recently (or whoever, Jeromy hasn't clarified), he was wrong in doing so.  I'll let you know what the MN Psychological Association says about time limits in regards to confidentiality.  Jeromy, you do not speak for them, unless you can share a link from their website to support what you said. You can't just say whatever your understanding is and attribute it to a group of experts.



Anyone in that meeting (I knew all 4) could share with me whatever they wanted, it's their right as a patient. I'm not setting the rules, I'm telling you what they are based on the MN Psychological Association's own rules - what a client shares is protected, what they did NOT shared, is by definition, not protected. I know exactly TWO things from that meeting - sexual allegations were NOT shared and Terry was impressed by my dad. I never said you were unhinged, but you've just exposed Terry to people who are.

Guys this was a meeting with 4 people AND Terry. No one signed confidentially agreements. Terry was a mediator at Suzannes request.
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #181 on: March 12, 2018, 03:10:23 pm »

Terry was her therapist and HE was bound by confidentiality.  Suzanne has stated that he wasn't the mediator, he was there to support her while bringing problems to Mark.  That part might be debatable to you, fine.
What is not debatable is that no matter what his role was, since they had a pre-existing client/therapist relationship, he was bound to honor that and maintain confidentiality as per their contract, professional obligations, clinic requirements, and the law.  The rest of people in attendance weren't bound to confidentiality if they didn't sign anything (and legally maybe not even if they did, I don't know). 

You said that TERRY recently spoke with you or someone in your family ("we") about that meeting and said that sexual abuse was NOT discussed and that your father was so humble.  You said "none of Suzanne’s current allegations were brought up there either, and he was adamant when asked about that."  So you are saying you contacted him, made sure he knew who were discussing, asked him about the meeting, and he answered you ADAMANTLY that no, Suzanne did not bring up "current allegations". I'm assuming you are talking about allegations of sexual abuse/misconduct but you did not specify in that our "The Reckoning." If memory serves me correctly, you have further clarified that statement on social media.  Finally Terry added, for good measure, that your dad was so humble.  I just want to clarify because you were very specific in your "The Reckoning."

So according to your "The Reckoning": 1. You asked, meaning you initiated communication about the meeting and specifically sought out informaiton.  2. He, her former therapist, verified that he was at a meeting that took place a.) at a time she was involved in therapy b.) that he wouldn't have been at had she not requested it.  3. He adamantly denied "current allegations". 4. He praised your father.

At any rate, he might very well have had good feedback about your father at the time based on what your father said at the meeting.  According to Suzanne's own account, she was satisfied with what she thought had been agreed upon that day.  It wasn't until much later when she realized ECC hadn't followed through with their "action steps" (which ECC themselves said there had been "action steps" as a result of her concerns) that she figured out the meeting was just an act.  To be clear, what I am saying here is from her allegations, I am not speaking as an eyewitness. 

Again, damage is being done to people who need therapy if you keep insisting that Terry's professional organization (and by default, other psychologists) supports his speaking with your family at this time about his former client.   




We’ve also talked to the therapist that was at the "meeting" 17 years ago. He’s not working
much anymore these days, but he does have a crystal clear recollection of the the mediation
on that fateful day: none of Suzanne’s current allegations were brought up there either, and
he was adamant when asked about that. One thing that stood out to him is quite interesting:
he said that my dad responded more humbly and kindly than any other pastor he’d ever
counseled - never even trying to defend himself against John and Suzanne’s hurts and
offenses. He made an effort to note he’d never seen a pastor NOT try and defend himself.
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #182 on: March 12, 2018, 03:18:27 pm »

Terry was her therapist and HE was bound by confidentiality.  Suzanne has stated that he wasn't the mediator, he was there to support her while bringing problems to Mark.  That part might be debatable to you, fine.
What is not debatable is that no matter what his role was, since they had a pre-existing client/therapist relationship, he was bound to honor that and maintain confidentiality as per their contract, professional obligations, clinic requirements, and the law.  The rest of people in attendance weren't bound to confidentiality if they didn't sign anything (and legally maybe not even if they did, I don't know). 

You said that TERRY recently spoke with you or someone in your family ("we") about that meeting and said that sexual abuse was NOT discussed and that your father was so humble.  You said "none of Suzanne’s current allegations were brought up there either, and he was adamant when asked about that."  So you are saying you contacted him, made sure he knew who were discussing, asked him about the meeting, and he answered you ADAMANTLY that no, Suzanne did not bring up "current allegations". I'm assuming you are talking about allegations of sexual abuse/misconduct but you did not specify in that our "The Reckoning." If memory serves me correctly, you have further clarified that statement on social media.  Finally Terry added, for good measure, that your dad was so humble.  I just want to clarify because you were very specific in your "The Reckoning."

So according to your "The Reckoning": 1. You asked, meaning you initiated communication about the meeting and specifically sought out informaiton.  2. He, her former therapist, verified that he was at a meeting that took place a.) at a time she was involved in therapy b.) that he wouldn't have been at had she not requested it.  3. He adamantly denied "current allegations". 4. He praised your father.

At any rate, he might very well have had good feedback about your father at the time based on what your father said at the meeting.  According to Suzanne's own account, she was satisfied with what she thought had been agreed upon that day.  It wasn't until much later when she realized ECC hadn't followed through with their "action steps" (which ECC themselves said there had been "action steps" as a result of her concerns) that she figured out the meeting was just an act.  To be clear, what I am saying here is from her allegations, I am not speaking as an eyewitness. 

Again, damage is being done to people who need therapy if you keep insisting that Terry's professional organization (and by default, other psychologists) supports his speaking with your family at this time about his former client.   




We’ve also talked to the therapist that was at the "meeting" 17 years ago. He’s not working
much anymore these days, but he does have a crystal clear recollection of the the mediation
on that fateful day: none of Suzanne’s current allegations were brought up there either, and
he was adamant when asked about that. One thing that stood out to him is quite interesting:
he said that my dad responded more humbly and kindly than any other pastor he’d ever
counseled - never even trying to defend himself against John and Suzanne’s hurts and
offenses. He made an effort to note he’d never seen a pastor NOT try and defend himself.

Friend she was not in a private session with her therapist, paying him. She asked him to mediate and that's what he did. That was not a therapy session, it was a meeting with other people present and he offered to help. And the questions  he was asked were not WHAT was said, but what was NOT said. I could ask the other 4 people in that meeting. 2 aren't talking to me and the other 2 clearly agree with Terry
Logged
Al
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #183 on: March 12, 2018, 03:43:06 pm »

Jeromy, we understand your disdain for anonymous participation of a forum.  Drop it.  It's in the rules.  Unless you are above rules, but then please state that.  Do you need to follow rules here, or not?

Also, I would suggest that people who are anonymous on here stay that way.  Jeromy's friend started 50 fake FB accounts to be able to spam Suzanne.  He made allegations about Suzanne sexually assaulting him that Jeromy has not corrected (his friend said a few comments down that he was just making a point but Jeromy left the comment up).  This friend went to a complete stranger's page and began to post allegations about Suzanne.  Jeromy talked about his "army" that will go against Suzanne.  He said John is cowardly (as if we haven't seen him call people that here enough).  On FB Jeromy's sister said to another commenter that she could just make false accusations against him.

So yes, to protect yourself from bullying (which apparently Jeromy is comparing to Jesus clearing out the temple) please remain anonymous.

Rebel in a Good Way, I dug up the comment from the sister you're referring to and have included it. She states:

" Claims can be made by anyone, even those who don't even know the other party. Why don't we have an investigation for all claims ever made? Better yet, why don't I accuse you now of abuse and I'll start a movement to investigate your abusive behavior? Do you see my point? But I digress..."

Sounds like she's illustrating a point here and nothing more. This should clearly not to be taken literally. When she says, "Do you see my point?" it becomes obvious.

As for Jeromy's other friend, I couldn't find those comments, but that doesn't sound tasteful. I will say, though, whether you like it or not, the person was probably trying to make the same point. I think we need to be hearing what we are all saying to each other. It seems like this forum gets choked up with high emotions, or how something is said, so much so, that we don't actually hear each other. It's okay to have emotion, but if it's preventing a person from comprehending what's being said, or if it's making one's posts LESS communicative, then it might be good to take a short reprieve, then come back and reread what's been said. My two cents on the communication part (which is directed to the forum generally so).
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #184 on: March 12, 2018, 03:48:53 pm »

It doesn't have to be a "therapy session" (i.e. and individual session), because they had a pre-existing therapy relationship and confidentiality covers any interaction anywhere.  Sometimes a therapist might accompany a client to court or another event off grounds of the clinic (or another group-type of meeting) but they are still bound by confidentiality.  

Do you know that she didn't pay for his presence as part of her therapy?  He very well could have charged that to her insurance.  You keep saying he was a mediator, Suzanne has said he was NOT a mediator but there to support her as she asked for accountability.  That is different than "offering to help."  This is something that therapists do for their PATIENTS.  It wasn't a coffee date with a group of friends.  

It is still a violation of confidentiality if someone (especially if you, who were not present at the meeting) asked Terry "Did Suzanne Van dyck bring up allegations of sexual abuse at that meeting?"  His ethical response would be "I'm not allowed to speak to that."




Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #185 on: March 12, 2018, 03:59:05 pm »

Al, yes she was making a point, but a few other commenters said the same thing. Is that a subtle threat? Because then when Jeromy's friend did make allegations...it certainly could be intimidating to any other women out there who might also be considering coming forward and they will look at that and think "no way."  

Jeromy comes on here and judges the faith of others, has told several people they're not familiar with the bibles, calls people cowardly, etc.  I'm just pointing out that his actions are not above reproach.  I feel when I have engaged on here, for the most part I am not being emotional but using details to support what I say.  I have not insulted anyone nor judged their faith nor called them cowards.  So you think I went too far with that one comment, I apologize if I misrepresented.  It looks intimidating in the whole of all the other comments.

https://www.facebook.com/jeromy.darling.3

JD: "Apparently they didn't take the hint. I guess they'll find out the hard way who has the biggest army"
JD: "he looks like an even bigger coward now as it is" (speaking of John)

To clarify, Tim Pickett later said he was just making a point.  But that comment stand all by itself on Jeromy's page and he hasn't removed it.  If someone didn't read anything further they would have read a false allegation.  Just confused about what Jeromy's standards are.

Tim Pickett: I've been blocked. But that's just one account. But I have now made it known to the public that Suzanne when I was younger grabbed me ni my private area and expressed it was time I got with a well experienced woman.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 04:04:45 pm by Rebel in a Good Way » Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2415



« Reply #186 on: March 12, 2018, 04:00:22 pm »

Here is a statement just posted on Facebook about the letter from John that was referenced in "The Reckoning" document.

"Some following my story of abuse by pastor Mark Darling have asked if John's letter, that Mark's son Jeromy has been referring to (as proof that I did not bring up sexual abuse 17 years ago), is the same statement I wrote to Mark. No, John and I each wrote a separate statement to Mark. His son Jeromy posted on my wall last week that they have a copy of my husband John's statement to Mark, and that there is no reference to sexual abuse or sexual misconduct. And that is correct. John's letter did not contain any allegations of sexual abuse because he was not sexually abused by Mark. We have the letter as well. Seventeen years ago when I confronted Mark in my therapist's office with pastor Mark Bowen present, I read a statement to Mark Darling. In that letter, I spoke of some of the sexual abuse I endured from Mark. After that John gave Mark the above referenced letter he wrote."
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 04:03:28 pm by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #187 on: March 12, 2018, 04:01:16 pm »

If you think these things are fitting to a Christian missionary, that is your assessment to make.  
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #188 on: March 12, 2018, 04:37:23 pm »

Here is a statement just posted on Facebook about the letter from John that was referenced in "The Reckoning" document.

"Some following my story of abuse by pastor Mark Darling have asked if John's letter, that Mark's son Jeromy has been referring to (as proof that I did not bring up sexual abuse 17 years ago), is the same statement I wrote to Mark. No, John and I each wrote a separate statement to Mark. His son Jeromy posted on my wall last week that they have a copy of my husband John's statement to Mark, and that there is no reference to sexual abuse or sexual misconduct. And that is correct. John's letter did not contain any allegations of sexual abuse because he was not sexually abused by Mark. We have the letter as well. Seventeen years ago when I confronted Mark in my therapist's office with pastor Mark Bowen present, I read a statement to Mark Darling. In that letter, I spoke of some of the sexual abuse I endured from Mark. After that John gave Mark the above referenced letter he wrote."

She never read my response. Clearly. I WAS REFERRING TO THE LETTER SHE WROTE. NOT JOHN. Also I think we can prob  both agree Terry is a smart guy and knew what he was doing yes?
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 04:55:01 pm by jeromydaviddarling » Logged
UffDa
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



« Reply #189 on: March 12, 2018, 05:45:55 pm »

Jeromy,
I’ve read through your “Reckoning” statement and was wondering if the basement of your family’s home at that time had an egress window or secondary exit?
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2415



« Reply #190 on: March 12, 2018, 05:58:41 pm »

Quote from: Scout
Interestingly, leading up to this meeting, I did feel outnumbered.  The executive pastor group, which included Mark Bowen, Mark Darling, Brent Knox, Mark Bowen and John van Dyck, asked to see a written copy of what I was going to say to Mark D.  My therapist was not wild about the idea, but I did give it to them.  I got the copies back and they had things crossed out and comments about how and what I could convey.  Any of the parts where I named Mark D. as 'abuser' were crossed off.  Anything having to do with sexual things were crossed off. I showed it to my therapist and he was visibly upset that they were trying to manage the narrative of me, the victim.  I'm proud to say that I included all the comments that the ECC executive pastor board crossed off.  However, in the actual meeting, I did not feel outnumbered, as Mark Bowen agreed to the therapeutic care plan my therapist recommended.  As well, we were on my territory so to speak.  AND I was confronting my abuser.  I felt very proud of myself.

Based on this comment, it seems as if there might have been 2 different documents. A statement and a letter.

One was a statement of what she was going to say at the meeting that was handed back to her with comments and things crossed off.

Another was a letter apparently submitted at the meeting with the therapist.
Logged

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

Posts: 46



« Reply #191 on: March 12, 2018, 06:17:17 pm »

Jeromy,
I’m thinking that you should probably talk to them and let them know you are defending your father in social media. They’re supportive of you and your ministries. How can they support you defending your father in social media without them knowing about it? Especially, as others have pointed out it is in direct contradiction of GCM policies. Is it possible that your parents might not want you to be making any statements on their behalf? Your “Reckoning” statement could also jeopardize your own ministries.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 06:18:54 pm by UffDa » Logged
MicahJoelDarling
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10



« Reply #192 on: March 12, 2018, 06:36:49 pm »

Jeromy,
I’ve read through your “Reckoning” statement and was wondering if the basement of your family’s home at that time had an egress window or secondary exit?

UffDa, it had an egress window, about 15 feet away from Jeromy's bed, which was about 25 feet from my bed, which was about 5 feet from the unusable fireplace that was literally boarded up for all of my childhood because bats would get into our house.

And again, no walls or doors in the basement except the bathroom and laundry room.

And it was a two bedroom house with six people living there.

And we had no remodeling done in the house while we lived there. It was a rental.
Logged
IloveJesusHowBoutYou
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4



« Reply #193 on: March 12, 2018, 07:00:20 pm »

One thing that I can't figure out is why Heidi Anfinson (sister of John VD) would go ahead and attend the Urban Refuge for many years when Mark Darling helped to plant that church.  I attended some of their services in the beginning years and I am quite certain Heidi and her husband Byron were part of the planting of the church and remained there up to at least 2012, so around 10 years.  Heidi had to know all of the information that was present at that time as she shared the letter from Mark Bowen on FB recently.  Personally, if I had any inkling of concern with Mark Darling at that time, I would definitely not be part of a church plant that he was helping with.  I can't wrap my head around this one.  
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 07:11:40 pm by IloveJesusHowBoutYou » Logged
JessicaNoelDarling
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 37



« Reply #194 on: March 12, 2018, 07:04:59 pm »

Quote from: Scout
Interestingly, leading up to this meeting, I did feel outnumbered.  The executive pastor group, which included Mark Bowen, Mark Darling, Brent Knox, Mark Bowen and John van Dyck, asked to see a written copy of what I was going to say to Mark D.  My therapist was not wild about the idea, but I did give it to them.  I got the copies back and they had things crossed out and comments about how and what I could convey.  Any of the parts where I named Mark D. as 'abuser' were crossed off.  Anything having to do with sexual things were crossed off. I showed it to my therapist and he was visibly upset that they were trying to manage the narrative of me, the victim.  I'm proud to say that I included all the comments that the ECC executive pastor board crossed off.  However, in the actual meeting, I did not feel outnumbered, as Mark Bowen agreed to the therapeutic care plan my therapist recommended.  As well, we were on my territory so to speak.  AND I was confronting my abuser.  I felt very proud of myself.

Based on this comment, it seems as if there might have been 2 different documents. A statement and a letter.

One was a statement of what she was going to say at the meeting that was handed back to her with comments and things crossed off.

Another was a letter apparently submitted at the meeting with the therapist.


This is slightly off-topic, but it was spurred on by seeing how consistent you tend to jump in for Suzanne, or for questions that there are no easy answers to. What's been your driving motivation all of these years? Honest question. There really hasn't been that much evidence presented in this situation to assume my father is guilty of anything, but you happily jumped in to support Suzanne and it seems like you became quick friends. My presumption is that most of the folks who quickly picked sides already had beef. What's been your beef in a nutshell (?) because from where I'm standing, I've witnessed the gospel reach many people all the while being delivered from an organization that, while imperfect, is committed to delivering the gospel message to whoever will listen. I have NO basis for understanding what drives you to the lengths you've gone to discredit everything and anything related to Evergreen or GCC. What has hurt you so much? The reality is, the majority of the people providing perspective from the other side of this conversation know Mark much better than you ever did, but you continue to be so adamant on knowing Mark to be a devious, awful person. You didn't even know Suzanne before siding with her. It's telling. I don't even think you believe this illustrates a problem, but it so clearly does. This forum is practically your part time job (not trying to sound mean). My opinion from everything I've witnessed is that the truth, despite what you say, is not your main concern. I don't think you want "healing" like you say. It seems apparent that you want to see destruction. Outside folks who know nothing about GCC have read this stuff and thought the same thing about this forum and the folks who regularly contribute. Can you understand where I'm coming from and why I'm asking this? If someone read this forum before attending a GCC church, they would probably assume that flames would shoot out as soon as they entered the doors / someone would point out and say, you're fat, go away / all leaders are secret and cunning perverts / Jim McCotter helped fake the moon landing (humor is good, right?) etc. etc. etc. It just seems so disproportionately inflammatory reading the content of this site, and even on this thread, compared to reality, which is quite nice actually. I'm trying to understand your world because no one I know, inside or outside GCC can identify with it. I want to be able to empathize. Help me understand.
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #195 on: March 12, 2018, 07:07:56 pm »

Quote from: Scout
Interestingly, leading up to this meeting, I did feel outnumbered.  The executive pastor group, which included Mark Bowen, Mark Darling, Brent Knox, Mark Bowen and John van Dyck, asked to see a written copy of what I was going to say to Mark D.  My therapist was not wild about the idea, but I did give it to them.  I got the copies back and they had things crossed out and comments about how and what I could convey.  Any of the parts where I named Mark D. as 'abuser' were crossed off.  Anything having to do with sexual things were crossed off. I showed it to my therapist and he was visibly upset that they were trying to manage the narrative of me, the victim.  I'm proud to say that I included all the comments that the ECC executive pastor board crossed off.  However, in the actual meeting, I did not feel outnumbered, as Mark Bowen agreed to the therapeutic care plan my therapist recommended.  As well, we were on my territory so to speak.  AND I was confronting my abuser.  I felt very proud of myself.

Based on this comment, it seems as if there might have been 2 different documents. A statement and a letter.

One was a statement of what she was going to say at the meeting that was handed back to her with comments and things crossed off.

Another was a letter apparently submitted at the meeting with the therapist.


Linda?? She's blocked us all from her fb and only allows friends to comment. Now she's "clarifying" her story at will? You have crossed over into parody sister. 
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #196 on: March 12, 2018, 07:09:45 pm »

Jeromy,
I’m thinking that you should probably talk to them and let them know you are defending your father in social media. They’re supportive of you and your ministries. How can they support you defending your father in social media without them knowing about it? Especially, as others have pointed out it is in direct contradiction of GCM policies. Is it possible that your parents might not want you to be making any statements on their behalf? Your “Reckoning” statement could also jeopardize your own ministries.

New guy, you're not reading my posts. They ALL know now. I didn't need their permission and now I have their blessing. Also I'd like to point out the massive fire escape that sat right next to the corner where dad had his "office" 
Logged
UffDa
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



« Reply #197 on: March 12, 2018, 08:50:05 pm »

Whoever said I wasn't a pastor?

 so I take it you're not going to address all of the points that we just made then? And I know you're not a pastor because a real Pastor would not be on a website like this

"Therefore, GCC’s policy is to not participate in blogs in which people make posts critical of a GCC pastor or GCC member church." - John Hopler, March 2014

Jeromy, is it fair to say that you have your father's blessing to be on social media (this site, Twitter, Facebook) defending him?  John Hopler has made it clear that GCC's stance is not to answer online "persecution."  He wrote an article for the National Association of Evangelicals in 2014, "A Christian Perspective of Internet Criticisms."  In it, Hopler notes, "We do not think that using the internet is God’s way for resolving personal concerns." 

The article can be found here: https://www.nae.net/a-christian-perspective-of-internet-criticisms/

Although he is currently "on leave," your dad is a member of the national GCC Board.  Does he agree with GCC's stance?  If so what does he think about your public online activity?

It would really surprise me if you did not have your father's support as you noted you are your father's son in your Reckoning narrative.

If you do have his blessing to share the truth on this site, are you not your father's mouthpiece - his surrogate.  You have shared documentation that only he could share with you - ie. a letter that he had saved from John all those years ago.  Although he is silent, he is indirectly speaking through you, your siblings, and his supporters (the army as you call them).

So if a "real pastor" wouldn't be on a website like this, what are you doing here?  Is it okay for a "missionary" or Music Director at the Rock, like yourself, to be on this site?  What do the The Rock Pastors - Karl Quickert and Ryan Stahl - who are part of GCC and The Salvage Project's Board of Directors think about your online participation here?



[/font]I have the full backing of every single one of these people, but have acted alone without telling any of them of asking for their permission. There is no precedent for what a movement does when one of it's pastors is falsely accused of sexual misconduct and how is own son should handle it - but since you have so much knowledge on John's writings, perhaps you can correct me. I know you guys would have loved for me to stay silent, but my letter was just the beginning.
Yes, I’m relatively new to this forum and joined so I could get clarification directly from the sources if possible. Jeromy, up until 10:15 pm 3/12/18 I have read all of your statements on this forum and what you have posted on Facebook. I don’t appreciate you telling me that I haven’t. I have also spent time reading your websites and learning more about your ministries. I just a saw a contradiction in your statement and wanted clarification of it.
Micah and Jeromy,
Thank you for clarification about your basement bedroom. I’m glad to know you had a safe and legal basement bedroom. I have been to your prior residence in Bloomington but only in the driveway.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 08:51:36 pm by UffDa » Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #198 on: March 13, 2018, 07:04:09 am »

So Linda's post from Suzanne is indeed now on her FB page - as a side note, guess who was the first person to comment and give her support to Suzanne (starts with a L).

But it means next to nothing.

1) She indicates she read a statement in addition to providing the letter. I quote, "In that letter, I spoke of some of the sexual abuse I endured from Mark." Well once again we have her testimony not lining up with others'. Most importantly the counselor (along with everyone else) has said there were no charges of sexual abuse in that meeting.

2) Are we really expected to believe that if John's wife was truly sexually abused that he would not speak (or write) a word about it in his letter to Mark? Come on! If someone had sexually abused my wife the opening words of my letter would have been written with my fists. Are we to believe he confronted his wife's abuser and yet made no mention of the most egregious abuse?

3) I am very good friend's with a couple the van Dykes were tight with back in Plymouth. This couple were actually the first people to read the documents in question. They are on record stating there was absolutely no mention of sexual abuse by either Suzanne or John, neither in letter or in their conversations.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 07:13:23 am by Digital Lynch Mob » Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #199 on: March 13, 2018, 07:18:01 am »

GTA: "Add this to the list of Suzanne's story that just does not make sense, it does not add up.  Scout, it might be helpful if you chimed in every once and awhile, maybe give some clarifications on some questions we all have."

Oh Suzanne doesn't give clarifications or answer questions. She just posts and let's her lynch mob do the talking for her.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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