| Author | Message | ||
     foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 339 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.196 |
Members, are they keeping files on you? Ask them. Why would they do that? Perhaps to share in Sunday meetings if you leave? ML, do you keep files on your members and ex-members to hand to reporters if those members ever share your private doctrines? I doubt you have secret doctrines. Well, do you keep files in case they speak out against you? Maybe you can keep them like HH so you can write a whole book about all the personal things they came to you for help for, and add few wild fabrications, then hand them out to their relatives and friends so the readers won't believe them when they come to warn them. I seriously doubt ML or any other legitimate Christian church does such a thing. Just think, one whole book about just one member could install enough fear in the rest of the members of a church so they won't ever say anything. A powerful weapon indeed… The thought of the elders sharing the sin my husband asked help for due to my speaking out any my love for my husband kept me quite and then anonymous for years. Then as I dared to address the elders of HH here on Fact Net, (addressing one I respected by his initials and mentioning no ones personal sin,) to remember their first love, (in case they had forgotten as I had while in HH,) and encourage them to use their integrity and perform their duty and examine the teachings of HH next to the Word of God I get in an e-mail from the one: "How would you and ______ (your husband) feel if we posted on the World Wide Web the truth behind the church discipline and all the problems the church tried to help with in ____’s (your husband's) life, your life, and in the lives of your children?" If you HH members think you have “pastoral confidentiality” let the example of the book on CE wake you up. Some of you new members probably don't know what I am talking about. Let HH give you the book to read. It was required reading when I was there. I learned every vice the man ever had and few fabricated ones he didn't have. Maybe such fear tactics do well to quite whistle blowers, but it has another more serious side. It can keep people who would otherwise seek help for a temptation or sin from trusting their pastor and getting the prayer or counsel they need. I suggest for the reason above that HH drop this practice. I doubt that they will, so if you are seeking a community where your personal struggles will not be kept in a file, but instead be forgiven and under the blood of Jesus, then HH is not for you. I hate to be so rough, but the resent attempt of HH to hand personal files to someone makes me want to zealously clear the Temple and say, "The Father’s House in not a den for blackmailers and imposters who pretend to be pastors." I can only hope that the leaders of HH think that what they have done is justified in the name of protecting the church; (Which it isn’t.) I want to think that their intent is innocent and they are just greatly decided by the enemy. I don't what to believe that they know what evil they are doing. Let’s talk truth here. Jesus does not need us to protect Him and the truth of the church will stand scrutiny. The church does not need to protect it's doctrines by using little white lies told to visitors or bold faced black ones, and especially not by files kept on it's sheep to be used as a weapon. God have mercy. FH (Message edited by foreverhis on December 09, 2006) | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1451 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 201.82.95.82 |
We keep no files on anyone...the only people I know that do that are FBI, CIA, cults, etc...no real church keeps files on people´s personal life and no man of God throws up things in people´s face...that sounds like hh... My good fiends if that is a church or the visable body of Christ then I am am the biggest fool on earth. | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1453 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 201.82.95.82 |
a pastor would have to be pretty low to do something like that...but I don´t doubt it at all... I saw and heard so much at that place...I pray for God to bring them to real repentance... | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1454 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 201.82.95.82 |
I heard from their very on that they have shared things about me...lol...I am just a human being...since they are jesus in the flesh strange they are so insecure that they have to use scare tatics... Well, say whatever they want to...put on the web whatever they want to.. I have never claimed to be some sinnless human being...and believe me I need all the help I can get but when I realized they were not trying to help me get closer to God but interested in our work I backed away... I think they should go read their own building christian character book and then practice it... | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1455 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 201.82.95.82 |
yes I know about that book ...what a disrespectful thing to do...they could have been sued over it... | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1456 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 201.82.95.82 |
I ASK THE QUESTION, IF A PASTOR CANNOT BE TRUSTED THEN WHO COULD WE TRUST? A real man of God would never do anything like that my friend. I know things that people in many countries have told me...and what was said will go to the grave with me... | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1457 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 201.82.95.82 |
I ASK THE QUESTION, IF A PASTOR CANNOT BE TRUSTED THEN WHO COULD WE TRUST? A real man of God would never do anything like that my friend. I know things that people in many countries have told me...and what was said will go to the grave with me... | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 341 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.89 |
ML: IF A PASTOR CANNOT BE TRUSTED THEN WHO COULD WE TRUST? I have asked the same question. After HH I had a hard time trusting ministers or anyone else again. (And they wonder why it takes us so long to get involved in a church again...) Sister, if it wasn't for you setting me straight, I would still suspect oneness Pentecostal churches of being like HH in their other doctrines and practices. | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1461 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 201.82.95.82 |
Thank the Lord we are not like HH IN ANYWAY... Our people do not fear us...we are their friend...feel free to accept the invitation..come spend some time with us in Brazil... | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1462 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 201.82.95.82 |
John saw the number of the saved...a nunber no man could nunber...sounds like a lot of people to me not some tiny little group thinking they have it all... I NEED EVERY BROTHER AND SISTER on this board. I need your prayers, Brazil needs your prayers. I would not be here unless I personally felt that hh represents a danger to the religious world. I am a very busy person...but someone must stand up for right...and Forever His thank you for realizing many oneness people do not think like hh thinks...you made my day...thank you... | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 342 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.89 |
Oh, how I wish I could!!!! As a mom of 8 and a dedicated wife of a busy man I can not make such a trip just yet. Maybe when my children are older God will make it possible. We are at the end of a year long process of building our home. We have one special room with its own bath set aside for visitors. If ever you come to the states and would like to rest in the hills away from all the hustle and bustle we would be honored to have you with us. I asked the Lord why He would bless us, so undeserving, with such a lovely place and He impressed on me that it would be a place for healing. The healing of relationships can to my mind first. I am not sure what His plans are for our lodge. I am just excited at the prospect of watching His plans unfold. I hope it is in His plans for us to meet either here or in Brazil. I look forward to serving and praising Him along side you in eternity.  | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 699 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Luke 18:10-14 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 343 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.47 |
They think they can legitimately expose our mistakes and past sins because we are exposing the "inner workings" of their community. After the CE incident, (CE did take HH to court, and HH settled,) each member had to sign a paper giving up our rights to sue if they broke the law of confidentiality ...or leave…and in our minds… risk all those things were taught to fear that would happen when people leave. It was a form of spiritual black mail as far as I am concerned. How can they compare our exposing their corporate doctrines and practices, which are supposed to be God's ways; something they consider Godly and right, and something, (that if Biblical,) they should be proud of... ...with things in our personal pasts that we have repented of, have been put under the covering of the blood of Jesus, and been given victory over? Are their Characters going to be hurt by supposedly godly patterns and doctrines that are on going? Yet they hope to "expose our character" by things we have done in the past, repented of and gained victory over. I have never heard of repentance for what they did to CE, and this week they prepared and offered personal files to a reporter. Just the fact that they are still keeping files shows no repentance and instead shows a continued pattern that they are proud enough of to display to a reporter; when the reporter can publish the details of the offer if the desire to do so is present. If anything, our repentance and victories glorify God. Many Christian testimonies tell of the things God has saved us from. Having been a part of HH and have fallen in line with the doctrines is embarrassing. When I tell my pastor how the leaders in HH determined what information we were to see and not see, (how even being seen reading a newspaper could get me in trouble,) he is astounded that ANYONE would tolerate such mind control. He said it is hard for him to believe anyone with even half a mind would allow a minister to decide their diet and dress… all the way down to the decision that flowered prints are “florid,” which comes from the root word such and such… which really means such and such… so they are ungodly to wear. It is hard for my pastor to believe that my husband and I were duped to that level. He knows us very well. It doesn’t make any sense to him that we fell for it. Letting them become my conscience, taking the place of the Holy Spirit in guiding me, fearing man more than God, blind submission… getting along just to get along, a man pleaser, being willing to lie for them, shunning my dearest friends just because they left the group; thinking I was more blessed because God allowed me to be more enlighten that those outside HH, Thinking they were Jesus in the flesh, leading and encouraging others to join, allowing my children to endure it; to me these are serious sins. He brought me to repentence and He set me free. He set me free from my sin. May God be glorified. He set me free. He set me free. He broke the bonds of prison for me. I'm glory bound My Jesus to see. Glory to God He set me free! (Message edited by foreverhis on December 09, 2006) | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 701 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Robin, you now consider yourself 'free' to support and encourage sick blasphemy, as we have seen today - now newly combined with the bald-faced lie that HH members talk of a 'death covenant'. Oh, wait. That latest lie is uncomfortable, so you will go into your silence mode. You can't correct such a lie if it comes from an esteemed source. Robin, I believe in a sense you are far worse than the woman out of control, and perhaps more accountable. She apparently is unable to restrain her tongue (whether it is confusion or demonic buffeting or politics, God knows) yet you calculate the support of the sick blasphemy in a cold, steely manner, while keeping the coy exterior. Rather a chilling sight. And you are proud of this 'freedom' to lie, to be silent when others lie for the cause. After all, to the three oppositionalists who are posting now .. 'the ends justify the means' - and you respect so highly the one who continually offers the sick blasphemy and then lies about what HH says. Some standard of 'freedom'. Truly very sad. Gloating in license and sin, under the guise of Christian freedom. Shalom, Praxaluh (Message edited by praxaluh on December 10, 2006) | ||
| common_sense Advanced Member Username: common_sense Post Number: 951 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 69.232.175.37 |
Keep talking, Praxaluh! Your posts are some of the clearest evidence of the need for a forum like FACTNet. It is because of people like you that spiritually abusive groups abound. ************************************************ Keep talking, Foreverhis! Your posts are a testimony to God's grace and freedom in Christ. It is because of people like you that others summon the courage to break free of spiritually abusive groups. | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 702 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Common_Sense, "Keep talking, Praxaluh! " Most definitely. As you S_G are the one other hanger-on who does not care at all about the sick 'death covenant' blasphemy it is proper to point out that you are the third one involved. Let us be clear. All of the recent posts that support the sick blasphemy, either directly or by omission and diversion, have come from exactly three people only. Three. There are three on this forum who are working in diverse ways to support the sick 'death covenant' accusation of Mrs. Alvear. Amazingly, even AFTER Mrs. Alvear gives us her new blatant lie about the origin of the phrase (complete silence from the three on this lie). And even AFTER Mrs. Alvear shows us that she thinks of the phrase only as murder and killing, nothing at all about spiritual covenant. Contradicting, destroying, the transparent excuse given by her 'death covenant' supporter, Robin that really this is just an alternate phrase to 'death do you part' life-time honourable marriage and spiritual covenants. Folks are supposed to swallow any such transparent lie. Here are the three. Robin (Forever_His) Seeking_Glory Common_Sense Each one has their own little agenda. Everyone else on this forum is silent about the blasphemy, although in the past there was one other who supported the sick blasphemy. And to be very fair, there was one person with integrity who very properly apologized and left it at that. In a sense I believe this action stands in the breach for others who are silent and is a model and example that others could follow. Hopefully he will not yield to any pressure to renege. Even better, hopefully he will speak up again, showing that the issue here is fundamental, outside the HH-pro-and-con discussion, that anyone can take an integrity stance when proper and necessary. Neither is posting now so there are precisely three posters involved who are supporting the sickness. Perhaps hardly anybody else reads this forum, perhaps some are a little shocked that their allies against HH are so spiritually sick that they actively support the blasphemy and accompanying lie. This is the most shocking thing I have seen in posting on the Internet. Hopefully at least some are expressing their concern somewhere. Let me be clear about one thing .. I am not so surprised that one person on this forum has a loose tongue, hard to restrain. That often occurs. What is surprising and shocking are the three other people willing to support an obvious sick lie. That people would actually be so devoid of integrity and a deep relationship with God that they would willingly ally themselves with the sickest vicious dribble as the three have done above. That is what surprises me. Those who are on the sideline .. the honourable course, no matter whether you agree or disagree with HH on 100 other things, is simple. The minimum and helpful is something along the lines of .. "You know, I do not find that phrase as appropriate or helpful, it misrepresents HH badly and has a false ring. I would prefer it not be used, I will not use it and I actively disassociate myself from the phrase". Now that would be the honourable path. None of the oppositionalists posting now have had the simple integrity to speak in this manner. Shalom, Praxaluh (Message edited by praxaluh on December 10, 2006) | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 703 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
"And the claim that the phrase has its origin in HH is simply false and needs clear and unqualified correction." | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1466 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 201.82.95.82 |
That is where I first heard it...where it came from I do not know...Prax, I am praying for you.. If you move to hh your tune will change...I feel deeply for your spiritual state... | ||
| yeoman Junior Member Username: yeoman Post Number: 42 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 207.69.137.207 |
Dear ForeverHis, Would you expand and clarify the "prepared and offered personal files to a reporter" statement? Thank you. | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 344 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.101 |
There is a reporter who is preparing to do a story on HH. She is willing to consider our experiences, covering both sides. She has interviewed ex-members and HH spokesmen. She was offered, by HH, individual and personal information on ex-members in order to explain the "character" of their accusers. When she asked if it was on the record or for publication, they answered no. She refused to accept the information. After I heard about this offer of theirs, I called and offered to give my story. She repeated to me what I had heard. If you would like to give your story, contact Waco Tribune Herald. If you don't want to give a detailed interview, you can at least call and "be counted." She needs to hear from us as soon as posible. | ||
| truth_hunter Intermediate Member Username: truth_hunter Post Number: 311 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.55.230.165 |
I would ask that we not involve this reporter here in our mission to expose the truth. She is a professional and will do her job to the best of her ability. She is contacting, and has contacted those that need to be contacted on both sides. She already has an immense amount of info to sift through. I also ask that we please keep anything that she says to us confidential. She is not an ex-member and should not be involved in our mission here on fact-net. I see that as a breach in trust. In order for her to do her job in a professional unbiased manner I ask that we not drag her into our debate here. She has contacted HH and spoken with their leaders and members, she has also contacted a number of ex-members. I plead again that we not involve her here on Factnet. I say again her mission is not our mission, those on the opposing side of HH, please to not load our burdens on a person that was not meant to bear them. Thank you, Jeremy Crow | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 345 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.173 |
I sincerely apologize if I have breached a trust. That was not my intent in any way. I in no way mean to infer that she is on one side or the other. It was obvious that she wasn't. Please let me make that clear to the reader. She was VERY professional, and showed no biases or personal opinion, and only collected information. Again I sincerely apologize. I will not mention her or the story here again. Thank you brother for the correction. FH | ||
| truth_hunter Intermediate Member Username: truth_hunter Post Number: 312 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.55.230.165 |
Not a problem | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1482 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 200.147.101.65 |
If HH uses church information and gives it to a reporter without contacting the people they involve my lawyer says as a church they can be sued. It would be like a priest giving confidental information....I aslo mentioned this to a federal agent and the agent says it is against the law for hh or any church to give out personal information on members or ex members without consent or ................something I cannot remember at this moment what type government document they would have to have...however it is very complicated... I personally have nothing to hide I am just a normal human being with faults and failures...but HH has much to hide...because according to some sources if HH gives out information...the authorities are going to verify many things that have been said on this board...especially...the pressure put on people... I think it is a good thing if HH would face things like MEN of God and not frightened children...but of course these things are my opinion... Whatever I have said here I have proof to be truth so I am not worried in the least... I think for so long HH ruled themselves above others and did whatever now they are beginning to realize they will answer to God for their attitudes....answering to man is one thing to aanswer to God is another thing... | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1483 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 200.147.101.65 |
and I say let the repoter do her job..she is not dumb no matter how much HH or anyone else tells her... And in time the real motives of HH will be revealed... | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1484 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 200.147.101.65 |
I too think this is not to be discussed at the moment here... Let's pray and God knows how to work...I am praying for everyone involved and hoping that God can bring HH to their senses...I know no one on this board that hates HH...If HH would humble herself and ask forgivnesss I know no one that would not forgive them... | ||
| dowen Advanced Member Username: dowen Post Number: 797 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.153.234.10 |
FH and ML, Both of you exchanged e-mails with me about a year ago. Do either of you still have copies of those e-mails? | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 730 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Good question, Daniel. Keeping emails, the proper thing to do, is a major part of 'keeping files'. And issues might be discussed years later where good record-keeping is helpful (sometimes I kick myself a bit for misplacing or over-stashing or discarding letters that might be helpful). Anyway, if the real integrity issue of the forum is handled, the sick blasphemy, it might be a sensible discussion. For now, though, I will pass, its a diversion. YMMV (your mileage may vary). Shalom, Praxaluh | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 356 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 69.176.48.179 |
I have not kept a list of your sins, and if you asked Jesus for forgiveness, then neither has he kept a list. Do you agree? HH is welcome to keep my e-mails and so are you. My conscience is clear. Is theirs? | ||
| dowen Advanced Member Username: dowen Post Number: 798 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.9.93.81 |
"HH is welcome to keep my e-mails..." Ahh. So if HH keeps an e-mail or letter or paper written by you, that is ok. But but but, you will start threads on the WWW talking about how bad they are for doing it.... Humm. A plot worthy of a dimestore novel indeed. Your delusions here are glaringly obvious for anyone who cares to see them. | ||
| common_sense Advanced Member Username: common_sense Post Number: 954 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 68.127.84.223 |
Dowen, I kept waiting for you to come on and post about how HH keeping files on members and ex-members was a lie; that you asked them and they don't have a file on you. (That seems to be your standard response.) Instead, we have this neat little diversion tactic about the keeping of emails. So, does HH keep files on people as FH described in the initial post on this thread? Do they reveal the private lives of people to others without their permission? Do they use sensitive information to maintain control over vulnerable people? A simple "yes", "no", or "I don't now" will suffice. | ||
| dowen Advanced Member Username: dowen Post Number: 799 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.153.234.10 |
No, it won't. And you will not tell me what to post. As you told someone earlier, "Who do you think you are". The problem with this discussion is weasels like FH and ML are trying to paint some kind of X-files, big brother, shadowy murky atmosphere around HH's keeping a file of past dealings with folks. Take FH for example. I believe that years ago she wrote her testimony, and gave it to her group leader at HH. What do you think happened to that paper she wrote? Ahh yes, it went in a file. Uh oh. HH is keeping a file on FH. See how simple this is? See how The Weasel tried to turn and twist the simple truth to fit her agenda? | ||
| common_sense Advanced Member Username: common_sense Post Number: 955 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 68.127.84.223 |
Okay, you answered my first question, and I appreciate it. Maybe FH will confirm whether or not her written testimony is the extent of her concern. Now how about the other two? Do they reveal the private lives of people to others without their permission? Do they use sensitive information to maintain control over vulnerable people? | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 358 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.1 |
What about the book on C.E. and all his vices? | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 737 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Hi Folks, So far there has been no real accusation that HH transgresses pastoral confidentiality. From what is said here and from the experiences of myself and friends they appear to hold a high standard in that regard. So how can there be a demand for a response to a non-accusation ? This does not make any sense. This is a 'fishing for an accusation' expedition. Personally, I had some discussions with them about this and that some years back. And it might be nice to revisit. I doubt that I have my files findable so I hope that they can find it in their records. That is the proper thing to try to do, but often difficult, by hand or by computer. HH, please, I hope you kept some files ! ` And this is what Daniel has been pointing out to you. Simple proper record-keeping can be harshly accused as some sort of unwarrented and murky 'keeping of files'. You can also have situations where someone from outside, or someone who leaves, makes simply inaccurate statements about matters, be they financial, dates, pastoral or whatever. In an attempt to smear. I even heard accounts of situations here on this forum that sounded quite one-sided and skewed. If there is no paper trail nobody really knows the truth of the matter (newspapers, courts, researchers etc). Sadly, folks have on occasion been known to forget important things, or even lie. Record retention, although difficult, can help answer questions that come up properly and accurately. Folks generally want to have the 'I'm OK, your OK' mentality. It is true that folks who struggle with transgression are often concerned, rationally or irrationally, of its exposure. By ministry, or even just in general where they try to put out an air of perfection. From this perspective anybody who tried to help you could be perceived as a potential enemy due to their own awareness of the situation. I saw this in my own life even before I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ. Folks who had done something wrong, and I was aware of it, even if there were no direct repercussions, would always look at me awkwardly after that. For the question on this thread I don't mind a little discussion, even while the fundamental forum issue is unresolved, as it too has a basic integrity aspect. Shalom, Praxaluh PS. The statement about the Waco reporter conversation sounded 2nd or 3rd hand, was given through a very biased source, and even that indicated the HH concern for privacy. If there was any problem there in terms of confidentiality and ethics it should be something that is related from the primary source. PPS. Any such questions have to be looked at carefully. And it is possible there could be grey areas and there are matters that are in the public record. If I had gone on a drunken binge at the Austin night-life and got thrown in the clink, obviously that information is not under any pastoral confidentiality shield. (Although a pastor might bail me out and handle it quietly.) I am sharing what I hope will be seen as a humorous example just to give a bit more of context to the discussion. Hmmm.. what about a traffic violation ? PPPS It is true that there are some psycho-babble organizations, I think Scientology is one, that have an organized effort in this regard .. dig up anything possible, use it for blackmail, put rattlesnakes in mailboxes etc. I do not mean to belittle the concern, simply it appears that HH has a commendable policy and record in this regard. It is unlikely that I will have much more to share on this, I tried to put all my thoughts in this one post and I will listen for reasonable comments. | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 738 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Hi Folks, So far there has been no real accusation that HH transgresses pastoral confidentiality. From what is said here and from the experiences of myself and friends they appear to hold a high standard in that regard. So how can there be a demand for a response to a non-accusation ? This does not make any sense. We see a 'fishing for an accusation' expedition. Personally, I had some discussions with HH about this and that some years back. And it might be nice to revisit. I doubt that I have my files findable so I hope that they can find it in their records. That is the proper thing to try to do, but often difficult, by hand or by computer. HH, please, I hope you kept some files ! ` And this is what Daniel has been pointing out to you. Simple proper record-keeping can be harshly accused as some sort of unwarrented and murky 'keeping of files'. You can also have situations where someone from outside, or who leaves, makes inaccurate statements about matters, be they financial, dates, pastoral or whatever. In an attempt to smear. I even heard accounts of situations here on this forum that sounded quite one-sided and skewed. If there is no paper trail nobody really knows the truth of the matter (newspapers, courts, researchers etc). Sadly, folks have on occasion been known to forget important things, or even lie. Record retention, although difficult, can help answer questions that come up properly and accurately. Folks generally want to have the 'I'm OK, your OK' mentality. It is true that folks who struggle with transgression are often concerned, rationally or irrationally, of its exposure. By ministry, or even just in general where they try to put out an air of perfection. From this perspective anybody who tried to help you could be perceived as a potential enemy due to their own awareness of the situation. I saw this in my own life even before I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ. Folks who had done something wrong, and I was aware of it, even if there were no direct repercussions, would always look at me awkwardly after that. For the question on this thread I don't mind a little discussion, even while the fundamental forum issue is unresolved, as it too has a basic integrity aspect. Shalom, Praxaluh PS. The statement about the Waco reporter conversation sounded 2nd or 3rd hand, was given through a very biased source, and even that indicated the HH concern for privacy. If there was any problem there in terms of confidentiality and ethics it should be something that is related from the primary source. PPS. Any such questions have to be looked at carefully. And it is possible there could be grey areas and matters that are in the public record. If I had gone on a drunken binge at the Austin night-life and got thrown in the clink, obviously that information is not under any pastoral confidentiality shield. (Although a pastor might bail me out and handle it quietly.) I am sharing what I hope will be seen as a humorous example just to give a bit more of context to the discussion. Hmmm.. what about a traffic violation ? PPPS It is true that there are some psycho-babble organizations, I think Scientology is one, that have an organized effort in this regard .. dig up anything possible, use it for blackmail, put rattlesnakes in mailboxes etc. I do not mean to belittle the concern, simply it appears that HH has a commendable policy and record in the area of pastoral confidentiality. It is unlikely that I will have much more to share on this, I tried to put all my thoughts in this post and will listen for reasonable comments. | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 359 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.112 |
P: I tried to put all my thoughts in this post and will listen for reasonable comments. But that is all they really are, your thoughts. You really have no facts. The book on CE is a fact. It was required reading for the adult members. The members, who were there at the time, know like I do, that it is fact. (Anyone reading this and knows the number of pages that book was please e-mail me.) However many pages...It consisted of enough "information" to be bound and considered a book. I remember how sick I felt reading it. I had to force myself through it. It all started with a letter written by CE with his heartfelt concerns about situations in HH. (I don't remember anyone’s personal sins discussed in CE's letter. It has been long enough to have forgotten.) I remember it being impressed on us that if we exposed the inner workings of HH we would suffer the same fate. The fear of having our personal needs yelled in front of the whole Sunday congregation was enough. To have a book distributed to the members and my family outside of HH... Then the Lord impressed on me that I must sound the alarm. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 741 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Hi Folks, Yes, I realized after I posted and went back on the thread that I had not addressed this literature that had been mentioned earlier. And since I know nothing about it I will pass on commenting on specifics. Dunno who it is and what was written, apparently it was for internal use and involved responding to some accusations. Did it make errors or breach any confidentiality .. I simply dunno. Overall I have found that the representations given here by oppositionalists to be less than accurate so I will leave the issue in abeyance. Anybody who can give Mrs. Alvear support for the acrid and sick, 'death covenant' blasphemy as F_H has here can clearly misrepresent any issue discussed. As for public ministry that begins with personal ministry, then to counsel by eldership or 5-fold ministry, and then at times to the whole body .. this I am well aware of. And I have absolutely no objection to the concept, which has biblical backing, and have seen it used properly. At times I wondered why so much grace was put toward a situation without it coming to the ministry of the corporate body meeting earlier. So by mixing the two issues, I sense that your objection is more general, and for the objection you give above that I know about I see little or no merit. It would be wonderful if all the churches really dealt with transgression, and valued holiness to such a degree. My personal belief is that a lot of the reason they generally do not is structural rather than intentions or spiritual walk but that is another discussion. Shalom, Praxaluh (Message edited by praxaluh on December 15, 2006) | ||
| dowen Advanced Member Username: dowen Post Number: 800 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.153.234.10 |
FH, Regarding the "book" incident, you have no idea what you are talking about. You know just enough to get yourself in trouble. My dad was very involved in that entire situation, so I know first hand much of what happened there. To start with, the response to Clinton's accusations was never passed out to his family members. Also, C's so called "heartfelt" concerns were nothing but lies, wrapped up in a very weird package. Not to mention that after C fabricated and wove together his little letter full of accusation against HH, he then took it around town and to some of my family members. In the CE case, the only one spreading word of other's personal issues was CE. The same CE that you and ML like to so lovingly call brother and friend, he was the only one distributing details of folks personal lives. Also, one more thing you must keep ever before you. CE brought that whole deal on his own head by concocting a vile offensive letter about HH, and distributing it around town. If he had bitten his slanderous tongue nothing would have ever happened. Up until he started taking his "dream" around town and poisoning peoples minds with it, HH had never even dreamed about writing anything about him. He could have just gone on with life, instead he chose to keep jabbing his pitchfork at HH, and eventually he got a rise out of them. Bottom line, it was nobodies fault but his own. End of story. Maybe before you go on the WWW and write about stuff, you should actually know what you are talking about. | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 360 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.80 |
Did you read the letter by CE? I did. Did you read the book about him? I did. (I only wonder because MY children weren't required to read it.) Can you say that the book did not go outside of HH? (Message edited by foreverhis on December 15, 2006) | ||
| dowen Advanced Member Username: dowen Post Number: 801 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.153.234.10 |
The response only went to those outside of HH that were poisoned by the letter. Those that the letter made out to be Nazi monsters, HH members, also read the response. The only way that the letter could have made it's way outside of those two groups was if someone like yourself, a former member, was to spread it around or use it as a platform to launch attacks from. Since that is the case, the only ones guilty of distributing the response are those in your camp. | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 366 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.14 |
I never distributed either to anyone. Now back to the first questions. Did you read the letter by CE before you condemed it above? Did you read the book about him before you defended it? (Message edited by foreverhis on December 16, 2006) | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 367 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.14 |
DO confirms: If he had bitten his slanderous tongue nothing would have ever happened. Up until he started taking his "dream" around town and poisoning peoples minds with it, HH had never even dreamed about writing anything about him. They couldn't just answer the allegations. They had to write a book listing his every vice and add some fabricated ones. They couldn't deal with the message, so they sought to slay the messenger; taking the focus off the allegations. | ||
| dowen Advanced Member Username: dowen Post Number: 802 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.153.234.10 |
Well, since this is America, you are free to believe whatever you choose. President Bush is a reptile, Black Helicopters, UFO's, whatever. There are a few facts though. #1. Nothing was fabricated. #2. Each and every allegation was answered in detail. As to your other questions, no, I have not read the response. My dad was one of the key players in that whole situation, so I do know first hand a lot of what went on. I believe that an agreement was made years ago that HH would not give the response to anyone else, or ever make it available again, in essence to let by-gones be by-gones. The only ones not abiding by this agreement are those with axes to grind and chips on their shoulders. Even CE for the most part has let the issue fall away. I suggest you do the same. | ||
| dowen Advanced Member Username: dowen Post Number: 803 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.153.234.10 |
The more I think about this, the more obvious one thing becomes. The HH attackers will stop at nothing in their bloodthirsty quest of bringing down a Church. They dredge up a decade old issue that had been put to bed for years, and try to make political hay from it, while accusing HH of doing the exact thing! The hypocrisy is astounding! They shamefully accuse HH of broadcasting a man's sins to the world, while viciously broadcasting their own accusations of HH's sin. They sit in their self righteous self appointed thrones, and talk day in and day out about how bad and evil HH is, and think they are justified by God in doing it. They can publicly call out HH, but HH is damned if they do the same. (Which HH had never done, but the jackals love to make the accusation) It really is amazing. (Message edited by dowen on December 16, 2006) | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 368 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.189 |
while viciously broadcasting their own accusations of HH's sin. Are you saying they sinned? You have defended what they did and do. Now you change; or am I misunderstanding you? Believe me, if I knew HH had repented of the allegations and wasn't repeating them I would not mention them again. Before they can be repented of, there has to be a self admittance of sin. There is personal information and there is corporate information. There is no comparison. Personal failures or sin which has been repented of is far from corporate doctrines and practices that are on going, and sanctioned and approved by "God" through his "proper channels" and Apostle. If HH has acknowledged their wrong and changed their practices, then there would be no need to warn others would there? On the personal level, members of HH are sweet and loving. They seek to follow what they know of God with their whole hearts. Their intentions are good, even if sometimes misguided. I have no desire to expose their personal sins. The people personally, (the members,) are not the problem. When I say HH, I mean the doctrines, practices, deception, and the powers that be, which are directing the whole affair. | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 369 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.189 |
DO Nothing was fabricated. I asked my group leader why CE won the in meditation and he told me that they had "made a mistake" and some of the things he said about CE were not true. So unless he was lying to me or it was just a smoke screen for the real reason; that is what I was told BY THEM | ||
| seekingglory Member Username: seekingglory Post Number: 66 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 24.162.130.84 |
DOwen...#1. Nothing was fabricated. FACT....CE won the in meditation and he told me that they had "made a mistake" and some of the things he said about CE were not true. HH lies. Period. DOwen lies. Period. This is not news. We all know it to be. | ||
| dowen Advanced Member Username: dowen Post Number: 804 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.9.93.81 |
FH, HH did not accuse anybody of anything. They responded to accusations. Big difference. The thing that you need to come to understand is, this entire issue was dealt with, and settled, years ago. It was settled to the satisfaction of BOTH parties, and both parties agreed to move on with life. You weren't involved in that situation, and have no business digging up a settled "dispute" that is over a decade old. Is your case against HH really so weak that you must resort to dredging up ancient history? Your recent postings have paranoia written all over them. All I can say is; Calm down and take a deep breath. God is big enough to take care of this without you freaking out on us. Also, there is a big difference between meditation and mediation. GlorySeeker, The one who made mistakes in this case was C. Call me a liar if you like, I really don't care. It does show the weakness of your position though. Making blanket statements like "We all know it to be"... Whatever dude. You saying everyone knows something is like me saying I know everyone is Waco. It is just silly. | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 742 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Hi Folks, Thank you for adding a little background, Daniel. As I have mentioned earlier, sometimes there are specific issues like this one where your personal and physical closeness to the situation is helpful in discussing something brought up the oppositionalists. So I pay special attention to what you share. Of course there is a basic question whether the particular issue is worth all the ink here. Now we find that this dispute was the subject of a little mediation matter a decade ago. Now that is a good way to work with disputes, would that others used it more. Often it can avoid institutionalized bitterness, enriching lawyers who personal interest can be to drag things out by promoting hostility (more fees), the slow and cumbersome and complicated court bureaucracy, and prevent expensive costs. And unnecessary acrimony can be avoided and real communication emphasized and enhanced. Rarely used, but generally the right way to go. Once again, when we get a fuller story, it confirms that anything that comes from these oppositionalists must be checked at the door until real and complete info is forthcoming. (Perhaps the half has been told, enough to know to let it rest, as Daniel points out.) The oppositionalists will raise minor-issues and finished-issues and non-issues and pseudo-issues till cows come home. That is their spiritual interest, that is their consuming passion, to attack the Christian community. Instead of looking deep and holding up the Lord Jesus Christ, and keeping respect for the brothers and sisters pouring out their hearts daily. Rather than walking in sanctity and respect, they actually want to give themselves over to acrimony and bitterness. We could conjecture why. So since they are consumed with finding causes of offense, there will be a lot of spin and they major in minors and leave out all sorts of stuff. The agendas are thick. We have here a lady who is soooo concerned about a mediation matter resolved properly a decade ago (!) and yet TODAY this same woman encourages and defends the spewing of putrid, sick, vile blasphemy (the poisonous 'death covenant' dribble of Mrs. Alvear). Talk about hypocrisy. She is not likely to give a balanced or reliable account of any situation involving HH. No words can be taken at face. To review, from what is written here, it sounds like the situation on all sides got out of hand a bit a decade ago starting with a litany of harsh and vitriolic accusation against HH, followed by their impassioned response (which it is claimed had some inaccuracy) followed by mediation. (Often the non-adversarial method to resolve an issue). Fortunately it was resolved, all sides accepted the mediators decision, so to all it was handled reasonably satisfactorily and laid to rest. (Except the oppositionalists here.) Perhaps all learned from the experience. This is what I see from what is shared here. Perhaps there is more to learn another time, or perhaps it is properly and fully covered and finito. ==== In general, what we see on this forum is oppositionalists who will support and encourage the spewing daily of vile poisonous words - and so of course when matters are brought up or discussed here they turn around and spin anything. Example: Keeping an email or letter and receipts for proper record-keeping can becomes intelligence service dossiers. Shalom, Praxaluh (Message edited by praxaluh on December 16, 2006) | ||
| seekingglory Member Username: seekingglory Post Number: 67 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 24.162.130.84 |
To review, from what is written here, it sounds like the situation on all sides got out of hand a bit a decade ago starting with a litany of harsh and vitriolic accusation against HH, followed by their impassioned response (which it is claimed had some inaccuracy) followed by mediation. What a biased statement. 'Evil accusation followed by little less than perfect response'....get real Prax. They lied, got caught and paid the price. The reason for bringing it up is to show that there is proof they lie. We say they lie. You say they don't. We prove it. You get mad. Same song all over this board. Prax, you don't have a clue! | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 743 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Coming from S-G, one of the big shills for the 'death covenant' lie.. what hypocrisy. Anyone who hears you folks talk about 'lies' should only be astounded with indignation and, if sensitive, offer Godly remonstration. Remember, I originally brought to this forum, for a long time, the idea that all sides should stop accusing each other of lying .. I shared that with Daniel as well as the oppositionalists .. that most of the time it was a matter of perception. Of overheated verbiage. Of selectivity of remembrance. Of misunderstanding. So let's try to make sure everything is understood and checked out and interpreted fairly and we probably would find few, maybe no, lies - in the sense of intentional, conscious falsehoods, from anyone. Even the most vitriolic oppositionalists I would be reluctant to accuse of lying. And the issues (generally quite mild) that were raised about HH clearly seemed to fall under this umbrella of being understandable through good will, common sense, a listening ear and rapport. One person remembers this, another that, one person has incomplete information and something gets askew as it is passed along until someone here is crying 'liar' in their own arrogance rather than seeking to understand. Now, I grant that has changed. The fact that the oppositionalists can't even mildly reprove 'death covenant' stares us in the face. They approve daily a sick, ugly lie. You are in fact guilty of deliberately and consciously encouraging and supporting and defending the vile bile of a poisonous, acrid blaspemy, the worst and most defamatory lie I can ever remember hearing. Now it is true. You are culpable, you are liars, in the first degree. Shalom, Praxaluh | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 744 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
The 'you' above refers to the active oppositionalists on this forum. Whose agenda is clear as they have proven that truth and integrity is of no concern for them whatsoever. They will excuse and back a totally sick lie as long as it comes from a leader in the 'find-offense-in-HH' crew. Who they are is well known. You can include those who are active behind the scenes who have shown themselves earlier as crafty supporters of the sick accusation-words, although currently a bit quiet here on the forum. Essentially two additional folks. Who they are not is - a) Anybody who has not posted. Or has only posted a tiny smidgen and has not touched the issue of the sick blasphemy accusation. No presumption is intended at all. Light posters, and those who never were close to HH and are talking here trying to learn and maybe compare other experiences, may simply feel that they should not be involved. Fair enough. b) Under_Grace who has said little recently and whose graceful apology for the words has been left standing. c) Yeoman who sincerely tries to work through issues and be peacemaker and posts moderately and modestly. Yeoman still should best speak clearly to the issue at hand, however his overall concern for forum decorum and propriety and honesty and clarity and integrity has come through multi-times and covers many bases. And of course there are a few who have posted sharing the concern about the distortions and accusatory tone and misreptesentations of the oppositionalists. Clearly those folks, active or quiescent in posting, share the concern about the big lie that has now defined the oppositionalists. Overall, I don't want to leave the impression that I think questioning HH on this and that makes you an ipso facto liar. Not at all. Simply that there are demarcation lines, boundries that have been way-crossed by the opposition-crew here. Making their own accusations completely two-faced. More importantly, showing that they cannot be trusted to represent anything accurately. Shalom, Praxaluh (Message edited by praxaluh on December 17, 2006) | ||
| yeoman Junior Member Username: yeoman Post Number: 44 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 4.231.53.87 |
To Whom It May Interest: The "Response To C.E." has no less than 222 pages, not including the appendix of his letter. I remember at the time DOwen, the opinion of one of your uncle's was that the document was "overkill". And please, my intent is not to stir up hate and discontent, just reporting the valued opinion of a knowledgable non-member of HH. One situation that CE raised in closing his "dream/prophecy" that was not answered in the "Response" was the suicide of D.S. and her murder of her children. They covered everything else in great detail, but missed that heartbreaker. HH's payment of $10,000 (if memory serves correctly) was due to Elder HW immediately upon commencement of mediation offering double the amount CE asked for to settle. In the following Sunday meeting HW admitted his error. That Christmas we were all asked to forego our holiday gift giving to family and give to the church instead. ForeverHis, I think the assesment that CE's letter was just "heartfelt concern" somewhat misses the mark. The man had serious needs that HH ministry really did try to help him with. You are correct that he did not mention anyone's "personal sins". His "dream/prophecy" was against ministry practices and patterns of HH and it's elders. The difficulty then becomes separating ministry "error" from personal "sin". HH could say there is no difference. Some of the issues he raised are identical to some of the concerns raised on this forum. But most of his "word from God" was simply self-serving, in my opinion. A few years ago someone in the "know" confirmed to us that files were kept. If files are to assist in personal private ministry is one thing. If they are kept as leverage or as a club to hold over someone's head by threatened or implied release to the public is another matter altogether. | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 370 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.73 |
DON"T TELL ME THIS IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS! This is a personal to me as much of my business can be. Why, because 1.) I was MADE to read it. 2.) Because I was threatened to have the same exposure done to me and my family if I talked. This example of humiliation kept a lot of us quiet for a long time. It is a fear that I lived with for years. I knew I needed to speak out, but this threat hung over my head. It has not been my faults I have been concerned with, but the thought that my family would suffer such humiliation because of my speaking out. (This threat has been carried out, so now I have no need to keep quiet. Do I? Now I can drag Blair Adams and HW and DB and the rest of them personally through the mud. Right? No; because I have more integrity than that. Because I answer to God. In the end so will they.) 3.) Because I knew KB and her children. Maybe if HH had took some of the things CE had said to heart about D.S. and her killing her children, K.B.'s children would still be a live. I live with this each day. I also live with the thought that there could be another. If anyone here is butting in to something that is not their business it is those who never even read the papers and never lived with the threat. | ||
| foreverhis Intermediate Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 371 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.73 |
Thank you yeoman for supplying the details. | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 745 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
So now the vile 'death covenant'-words defender and shill F_H proclaims her integrity in speech ? Amazing. From that fiasco it became triply clear to me that no words you say about what was spoken to you can be trusted to be an accurate and fair representation. As you can blithely support the lying viper-tongue, you can surely be applying lots of selectivity, misrepresentation and lots of spin and non-context for anything that you relate to the forum from HH days. ======================================== Yeoman, please feel free to email me at praxeus@bigfoot.com . One or two aspects of what you shared I would follow up on (optionally). If you are comfortable with same. Shalom, Praxaluh ======================= PS. OK, I will say a little more. From what is shared here (incomplete of course and given in an environment of politics) it does sound like the person involved in that dispute a decade ago had some real problems (whatever your view of the anti-HH missive). Perhaps delusions would be a fair word, or spiritual delusions. Hopefully, by the grace of God that is long past, even if he is just as distant from HH as then. And I could easily see folks being warned about that state of being, how a rebellion often brings forth bitter fruit. I saw that myself in some folks who left HH, while others kept a seeking and heart for God, including a respect for the HH fellowship and ministry. There are some here who seem to be in the balance, or close to being over the edge, who mistakenly find alluring the possibility of trying to find sanctuary in rebellion. Building your life around seeking offense from an excellent fellowship and ministry is not God's pathway to peace in the Lord Jesus Christ. (Message edited by praxaluh on December 17, 2006) | ||
| under_grace Intermediate Member Username: under_grace Post Number: 374 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 64.193.215.136 |
Hello Members, Ex-Members and Readers of this site, My name is CE. In light of the up-coming article and since my name has been tossed around I felt a need to say a couple of things. Let me say that having several hundred people know your sins and mistakes is a weird feeling, FH, Yeoman and the others I am sorry that you had to wade through that. I have read much of what has been posted. Out of the posters for this topic and for the record I have never met FH, ML, SG, Yeoman, CS, or Praxaluh. I knew TH as a young teenager and Dowen as a young boy. I have seen Dowen a couple of times as a young man. In a nutshell my wife and I joined Emmaus fellowship by attending TH dad’s house while HW was sharing on a weekly basas. We were in Emmaus for about three and a-half years. We were out about three and a-half years trying to get back in. When we left I wrote a letter to Emmaus Fellowship. They responded after about six months with a 200 plus page document with multiple authors. Some of the things in the response were things I had spoke in confession to my pastors while living in New Jersey and working with the brothers also some of things written in the response were not true about me. I was approached by a friend and an attorney about the possibility of bringing legal action. I did that. We settled out of court. We both agreed not to reveal the amount of the settlement and we both agreed not to give out the documents to anyone else. To my knowledge that has been kept by both parties. To be fair the attorney representing me become a friend of the fellowship and regrets representing me. I have had little contact with the people in Emmaus. Last week a former “brother” walked in a McDonald saw me and turned around and walked out. With a few exceptions that has been the response of the people from Emmaus I have seen in these last thirteen years. Dowen wrote on this site the following statemant “My dad was very involved in that entire situation, so I know first hand much of what happened there. To start with, the response to Clinton's accusations was never passed out to his family members. Also, C's so called "heartfelt" concerns were nothing but lies, wrapped up in a very weird package. Not to mention that after C fabricated and wove together his little letter full of accusation against HH, he then took it around town and to some of my family members. In the CE case, the only one spreading word of other's personal issues was CE. The same CE that you and ML like to so lovingly call brother and friend, he was the only one distributing details of folks personal lives. Also, one more thing you must keep ever before you. CE brought that whole deal on his own head by concocting a vile offensive letter about HH, and distributing it around town. If he had bitten his slanderous tongue nothing would have ever happened.” Continuing on the next writing | ||
| under_grace Intermediate Member Username: under_grace Post Number: 375 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 64.193.215.136 |
Yeoman you described what you remembered about the incident and it was reasanably accurate, you concluded “ForeverHis, I think the assesment that CE's letter was just "heartfelt concern" somewhat misses the mark. The man had serious needs that HH ministry really did try to help him with. You are correct that he did not mention anyone's "personal sins". His "dream/prophecy" was against ministry practices and patterns of HH and it's elders. The difficulty then becomes separating ministry "error" from personal "sin". HH could say there is no difference. Some of the issues he raised are identical to some of the concerns raised on this forum. But most of his "word from God" was simply self-serving, in my opinion.” Not a very flattering description is it? The truth is pretty much everything I had done wrong up to thirteen years ago was contained in that letter. Twenty-five or so people chronicled my mistakes from childhood up to thirteen years ago and as Yeoman said I had “serious needs”. The people writing in that 222 page response included two people I had gone to high school and college with. One of them was my best friend. Dowen mentioned his dad whom I have known since he was in the ninth grade or so. Much of what they wrote about me was true. Looking back on that letter and the response if I had it to do over again I should have looked at the things that were true and have tried to correct them. At the time they dismissed everything I had to say as yeoman said they could not separate the message from the messenger and I could not separate the hurt from the truth about my character weaknesses and sin. I think that we both lost. I say that we both lost because as Yeoman said virtually everything I brought up in the “weird dream” is being written about in detail on this board. I want to say that I am over the hurt though I am still working on problems I should have solved thirteen years ago. I re-read the response and there are many things I still need to correct. I did not initiate the upcoming article. I did not give anyone a copy of the letter or response. I did not even know I still had a copy until my wife dug it out of the closet. I have been interviewed. Daniel, I know you think everything that I wrote in that letter is lies and slander and I understand why you do. What I wrote in that letter long ago I believed then to be true and I believe most of what I wrote in that letter those thirteen years ago is still true today. Unfortunately most of the things written about me in the response were also true. You can call it wrong, flawed, sin anything you want. I regret what I did. If I could find a way to make amends to your dad and your uncle I would. We are kind of in a rock and a hard place. We both think the doctrine of the other is wrong. I do not know how to fix that. Sincerely, CE Still Learning | ||
| under_grace Intermediate Member Username: under_grace Post Number: 376 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 64.193.215.136 |
Hey Everyone, I hope you will take CE's post in the spirit that it was given. It was not an easy thing to do for him. Be gentle. Under Grace | ||
| dowen Advanced Member Username: dowen Post Number: 870 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.9.93.81 |
Hello CE, While I am sure there will be some discussion later about various issues you brought up above, I would like to extend my thanks to you for finally having the courage to put your name behind your words. Even though there are huge issues that must be resolved between you and HH, by your acknowledgment of them, you have risen above the hysterical screams of "I'm a victim, I'm a victim" that most of the HH opposition here on FN so love to waste their breath upon. Perhaps we are at the threshold of a new attitude here on FACTNet. DOwen. | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 929 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Hi CE, Thank you for sharing about all this with sensitivity, with a mixture of examination, concern, reflection, not the knee-jerk third-party politic stuff. And I realize that having all this brought into Factnet is very awkward at best and my heart is with you on that. We never met, and I dunno anything about the whole history, only what I read here. Sounds like there are difficulties all around, perhaps everybody has learned. May the Lord Jesus Christ bring forth a healing balm, may your needs be met, and may those rock and hard places be softened. Yours in Jesus name, Praxaluh | ||
| wise_as_a_serpent Junior Member Username: wise_as_a_serpent Post Number: 27 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 69.176.48.179 |
Praxaluh: To review, from what is written here, it sounds like the situation on all sides got out of hand a bit a decade ago starting with a litany of harsh and vitriolic accusation against HH, followed by their impassioned response (which it is claimed had some inaccuracy) followed by mediation. (Often the non-adversarial method to resolve an issue). Fortunately it was resolved, all sides accepted the mediators decision, so to all it was handled reasonably satisfactorily and laid to rest. (Except the oppositionalists here.) Perhaps all learned from the experience. So you have read the letter that Clinton wrote and read the response that Homestead Heritage wrote? IF not, how are you able to categorize the letter as 'harsh and vitriolic' and the reply as 'impassioned' or comment on what was or was not said? Earlier you would't accept the 'third hand' knowledge of Homestead Heritage offering files on ex-members, yet, having not seen the documents in dispute, your 'third hand' accessment is acceptable? | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 941 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Hi Wise, Notice the introduction - "from what is written here" Simply, I read the posts, tried to read between the lines a bit, and gave my summary. The issue of the not-so-prophetic words and the surrounding accusations I was categorizing as the "harsh and vitriolic accusation". If that is a harsh description, then 'questionable and unbalanced accusations' could be substituted, or similar words. More importantly, I was glad that it was resolved short of going haywire, and by God's grace my hope is that there could be healing and at least a degree of reconciliation and softening in the future days. In Jesus name. As to 'offering files' I simply said that the reporter is the one who should report on that one, not filtered through those with a rather blatant and obvious agenda. I pointed out that these issues are often in gray areas when you are responding to an accusation. That is a critical point. If you are responding to an accusation - "you did this to me there and it wasn't fair, I want to take you to broadcast it everywhere" how do you respond short of discussing the actual dates and times and situations in depth ? And where does legitimate response become a breach of confidentiality ? I do hope that you will at least acknowledge that this is a rather intricate and delicate area and those with an agenda could make presumptions and accusations of convenience. Shalom, Praxaluh | ||
| wise_as_a_serpent Junior Member Username: wise_as_a_serpent Post Number: 28 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 69.176.48.179 |
Reading the posts is third hand knowledge at best, similar to the ‘files’. Without having seen the letter or response (as there hasn’t even been any transcription of any portion posted) there isn't any way that you can comment on it. Even "questionable and unbalanced" cannot be claimed, since you haven't any thing more than Daniel's observation (and he stated that he hadn’t read the response - probably not even the original letter) and possible somebody at Homestead Heritage who read the letter, and will, just like the posters here on FactNet, have biases and preconceived ideas. In summary, your, "from what is written here", is mostly from people who have never seen the documents, but still feel qualified to post about their contents. Your earlier response of not commenting was more in line. (edited to correct spelling error) (Message edited by wise_as_a_serpent on January 24, 2007) | ||
| wise_as_a_serpent Junior Member Username: wise_as_a_serpent Post Number: 29 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.120 |
Also your choice of 'passionate' response is inappropriate, as the only supporter of Homestead Heritage that has posted about the response, has never read it (And I’m sure you wouldn’t come to that conclusion from those posting from an anti-Homestead Heritage perspective). His comments on it are simply hearsay. Therefore, it seems to be very peculiar that you could come to the conclusion that it was 'passionate'. At 222 pages, you could say 'lengthy'. | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 944 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Hi Wise, Nope, wise. With folks commenting in silly ways, and jumping to all sorts of contusions and confusions and using the history improperly for political ends, I felt it was proper to try to give an overview, as long as it was properly introduced as just the sense I had from reading here. And given the additional material since I wrote that I think I was pretty close. Now I respect any attempt to hold folks to a careful line, however it seems that you are silent on the gross oppo abuses while here you are making an issue of little or no substance. If you are going to push integrity, that is fine, you have my support .. but please .. do it fairly. Shalom, Praxaluh | ||
| wise_as_a_serpent Junior Member Username: wise_as_a_serpent Post Number: 31 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.120 |
I have no need to 'push integrity' on the 'gross oppo abuses'. You have taken upon yourself to do just that. (But at times you will notice I do chastise them.) I just feel, that somebody needs to hold you to the same standard that you demand of them. Still haven't figured out 'passionate' yet. With folks commenting in silly ways, and jumping to all sorts of contusions... Ouch that must really hurt, lol! | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 950 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Hi W-S, All through the period of the vile blasphemies you spoke not a single word of reproof, or even asking for a change. Shalom, Praxaluh | ||
| wise_as_a_serpent Junior Member Username: wise_as_a_serpent Post Number: 33 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 69.176.48.179 |
Praxaluh, take into consideration that I haven't posted in a year and a half (a fact that I had mentioned in the Reality thread). In that time, up until about a week ago, I hadn't even visited FACTNet. So it would have been rather difficult for me do to what you asked. And, if the archives are still around, you could have found that I asked for civility from posters on both sides of the aisle. | ||
| under_grace Intermediate Member Username: under_grace Post Number: 378 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 207.54.214.51 |
Dowen / Prax, Thanks for the kind words. I knew that I could not go on indefinitely without HH finding out Under Grace. God never ceases to amaze me how he allows circumstances to work in our lives to bring conviction, correction and healing especially if we are inviting Him to do so. From reading my posts (almost four hundred of them) you know I believe that HH is deceived. I have never discounted your sincerity. I also know that the two of you think I am deceived along with the most of the rest of the posters on this board. That is OK and I understand, it does not cause me concern nor am I offended by it as I hope you are not. I would have you consider a couple of things. Answering tit for tat does not enhance your points whether you are doing it or someone else. For a while I got caught up in returning insult for insult to you Daniel and Pureheart and sometimes Real Truth. If we stick to the topic at hand and eliminate the name calling it would benefit all of us. That goes for both sides. Prax you have not directed much of it to me, but your better than the posts you have been throwing out lately, no matter what the explanation. We do not have to agree but civility does not cost much. My dad used to say a man who has to cuss to accent a point just does not have a good argument. I am not saying people are cussing but sometimes the liars and snakes comments all wrapped up in sarcasm makes for a vitriol (word I had never heard before factnet) conversation. Food for thought. When you have a book written about you and you have been kicked out of three or four churches it can make even a hard hearted person start to take notice. I do believe God is bigger than most of us allow him to be. I know HH would probably not give a second thought to anything I had to say, but that has not stopped me in the past so I am still trying. I know that HH is extremely concerned about this article coming out and people writing on this discussion board and I can understand why. Maybe it is time to take the advice of Gamalia (I cannot look up the name for spelling). It just may be a situation where you are fighting the same God you are trying to serve. Wise One, Have you waded through my 222 page life history? Did you know me when you were in Emmaus? Under Grace | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 953 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
U_G, "I also know that the two of you think I am deceived ..." Hi U_G, Now, please... let's not put words in my mouth that I have not spoken. A doctrinal disagreement, or a social/spiritual divide, does not necessarily have to fall out to the level of a 'deception' accusation. (Now if you start telling me that all we need is more Billy Graham type crusades and God's work will be accomplished, then it might be more applicable. ) The irony here is that I have never had a problem with anybody expressing a sincere disagreement with HH or any other believer fellowship .. as I wrote once .. it's a big world .. and there are lots of thoughts and currents and doctrines and modes and views. I have simply asked that folks who were touched through HH not give themselves over to the dark side, don't trample the landmarks, don't go into facile psycho-babble self-justification .. and .. ... share with heart and respect. Ironically, on this forum you have been one of the only folks in opposition who has made an effort to walk tammim in your expressions and views here. Even when your views are very far from HH. Even when I might question whether you really had the Biblical gestalt on an issue. You always have made that effort here. That being the case, I will withdraw your view that I view you as deceived. No such stones are cast. Shalom, Praxaluh | ||
| wise_as_a_serpent Junior Member Username: wise_as_a_serpent Post Number: 35 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 69.176.48.179 |
Under Grace: I have read your letter and the response. At the time I was at Homestead Heritage (or Emmaus or Koinonia - I don't remember what it was called at that time), it was required reading for all the adults. So I could give first hand knowledge of what I read, but until now have chosen not to comment on the letter or the response in any fashion (I have commented about those commenting on it though). I felt that no matter what I said, it would be greeted with 'liar' or such other comments from people that had never even seen the documents. It would be a waste of bandwidth to enter into such a dialogue. Perhaps in the future, I will give my impression of what was contained in both, without disclosing any particulars, since a settlement was reached that, as far as I'm concerned, would also preclude me from divulging confidential information. In wading through what has been written above, I find a lot of comments about its contents and style from people (on both sides of the ‘debate’), that have never seen the documents in question. I guess many don’t realize that in doing so they are speculating and tossing around accusations that they could never substantiate. As for my time at Homestead Heritage, I may have met you. I am great with remembering faces, places and directions, but forget a name almost as soon as it is spoken. I have a memory like a steel trap. The problem is getting it back open to retrieve the information. | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 955 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Hi Folks, Just to be clear, W_S, I have never remotely called you a liar. And I am the one who you are emphasizing has not read the documents (which I have made very clear). So your attempted linkage is a bit strange. Shalom, Praxaluh | ||
| wise_as_a_serpent Junior Member Username: wise_as_a_serpent Post Number: 36 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.121 |
Praxaluh, I was directing the 'liar' comment towards Daniel. He is quick to call into question anything written by those who have actually read the document, while not having read the document himself. I haven't scoured this particular thread, but he is usually pretty free with his 'liar' comment in others. Towards you, would be your assessment of the 'impassioned' response based on what is written here by Daniel, since he is the only person defending it. That summary is quite impossible to reach based on just what is written. Just because a document is long, doesn't necessarily equates to it be 'impassioned.' To further illustrate why I don't feel you can use Daniel's observations to come to any conclusions, I'll submit the following two items. First he stated that the letter was full of lies. Since he hasn't read it, his assessment is only based on second hand knowledge. He could only prove or disprove anything written in it by what somebody else tells him about it. Second, he stated that his dad was a key player in the response and he has first hand knowledge of what went on. Unless he was in the meetings when they were writing and reviewing the material, his knowledge is still second hand (since the material was sensitive, I doubt Warren shared particular with his children.) And since the letter and response happen 12+ years ago, Daniel would have been around 10 or 11 years old. | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1794 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 200.147.137.249 |
strange, Daniel knows so much INSIDE business not to be a part...or someone has a very loose tongue. | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1795 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 200.147.137.249 |
strange, Daniel knows so much INSIDE business not to be a part...or someone has a very loose tongue. | ||
| wise_as_a_serpent Junior Member Username: wise_as_a_serpent Post Number: 37 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 69.176.48.179 |
Missionary Lady, in defense of Daniel, his father is an elder (I believe that this was related to me, forgive me if I'm wrong. If he isn't he would probably would make a good one) in Heritage Ministries. He has a good relationship with Daniel and I believe that I read in Daniel's postings that Daniel works for his dad. Therefore he can relate some pertinent information, albeit secondhand. | ||
| praxaluh Advanced Member Username: praxaluh Post Number: 960 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 74.73.4.159 |
Hi Folks, And you should realize that sometimes a persons comes to an honest and reasonable conclusion using a respected primary source. That can be a legitimate method of evaluation. So much depends on the source, the respect, the relationship, the clarity, the understanding. As for your 'impassioned' hobby horse, my sense is that HH does most of their activities and writings that way and I have participated in writings in process. So I am sharing from experience and discerning with a listening ear what is spoken here. HH is definitely passionate and zealous and dedicated in their beliefs. You may view that particular writing differently. (YMMV). That is fine. And I may give a fuller exposition some day, although I believe so much has moved on, even the principle fella involved, our friend on forum, that it may be a trap to belabor too much. What I share is consistent with what I am hearing and know. If you view that writing as umimpassioned from your reading then you are very welcome to share your counterpoint viewpoint. Have a fine weekend. May the name of the Lord Jesus Christ be magnified. . Shalom, Praxaluh | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1796 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 200.147.115.184 |
YES, I know his father is an elder so that is how he gets his half information... | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1797 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 200.147.115.184 |
YES, I know his father is an elder so that is how he gets his half information... | ||
| foreverhis Advanced Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 513 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 69.176.48.179 |
... his father is an elder (I believe that this was related to me, forgive me if I'm wrong. If he isn't he would probably would make a good one) in Heritage Ministries. I agree. | ||
| wise_as_a_serpent Junior Member Username: wise_as_a_serpent Post Number: 38 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 69.176.48.179 |
Praxaluh, thanks for the clarification. I was riding my 'hobby horse', because you corrected my earlier post with, Notice the introduction - "from what is written here". Now I see the goalposts have changed to include 'experience'. As I stated earlier, if you relied on just what was written here, it would have been improbable to come to the conclusion that you did. | ||
| foreverhis Advanced Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 514 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 69.176.48.179 |
I am not WS...but I DID read the response and even if my view won't be as welcomed, I will share it. More “babble”? for Prax… I viewed that writing as passionate... passionately vindictive to be exact. I was seriously embarrassed for the writers and HH at the time. It exposed character faults in CE, but it also exposed serious character flaws in HH leaders and writers. It showed vindictiveness to a point of hate and lack of integrity on their part. It did nothing to actually quiet the accusations. Even with me as a good lemming completely enamored with the leader and in the habit of taking their word as God's... I read it...not even knowing CE and thought, "He has some valid points... I wish they would at least consider what he is saying." The whole thing should have woken me up right then and there. The obvious seething hatred toward CE, the extreme desperateness to defend themselves...like a fit of paranoia...222 pages! It sickened me to read it. If it hadn't been required reading I wouldn't have made it through to the end. I hadn't even heard of CE or his letter until they made me read it with the response. They had no good reason to make it required reading except to show us what happens to whistle blowers. The threat worked for years. Now, I believe it has backfired. | ||
| dowen Advanced Member Username: dowen Post Number: 872 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.9.93.81 |
Oh man FH, you have so much stuff twisted around and backwards that I don't know where to begin. They had no good reason to make it required reading except to show us what happens to whistle blowers. Come on now! You're making this too easy for me, it is like shooting fish in a barrel. It is easy to think of a number of reasons HH would do what they did. They as a Church were slandered, and they responded to the accusations. It was only right that they should tell those who were slandered what the accusations were, and what the response to them was. The HH response had absolutely nothing to do with making an example out of CE. It had everything to do with addressing the issues CE brought up, and exposing the inaccuracies among them. Out of the dozens of folks who have left HH, please tell me one other person who was dealt with the way CE was. Besides, if HH had not shared with their members what CE had written, and their response to it, you would be all over them for "hiding" and being secretive. Even CE now says he regrets doing what he did, so why can't you stop with your political hay-making out of it? I don't know if CE realizes it, but by your obstinate refusal to let the issue die, you are only using him. It's really a shame. CE has said that he wished he had handled the issue differently, and I know HH would say the same, (and in fact they have, just not on FN) so why can't you let it die? The obvious seething hatred for CE I was seriously embarrassed for the writers and HH at the time. It exposed character faults in CE, but it also exposed serious character flaws in HH leaders and writers. It showed vindictiveness to a point of hate and lack of integrity on their part. Now this really bugs me. The other day I sat in my Dad's office, and asked him a few questions about this whole issue. We only spoke a few minutes, but I will never forget Dad saying that even though C. had caused him great pain, had put him into difficult situations etc. etc., he still had great hope and love for CE and hoped to one day be on good terms with him. So FH, for you to sit at your computer and accuse my Dad, and others at HH, of being hateful, driven by desire for vindication, and dishonest, is nothing but pure bigotry on your part. (Message edited by dowen on January 26, 2007) (Message edited by dowen on January 26, 2007) | ||
| trilogy New member Username: trilogy Post Number: 20 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 64.193.212.164 |
They as a Church were slandered, and they responded to the accusations. Actually, Dowen, when it's in writing it's libel, not slander. ;-) | ||
| dowen Advanced Member Username: dowen Post Number: 873 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.153.239.130 |
Good point, thanks. | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1798 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 200.147.120.163 |
One thing about it all the REAL JESUS will reveal all things ... | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1799 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 200.147.120.163 |
One thing about it all the REAL JESUS will reveal all things ... | ||
| common_sense Advanced Member Username: common_sense Post Number: 992 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 68.127.83.174 |
So FH, for you to sit at your computer and accuse my Dad, and others at HH, of being hateful, driven by desire for vindication, and dishonest, is nothing but pure bigotry on your part. So, Dowen, is it "nothing but pure bigotry on your part" when you sit at your computer and accuse FH and ML and SG and others "of being hateful, driven by desire for vindication, and dishonest"? Just wondering. | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1800 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 200.147.63.186 |
I sat with HW and he told me lies about the Crow family...I had NO CONTACT in any way with them and HW tried to destroy them to me when I asked why they left HH. HW did the same thing to ART...the difference was ART quit writing here when he found that HH was lieing and I keep writing here. Daniel cannot prove me a liar because I have ART's mail where he told me that and more...I just have not put it here in respect for ART. His family are also members of HH and he prayers that things will change...I too hope things will change but in my opinion I cannot back away until I see God move. | ||
| foreverhis Advanced Member Username: foreverhis Post Number: 515 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 12.162.187.129 |
CE has said that he wished he had handled the issue differently, and I know HH would say the same, (and in fact they have, just not on FN) so why can't you let it die? Is that it? You said earlier: About CE: Bottom line, it was nobodies fault but his own. ...The one who made mistakes in this case was C. HH did not accuse anybody of anything. They responded to accusations Ok they wished they had handled it differently... but they didn't make any mistakes or do anything wrong... they had no fault in it. They were just victims. NOT Are you saying they were justified in what they did? Is it like a child saying I’m sorry… (Not sorry I did it, but sorry I was caught.) I was justified in what I did, but…I should have done it a different way. In my last posts I shared the feelings I felt when I read it. I read it at a time when my bias was in favor of HH. I was being honest with my feelings. I can't judge their hearts when they wrote… all I can tell you is that when I read the so called "response" I felt it was passionately vindictive and hateful. It makes me sad to think your dad had anything to do with the libel against CE. To think that he did that to his friend... Even if CE was wrong... two wrongs don't make a right. Why didn't they just answer the allegations? Why expose his every sin from childhood on to strangers? FH, HH did not accuse anybody of anything. They responded to accusations. Big difference. No they did a lot more than respond to accusations... they exposed one of their sheep to complete strangers. It was sickening. The HH response had absolutely nothing to do with making an example out of CE. It had everything to do with addressing the issues CE brought up, and exposing the inaccuracies among them. Out of the dozens of folks who have left HH, please tell me one other person who was dealt with the way CE was. After CE won the case the members of HH were made to sign a waver of their rights to sue HH if HH did to the members what they had done to CE upon the member ever exposing the inner workings of HH. We had a choice, sign it or leave HH. What? Leave our only hope for salvation... it was spiritual blackmail; our eternal destiny hung on the line. Of course we signed. That threat has hung over me for years. No they haven't written a 222 page book about anyone else. They have decided to handle it differently... There is more than one way to slay the messenger if you can't deal with the message. Is it in the past DO? Or is HH still sharing personal/pastoral information about ex-members after they leave? Remember I was there when others left... I was told things I should not have been told... maybe it doesn't count because they were lies about the people and not true secrets. Is it in the past DO? Can you deny that they still tell personal information to others? If you can assure me in all integrity that they have not done this in the recent past, I will let it die. | ||
| missionary_lady Senior Member Username: missionary_lady Post Number: 1801 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 200.147.63.186 |
Why would a top elder lie to me an old missionary? Why not just tell the truth and say, Sister Alvear they feel different than we do...no use to try to destroy someone...people come and go everyday in the church world...just because some leaves my church does not mean they have left God... I am taking a group of our young people tomorrow to sing at a church that used to be in our organization... We are all humans some people do better at other churches than they would do at mine...some people do better at my church than they would do at other churches... The human personality is complex... Everybody that I asked HH about that had left there that I knew or knew of according to them that person has serious problems... I hear they say things about me...but it doesn't bother me what they say. I am the same person I was before going there only much wiser to cult tactics. I believe the same way, live the same way and dress the same way...That is really what bothers them...I did not change... | ||
| wise_as_a_serpent Junior Member Username: wise_as_a_serpent Post Number: 39 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 69.176.48.179 |
Daniel: In the legal sense, slander is oral and libel is written, but in common usage, slander is “a malicious, false and defamatory statement or report” (definition 2 from Dictionary.com). So when normal people talk, slander is one thing. When legal people talk it is something very specific. Since we are 'normal' people using 'slander' in lieu of 'libel' is, well, normal. When you state that the “…Church was slandered…”, but have never seen the letter, it is speculation on your part. If the church was slandered (libeled - in the legal sense), then they could have had a legal recourse against the slanderer. They did not pursue this legal option, which is their prerogative. But it doesn’t lend credence to your labeling it as slander. It is easy to think of a number of reasons HH would do what they did. Yes, there are a number of reasons, ForeverHis has stated one of them, you have stated another. Opinions, both, and we shall never really know the true motives of anybody’s heart. It was only right that they should tell those who were slandered what the accusations were, and what the response to them was. Here again, who was ‘slandered’? Was it the elders, the members, the doctrine or a combination of all? Did people who never heard of the letter within Homestead Heritage need to read it? Would it have not been better to be issued to only those directly affected? Personally, I don’t feel that I needed to read it. I probably have never met the person in question, I probably would have never seen the letter or probably would have never known anything about the entire affair. Instead I was introduced to material I really had no business knowing about. Somebody asked for my reflections on the letter and response, I’ll give a brief synopsis. Mind you, this is my opinion, based on the natural bias that I (and everybody else) has, and the passage of time. The letter was a rambling cause and effect prophecy. Because you have done this (doctrinally) this is what the future holds because of it. Wordy, sometimes hard to follow, but with what seemed to bring up some legitimate concerns. The response was lengthy. I read it, but because I felt that many of the concerns raised by the letter had not been answered adequately, I went through it a second time to specifically look for the answers to the concerns raised. Sorry to disillusion you Daniel, but the majority of the response was about the character of the letter writer, and not an answer to the specific concerns. I learned about, in detail, every vise that the letter writer had. None of this was needed. A simple refutation of the ‘accusations’ was all that was necessary. Unfortunately it did invoke the thoughts of ‘kill the messenger”. And with that, I will probably not post about what was in the letter and response again. For without a full disclosure of letter and response, the majority of what is posted will be speculation. | ||
| under_grace Intermediate Member Username: under_grace Post Number: 380 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 24.155.5.115 |
Hey Everyone, DO if your dad is not reading this site please express to him ditto to him for what he said about me. There are eight places in my home that I have a small poster that reads “With God all things are possible.” Though I have some faithless days I do believe that is true and there is still hope for us. I came out of the closet as it were because with the article coming out and my letter and the response being included I wanted to express my thoughts on the matter. I could not do that as Under Grace. Please allow me to clarify a couple of things. Before I joined Emmaus my best friend in the world and covenant brother (as in the Jonathan and David mold) was DO’s uncle. Not far behind was DO’s dad. My father died when I was only twenty-one and DO’s grandfather became my mentor and father in my dad’s place. There were no bonds closer. When I joined Emmaus (HH) soon afterwards DO’s dad and uncle joined as well. Everything made perfect sense at the time, though our twin boys were only about eighteen months we knew we wanted to home school--everyone in Emmaus home schooled. We wanted to home birth--everyone in Emmaus home birthed. We had made the decision to give up our TV--no one had a TV in Emmaus. We were tired of playing church and there was no question that everyone we met in Emmaus were serious about church. Match made in heaven. We were members in Emmaus for about three and a-half years. For a number of reasons we were disassociated. When my wife and I were disassociated it took us away from the relationships that I cared most about, the two men and their families that I mention above. Another brother I went to high school with and some others I had attended church with before Emmaus as well as the new folks I met when I joined. When you are disassociated you are in limbo. The only contact I had with Emmaus was through my group leader. My contact with him was a phone call every week. You could not go to other churches as it would prove that you were not really wanting to get back in. You could have no fellowship (a meal or having someone over or vise versa) with any member in Emmaus. If you saw someone in town they may or may not speak depending on the person. It was a lonely existence. We spent most of weekends at the large flee market in Austin. continued next post.... | ||
| under_grace Intermediate Member Username: under_grace Post Number: 381 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 24.155.5.115 |
Under Grace continued.... Toward the end of the seventh year after joining Emmaus we had twin daughters (they just turned thirteen this past October) we left a small trailer house and move in with a cousin in Georgetown (all nine of us). Right after we moved to another house in Georgetown I had a dream. That dream is what I wrote in the letter. Right after that I told my group leader that we were done. I spent many hours writing the fourteen page letter over the next three months. The dream covered a little less than half the letter. The rest of the letter was my personal observations. I read the letter a couple of years ago (not the response) and the only thing that I can think of that would be personal (or as DO says slander) were two comments. One was Emmaus’s attitude regarding a brother’s home birth. When we had the meeting to resolve the law-suit I ask him to forgive me for placing a motive where there was none. He said he accepted my apology. The other comment was the one Yeoman brought up about the tragedy of a former member. As Yeoman said and to my knowledge that incident was not mentioned in the pre-law suit meeting nor in the response. What I did come against was doctrine and the patterns established by the leadership in Emmaus. I also wrote against what I believe to the result of the false doctrine and patterns in Emmaus. I wrote initially that an attorney came to me and that is true. Though he did come to me I do not want to give the impression that he some how tricked me into bringing the lawsuit. All he did was give me precedent that I did have a case should I want to pursue it. After we had the meeting I pondered for several days if I should go through with it. The attorney and my friend that brought him said if you let this group do this to you and do nothing then they will do this to everyone that leaves and tries to tell them what they think. Still the scripture says do not drag a brother into court and I did not know whether to do it or not. While I was searching and praying I was in a local restaurant around 3PM and only about three people were in this large place. I felt God tell me to go over to a guy sitting several tables over and ask him if I should do this or not. I wrestled with that for several minutes as I was sure he would think I was crazy. Finally I went over to the table and just said you may think this is crazy but should I bring a lawsuit against Emmaus fellowship. His response was “yes absolutely! My wife and I tried for seven years to become a member. I was sitting here trying to think of a way I could communicate to the leadership in HH how I think they have missed the mark in what the gospel is all about. Maybe this would get their attention and some things could change.” Also, I would like make a side note here, a few days before I decided how much (in dollars) the law suit should be for another one of DO’s uncles not in HH called me and ask me not to try for a large settlement as he did not think it fair to his brother after what he had done for me (meaning the things he had done for me in a good way which DO’s dad did treat me very well and it I who did repay in kind). I agreed. continued next post..... | ||
| under_grace Intermediate Member Username: under_grace Post Number: 382 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 24.155.5.115 |
Under Grace continued.... I mention this because many people including the attorney said I could probably get a large settlement not only because of the merit of the suit but because it so was so soon after the David Karesh incident that a jury could be swayed just from that. Again I will repeat, the attorney involved after the resolution meeting changed his mind and now would lean toward HH. I am sure he regrets ever bringing the law suit based on his demeanor now. The book (response) was not entirely about me. It was also an exhausted rebuttal to every doctrine and practice that I challenged. As far as I can remember there was not a single thing I brought up that was not refuted. As DO says everything in the letter was treated as lies and slander. In the thirteen years that have followed since I wrote the letter I do not know of any doctrine or pattern that I challenged that HH would today say is wrong. I did indicate as DO has said that they to would probably handle things differently if it happened today. I am not going to judge their motives regarding the response. I will say that they gave me way to much credit for the motives behind my letter. You would have to read the response to catch that. What was contained in the response about me for the most part was true. The parts that were not true were details and minor incidents it is like “you hit your sister and kicked the cat”, you respond “I did not kick the cat”, you get my meaning. The law suit was not about whether they were telling the truth about my checkered past, but whether the pastors I had confided in repeated what I had confessed in private. It is not anything I could be proud of. What I regret is I did not wake up and smell the coffee and realize I needed a character over haul and only God could do it. I regret that I hid behind others sympathy and used that sympathy to my advantage. I regret I have not used as the response often says my God given abilities to provide for my family better nor have I handled my finances well. As one of the brothers wrote in the response I have a reputation of talking the walk but not walking the talk. That is by far the nicest thing that was said about me in that response. JL if you listening out there you hit the nail on the head. Thanks brother. I am still working on that In spite of my pity party God through circumstances of my own making is working Godliness into my life. God gave my wife and I eight children and even my enemies admit they are incredible all going after God with a passion. I have a wife who loves me and I have a church that I am a part where brothers are willing to speak into my life and I am responding. There is actually a church that the pastor knows everything about me and still has me come once a month or so to preach, it is hard to believe that there are some who are struggling even more than I am. continued next post..... | ||
| under_grace Intermediate Member Username: under_grace Post Number: 383 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 24.155.5.115 |
Under Grace concluded.... My prayer is that maybe some of these things written here will go past the first line of defense and hit the mark. No group is perfect. Isn’t it a possibility that there are some doctrines that need to be examined and re-visted? I am not talking about dress or diet, I am talking about the fact that this can not be the only group on the face of the planet that has covenant church right. I will say again to my knowledge not one thing I challenged or came against was accepted as the truth, though almost everything I challenged has been brought up on this discussion board. As FH said there were some things changed like signing an agreement not to ever have some one leave and file a law suit, (a pre-nuptial agreement as it were). Just standing back an making an observation doesn’t it make sense that if hundreds of people divorce you, break covenant and leave hurt and bitter (many not ever entering marriage again) that all of the problem can’t be with the people who leave don’t you think some of the problem might lie on the other side.? Food for thought. Under Grace | ||
| trilogy Junior Member Username: trilogy Post Number: 30 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 66.69.157.80 |
In the legal sense, slander is oral and libel is written, but in common usage, slander is “a malicious, false and defamatory statement or report” (definition 2 from Dictionary.com). So when normal people talk, slander is one thing. When legal people talk it is something very specific. Since we are 'normal' people using 'slander' in lieu of 'libel' is, well, normal. It seems, Wise, that you got your entire def. from dictionary.com. Webster says it's an "utterance" and so does the AP. There is no distinction between "common" and "law" use. | ||
| trilogy Junior Member Username: trilogy Post Number: 31 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 66.69.157.80 |
Further info. on slander vs. libel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel :-) |
