Joe Taylor Invites Doug Phillips To Peacemaker Mediation
This past Saturday, April 21, 2007, Joe Taylor attempted to have Doug Phillips served a letter at Vision Forum’s offices. Joe didn’t want to give Doug an opportunity to ignore a letter in the mail, or refuse a certified letter, so a legal process server was hired to ensure that Doug would receive Joe’s letter.
Vision Forum’s web site had advertised their annual open house was taking place on April 21. Vision Forum also announced that Doug would be available from 2:00 through 4:30 PM for a book signing. This was the obvious logical time to have the process server come to Vision Forum. But Doug never received Joe’s letter.
The entire incident of the process server’s story is in itself very intriguing and was, at least for me and several others who now know the story, quite humorous. But to hear it, you’ll have to come back Monday.
Here is Joe Taylor’s letter to Doug Phillips, posted here as a Public Notice.
April 20, 2007
Joe Taylor
Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum
124 W. Main, P.O. Box 550,
Crosbyton, TX 79322Douglas W. Phillips
Vision Forum, Inc.
4719 Blanco Rd.
San Antonio, TX 78212“Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Matt. 5:23-24
Dear Doug,
I apologize for this request being served to you during your busy schedule, but you are gone a lot, and hard to reach.
In addition, the recent judgment from arbitration with the Pete DeRosas and myself has only served to heighten the unresolved conflicts between you and me.
In 2003, you wrote me to complain of my privately exposing your “documentary” video, “Raising The Allosaur.” This review was not actually made public then. However, why shouldn’t it be? Every film that comes out is reviewed and often very negatively.
In your letter to me of January 20, 2003, as well as other correspondence, you have taken the position that my exposure of your video somehow makes me guilty of “slander” and that what I have done “would be actionable defamation in any court of law.” You have accused me of “speaking evil of brothers without working through the biblical guidelines for conflict resolution.” You have accused me of many other things as well, all without any supporting evidence. For example, you’ve accused me of “blackmail.” You’ve even accused me of “anti-Semitism,” a truly outrageous allegation. I have many hundreds of pages of evidence, not to mention hundreds of photographs and many hours of video tape that I believe unequivocally makes my case.
You accuse me that, “You have consistently and willfully refused to follow any biblical guidelines for conflict resolution, notwithstanding our repeated recommendations to you to do just this.”
Yet, many of the very things that you have accused me of are the very things that you yourself are guilty of. And contrary to your accusations, I tried many times to meet with you and practice Matthew: 18, which you so often and loudly demand.
I agreed to mediation with you and Pete DeRosa both. You agreed as well. The problem is that while Pete and I made an appearance and signed the mediation agreement, you never even showed up. And you, Doug, the one who was so insistent, never signed the agreement. Needless to say, nothing has truly been “resolved” by the alleged “conflict resolution.”
It appears to me that the mediation was more a means to silence me and prevent further exposure of un-Christian deeds than it was to resolve conflicts.
I’ve attempted to resolve my differences with you many times. The fact that you evaded signing the mediation agreement doesn’t mean that our issues are resolved or that these problems have just gone away. I’m sure that you’re more than aware of the need to address our disputes. The Word tells us, “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” (Rom. 12:18)
Many friends and associates in the past several years encouraged me to sue you, but I did not because I thought you were a Christian brother. (I Cor. 6:1-8)
Your January 20, 2003 letter states, “We are committed to following biblical guidelines of conflict resolution, arbitration and church discipline.”
I’d like to give you the opportunity to prove that you are sincere about that by extending the offer to you to discuss biblically-based Christian conflict resolution with me.
I’m told that Peacemaker Ministries claims that both their mediation and arbitration are biblically-based. Decisions can also be binding, and it is recommended that we agree to the details of this in advance.
All I’m asking you for at this time is a simple written “yes, I will discuss this with you,” or “no, I will not,” answer. The details would be worked out later. Please have a written response in my hands by May 5, 2007.
My offer is genuine, and made in the interests of the whole creationist as well as the home school community.
Doug, there has been entirely too much strife between us. It should be put to an end. “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” Phil. 2:3
In the bonds of Christ Jesus,
Joe Taylor
If you don’t know the story behind this letter, you may read it here.


May 7, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Thank you Vik, but I wasn’t asking you.
“He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like on that taketh a dog by the ears.” Pro. 26:17
May 7, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Theophilus, this comment section is a kind of forum, so that Scripture reference you just gave strikes me as a little arrogant. Both Vic and you are allowed to comment here.
One could just as well say you yourself are meddling with strife not belonging to you just by asking Jen the questions you are asking, and just by participating here.
May 7, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Theo said:
“Thank you Vik, but I wasn’t asking you.”
You’re welcome smarty, but sometimes if the Epsteins are gone awhile, you don’t get a response right away WHICH WAS WHY I SAID: (ahem)
“She’ll have a more thorough answer, I’m sure.”
Anyway, around here people respond to each other’s comments. Get used to it.
May 7, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Oh, thanks Lynn. After I posted I see you answered him Theo already.
May 7, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Gawsh, now that’s grammar for you. Let’s try again.
“Oh, thanks Lynn. After I posted I saw You had answered Theo already.”
I suspect it’s another one of those Reformed men; tends to give my fingers a mind of their own.
May 7, 2007 at 5:48 pm
ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!! Understood completely….. ;D
May 7, 2007 at 8:38 pm
“One could just as well say you yourself are meddling with strife not belonging to you just by asking Jen the questions you are asking, and just by participating here.”
One could certainly say that and I considered it myself. However, I (along with many “homeschool leaders”) were involved in this dispute when the Epsteins sent an unsolicited letter warning about Doug Phillips.
So, where is Jen’s “more thorough answer?”
May 7, 2007 at 8:40 pm
That should have been “I (along…) became involved, etc.
That’s the problem with using parenthetic phrases.
No way to edit here.
May 7, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Mr. Theo, not that you care, but do you see now why I went ahead and gave a brief answer? I do that at times for “newbies” because I don’t want them to think they are being ignored. You essentially thanked me with an insult.
My brief response was given because (I’ll say it again) Jen is not always available to comment whenever we like! She is AWAY from her computer and probably out with her family. She spends a lot of time on this blog, but she doesn’t live on it.
“No way to edit here.”
I hear you. I was told if I went through “Foxfire” that it underlines errors as you type. I haven’t tried that yet.
May 7, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Theopholis,
Well, considering it has been months since Mr. Chancey promised us a new installment where he would make known who Frank Vance really was and all the players in this cabal, conspiracy or what have you, I would say Jen is pretty quick to put out articles.
I also want to hear the whole story about David Linton. Maybe Mr. Linton is lying on a beach somewhere trying to evade the authorities? I know sometimes our government can persuade those countries who do not extradite to do just that. I hope that he has time to tell his story between Pina Coladas and having his BMW outfitted with the latest spy equipment.
I love stories with lots of action, intrigue, suspense and conspiracy.
Something just sounds fishy with VF’s version. I think it is the National Enquirer (as some people have described it) style of writing. I wonder if some other judge can review this whole silly mess to see if he merited the accusations leveled at him? I also want to know if his boss was tipped off and told to look into it or if, as VF alludes, his boss just happened upon his involvement in this conspiratorial cabal. I know it is redundant to use those words together but they seem to go together on the SFU, BCA and VF sites. I also see that other church members and employees are now publically saying how thankful that Jen’s fellow conspirators are being caught and are facing punishment.
That word “cabal” just packs a punch! I love it. I use it a lot now. My children often form a cabal and sneak into the garage to get freeze pops for all the neighbor children. I have caught them in their plot and they have been formally punished for their vile deeds.
Sometimes having a sense of humor is the only way to approach these sorts of things. I would probably have been persuaded to take BCA’s statements more seriously if it were not for SFU and Mrs. B and all the inflated and sensationalistic rhetoric. I was educated in the public school system and I took several classes that taught me to look at things like this and use critical thinking skills to see through what is being said and to be wary when you see a pattern.
May 7, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Corrie writes,
“Maybe Mr. Linton is lying on a beach somewhere trying to evade the authorities?”
Better that, than lying on a blog while trying to evade the truth… or the process servers.
Just sayin’.
May 8, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I have wasted a good deal of time reading through the postings by the various parties involved and my original judgement has been confirmed; that there has been a gross lack of wisdom by all parties.
That being said, I cannot help being amused at what “the other side” considers as “refutations” of the charges made by this site.
Having read through the postings at the BCA website, I cannot discern that they contain any “refutation” of the Epstein’s complaints (that does not mean such refutations don’t exist), not are they really even thrid party statements about the complaints.
The “statement” by FCA is really a recapitulation by BCA with a handful of quotes thrown in (apparently the readers are too stupid to interpret what FCA is saying).
The statement from LWF simply says that there are no “issues” between them and BCA.
All that can be concluded from the various statements is that they “recognize” BCA as an independent church with a right to excommunicate (when I was growing up, we called it “disfellowshiping” – not that it was done much) recalcitrant members.
I cannot see anywhere that they endorse or confirm the basis of BCA’s action.
So, why am I posting here? Because none of “their” sites allow comments. It’s what I call “hit and run” bloging (two Gs?) or, as we say in So. Cal, “drive-by blogging” )two Gs looks better).
May 8, 2007 at 9:09 pm
This is a personal not to Mark and Jennifer.
I don’t know you and I don’t know the details of what did or did not take place. I do know that there is an impulse to vindicated when you believe you have been wronged: I know this from personal experience. I also know that things are seldom, if ever, made right by what you have done and are doing.
A couple of years ago, after being dumped by a Christian organization to which I had given faithful service for nearly 20 years, I wanted everyone to know what had happened. I spent hours drafting letters outling what had happened (much like you have done here); I did this as recently as last week.
Upon reflection, I realized that no one could make things right, except the other party and that is not going to happen.
The writing is a form of catharsis; the publishing would profit nothing.
I delete the letters and try to get on with things. That is my counsel to you. Otherwise, you become possessed by the grievance.
May 8, 2007 at 9:21 pm
SJ says:
“I’m not an intern (nor have I ever been)
I’m not Doug Phillips (or a member of his family)
I’m not R.C. Sproul (or a member of his family)
I’m not a member of BCA (although I’ve attended there)
I’m not an employee of Vision Forum (but yes I know a few)
I’m not Matt Chancey (or a member of his family)”
Assuming all this is true, I am compelled to ask (Vik, please note) “then why are you acting as an advocate for these people?”
Is Doug not capable of speaking for himself (his signature is not on any of the documents I’ve seen).
Do the postings at BCA not “speak” (or “not” speak) for themselves?
Do the attorneys not speak for themselves?
Who are you?
May 9, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Theo., people aren’t checking this thread anymore and I don’t think anyone realizes you’re posting here. I checked it in case you had. I would like to invite you to join the latest thread about “The Doug Phillips’ School of Logical Fallacies” and jump right in. And ask the same questions you’ve been asking even if they only pertain to this thread.
Now, why did you want me to note that? I noted it, but I can’t see where I said anything about it. I might have.
I left an abusive situation also, and just went on ahead to “shake the dust off” my feet and move on with my life. Doug… is a very well-known public figure and Jen is trying to prevent tyranny against others. She notes things in detail in order for others to see Doug’s duplicity and histrionics, and vague statements. He loves big words and theatrics, and uses them whenever he gets a chance.
Anyway, join us in one of the newer threads, if you’re so compelled.