Vision Forum: Culture of Deception by Doug Phillips’ Example?

“Mom, that was such a great birthday present!” ~~Natasha Epstein

Vision Forum’s widely advertised Open House on Saturday, April 21, 2007, promised lots of excitement and fun. With exclusive book signings, clearance specials, and workshops planned, this event portended a large turnout. Complete with refreshments and decorations and cops, it was a gala event.

Wait a minute! Did I say “cops?” What were the cops doing at a Vision Forum Open House? The last time we went to one of their Open Houses, there were several hundred people in attendance, but I don’t remember seeing any cops. In fact, I’ve attended many Vision Forum events and I don’t recall ever seeing any cops.

Oh, well, let’s get on with our coverage of this grand event. It seems that things were a little slow ’round about mid-afternoon. Vision Forum announced on their web site and their email list that Doug would be doing a book signing from 2:00 PM to 4:30 PM. Anyone who wanted to meet Doug should have had no trouble doing so between those hours. Then the excitement suddenly began to pick up. In fact, for Doug Phillips, things suddenly got very exciting. Exciting as in heart-pumping, adrenaline-rush “Oh no! What do I do?” exciting. They say that a man’s true character is best shown when the veneer of his superficial exterior is suddenly stripped away by an event that catches him totally off-guard. That’s exactly what happened to Doug last Saturday.

The significant thing that I want my readers to see from this story is the fact that not only is Doug Phillips a deceiver, and that he told a whopper of a lie, Doug Phillips has created an entire culture of institutionalized deception within Vision Forum. Not only did perpetrate a deception last Saturday at the Vision Forum offices in front of multiple witnesses, including his own wife, he orchestrated the broader deception by instructing his staff that were present to lie for him, too. They all knew that he was on the premises, but they deceived someone who came there looking for him with “He’s not here.” Like the “honorable” people that Doug has trained them to be, they were only too eager to assist with Doug’s duplicity.

The following is the story of two people who were in attendance Saturday afternoon with Doug Phillips, ever so briefly, prior to being escorted off the premises. The one was a legal process server. The other is my daughter, Natasha. At the request of the process server and his company, I have blurred their names on the official notarized legal affidavit.

This entire incident took place on Natasha’s birthday. She called to tell me that Doug had given her one of the best birthday presents she’d ever received. Natasha now wants to reciprocate Doug’s thoughtfulness by including her personal testimony in this article.

Process Server: “Location is a business, Vision Forum. I first arrived at 3:07 PM. It appears they were having an open-house style function to develop more business. A man wearing a yellow Polo-style shirt greeted me as I entered the main entrance. The man appeared to me to be a security person. I mentioned I had a delivery for Mr. Phillips and he directed me to a young man named Peter [Last Name Unknown]. When I told Peter I had a personal delivery for Mr. Phillips, I was escorted down a few stairs into a warehouse-looking storage area. A table was positioned sideways in front of where I stood. There, I met Joshua Wean, CFO for Vision Forum, Inc., standing with three ladies. He stated he could sign for anything being delivered. At this point I informed him I was a process server and needed to deliver to Doug Phillips personally. I was escorted by Peter and Joshua into an office, apparently so as not to disturb the function and to discuss the situation privately. A person dressed in a Hollywood Park Police Officer uniform also stood inside the office door as we spoke. Joshua insisted he was able to sign for all company business. I informed him that what I have is addressed to Doug Phillips, not Vision Forum, therefore, as a process server I could not and did not feel comfortable leaving the package with him, since I did not know the contents of the documents being delivered. I then stated, “All I need to do is hand Mr. Phillips the letter and depart. Mr. Phillips won’t have to sign for anything.” Joshua and Peter wanted to know what the letter was about. I stated that it had something to do with a dispute over a movie or video, but that I didn’t know the specific details since I hadn’t read the letter. (I had put the letter it into an envelope and sealed it, before making the delivery.) At this point, Joshua discussed scheduling the delivery for Sunday or Monday. I said it would be illegal for me to deliver the documents on Sunday; however, I would make a call to get permission for Monday. I made the call and was told the package needed to be delivered that day because Doug Phillips was supposed to be there. I asked if Doug was on the premises and Joshua stated “Doug was scheduled to leave at 2:00 PM for another engagement”. By this time it was already approximately 3:15 PM, well past the time that Joshua told me that Doug was scheduled to leave. However, I was suspicious about this, since I had been specifically instructed that my best time to catch Doug Phillips at the event would be between 2:00 and 4:30 PM. It was because of that information that I arrived at 3:07 PM, to make sure that I would make an attempt during the time specified in my instructions. Joshua then made a phone call. Based upon the content of the conversation, it appeared to me that he was talking to Doug Phillips. Joshua asked him, “Are you still here?” After a few moments while Joshua listened, a response was relayed through Joshua, who asked, “Where are the documents from?” I informed them that I didn’t know for sure, but I could open the letter in front of everyone to determine where it was from if that would be agreeable to Mr. Phillips. (I made this offer with the understanding that the person on the phone was Doug Phillips, and that he was giving his permission for me to open and read the document). It was relayed through Joshua that I should open and read the letter to find out who it was from. I opened the letter and said it was from Joe Taylor at Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum. After a few “OKs” and “That’s what I needed,” Joshua hung up the phone. Joshua then stated “Mr. Phillips is not here.” He also said Doug Phillips would not be accepting anything from Joe Taylor and that all documents needed to be directed to their attorney. Joshua looked up and gave me the info for the attorney on a sticky yellow note. Don Hart, 7389 FM 3405 Liberty Hill, TX 78642. I shook hands with Joshua and Peter, thanked them, departed and called my superiors.”

Natasha: “The process server came and went, and then a friend and I showed up and walked in the doors around 4:15 PM. The first people we saw were the Ringers. I spotted Doug right behind them signing a book. I only saw one other family in attendance. The Ringers kept staring at me and whispering, and right after that, Doug looked my way and immediately bolted into his office. Some guy I didn’t recognize followed him. Beall peeked around the corner and saw me and whipped out her cell and started talking on it while she looked at me a couple times. This all happened within 2 minutes of my walking in the door. As soon as that all happened I called the process server’s boss while I was still standing by the front door and she said the process server was going to call me. So I moved and browsed around and Peter Bradrick came and said hello to my friend and me. The process server called at that time and I told him that Doug was in the building but he was hiding and I gave him a description. He showed up a few minutes later and two little girls at the front door asked him to fill out some sheet to enter in a drawing, and then I showed him what Doug looked like in a video that they had playing on a TV in the lobby and he took description notes.”

Process Server: “Around 4:00 PM I received a call from my superiors, directing me to return to Vision Forum and meet with a young lady, last name of Epstein. I was told that Ms. Epstein knew for certain that Doug is at the function now and she could point him out to me. When I arrived at 4:15 PM, I met Miss Epstein inside the foyer entrance. She said that Doug Phillips had spotted her, recognized her, and immediately ducked inside the office to the right. Miss Epstein also said she was seen by Doug’s wife and would probably be asked to depart at any minute. Miss Epstein pointed to a video playing on the lobby TV. She said it was Doug, so I studied the video for a few moments.”

Natasha: “We stood there for about two minutes when Josh Wean and three other Vision Forum employees came over and Josh said that this was private property and was going to have to ask us to leave.”

Process Server: “Just as I was about to fully enter the main area, another man dressed in a yellow Polo-style shirt (security?) approached us, said that this was private property and that we would have to leave. As instructed, Miss Epstein and I quickly left the building.”

Natasha: “So we exited the building and I turned around as I was walking out the door and said, ‘Nice seeing you again, Josh.’”

Process Server: “Once outside, Peter, the man who asked us to leave, and another man stood in front of the doors as if preventing entry back into Vision Forum. I spoke to Miss Epstein and told her the parking lot was also considered private property and that we should leave before anything else happened.”

Natasha: “Then we walked over to the process server’s car and talked about it and he said there was nothing he could do at the the moment because private property trumped what he was doing and that maybe he could have someone else come over and give it to him now that he had a description and all. Peter Bradrick and two others stood outside this whole time watching us and waiting for us to leave, so then we got in our cars to leave.”

Process Server: “As I was driving away, Peter flagged me down to ask why I came back for a second time. I said someone had identified Doug Phillips at the function, after I had departed the first time, and was told they would identify him to me so that I could make the delivery. Peter asked who hired me to which I could not give him the answer since I did not know. I showed him the top portion of the letter addressed with Joe Taylor’s contact information. Peter then asked for my business card, which I gave him; then I drove away.”
__________________

The process server’s boss appreciated Natasha’s assistance in verifying that Doug was indeed on the premises, and visually identifying Mr. Phillips for the process server, since both the VF employees and Doug Phillips lied about him not being there.

According to the Texas Rules of Civil Process, a process server has every right and reason to be on a property to do the job they are appointed to do. As a lawyer, Doug knows that. Doug also knows that a process server is an “officer of the court.” Doug orchestrated a deception on an officer of the court.

What I don’t understand is why he was asking the process server to leave, based on the private property trump card, when he was supposedly conducting a business function that was open to the public.

With all Doug’s talk last week about Christian men needing to be armed, I wonder why he was so afraid of a 20 year old young lady that he felt the need to run and hide in his office when Natasha arrived. What also doesn’t make sense is why he would run away and lie, and have his employees lie for him, over a letter from Joe Taylor. Joe isn’t even suing Doug. But this kind of avoidance is SOP for Doug.

Doug’s deceptive actions, and the deceptive example he sets for his employees, should really make people wonder whether anything he says can be trusted.

563 Responses to “Vision Forum: Culture of Deception by Doug Phillips’ Example?”

  1. Pensees Says:

    Hmm!

    “K”, are you out there?

    “SNT” who are you trusting now?

    “Ann” It seems DP is running from a challenge; not being the strong “patriarch” he’d like all dads to be.

    But, I forgot. The process server is another “liar.”

  2. Lucy Says:

    Pensees - They’re probably still around — and probably shouldn’t be spoken for by any of us — but if they’re anything like me, then they’re deeply saddened by what’s happening here. And you should be, too.

    No one should be enjoying this.

  3. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Doug orchestrated a deception on an officer of the court.”

    Is that a misdemeanor or a felony?

  4. Lynn Says:

    Pensees, though, why quit now? Make up some questions for Little Bear Wheeler and his church, and Faith Presbyterian Church, too. Oh, and Matt Chancey and Micheal Metzler while you are at it.

    Yeah, affidavit or no affidavit, the process server must be a liar. Yeah, that’s it. And there was no moon landing, either. And — look out for the black helicoptors!!!!! :O

    Just like “all” of us “know” that is Jen in the MW masthead picture (something actually said by one of Doug’s supporters). When it was pointed out what a stupid assertion that was, the commenter said he knew “everybody” knew it was Jen, and anybody’s *self-report* stating they *didn’t* believe it was Jen was a lie, thus covering up the fact that they really *did* think it was Jen. When I read that one, it actually made me laugh, but it ought to have made me cry, because I realized then what a God-complex some of Doug’s defenders have, in so arrogantly proclaiming what we all believe.

    Off-line, Jen said Doug teaches his interns logic. This scares me, because *if* what I have read *is* coming from some interns in these comments, either Doug can’t teach them logic, whether they can learn or not, or else Doug can teach it and they can’t learn it, or else, and this is the *most* likely scenario, Doug CAN teach logic, and most of them CAN learn it, and in an unChristlike fashion they break the rules left and right, to gain whatever advantage they want.

    I have a lot on my mind with respect to this whole situation, and I guess I may as well unload it a bit at a time. There is this whole diabolical factor which at times scares me. I’m not calling people demons, here, nor am I saying anyone is demonized, but I am continually reminded of one line from The Screwtape Letters, by CS Lewis, when thinking of some of the more obvious stunts of illogic some in here have tried to make in support of Phillips.

    CS Lewis, who in the Screwtape letters, had the advisor telling his demon nephew to stop trying to properly argue with a man in order to tempt him. He said, that the enemy (Christ) could argue too, but that in the “purely practical” propaganda, Jesus was shown to be far inferior to “our father below.” That would include all manner of deception, innuendo, etc. INCLUDING the employment of every logical fallacy one could think of — guilt by association, changing the subject, red herrings, argumentum ad populum, shooting the messenger, and a host of others.

    If people *knowingly* engage in these kinds of fallacies in order to persuade, does this please the Lord? Are these kinds of behaviors what a Christian should do with fellow Christians? The answer to both questions is “no.”

  5. Pensees Says:

    Lucy,

    Your gentle chastening is gratefully accepted. Please understand, I am grieving right now for a family that I have seen be damaged by their wholesale acceptance of DP/VF’s “patriarchal” vision.

    Thanks (and I mean that).

  6. Lucy Says:

    I believe you…..I don’t personally know anyone harmed by VF, so I can’t truly relate, but I can appreciate what appears to be driving you.

    The truth of the matter is that anytime we cling to our own wisdom (or another human’s wisdom) rather than God’s, there’s always chaos. That goes for VF, and that goes for this blog as well.

  7. Marie Says:

    Without a name for the process server or the name of his company, there can be absolutely no verification of this story. Without the ability to verify any of it, it is just a story. If the only “witness” you have are your daughter (no bias there) and a process server from a company of which refuse to give the name, there is absolutely no “proof” to back any of this up. Is there a name or company name on the “notarized legal affidavit?” If not, they how are we expected to believe this? Because you say so? Because your daughter says so? If this man and his company are really “officers of the court” as you say, they should understand the need for verification. Otherwise all of this could just simply have been concocted to serve your purpose.

  8. Pensees Says:

    Marie,

    Let’s give this some careful thought.

    Do you really think that Jen is so duplicitous that she would make up a story so full of details, times, names, clothing types, etc.?

    Also, if the story is false, do you think she would be so stupid as to post this falsehood for the world to see, knowing that there are a hundred people out there who could reveal its deceit?

    Jen/Natasha are either telling the truth or they are profoundly mentally unstable.

  9. Jen Says:

    Marie, the process server’s church just “happened” to have some very close ties to Vision Forum and this incident has upset him terribly. For the protection of his church, he has asked us not to use his name. I have the same standing offer that I always do, though. If this isn’t 100% true, I welcome Doug’s rebuttal. Have you seen him deny even one specific charge I have laid at his feet yet?

  10. Jean Says:

    My, my. If this account of events is true, Doug is certainly behaving like an elementary child. Hiding from the playground monitor, er…I mean process server. Lying in front of buddies…interns. Peering around corners to see if the girl…Natasha…is gone.

    This kind of childish behavior reminds me of the Brady Bunch episode when the boys break a prized vase after playing ball inside and then try to hide their action by gluing the broken pieces back together. (Shhh! Nobody will know. We won’t get in trouble.) Works for a while, but eventually the vase leaks all over the dining room table and the boys’ have a double portion of trouble.

    It’s looking like Doug’s vase has started leaking a bit.

    I do not at all agree with Natasha’s decision to be at Vision Forum that day. Her motives appear to be self-centered and she knows better than to find joy in another’s pain. And I really don’t like how this installment began:

    ““Mom, that was such a great birthday present!” ~~Natasha Epstein”

    I cannot let my displeasure with Natasha’s action, and Jen’s decision to play it up, cloud the real matter, however. Doug Phillips has a LOT of explaining to do.

    Have a pleasant day,

    Jean

  11. Lynn Says:

    If you have been following the story of Joe Taylor closely, it is clear Doug has NO problems dealing with people to silence them. It is highly unlikely, knowing how QUICKLY Doug dealt with Joe after his comments on MW. They were NOT going after Taylor because Taylor said something untrue, btw. But they went after him quickly. So I don’t believe Doug would be SLOW to deal with this, which he wants us to THINK is a lie. Lying is far more serious, far, far, more serious an issue.

    I believe it is likely that that affidavit is true.

    Everybody, please consider the following:

    1) Doug has publicly stated that he doesn’t have biblical qualms about sueing excommunicants and “internet assassins.”

    2) In the obscure VF link, Ed Watt said Joe Taylor was being called on what they considered to be a breach of his original arbitration (the arbitration which made Doug pull the movie).

    So if Doug isn’t going after Jen for lying on this blog the way he went after Joe, who WASN’T gone after for lying about the allosaur movie, this means two things:

    a) Doug does have the goods on Jen, far more so than on anything Joe Taylor ever dreamed of, and is He is being WILDLY INCONSISTENT in his behavior, or,

    b) Doug knows the Epsteins are telling the truth, and knows full well he can’t pursue this legally and win, and so he is trying to win now by, once again, trying to cast doubt here.

    The problem is, this isn’t a court of law, and while we need standards of proof, belief and trust may also be factored in here. Whom do you believe?

    That Jen and Natasha would fabricate this and put it on the internet, knowing how quickly Ed Watt told us Phillips was going after Taylor, for something far less serious than telling lies? That all Doug and co. is going to do is just try to cast doubt here, when we know just what they did to Joe?

    I don’t think so . . . if this were a fabrication, it would be off the internet, and the Epsteins would be in arbitration or in court in a New York minute.

    Natasha, Jen, I’m stating publicly that I believe the affidavit you put up is legit. Thank you for warning all of us in the homeschool community about this.

  12. Marie Says:

    Well, she has had no problem putting the rest of her “story” on this blog. So I don’t think falsehoods and twisted truths are a problem for her.

    But the point of my post was that with no way of verification, we are expected to believe this because she said so. I also think that, as Jen has pointed out herself, she is very familiar with Doug and VF. It is quite possible that they were there. In fact, I am sure that Natasha was there. Maybe even a process server. Of course we can’t know for sure, because we don’t even have a company name. But what I have seen done time and time on this blog is a perverted twisting of truth or perceived truth to serve an individual’s purpose. Why stop now? There were many people at Boerne Assemble, so apparantly there would have been many people there to back up her story and yet none ever did. I would imagine that there will be none from that event that will back up this story - well except for Natasha and the unidentifiable process server.

    Something that struck me as odd: this whole blog was supposed to be about “Jen’s Story” and then here we have a public notice from someone else about SOMEONE ELSE’S grievance. If he wanted to air that, perhaps he should have put it on his own blog. Now, Natasha is involved in this as well? The fact that Jen and her family included themselves in this situation with Joe Taylor makes me think that what they really do want is revenge, nothing else.

    If Jen and her family expect anyone to believe this, she needs to provide some method of verification, other than just because she said so - again.

  13. Lynn Says:

    “If Jen and her family expect anyone to believe this, she needs to provide some method of verification, other than just because she said so - again.”

    Marie, you are going after the wrong person in this statement. It is a process server, and Natasha Epstein, who said these things, and Natasha is an adult now.

    Awaiting the affidavit . . .

  14. Marie Says:

    The thing is, Jen, if you are going to make a sworn “legal” affadavit, shouldn’t your name be somewhere on that document? Who notorized it? What agency? It should have their name on it as well. They should have no problem with the revelation of their name. After all, that is part of what the notarization is for - an official witness. Will you provide that information?

    If all the server is doing is stating facts in the process of doing his job, why should the fact that his church is affiliated with VF make a difference. Facts are facts, right? If he is stating facts as an “officer of the court” then there would be no problem. I don’t necessarily doubt that a process server was sent. But just as you accuse the documents that are on the Boerne Assembly website as being false, the same could be said of your quotes of what this man supposedly said. Without a possibility of verification, this could simply have been created to serve your purpose.

  15. Marie Says:

    Yes, Lynn, however, it was placed on her mother’s blog. Done, I would imagine, to benefit her mother’s cause. It would have been Jen’s responsibility to insure the truth of something before it was made public on her blog. And she is the one who says she will post the copy of the affadavit. So I think asking HER these questions is warranted.

  16. Pensees Says:

    Marie,

    Please, pause and think. For Jen to post this story she would either need to be telling the truth, a highly crafty liar, or a lunatic.

    Marie, can you be so candid as to tell us which one you think Jen is?

  17. Lynn Says:

    To Jen, Natasha, and the process server:
    I see a problem with the times 4:00PM and 4:15PM, as stated by the process server. Do you see the problem with your testimonies?

    I am surprised that nobody has noticed this. Jen, somebody needs to issue a correction/clarification. This is serious.

  18. Revelation 21:8 Says:

    But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

  19. Lynn Says:

    What I am saying is, it is impossible for Natasha to have arrived at 4:15PM, seen Phillips, call the process server’s line, and then have the process server say he was notified at 4:00PM to meet Natasha, and then say he arrived back the second time at 4:15.

    In order for all that to have taken place, he would have had to have been acting at the speed of light, in addition to working back the clock 15 minutes.

  20. K. Says:

    Pensees - I have better things to do - like run my home, get my children breakfast etc. etc. THis is a soap opera and I DO NOT believe most of what is on here by Jen or the rest of the Epsteins. I believe the integrity of DP - as does my husband, the head of our home. So don’t challenge me.

  21. Jen Says:

    Marie, the notarized legal affidavit will have names and signatures and they will be blacked out, as requested. This document carries the same weight as a witness, were there a need to go to court. Journalists protect their sources all the time, and I will protect mine as well, but I also know the facts and I am willing to be challenged by Doug if I am wrong. Doug has not presented even one document against me in five months of telling this story, has he? Writing lies on his church blog does not constitute any sort of proof. What I write, I back up with proof. You should see a SIGNIFICANT difference there.

  22. K. Says:

    “Please, pause and think. For Jen to post this story she would either need to be telling the truth, a highly crafty liar, or a lunatic.”

    And your point, Pensees?

  23. K. Says:

    “What I am saying is, it is impossible for Natasha to have arrived at 4:15PM, seen Phillips, call the process server’s line, and then have the process server say he was notified at 4:00PM to meet Natasha, and then say he arrived back the second time at 4:15.

    In order for all that to have taken place, he would have had to have been acting at the speed of light, in addition to working back the clock 15 minutes.”

    UH OH . ..

  24. Pensees Says:

    “K”,
    I am not here to “challenge” you. If you are satisfied with the choices you have made (whatever they may be), then more power to you. My only hope is that folks who support DP and his teachings (as you have stated about yourself) would put on their “Thinking Caps” and give Doug the same scrutiny that Paul (the apostle) commended the Bereans for giving him.

  25. K. Says:

    oh and you think I have not?

  26. Brandon Giromini Says:

    Lynn,

    I can clear up a few things. First, Joe was party to signing a settlement agreement, which Doug Phillips did not sign nor did he attend the mediation. Doug Phillips was not part of the recent arbitration, which was basically between Joe Taylor and the DeRosas. So Phillips didn’t tell Watt to “go after” Taylor, but it is very interesting how Phillips used his website to post information from DeRosa’s lawyer, when Doug is not a party to the the settlement agreement nor (at that time) the upcoming arbitration nor does Watt represent Phillips.

    Secondly, even though Watt gives the illusion that the movie was pulled for his suggestion that it was “dividing the brethren” that is certainly not the case. It was really pulled due to vague “ethical issues” dealing with the DeRosas. There is nothing in the original settlement agreement about pulling Raising the Allosaur. The only movie mentioned is the movie Joe had made, which they never watched by the way, nor did they go over any of his documentation. RTA was being sold for several months after the mediation, which occurred in April 2004.

    I hope this helps clear up a few things.

  27. Jen Says:

    Lynn, you are right about the slight difference in the times. Since the process server has to write up a statement after his attempt to serve someone, he keeps a fairly accurate time record. Natasha was probably just estimating, and in the excitement of the moment, she most likely did not think to note the exact time. Since they said it was “around” that time, I don’t think a 15 minute time difference is significant. I could have changed Natasha’s testimony to make it line up exactly with the process server’s if I wasn’t so dedicated to the truth. I am not going to change either one’s testimony. They will both remember certain details differently, just as two witnesses to an accident would give two different accounts. The main story is what is important and I stand by both accounts. I was not there, so I cannot account for a slight difference in testimony.

  28. Lynn Says:

    Thanks, Brandon. I need to make a notation of that. Now, would somebody explain Natasha’s reckoning of time with what the process server said?

  29. Lynn Says:

    Thanks, Jen. I believe that the events happened.

  30. Pensees Says:

    Jen,
    Thanks for your quick, credible, explanation.

  31. Lynn Says:

    I also think the most likely explanation is that Natasha gave the time she walked in the second time, but I doubt she was mistaken in relating the order of events.

    Like I said, if this were a fabrication, I believe this would have long been off the internet. They know they have effective means of silencing published lies if indeed they are truly lies, and they would have used them by now if that were the case.

  32. Joe Geek Says:

    Revelation 21:8 says But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

    Revelation 21:8, how has Jen lied? Where is your evidence, proof, or documents of any type? And I’m not talking about links to sites that don’t tell the truth.

  33. Lynn Says:

    “RTA was being sold for several months after the mediation, which occurred in April 2004.”

    Brandon, I know you are not a lawyer, but in your opinion, knowing better than I recollect what the original arbitration was about, did these sales after the first mediation constitute a breach of arbitration as well?

  34. Pensees Says:

    “Joe Geek”,

    Great avatar!

  35. Jen Says:

    Lynn, actually it was a mediation, not an arbitration, and since Doug refused to sign his part of the agreement, he was not bound to it. Therefore, he COULD continue selling the DVD.

  36. K. Says:

    For the record I agree that the opening quote from the daughter, Natasha, seems to look vengeful.

  37. Lucy Says:

    (on 4/20)
    “God is really working on changing my heart – in many different areas – so I will carefully consider what you have written once again, including your list of verses, which should be extremely profitable.”

    (on 4/26)
    “Lucy, I have not forgotten my promise to you to go back to the beginning of your comments and respond to them. I have been gone nearly all day again today and this has been a busy week. I will get back to you!”

    No response necessary, Jen. I just can’t help but wonder how this past week might have been better spent.

    I am praying.

  38. Brandon Giromini Says:

    Brandon, I know you are not a lawyer, but in your opinion, knowing better than I recollect what the original arbitration was about, did these sales after the first mediation constitute a breach of arbitration as well?

    I guess I wasn’t clear. The sale of “Raising the Allosaur” was never a component of the original settlement agreement from April 2004. Therefore, Vision Forum didn’t breach anything because there was nothing to breach. Vision Forum did not agree to remove the movie in the settlement agreement. I hope this clears up any misconceptions.

  39. Marie Says:

    It is not proof Jen, if there is no way of verification. I would be happy with the information on the notary, as I have said should have no problem with it. The “proof” that you have posted in the past has never had any possible way of verification. So there is no way to know whether those were, indeed, actual documents or doctored documents. It is AMAZING what one can do with a computer these days.
    But that is beside the point. The process server is, as you said, an officer of the court, and a notary is registered. These are individuals who have chosen NOT to protect their identity by 1) either working for the court, 2) or being registered and certified to be recognized by the court.
    Those documents, if they are real and not doctored, might very well be able to serve as “witness” in a court of law, but that is because they have names and signatures on them. The court would not recognize them as such without names and notorization. How can you expect any less of us. Yes, journalists are allowed to protect their sources, but they are also not willing to provide those names to a court either. How would providing the name of a notary possibly be placing that person in jepardy? Most of the time “sources” are protected is so that they can continue to be an informer for a journalist. I hardly think this is the case. All a notary public would have done would be to verify who was the writer of the document. I just simply do not understand why is would be so hard to provide even ONE shred of proof for verification.

    “Writing lies on his church blog does not constitute any sort of proof” - The same could be said of you.

    “Writing lies on his church blog does not constitute any sort of proof” - I don’t consider letters scanned into a computer with blacked out names proof. First of all ANYTHING could have been changed on any of these documents. Second, as I have said, without possibility of verification, we can trust nothing that they say.

    Actually, I do see a significant difference, but not in the way that you suggest. Doug has refrained from publicly attacking you. He and Boerne Assembly have made public statements and left it at that. You, on the other hand, have set out to destroy this man - publicly. Writing things on a blog, speaking as though they are trugh, with no verifiable proof to back any of it up. And yet you expect him to respond to all of your “charges?” My mother had a nice bit of information for me when I was a child when it came to bullies and others that may pick on me and tell lies about me. She said that it just brings you down to their level when you go tit for tat. Just walk away - always take the higher road.
    Some verses from Proverbs:

    Proverbs 26:4 “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”

    12:23 “A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness.”

    These are perhaps some of the reasons Doug has pretty much remained silent.

  40. Marie Says:

    Joe Geek,

    You said ” how has Jen lied? Where is your evidence, proof, or documents of any type? And I’m not talking about links to sites that don’t tell the truth.”

    I will ask you. How do you know she has told the truth? Where is your evidence, proof, or (unaltered) documents of any type? Where is the verification? And I mean something other than just because the Epsteins said so.

  41. Pensees Says:

    Marie,
    Evidently, by your response to “Joe Geek” you feel that, in answer to my question, Jen is a liar (vs. a truth-teller or lunatic).

    But let me ask another question. You ask Joe: “How do you know she has told the truth?” Are we not, at least here in the good ol’ U.S. of A, to presume someone innocent until proven guilty? When we put someone on the witness stand, juries presume their testimony to be true until proven otherwise.

    Answer this please: doesn’t Jen deserve the same benefit of the doubt?

  42. Lynn Says:

    Marie, the reasons you give don’t match well with what Doug said about I Corinthians not applying to excommunicants.

    Given those public statements of Doug, it is clear that the Epsteins, being excommunicants, are fair game for a lawsuit by him, and that he thinks that is a legitimate option. With this in mind, Marie, I think we also need to think of other reasons as well — that he doesn’t have any kind of response that would vindicate him, and he’s refusing to give an answer on the grounds that it would “incriminate” him.

    It is just weird and inconsistent for Doug to say on his site that he has no qualms about suing excommunicants — but then not deal with this glaring issue in a manner which he would think is legitimate — ie — in court.

  43. Marie Says:

    Pensees,

    Would that not apply to Doug Phillips as well? He is the one being accused here. Jen and family are his accusers. The proof of truth lies on the accuser. And If Jen were the prosecutor, how would she present her case - with a bunch of unnamed, anonymous witnesses?

    Lynn,

    It is just possible that Doug is trying to take the high road. Even though he doesn’t believe that there is a problem suing excommunicants, doesn’t mean he HAS to. Like I said, it is quite possible he is trying to be patient and not answer tit for tat.

  44. Lynn Says:

    To all of you who are trying to tell Natasha that she is wrong in what she said, or that she shouldn’t have gone to this event, why no outcry from you that Natasha has been very cruelly treated by Doug Phillips???

    She won an award, and that award was taken from her. Doug exommunicated her parents, but she was shunned as well and not offered any kind of debriefing or compassionate kind of help from them in the process.

    She was very young to have experienced such things, and from someone who is supposed to be a Christian pastor. I don’t blame her for having severe feelings of betrayal, of being stabbed in the back, and knifed in the chest when all this was going on, at age 17. She needs to come to terms with just what kind of a man did these things to her — this is HER story, too, keep in mind, so that in future years she will not associate this with what true Christianity is supposed to look like.

    What Natasha is saying now needs to be considered in perspective of all that has happened to her, by Christian leaders and people older than her, emotionally and spiritually abusing her pretty severely.

    Natasha needs to do is to rise above what they did to her, separate it from what is true Christianity, put it in perspective, and internalize what her settled convictions are about everything that has gone on, and it sounds like she is well into that process now. This process is NOT something that can be expected to happen overnight, for crying out loud!

    Besides all of which, how do you know whether the “birthday present” comment meant “I’m glad to see Doug getting what is coming to him?”

    Maybe it meant, “I see now what kind of man it was who hurt me, and seeing this cowardly behavior on his part, I am freed from feeling under his condemnation.”

    Those are two vastly different statements, and if the second quote of mine is what Natasha meant when she said “birthday present,” the I say, “you go for it, girl!” You need to feel free, and to know you are loved by Jesus, and that there are lots of people out there who are praying for you and your family.

  45. Lynn Says:

    To all who think Natasha shouldn’t have made that remark about her birthday present, remember that she was stabbed in the back by Phillips when her award was taken away from her, and when her parents were shunned, she was, too, with no debriefing or compassion shown to her from BCA during the aftermath of this time.

    Her comment could have meant this: “I am glad, on my birthday, to have seen the man who hurt me behave in such a cowardly manner. This helps me put this in perspective for my next year of life and beyond, and I don’t need to feel pressed down under the situation any more. I can rise above it.”

    If this is what her comment meant, then that is a very good thing, and a healing thing for her. If there were any feelings of vengeance, then the Lord will deal with her, but I don’t think a comment like that has to only imply vengeance. In fact, I suspect my quote more accurately reflects what was going on in Natasha’s mind when she said that. But that is between her and the Lord, just want to say that it could indeed, after all her suffering, be just the kind of birthday present she needed, and that she doesn’t need to be condemned for saying such.

  46. Corrie Says:

    “Pensees - I have better things to do - like run my home, get my children breakfast etc. etc. THis is a soap opera and I DO NOT believe most of what is on here by Jen or the rest of the Epsteins. I believe the integrity of DP - as does my husband, the head of our home. So don’t challenge me.”

    ROFLOL!!!

    So, I want to make sure I am understanding your position, K.

    You can say anything you want and if someone asks you a question, you pull out the “my-husband-is-head-of-my-home-don’t-challenge-me” card?

    Who should a person challenge when it is YOU who are being asked a question on something YOU said? Does your husband know what you are posting and will he make his email address available so that anyone who wants to ask you a question can get the answer from your “head”?

    This is one of the saddest things I have seen in a long time and it is so typical of a certain subset. You can’t particpate in a blog, make some pretty bold comments and then say that your husband agrees with you and therefore are untouchable.

    Either you participate or you don’t. Either your husband participates, too, so he can be challenged for the things you say or you don’t say anything at all.

    You can’t hide behind your husband AND be able to participate. IOW, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

    And please do NOT make a mockery any more out of headship and submission with these tactics.

    Also, if this is such a soap opera and you have so many things to do, why have you posted several times after making that declaration of your Proverbs 31 and Submissive Titus 2 Woman Status? Why aren’t you feeding your kids breakfast and running your home instead of posting here several times AFTER making your public declaration? Is someone holding a gun to your head? Is someone forcing you to read this? Is someone forcing you to respond?

    If you are an adult woman, then you are responsible for your comments and YOU are responsible to answer any questions that arise from your comments.

  47. Pensees Says:

    Corrie,

    Thanks! Well stated.

  48. Lucy Says:

    “To all who think Natasha shouldn’t have made that remark about her birthday present, remember that she was stabbed in the back by Phillips when her award was taken away from her, and when her parents were shunned, she was, too, with no debriefing or compassion shown to her from BCA during the aftermath of this time.”

    And to all of you who accept that reasoning:

    Matt 5:38 - “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well….43″You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…… 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?”

  49. K. Says:

    Touche, Corrie!

  50. K. Says:

    “But let me ask another question. You ask Joe: “How do you know she has told the truth?” Are we not, at least here in the good ol’ U.S. of A, to presume someone innocent until proven guilty? When we put someone on the witness stand, juries presume their testimony to be true until proven otherwise.”

    Doesn’t this apply to Mr. Phillips as well? Hmm.

  51. Lynn Says:

    No, Lucy, there is more to it than that verse. Natasha, if she were made to feel like dirt, and under a severe weight of condemnation by older Christians, by what happened to her, even though none of it was her responsibility, needs to stop feeling that way. I am very surprised to see that you have no words of compassion for what she went through.

    If her comment meant she felt free of all of the garbage Doug Phillips made her go through, on account of seeing him behave in such a cowardly fashion, then that is a good thing, a very good thing. It need not involve an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. That’s what I was saying.

    She was kicked in the stomach and clubbed behind the knees by Doug Phillips, metaphorically speaking, and while it is not a good thing to take the law into her own hands, she still has bruises and internal bleeding and sore lower extremeties that need to heal.

    I’m very surprised by the lack of compassion extended to Natasha in all of this. I would think that Phillips’ supporters would be smarter than that, and would have tried to reassure her that this was not her fault or her responsibility, but according to Natasha, she was savaged by that pack of wolv, I mean, church, without a cause.

  52. Lynn Says:

    K — Phillips hasn’t said anything, and he certainly hasn’t said anything that disproves what the Epsteins ahve said. “Plausible deniability,” and all that. So we can’t apply it to him, and meanwhile, the honorable thing to do is presume the Epsteins are telling the truth until they are proven to be liars.

  53. Corrie Says:

    Lucy,

    But, is the student above his/her own teacher?

    If the teacher doesn’t practice Matt. 5:38, why do you expect his students to practice it? Shouldn’t you know, from scripture, that the student will be just like his/her teacher when that student is fully matured?

    I read this verse and I say “AMEN!!!!” I don’t know why you don’t see the glaring hypocrisy of using this verse against the Epsteins when Phillips has seemingly ripped that verse right out of his Bible.

    Where is the love for one’s enemies? Where is the greeting for those you don’t consider your brother? Even the PAGANS greet their “own”, Lucy.

    Instead of running for cover, maybe Phillips and his followers could have gone up to Natasha and welcomed her and offered her a cup of punch and a piece of cake and a book signed by Beall Phillips and a place to sit and asked her how she is doing. Maybe they could have followed your own advice, Lucy? Maybe they could have turned the cheek? Maybe Doug could have given Joe Taylor his cloak as well as his tunic instead of lawyering up?

    Can you imagine if people would have LOVED Natasha and heaped coals of kindness on her head instead of calling security and throwing her out on her butt? Can you imagine what kind of outcome this would have had instead of what is happening now?

    Why do you hold the Epsteins to a higher standard than you do their own pastor who has declared them heathens and has barred them from the Lord’s table and from fellowshipping with fellow believers? There is a huge double standard at work here. The leaders who have true authority will be the ones SHOWING the way by their ACTIONS.

    Have you no understanding? Have you read about the millstone being better than what would happen to a person who caused a child to stumble in their walk with God?

    Could Natasha have been stumbled because of the unChristlike behavior or her spiritual leaders? Does that have any bearing on how you or God looks at this situation?

    I think it does. I think God knows and He understands. I don’t think that Matthew 5:38 would be the verse he threw at Natasha. I think He would start with those who call themselves shepherds, first.

  54. Lucy Says:

    Lynn, I have had kind words for Natasha, and expressed regret over her pain twice already on this blog.

    My comment was not meant as derision towards her. It was directed at your unfortunate disregard of scriptural truths (which I then quoted for you).

    This command is clear and unavoidable… the fact that it makes for an uncomfortable situation for you or anyone else is irrelevant. You sidestepped the entire point of the text by trying to lay guilt on people for not being compassionate enough. It’s dangerous to be that irresponsible with scripture. And it didn’t work.

  55. emmma Says:

    http://www.visionforum.com/about/issues/ep/feast.aspx

  56. Lucy Says:

    Corrie - save some time, and quote me chapter and verse where ANY Christian is relieved of their Biblical repsonsibilities if someone does something sinful to them.

  57. Lynn Says:

    “With all Doug’s talk last week about Christian men needing to be armed, I wonder why he was so afraid of a 20 year old young lady that he felt the need to run and hide in his office when Natasha arrived.”

    I failed to notice the irony of that until now. That is a good one. Natasha, I wouldn’t want to meet you in a dark alley! ;-)

  58. Neil Markum Says:

    A few random comments:

    1. Jen Epstein writes: “According to the Texas Rules of Civil Process, a process server has every right and reason to be on a property to do the job they are appointed to do. As a lawyer, Doug knows that. Doug also knows that a process server is an ‘officer of the court.’ Doug orchestrated a deception on an officer of the court.”

    A process server is only an “officer of the court” if he is acting in an official capacity on behalf of that court. My read on the letter Joe Taylor had the process server “serve” is that it was an invitation to a private mediation. Very different. If so, the process server was not operating in any official capacity, and therefore wasn’t an “officer of the court.” He wasn’t “appointed” to do the job he was doing that day. He didn’t have any right to be on the property. He wasn’t really “serving” anything. He was effectively a gloried message courier, with “sign for delivery” service. Epstein’s statement is a lie.

    2. Jen Epstein writes: “…Doug refused to sign his part of the agreement…”

    Vision Forum was not a party to the mediation agreement between Joe Taylor and the DeRosas. (See Brandon Giromini’s statement, “Doug Phillips was not part of the recent arbitration [sic].” ;) Ed Watt’s statement says that the Vision Forum representative was only subject to the “agreement to honor the confidentiality of the mediation.” Since Vision Forum wasn’t a party to the agreement, there was nothing for Doug Phillips (or Vision Forum to sign). Therefore, it is false that Doug Philips refused to sign the agreement. Epstein’s statement is a lie.

    3. Brandon Giromini is being deceptive here where he says: “The sale of ‘Raising the Allosaur’ was never a component of the original settlement agreement from April 2004.” Maybe there were two mediation agreements, but we’re playing word games if that’s the case. Ed Watt’s letter quotes from the mediation agreement:

    “No party will disparage or defame any other party. The parties expressly agree there will be no criticism by Taylor of the “Raising the Allosaur” movie. Taylor agrees not to distribute the movie known as “The Truth About the Raising of the Allosaur.” All parties agree to remove from their own websites or publications any derogatory comments about the Raising the Allosaur movie or about any party to this Settlement Agreement.

    Not sure if this is a lie or not, but it sure is sloppy.

    (What is Joe Taylor doing suggesting a mediation when he can’t even comply with an existing one?)

  59. Lynn Says:

    “My comment was not meant as derision towards her. It was directed at your unfortunate disregard of scriptural truths (which I then quoted for you).”

    I’m not disregarding any Scriptural truths. I’m saying Natasha’s comment could mean something very legitimate, such as, “I don’t feel under the weight of condemnation of a false teacher any more.”

    And that is a very good thing indeed, and there is no Bible verse that would ever gainsay such an idea.

    So, no, I’m not disregarding those verses. Just giving an alternate interpretation of her comment.

  60. Corrie Says:

    I just watched a fascinating story on Dateline. It was about a beautiful, devoted wife and mother who was brutally raped while she lay sleeping in her own home.

    The police then falsely accused her of lying and making it up. Then started a 12 year nightmare for that woman and her family.

    Her husband, after finding out that it was a good friend of his who did this, wanted to kill him. He felt betrayed, he felt guilty (false guilt, for sure!) for not being there to stop the rape and not protecting his wife and he felt deep anger. Would anyone fault him for those feelings? I wouldn’t. Now, if he went out and killed that man, it would have been wrong but we would all undertand who a man could be driven to seek justice for his wife, especially after she was re-victimized by the very same people who were supposed to be protecting her and finding her attacker. I would have understood, though I wouldn’t have agreed.

    How can we throw Bible verses at people and expect them to just “get over it” with absolutely no compassion and understanding?

    Thankfully, his wife reminded him of all he would lose if he did take the law into his own hands. Thankfully, a wise police detective saw how this could turn into a bad situation and he told the husband that he needs to let the police handle it.

    It is called UNDERSTANDING and WISDOM.

    We are not robots. When we have been deeply wounded and hurt by those who we trusted, it takes a LONG time to process these things. And if there is just repeated abuse, it takes even longer.

    I was so impressed by this couple. The wife was such a shining example of a godly woman (I don’t know if she was a Christian or not but she did talk about her deep faith). The husband was such a wonderful example of love and compassion.

    There is a website that you can read up on this case. It is called “nomorejanedoe (dot) com”.

    I just think we fail as children of God when we fail to have understanding, especially for the innocent victims.

    Was Natasha treated justly? Wasn’t Doug’s beef with her parents? Can anyone understand why she might be angry and feeling betrayed and carrying deep scars inside of her?

    Or shall we just throw some Bible verses at her like that hasn’t been done before by the very same people who have caused her such deep pain.

  61. Lucy Says:

    Truth is truth, Corrie…. despite the messenger.

    I don’t support or answer for what Doug did to Natasha. That isn’t my point, so please don’t try to make me out to be saying something I don’t believe. All I did was quote scripture which directly contradicted Lynn’s statement. That’s all. If someone want’s to tell me how loving your enemies doesn’t apply, here, I’m listening…..

  62. K. Says:

    Corrie:

    I only responded that way because Pensees asked where I was shall I give the rundown of my day on where I was? Hey you have 10 kids - you know where I was and what I was doing, right?

    I don’t hide behind my husband - hardly. . . .

    The reasons I have posted? Was the same way Ann, Lucy and Marie have posted . . . to have some voices here to say that y’all are wrong! But I believe that we realize we are spinning our wheels. I will let you know though, there are A LOT of people out there who DO NOT agree with the Epsteins and the general feeling is that this is wrong. No, we are not a cult as you claim. The families I know follow the Lord not a man. Sure, maybe there are people out there who abuse being the head of the house but I for one, am not abused and no no one in my circle that is. Mostly, I think people need to be left alone to make their decisions - they stand before the Lord on the decisions made and will give the account. You will not answer for our family and no one else. I do not tell other families how they should live, (i.e. wehther or not they should homeschool, court or date or what church - family integrated or not, wife should work or have a career or even a college education) - and I expect the same treatment. I do not want to be called a cult because I do things a certain way. . . Doesn’t God called each person and each familiy differently? Do we not have freewill? Mark and Jen had freewill to attend BCA or not attend BCA. S

    Some of the remarks and articles written on this blog have nothing to do with the “price of tea in china!” IE: Does DP have a mother? PLEASE! The video of “Women Know Your Limits”, some of this - oh excuse me - most of this stuff is inflammatory and intended to provoke people.

    This is the reason I have responded - to try and at least stand up for what I believe is right on a brother in Christ. I know he is not perfect - there is only one with that claim. But this stuff makes Jen look worse then Doug could ever look. Also I might add the comments of racism are what did it for me. It is laughable. It absolutely holds no water for me . . . some of the comments made on here just makes the rest “if it even has a threat of truth to it” all look like lies.

    There are many Proverbs dealing with this blog and I should have posted a few but I would recommend a good thorough reading of the Provebs.

    In fact, here is a few:

    Prov 29:9 If a wise man contends with a foolish man, Whether the fool rages or laughs there is no peace

    Prov 29:11 A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back.

  63. Corrie Says:

    Lucy,

    Save some time? So, my posts are a waste of your time? Maybe God’s understanding and compassion are also a waste of your time, too? Romans 2:4, Lucy. Read IT! How about James 2, Lucy?

    I never said that a Christian is relieved of his/her duty, did I?

    You throw Bible verses at the Epsteins that are a direct condemnation of the very thing Doug Phillips and Co. does?

    Do you not see IT???? Are you blind to what you are doing? Do you not understand that the kindness, forbearance, and mercy of God are what brought you to REPENTANCE? Have you forgotten that very important part of the equation? It is mercy that triumphs over judgment, not using Bible verses as weapons and being messengers of God’s wrath against those who don’t like our own beloved gurus.

    Yes, Natasha should forgive them and she should not return evil for evil (and that is an admission, btw, when YOU use that verse that evil has been done to her). I never once said we are relieved of obeying when we have been mistreated. We should obey.

    I am pointing out the outrageous hypocrisy of those who use Bible verses against the Epsteins but will NOT apply them to Doug Phillips. Was my point lost on you or are you just being obtuse on purpose?

    I have an idea, just skip my posts if you want to save time. :-) That way you won’t have to worry about the truth interferring with your mind that is already made up.

  64. Lynn Says:

    Lucy said:
    “All I did was quote scripture which directly contradicted Lynn’s statement.”

    Lucy, please enlighten us. How do the “eye for eye” verses you gave contradict this statement:

    “I don’t feel under the weight of condemnation of a false teacher any more.”

    I see no contradiction.

  65. Sheldon Says:

    Marie’s comments are truly astonishing. She envisions Jen as the accuser, but of course Doug and his church were the Epsteins’ accusers. Marie asks how to verify Jen’s claims about the testimony of the process server, but strangely, she does not ask Phillips to verify BCA’s claims of the Epsteins’ excommunicable offenses. She simply accepts Doug’s word that Jen is is sin.

    Consider how her words could be turned around on Doug:

    “How do you know [he] has told the truth? Where is your evidence, proof, or (unaltered) documents of any type? Where is the verification? And I mean something other than just because [Doug] said so.”

    This becomes even more important in light of BCA’s most recent statement, which is so filled with hyperbole that it is comical. (I would love to know why a person who has done nothing criminal would flee from justice to a non-extradictable country.)

    Marie and the other lapdogs should ask, for instance, If Jen was unsubmissive, precisely how? What did she specifically say or do? If she lied, exactly how did she lie? Yet not only do the Vision Forum sycophants accept Doug’s judgment at face value, they expect other churches to do the same.

  66. Corrie Says:

    “I don’t support or answer for what Doug did to Natasha. ”

    You have me confused, Lucy. I don’t really know what you are trying to say.

  67. K. Says:

    I see a few typos up there - I mean “Here are a few” - (I is a homeschooling mom :) )

  68. Lucy Says:

    Corrie - Calm down. I did not say a waste of MY time… I meant YOUR time. I meant that it would be futile to try to find a verse that changes the message of Matthew 5, and you still haven’t.

    Stop trying to turn this back on me or anyone else. I don’t support DP, and it’s pure irresponsibility to make my questioning of the Epsteins appear as though I do. Additionally, I have been nothing but kind when I addressed Natasha.

    Corrie - as Christians, our lives are not our own. We exist solely to do God’s will, and He has clearly spelled it out. We don’t get to decide how to react when someone wrongs us — and it has nothing to do with ignoring mercy or repentance. It all goes together. If you can read Matthew 5 and not see that, then I don’t know what to tell you.

  69. Corrie Says:

    “Corrie - save some time, and quote me chapter and verse where ANY Christian is relieved of their Biblical repsonsibilities if someone does something sinful to them.”

    I have some real life examples to give you.

    How about fellowshipping with excommunicated pastors who have been kicked out of the pastorate? Not only fellowshipping with them but promoting them and having them speak at your events?

    It seems that in some instances certain people do believe they are relieved from following scripture. But, when it comes to the Epsteins, they are not allowed in any church or at the Lord’s table until they repent.

    Funny how inconsistent that message is? The only variable that is different is that R.C. Sproul Jr s a personal friend of Doug’s and the Epsteins are people who make him mad.

    So, if someone is your friend, then the excommunication of a valid church with a REAL session is invalid but if you hate someone, then the excommunication shall be upheld.

  70. K. Says:

    One more thing: How is this Christ-honoring - ANY OF IT?

    Even for those of us who are trying to show what we consider common sense - here is a Proverb for us:

    Prov. 26:17: He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears . . .

    Very convicting for me as this certainly is not my quarrel. I have no quarrel with Mr. Phillips whatsoever and I just am very sad for everyone involved.

  71. Joe Geek Says:

    Marie Says: I will ask you. How do you know she has told the truth? Where is your evidence, proof, or (unaltered) documents of any type? Where is the verification? And I mean something other than just because the Epsteins said so.

    There is a main difference between Jen’s blog, and Mrs. Bino, “BCA Church blog.” Jen has documents. Mrs Bino. has some links, and the “BCA Church blog” has nothing, except words and lies.

    Where is your evidence, proof, or (unaltered) documents of any type?

    They are right here on this website, and I personally know that the documents were not altered (I personally know the Epsteins and was at BCA when this all happened.) And besides that you have no evidence that they are altered, you are just making assumptions.

  72. Lucy Says:

    K. — You’re probably more right than you know. I appreciate the reminder.

  73. K. Says:

    Thanks Lucy - it was convicting for me . . .

  74. K. Says:

    Joe Geek said:
    “you are just making assumptions”

    There are a lot of “assumptions” that have been made on this blog - (i.e. rascism, doug’s mother etc.)

  75. Corrie Says:

    “Even for those of us who are trying to show what we consider common sense - here is a Proverb for us:

    Prov. 26:17: He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears . . .

    Very convicting for me as this certainly is not my quarrel. I have no quarrel with Mr. Phillips whatsoever and I just am very sad for everyone involved.”

    Yes, I like this Proverb, too.

    I know you have no quarrel with Mr. Phillips but what about the other half of the equation? You left that part out.

    Who is the “us” in the “those of us who are trying to show what we consider common sense”? Is it just those who you agree with or does it include people like me or Lynn or Vik or Cynthia?

    Your statement belies the truth.

    You have no quarrel with Phillips and you are sad for everyone involved but you didn’t state that you had no quarrel with the Epsteins and from your comments here, it appears that you do.

    Also, you are not the only ones trying to show common sense. Just because people disagree with you does not make them not trying to show common sense.

    You certainly are NOT impartial and your bias is clear and to make it look any other way is not being honest with yourself or others.

    I have a problem with bullies and people who use their authority to abuse others. That is where my problem lies. My problem isn’t so much with this certain situation than it is with a trend I see amongst a certain mindset.

    I am waiting for those who claim to be shepherds of God’s people to step up to the plate and put their actions where their mouth is.

    They are called to love people and to suffer in the service of Christ. Christ is their example. He was mistreated all the time. The question is to these shepherds: How did Christ respond? Are you better than Christ?

  76. Still Not Trusting Says:

    Jen you told us above “According to the Texas Rules of Civil Process, a process server has every right and reason to be on a property to do the job they are appointed to do. As a lawyer, Doug knows that. Doug also knows that a process server is an “officer of the court.” Doug orchestrated a deception on an officer of the court.”

    Jennifer I think you are well aware of the fact that a process server is not “an officer of the court” when he is delivering private letters from a private individuals for private mediation. Folks Jennifer’s lies on this are right out in the open for everyone to see.

    In my opinion this is purposeful misdirection if not an outright lie. You hired a process server to deliver a private letter so that you could establish some sort of chain of custody but let’s not pretend these were official court officers on official court business when all they were doing is delivering Joe Taylor’s letter for a small fee.

    One other thing. Jen asks us rhetorically ” What were the cops doing at a Vision Forum Open House?”

    Do I really need to say anything more? Is there any doubt why Vision Forum hired security for the open house? If you had an obsessive “Type A” personality with a website like Jen’s would you feel the need to have security at a public event?

    Jen stop blowing smoke. This is one of the most disreputable pieces you have posted to date.

    Still Not Trusting (the Epsteins)

  77. Joe Geek Says:

    K. Says: “Mark and Jen had freewill to attend BCA or not attend BCA.”

    They actually signed a covenant when the church was a good church at the time, and Doug will hold you to that covenant if you try to leave.

    “Prov 29:11 A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back.”

    How is Jen “venting her feelings”? I think she could have blasted Doug and ranted and raved and went on and on about it, but instead she has kindly dealt with it. If you were in the same situation, what would you have done?

  78. K. Says:

    Certainly not - and i have seen people responding with love here. Ann, Lucy, Marie and myself. We have been ridiculed, and belittled for our stance. I do not see proof of wrongdoing - and not only that I jsut feel plain and simply put this is wrong to a brother in Christ. It is not bias - it simply is the world of God. I could flip this around nad say you are “biased” as well . . . but I want to refrain from name calling as much as possible - as there is plenty of scripture that tells us not to do that and as far as I can see no scriptural basis for calling one names.

    I have not been dishonest or misrepresented my intentions on this blog.

    I am sorry what is the other half of the equation the Epsteins? No no quarrel there either - I do not know them whatsoever . . . I have no quarrel here with anyone - again, much like you I want to see God’s word followed and obeyed.

    Prov. 12:15 - The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he, who heeds counsel is wise.

    I say to all here - “what sayeth the Lord”

  79. Josh Epstein Says:

    K. Says: Prov. 26:17: He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears .

    Corrie Says: Very convicting for me as this certainly is not my quarrel. I have no quarrel with Mr. Phillips whatsoever and I just am very sad for everyone involved.”

    We have tried to make peace with Mr. Phillips for two years and he has done nothing but tell us to repent. He refused peacemakers, and everyone saw that we did try to make peace. That offer of making peace is still standing and I don’t see Mr. Phillips doing anything but tell us to repent, and he has still refused to try to make peace.

  80. K. Says:

    “They are called to love people and to suffer in the service of Christ. Christ is their example. He was mistreated all the time. The question is to these shepherds: How did Christ respond? Are you better than Christ?”

    Each person here needs to examine the words that Corrie used as she is right! What did Christ do? Did he yell and scream and point fingers - No.

    Prov. 1: 20-23

  81. Joe Geek Says:

    K. Says: There are a lot of “assumptions” that have been made on this blog - (i.e. racism, Doug’s mother etc.)

    Jen has not personally “assumed” that Doug is a racist.

    And as for Doug’s mother, I backed up what Jen said with all those links. I’m sure Doug probably honor’s his mother some, but not nearly as much as he “honor’s” his father.

  82. Lynn Says:

    Once again:
    Lucy said:
    “All I did was quote scripture which directly contradicted Lynn’s statement.”

    My statements were possible interpretations of Natasha’s “birthday present” comment:

    1) “I am glad, on my birthday, to have seen the man who hurt me behave in such a cowardly manner. This helps me put this in perspective for my next year of life and beyond, and I don’t need to feel pressed down under the situation any more. I can rise above it.”

    2) “I don’t feel under the weight of condemnation of a false teacher any more.”

    Lucy, you said Matthew 5 contradicted those statements. Doug Phillips did, metaphorically kick Natasha in the stomach and club her behind the knees. So if she thinks facing someone who hurt her has helped her to grow beyond the hurt by seeing his cowardly reaction, how is that at variance with Matthew 5?

  83. marsha Says:

    To all of you who support Doug Phillips or at least are defending him here…..I would just like to have one question answered…..what is the difference between his treatment of the Epsteins and his treatment of R.C. Sproul Jr.? That is a very valid question and one that needs to be answered if you are to have any credibility whatsoever.

  84. K. Says:

    Who are WE to determine Doug’s heart on who he honors more and I again say why does this even need to be on the blog?

    Prov. 10:23: To do evil is like sport to a fool, But a man of understanding his wisdom.

    Josh: Prov. 10:12: Hatred sitrs up strif, but love covers all sins.

  85. K. Says:

    Josh: Sorry for the typo: Prov. 10:12: Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all sins

  86. Lucy Says:

    Check again, Lynn. THIS is the quote I mentioned:

    “To all who think Natasha shouldn’t have made that remark about her birthday present, remember that she was stabbed in the back by Phillips when her award was taken away from her, and when her parents were shunned, she was, too, with no debriefing or compassion shown to her from BCA during the aftermath of this time.”

  87. marsha Says:

    jen,

    I was wondering this…if the process server doesn’t want his named mentioned because of his church’s association with Vision Forum, how did he not know what Phillips looked like and needed to be shown on a video?

  88. K. Says:

    I have no information and no nothing of RC Sproul Jr. -

    Prov. 11:27 He who diligently seeks good finds favor, but trouble will come to him who seeks evil.

  89. Joe Geek Says:

    K. Says: “They are called to love people and to suffer in the service of Christ. Christ is their example. He was mistreated all the time. The question is to these shepherds: How did Christ respond? Are you better than Christ?”

    Each person here needs to examine the words that Corrie used as she is right! What did Christ do? Did he yell and scream and point fingers - No.

    Did Christ excommunicate anyone? Did Christ run away from a twenty year old young lady? Do you think Christ would write sites like Mrs. Bino., “BCA church blog,” Still Fed Up?

    Did He yell and scream and point fingers - No.

    Who is yelling and screaming and pointing fingers?

  90. Joe Geek Says:

    marsha Says:
    jen,

    I was wondering this…if the process server doesn’t want his named mentioned because of his church’s association with Vision Forum, how did he not know what Phillips looked like and needed to be shown on a video?

    Maybe because the process server had never met Doug personally?

  91. Josh Epstein Says:

    Prov. 10:12: Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all sins

    The reason my mother is writing this blog, is because she doesn’t want anyone else to be hurt by Mr. Phillips like we were, because she knows that other people have been hurt by him.

  92. Lynn Says:

    Check again, Lynn. THIS is the quote I mentioned:

    “To all who think Natasha shouldn’t have made that remark about her birthday present, remember that she was stabbed in the back by Phillips when her award was taken away from her, and when her parents were shunned, she was, too, with no debriefing or compassion shown to her from BCA during the aftermath of this time.”

    So what? How does showing up at a book signing and having the bravery to face the man who did these things to you mean she is getting even with Doug? How can this remotely compare to what Doug did to her?

    She goes to a public event, showing to herself that she can rise above this and not be afraid, after being, metaphorically speaking, kicked in the stomach and clubbed behind the knees, and by showing up, overcoming her fear, somehow that is extracting an eye for an eye?

    It just w