Official Public Notice To Doug Phillips

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 79322

Douglas 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.

115 Responses to “Official Public Notice To Doug Phillips”

  1. SwordbearerJohn Says:

    Jen you do know that changing the subject doesn’t the fact that FPC and Living Water are not exactly supporting your side of the story?

    Misdirection is not exactly a great way to prove your case. You do know that right?

    SwordBearer John
    Yup…Still Fed Up

  2. Lynn Says:

    I don’t get it. That letter Mark and Jen sent out said “most troubling” to the home-ed community was the allosaur issue. This new entry isn’t changing the subject at all, not in the least!

    Didn’t you bother to read that last entry?

    Logic! What *do* they teach these children in schools nowadays?!

  3. Lynn Says:

    You know what this blog, and all of Phillips’ statements remind me of? It reminds me of this battle royale:

    http://www.ezzo.info/

    http://www.ezzotruth.com/

    I am very “pro” the first link, and VERY “anti” the second link. But note how each side puts its best foot forward, and tries to be compelling. The best way I have found to sort through through the veneer is to study logic and critical thinking, and to become informed.

    It is obvious that I am very opposed to what Phillips did to the Epsteins, and I am opposed to how Joe Taylor was treated in the production of that video. I am opposed to, when the Epsteins shared their story, Matt Chancey portraying them as racists (which WAS changing the subject, btw). I am opposed to men in leadership, saying “What the Epsteins are doing is wrong” without giving specifics as to why.

    Just wishing they would shut-up because they think the PUBLIC ISSUES the Epsteins and others are talking about is gossip (after Doug BREACHED confidences) is so ridiculous to me it is hard to describe!

    They DON’T have an issue with a pastor breaking clergy privilege, but they DO have an issue with the Epsteins discussing, not only that, but Joe Taylor? Come on!

    And they think they are convincing people who are trying their level best to think through these issues? They are not!

  4. Trish Says:

    “Logic! What *do* they teach these children in schools nowadays?!”

    It’s probably more about what the Phillips School teaches.

    The thing that control freaks hate more than anything is someone who refuses to be controlled. SBJ is fuming because Jen isn’t cooperating. She’s telling it like it is, and she’s telling it WHEN she wants to.

    When Jen doesn’t cooperate with being controlled they call is “misdirecting.” You’re right Lynn. Some serious problems with SBJ’s logic.

  5. Corrie Says:

    Lynn,

    I was just going to say the same thing. Changing the subject? I think not. Look at BCA’s latest statement very carefully. Does anyone think some of that “collaborator” and “conspirator” lingo could be referring to Joe Taylor? I do.

    John the Sword Bearer (forgive me for giggling when I saw that!), who are you? I just went to your website and it really does sound like a 12 year old wrote it. It is almost like you are ready to break out in a chorus of:

    “Nanny, nanny, poo, poo”

    What is so different about your site and Chancey’s site than this site? Reading your site makes me even more ready to believe this site because if this is the attitude of those closest to Doug (I am guessing you are an intern) and this is acceptable then Jen and Mark learned how to deal with people by following BCA’s lead. I see no maturity in your site even though you call Jen and Mark to maturity. How can you expect Jen and Mark to act better than their leadership and those who are loyal followers?

    Does anyone know who SBJ is? Is John his real name?

    I mean, with a handle like “Sword Bearer John” you would think you would be brave enough to use your own name and not hide in the dark.

    Let us suppose that Jen and Mark made all of this up and they are just lying about everything. One look at your site and I would have to try very hard to continue to believe that Jen and Mark don’t have any substance to what they are saying.

    There is no concern for the truth and there is absolutely no interest in reconciling. And, Sword Bearer John, what does the Bible say about reconciliation and loving our brothers and loving our enemies? You are preaching a false gospel by your very own behavior. You are not bearing the Sword at all.

  6. Frank Says:

    And what of the biblically-based Christian conflict resolution that has just taken place by making this letter between two brothers a public letter? Is that honoring to the Lord? I don’t think so.

  7. Jen Says:

    Frank, this is an official public notice. You will find out why this is not only ethical, but is legally necessary, when the next article comes out. You are in for a big surprise!

  8. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Does anyone know who SBJ is? Is John his real name?

    A member of the VisionForum Fencing Team ?

  9. Natasha Says:

    Hehe, I’m already laughing at the thought of what you’re going to write next. Saturday was a good day, that’s all I’m gonna say!

  10. Mark Epstein Says:

    Lynn and Corrie,

    You will obtain a very good view of BCA/Vision Forum “think” at SBJ’s site. Of course, if we are to pursue logic, then the next question is this: If SBJ and friends sincerely desire dialogue (as indicated on their site), then when will they open up their site to comments?

    Jennifer has patiently and graciously dealt with folks subscribing to an opposing viewpoint. As you point out, Corrie, shouldn’t the BCA leadership and those who support Phillips lead by example?

    I am inclined to believe what the Bible says about higher standards applying to elders and, therefore, I know Doug, Matt, SBJ, etc. should be setting the standard — not lurking in the shadows using proxies to do their bidding or hiding behind noms de plume.

    I think this would be a perfect occasion to recommend that these individuals “man up” on this issue and become as transparent as Jen and I are on our blogs.

    What about it, SBJ? Are you man enough to tell the world who you are? After all, true dialogue can only occur when the parties know with whom they speak.

  11. Lauren Says:

    I’m sorry, but I am really having a hard time imagining what possible Christian motives could have inspired disturbing Mr. Phillips’ open house.

    I do not doubt that there is serious issue between the two of you, but this certianly does not seem the time nor place to air grievences.

    I also am greatly disturbed by the comment “you’re in for a big suprise”. If crutial information was to be reveled, it seems reasonable that you would release it as soon as possible. The delay makes me think that you are waiting for a time with a bigger “bang”.

    Again, I have no opinion about who harmed whom in this situation. In fact, until reading these posts I was leaning much more closely to the side of the Epstiens. The past two posts have made me cast aside any notion of “who’s right” and look only at the present actions.

    In that regard, I believe that the Epstiens are not acting in Christian charity. I will be praying for everyone involved in this ugly situation.

  12. Still Not trusting Says:

    Lauren you wrote
    “I believe that the Epstiens are not acting in Christian charity”

    I know I agree with you there but then they are demonstrating they are not Christains by continuing to ignore the church.

    I wonder if Doug knows that everyone who defends him in public is and “intern”? I can’t speak for S.J. but I know I’m not and never have been.

    Oh and Mark – wether or not they own up to their identity has little to do with the truth of their words…or are you saying we shouldn’t trust the ever anonymous “Watchman”?

    How about “Frank Vance” or “Charles Fisher”?

    Can’t have it both ways…

    Still Not trusting (the Epsteins)

  13. Jen Says:

    Lauren, we are waiting for legal documents before I can say more. I hope you will understand why when you see the next article. This public notice needed to be posted at least one week before the deadline, but the legal documentation for the rest of the story isn’t available yet. That is why this is in two parts.

  14. Mark Epstein Says:

    SNT,

    Actually, your deliberate ignoring of the following facts is a reason for someone to remain anonymous — just not the folks at Fed Up/Still Fed Up, BCA, etc.

    Was Ministry Watchman’s site hacked? Yes.
    Was Vision Forum, Mrs. Bino, BCA, Fed Up/SFU, etc. hacked? No.

    Has anyone who supports Phillips had someone call their employer? No.
    Has anyone who voiced support for the Epsteins had their employment threatened? Yes.

    Has anyone threatened a Phillips supporter with church discipline or a lawsuit? No.
    Has anyone supporting the Epsteins been threatened with church discipline or a lawsuit? Yes.

    The bottom line, SNT, is the Phillips’ camp and the proxies who do Doug’s bidding are the ones who do not conduct themselves as Christians. Doug’s supporters engage in multiple logical fallacies (multiple “guilt by association” comments identified by other commenters, ad hominem attacks, etc.), personal attacks (stating that Joe Taylor, Jen, and I are “lying” without one shred of documentation to back up the claim), character assassination (the public reading and internet revealing of pre-conversion sin), and the list goes on.

    Furthermore, to allow such behavior to continue unchecked is actual evidence of Doug’s conduct as an elder. Phillips should have stopped the personal attacks and public disparagement ages ago. Yet, it continues unabated.

    Just as I referred SJ to the July 2006 letter, I will do the same thing in your case. I suggest you read this letter and then ask yourself WHY Doug Phillips, BCA, and Doug’s attorney never responded. I will give you a hint: (1) They cannot answer the letter truthfully; (2) Doug never wanted repentance and reconciliation in the first place; or (3) both.

  15. Ann Says:

    Can I ask a question?
    Jen, does your husband have a job, is it is different shift, as he seems to post at varied times. Also, with this blog, and all it entails, doesn’t it keep you from having enough time to homeschool your children, take care of your home, being a helpmeet to your husband and doing good works in the community, etc. You seem so obsessed with this whole thing. And you mention in some of your replies that you just got back from being gone all day. Are you being a keeper at home and making your family your priority?
    Ann

  16. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Still Not Trusting, you wrote,
    “I know I agree with you there but then they are demonstrating they are not Christains by continuing to ignore the church.”

    So ignoring the church means that someone is not a Christian…. interesting.
    How about DP supporting Sproul Jr., even though “the church” defrocked him some time ago? By your definition, SNT, that would mean that Doug isn’t a Christian either (and, by extension, that would also mean that BCA is not a true church.)
    That would explain a lot of things, I must say.

  17. Natasha Says:

    Ann,

    My father is a civilian working for the military and is consequently on the road a lot. Thus he is able to access his computer at different times througout the day at work and at home. Today happens to be a holiday since this is Fiesta Weekend and he is at home.

    As for my mother being a keeper at home and a helpmeet, first off you shouldn’t even be asking those questions since they are not in the least bit relevant to the post, and second, it’s none of your business what my mother does with her time! Are you her keeper? Yes, she has plenty of time to take care of my brother and sister. Ususally when she is gone all day is when she is taking my siblings to a class or outing. They take loads of field trips. Or she is working for my father. She does a ton of errands and other things for him. And I do know from personal experience that she usually does the majority of her writing for this blog after everyone is in bed. She might post at a different time, but she does the main portion at night.

    I do suppose that she could turn around and ask the same questions of you, as you seem to be on here constantly, and usually leave the longest and most winded comments! Are you making your family your priority?

  18. Ann Says:

    Natasha,

    All I asked were some questions, and they were directed to your mom.

    I also knew it would be turned around on me, but I asked anyway.
    Ann

  19. Natasha Says:

    If you knew they were going to be turned on you, obviously that means that you were asking some rather inflammatory questions!
    Just because the questions were directed towards my mother, does that forbid me from answering, especially since I know that she and my father are both out doing errands for the next several hours? And therefore wouldn’t be able to get to your out of line question?

  20. Ann Says:

    No dear,

    It wasn’t that they were inflammatory questions, it is just seems to be the pattern here.

    Ann

  21. Lisa Says:

    Ann,

    Long time reader here, new poster.

    You wrote,
    “Also, with this blog, and all it entails, doesn’t it keep you from having enough time to homeschool your children, take care of your home, being a helpmeet to your husband and doing good works in the community, etc. You seem so obsessed with this whole thing. And you mention in some of your replies that you just got back from being gone all day. Are you being a keeper at home and making your family your priority?”

    Come on, dear. Those WERE inflammatory questions. If you were being honest with yourself, you’d admit it.

  22. Elizabeth Giromini Says:

    Ann,
    Your comments are accuastions disguised as questions. They would certainly arouse strong emoution and therefore qualify as inflammatory. Inflammatory: Arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire.

    The reason the question would be “turned back” so to speak is to determine if you are ready to remove the mote from your sister’s eye. Christians should all help each other with sin issues, but first it must be ensured they can see clearly to do so.

    Anytime we accuse another we should be ready to have ourselves examined.

    In charity, Elizabeth

  23. Ann Says:

    I think it’s a fair question, and I’ll leave it at that.

    Thank you,
    Ann

  24. Elizabeth Giromini Says:

    Ann, if it is a fair question, then why did you not answer when Natasha asked you the same thing?

  25. Esther Says:

    “Jen, does your husband have a job, is it is different shift, as he seems to post at varied times. Also, with this blog, and all it entails, doesn’t it keep you from having enough time to homeschool your children, take care of your home, being a helpmeet to your husband and doing good works in the community, etc. You seem so obsessed with this whole thing. And you mention in some of your replies that you just got back from being gone all day. Are you being a keeper at home and making your family your priority?
    Ann”

    I am only wondering what took Ann so long to ask this. Ann, shouldn’t YOUR husband be asking Mark these questions? Isn’t that what you all are taught?

    Ann, Doesn’t it amaze you that Jen allows your comments? Doesn’t that speak anything to you?

  26. Marie Says:

    Actually Esther, Ann is within her bounds to ask this question. Reread Titus 2. This is exactlly the area in which women are to instruct each other. The question does have merit. Jen puts herself out there as a Titus 2 woman on her other blog – “In the spirit of Titus 2, what I wish an older woman would have shared with me when I was younger.” So I think, in all fairness, this is a legitimate question.

    And as far as who should be doing what; as the leader of his house, Mark should be the one calling Doug to repent (although as a side note, I do not agree he has any need to), not Jen.

  27. Lynn Says:

    Ann:
    “You seem so obsessed with this whole thing. And you mention in some of your replies that you just got back from being gone all day. Are you being a keeper at home and making your family your priority?”

    Natasha:
    “I do suppose that she could turn around and ask the same questions of you, as you seem to be on here constantly, and usually leave the longest and most winded comments! Are you making your family your priority?”

    Natasha, I think the best answer to Ann is to mind her own business. That is why I told her I would not tolerate such questioning of me on my blog. When Ann asked if it seemed reasonable to all of us that your mother cut this blog to only a few pages, I just said, “there you go again.” Like this blog is a total democracy and we all get to vote on what Jen does or doesn’t do. Very controlling. That is why I “amen-ed” Necia on the previous post with her recommendation of The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse. It’s a great read, and has helped me tremendously.

    Elizabeth is right. Ann was making inflammatory, accusatory remarks thinly veiled as questions, and you are right; Ann herself is on here quite a bit, following this, and so am I, so I suppose we are all, momentarily, obsessed!
    😉 Big deal.

    Your mother gave me her phone number and I called her several days ago for the first time, and I know she was directing and doing the fixing of lunch while talking to me, so I know how good she is at multi-tasking!

  28. Esther Says:

    Marie,

    Ann is NOT within her bounds. She has NO relationship with Jen at all. Her questions were ACCUSATIONS and she can protest all she wants but most of us see through her questions. I could ask Ann a ‘fair’ question: Does your husband know who much time you spend on this blog away from your family and attending to their needs?

    See, that is NOT nice. It was intended to create a perception. Ann could have chosen to e-mail Jen privately with this but did not. Therefore, I have to conclude she is trying to create a negative perception of Jen. Quite frankly, in DP circles, I am sure it would work. I refer to them as Stepford wives. (Hint: They don’t think you all are very smart)

    And for your information, Mark has already addressed your last statement…many times, I might add. I have been blessed that he does not believe that Jennifer must checked her brains at their threshold.

  29. Jen Says:

    Well, Ann, this week I have been more of a Proverbs 31 woman than a Titus 2 keeper at home. I took my son to the orthodontist, I took my daughter to the naturopath, we went shopping at Whole Foods so I can make healthy food for my family, we went to another health food store to find some herbs for my husband, we went to produce co-op, I took my son to woodworking class, we went to the bank, we went to Home Depot, and I went shopping for my husband’s and my daughter’s birthdays this week. And then we spent several hours being with Natasha as well.

    I have a question for you. Do you think I should have stayed home and blogged instead?

    My husband happens to have the day off today, as Natasha so adeptly explained.

  30. Lynn Says:

    I agree with Esther. I have seen these kinds of comments and questions on many blogs:

    “Can we have the name of your pastor, and how he can be reached?” (This was for a differering opinion offered from a poster, not anything illegal or immoral, and no, it wasn’t I.)

    “Does your husband know how much time you spend here?”

    And many more like that.

    Have y’all ever seen the Patricarch’s Wives board? It’s a Yahoo board. Each week hundreds and hundreds of posts, and many of them from very frequent posters.

  31. Ann Says:

    Lynn said:
    April 26th, 2007 at 12:53 pm e
    Ann, I would like to apologise to you for saying I’d want to steer clear of you. I am in an off-line Bible study with Jen. I am not Jen, and I am *not* in her inner circle of people advising her. But I am aware of some things that have gotten me hot under the collar, and that comment of mine yesterday was over the top. Sorry.

    Lynn, I think you may be hot under the collar again. Jen, thanks for the rundown, and No I don’t.
    Ann

  32. Still Not Trusting Says:

    This link above is certainly an interesting wrinkle.

    http://http//www.visionforum.com/about/issues/response.aspx

    How many more people have to say let people know you are wrong before you give in?

    Still Not Trusting (the Epsteins)

  33. Still Not Trusting Says:

    Boy what a garbled statment….

    What I meant to say was

    How many more people have to testify you are wrong before you give in and repent?

    and obviously the link was below

  34. Still Not Trusting Says:

    Just in case it doesn’t go through..I was reffering to the link on the top, left frontpage of Vision Forum just above the link to Doug’s blog.

    Jen, Mark…any comments?

    SNT

  35. Ann Says:

    SNT,
    I couldn’t get your link to work. Here it is again:
    http://www.visionforum.com/about/issues/response.aspx

  36. Lynn Says:

    “How many more people have to say let people know you are wrong before you give in?”

    So many responses to this:

    1) They probably said something like this to Martin Luther, only in German. And they kicked him out of the church, too.

    2) Do you know what “argumentum ad populum” means?

    And because you might be closely associated with Doug Phillips, brush up on “arumentum ad baculum.” Neither of them make Phillips right and the Epsteins wrong.

    3) How many people have to notice Matt Chancey’s guilt by association tripe before he repents of it?

    4) How many people have to subtly and not so subtly tell Doug Phillips he breached clergy privilege before he repents?

    5) Again, why does LW not have an issue with BCA breaking clergy privilege, but they do have an issue with the Epstein’s letter?

    6) Why should I believe a multitude who don’t provide reasons for their arugments? Just because they are a mulitude?

    Ann — with all the sincerity and lack of sarcasm I can do — your insinuation to Jen having an obsession was out of line. It is an ad hominem attack. If you think that is the case, start up a blog about it, because this particular thread is about Joe Taylor.

  37. BillyG Says:

    Its quite sad Jen… Are you right and the rest of the world wrong, Jen?

    After reading through the Vision Forum responses, and responses from so many other leaders, I cannot trust what I read on here. It is sad, Jen.

  38. K. Says:

    Well, here goes – I am sure I will be “roasted” so stick me on the stick and over the fire . . . .

    or give me some cheese with my whine . …

    I do not think ya’ll play very nice here! I think Ann’s question was sweet and sincere . . . if and when someone asks me a question like that then I need to take a good hard look, PRAY and then answer!

  39. Elizabeth Giromini Says:

    Well, K, Ann was asked the same question, but she has never responded. If it was a nice question why has she not responded? If it is not a nice question then why hasn’t she admitted it?

  40. Ann Says:

    Jen didn’t seem to mind the question. She answered mine, and I answered hers.

    Heading out for some fun now,
    Ann

  41. Esther Says:

    “Jen didn’t seem to mind the question. She answered mine, and I answered hers.”

    Ann, Some of us already know how gracious Jen is to her critics. We have seen her grace in action in spite of the hate and vitriol coming from DP’s interns and friends for quite sometime now.

    But, I would appreciate it if you would enlighten me as to exactly what question you answered. I cannot seem to find it.

  42. K. Says:

    Well, just got the information I needed . . . at that link . . . very enlightening.

    Jen and Mark: We are praying for you . . .

  43. Virginia Says:

    K. An additional response is provided at this link on the Vision Forum website.

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

    It’s different and more detailed than the link above.

  44. Elizabeth Giromini Says:

    Esther, Ann is obviously avoiding the question at hand. The only question Ann answered was if she thought Jennifer should have stayed home and blogged all day. Ann did not answer Natasha’s question, despite the fact that I have called her out repeatedly. Ann, if it’s a fair question answer it yourself, if not, apologise.

    remove the beam from your own eye then you can see clearly to remove the mote your brothers

  45. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Ann, you asked Jen,
    “doesn’t it keep you from having enough time to homeschool your children, take care of your home, being a helpmeet to your husband and doing good works in the community, etc. You seem so obsessed with this whole thing. And you mention in some of your replies that you just got back from being gone all day. Are you being a keeper at home and making your family your priority?””

    In all fairness, someone could ask you the same thing. Judging by the frequency of your comments, you’re on this board more than Jen is, and I know, because I’m on the board more than either of y’all. 😉
    And BTW, before anyone asks any nosy questions, YES, my house is clean, LOL.

  46. Jen Says:

    SNT: “How many more people have to testify you are wrong before you give in and repent?”

    I am wrong about what specifically? How can I repent if I still don’t know the charges against me?

  47. Mark Epstein Says:

    Marie,

    I do not know when you began reading Jennifer’s blog, but I have called Doug to repent in private correspondence, I have asked him (through his lawyer) the specifics that Doug thought Jen and I needed to repent of (July 2006 Letter to Don Hart), and I have called Doug to repent on my blog, Jennifer’s blog, and Ministry Watchman’s blog.

    For those of you who asked about my posting habits, here is the simple answer: I sleep from approximately 2200-0300 or 0400 the days I am not participating in late night training. If I do not retire to bed until 0200, then I will sleep until 0600. I post when I have something to say and when time permits. Sometimes it’s 0330 in the morning, sometimes it’s 2330, and sometimes I just don’t have time to post anything at all, even though I may have something to add. When I am away from San Antonio conducting training, I take my personal laptop with me so I can maintain some visibility of what’s happening on Jen’s and my blog.

    As far as Jen being a helpmeet, I couldn’t have asked God for a better woman to share my life. Despite my abject failure as a husband in too many areas to enumerate, Jen has stood by me when the majority of women would have despaired of all hope. Jen is an extremely strong woman who is first and foremost devoted to Christ Jesus our mutual Lord and Saviour. Furthermore, because we are capable of submitting in Christian deference and love, as well as serving one another, we can humbly accept our personal weak areas and recognize each other’s strong points. To say that God perfectly matched us would be a gross understatement.

    Finally, everyone who reads Jen’s blog needs to be aware of the fact that Jen and I discuss what she writes (save her response to comments). When I am unavailable (such as 16 hour airplane flights) there are others (men and women) who hold Jen accountable, and these other folks do so with my full knowledge and permission.

    I hope this answers some of the questions about my involvement in this attempt to purify the visible church, hold Doug Phillips (et. al.) accountable for his (and their) abusive and tyrannical behavior and, eventually, see Christ glorified in the restoration of broken relationships.

    For the purity of Christ’s bride,

    Mark

  48. Vik Says:

    Ann said:
    “Heading out for some fun now”

    Mmm. Talk about a quick exit. Saved by the bell, eh?

  49. Vik Says:

    Now: STUPID QUESTION TIME.
    (Corrie, spit your coke out)

    What’s up with the G-strings connected to the men’s turtlenecks on the Vision Forum’s Fencing Team? If a woman tried to wear that get-out she’d be severely rebuked (as she should be). ??

    I noticed some black girls with white fathers in that link also. I guess Doug didn’t have a problem with that? Is he really as racist as some of the others?
    ————————————
    Jen asked:
    “I am wrong about what specifically? How can I repent if I still don’t know the charges against me?”

    The charges are as follows: You’re spending entirely too much time at orthodontists, woodworking classes, field trips, Whole Foods, Co-ops, and shopping for birthday presents, RATHER than answering numerous dumb questions on this blog. No?
    😉

  50. Esther Says:

    Vik, you are too funny! I was wondering about the macho psuedonyms they give themselves when playing ‘swords’. Do they really need to make up names to fence properly as grown men? What is up with that?

  51. Bryan Says:

    How did a thread regarding an offer of restoration/reconciliation/comflict resolution by Joe Taylor to Doug Phillips end up being about questioning Jen’s focus on her helpmeet duties anyway?
    Oh yeah, ’cause Ann tried to upbraid Jen (woefully disguised as a question) for spending time on this blog instead of fulfilling her helpmeet duties (or so she thought). That’s right.
    Maybe if Ann had been coaching Jen from Day One on how to be a proper helpmeet, none of this would have occurred.

  52. K. Theodore Jenkins Says:

    Funny the (bizarre) things Phillips-defenders come up with here/ Is Jen a good help-meet, is she at the top of Ministry Watchman”, MW is aesthetically unpleasing, do these women keep their house’s clean, one guy related to this moved away, etc.

    What the heck type of “response” is that? These people are supposed to be paid professionals? Is this some sort of joke?

  53. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “What the heck type of “response” is that?”
    KTJ, it’s called reaching, as in reaching for something of which to accuse Jen, in the absence of any substantial, substantiated wrongdoing.

  54. K. Theodore Jenkins Says:

    I just can’t believe this is Douglas Phillips of Vision Forum Ministries. Even in unsubstantiated charges, or out-right lies, I somehow expected more from him.

  55. Vik Says:

    Esther said:
    “I was wondering about the macho psuedonyms they give themselves when playing ’swords’. Do they really need to make up names to fence properly as grown men? What is up with that?”

    Guess they had to find something to do since Jen forgot to invite them to go on one of her birthday shopping expeditions. Swords, funky names, G-strings–what’s this world coming to.

    (Sorry. Really, I’m not a sarcastic person. Except for when I am.

  56. K. Theodore Jenkins Says:

    And what the heck is this about thong underwear being on the VF fencing team apparel? Was that for real?

  57. Vik Says:

    Have a look, the link’s up there somewhere. The thong is on the *outside* of their britches, connected to their shirts. Charming.

  58. K. Theodore Jenkins Says:

    That’s stupid. That looks like normal apparel to me.

    Don’t respond to Phillips’ pathetic responses by offering more, equally pathetic responses. The moderator should remove these comments.

  59. Vik Says:

    THAT is normal apparel??

    If your wife wore that, you’d be okay with it? New definition of modesty I guess. Or double standard.

    I wasn’t responding to Doug. Was I?? Did he address me?

    I like the way Reformed men talk. Keep going.

  60. Dismayed Says:

    You people do realize that the clothing that the VF fencing team was wearing is standard issue fencing clothing, right?You can purchase them from any standard issue company, for example.

    Who in their right mind starts calling it a “thong” or a “g-string”?

  61. Vik Says:

    Back on subject (for KTJ’s sake).
    Regarding character,
    I asked:
    “I noticed some black girls with white fathers in that link also. I guess Doug didn’t have a problem with that? Is he really as racist as some of the others?”

    Doug didn’t mention this specifically, that there were mixed races in families at the father/daughter retreat. But I assume by his lack of comment that he really doesn’t mind this. Is he really racist? He’s a lot of things, but racist?

  62. K. Says:

    I have NEVER heard him say he was. I have been on several of VF things and there are SEVERAL families who adopt children from other races.

    No NOT racist.

  63. Corrie Says:

    Vik,

    Thanks for the warning! 😉

    I would say that it is defined as an “eyetrap”. For those who have followed Bill Gothard, you will know exactly what I am talking about. Except that only women have “eyetraps”. Such as a long strand of pearls. Supposedly the pearls will draw a man’s eyes down the length of them to an area that causes a man’s eyes to be trapped looking at this area that is not supposed to be looked at.

    My eyes were definitely trapped for a second or two.

    I think I would really like to fence. That seems like a great sport to me. I don’t think I would like to wear the “floss”, though. Do they have female fencing uniforms sans floss?

    Thank you for a moment of brevity. I needed that after reading the veiled accusations concerning Jen’s usage of time.

    I have seen this same thing by women on other hyper-patriarchal lists. It is a common tactic. Elizabeth really hit the nail on the head concerning the nature of the questions. The implication: “Jen, you must not be fulfilling your duties since you have time to write on the internet.”

    Natasha was right on and it was totally appropriate to answer that question.

    I was able to meet Jen, recently, and I was very touched by her love and devotion to her children. Her love was very apparent, especially in her sweet little girl. I was blessed just by observing Jen mothering her. Jen appears to be a doting and devoted mother.

    Today I clipped toe nails and fingernails (Big job when you have 10 children! Thankfully, some of them can clip their own! LOL) I made cupcakes (homemade, NOT from the box! Heavens NO!! I AM A PROVERBS 31 WOMAN!!! ) for my youngest son’s 1st birthday!!! Happy Birthday my
    Baby Man, Levi! I wept while making cupcakes, thinking of the day I gave birth to him and wishing I could go back and hold that new miracle for just 15 minutes. I did get in a shower today but I must repent- it was later in the day and I know that I should be showered and coiffed first thing in the morning. I did some laundry, changed the sheets and did school with my children. I returned a rug that was the wrong size and ordered a new one along with some rooster paintings for our dining room and some bar stools for our kitchen- all online. I grilled hamburgers while my husband mowed the lawn. I played nurse for a couple of minor “owies”. Changed diapers. I broke up fights and tried to play peacemaker. We went to a Friday night service at a church as a family.

    I thought I would answer Anne’s question, too. It was fun. My life is really rather boring and mundane. I spend most of my time in the kitchen cleaning up messes and sweeping up crumbs. I don’t ever feel like I accomplish a lot. Most days I feel like I missed the mark. I think it might be the season I am in. I still can’t manage to get fired, though! LOL My husband mumbled something about me having job security.

  64. Corrie Says:

    Lynn,

    Must you keep on using all those big words? Sheesh! I have to keep on looking them up in the dictionary.

    This is from Wikipedia:

    Argumentum ad baculum (Latin: argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion.

    The rest of the entry was very good and it gave some very good examples of this logical fallacy.

  65. Vik Says:

    Corrie said:
    “I made cupcakes (homemade…”)

    Sans toenails? 😉

    I thought the floss was rather relevant to the discussion myself, as such eye-candy (or whatever you called it) is not suitable for Christians. Now, if a bunch of men want to get together wearing that stuff, fine. But post a photo on the internet? Me thinketh… not. Heck, I always snapped the onesies *inside* the pants with my children. And they weren’t flossy onesies, either.

    Wish I had ten kids. I was hospitalized, dehydrated, on IV’s, pert’ near dead with each one, all nine months. So, had to stop at three. Do patriarchs allow women to stop having babies in circumstances like that?

    Oh, get the book “Fallacy Detective” by Hans & Nathaniel Bluedorn. You’ll learn all this cool Latin stuff Lynn keeps quoting. We, too, can sound really smart!
    🙂

  66. Vik Says:

    K said:
    “I have NEVER heard him say he was. I have been on several of VF things and there are SEVERAL families who adopt children from other races. No NOT racist.”

    I am inclined to believe you here. I know men who are racists and they would NEVER have allowed that mixture. Doug does rub elbows with racists, so people can’t help but wonder. I don’t see that with Doug, I’ll hand him that.

  67. J Says:

    1 Timothy 5:13-15 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan.

  68. Lynn Says:

    Corrie:
    “Thank you for a moment of brevity.”

    Corrie, isn’t that a tautology?? 😉
    (psssssst — levity, levity)

    Vic:
    ““I made cupcakes (homemade…”)
    Sans toenails?”

    Vic!!! Don’t you see the admonition above!!! For SHAME!!
    Now, get back to WORK!! 😉

  69. Mark Epstein Says:

    Corrie,

    Well, from the pace of your life, I’m glad I only work 26 hour days on occasion – and this only occurs when the “trainees” forget basic chemistry! (This is a tad tongue in cheek because many of the teams we train have science officers who hold PhDs in chemistry, biology, or nuclear physics.)

    As for your observation concerning Jen be a doting and devoted mother, all I can say is AMEN. When present, I watch her always stop what she’s doing to address one of the children or address one of their opportunity training requirements or provide them guidance or a myriad of other motherly dotes. You will notice I use the superlative “always,” even though I generally disdain this form in favor of the comparative.

    Regarding the issue raised by those interested in whether Jen is doing anything besides writing on her blog, I can assure everyone that Doug and his proxies generally have no military background. This is obvious because they continue using the same tactics that repeatedly fail them in their campaign of hate directed at Jen and me. Over and over we see distractions raised (e.g., does Jen do anything but write on her blog/moderate comments) instead of addressing the substantive issues Jen and others raise. Furthermore, we see Doug and proxies subscribe to the form over substance mentality of American politics. This will always be a lose-lose situation for Doug and his Dougites because most of the folks reading Jen’s blog are intelligent people.

    One final thought: The TRUTH does not “smear” anyone. The TRUTH may make folks highly uncomfortable, but it does not smear, libel, or slander, it merely is what it is — the TRUTH. Now if we could only get Doug to truthfully answer the ongoing question of what Jen and I SPECIFICALLY did to warrant excommunication, then we might actually enter into real dialogue.

    Gotta run. Off to the garden with Joshua! 😉

  70. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I think I would really like to fence. That seems like a great sport to me. I don’t think I would like to wear the “floss”, though. Do they have female fencing uniforms sans floss?”

    LOL! yes, they do, but the “floss” is pretty standard, and worn correctly(ie, LOOSELY) shouldn’t be an “eyetrap” problem for anyone (and personally, I think that Gothard is full of beans anyway. The man sees impurity where none exists — “Tts 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. “)
    The VisionForum team members are wearing standard fencing jackets, and the strap is to prevent the jacket from sliding up during lunges, etc, thus maintaining adequate protection and coverage over the entire torso and groin area. Covering the lower parts of the jacket with pants would be counterproductive, since the waistband of the pants would contribute to the tendency of the jacket to shift, and if they are using electric scoring, where the jackets are specially constructed to record touches from the opponents’ epees, the pants would interfere with that.

    And you should try fencing…. it’s loads of fun, and good mental and physical exercise– sort of like full-contact chess. My husband started fencing in college, and I’ve been playing myself since about 1993.

  71. Justice Prima Says:

    I have heard that the Constitution Party holds hands with racists and welcomes them into its midst, and I have heard this probably ten years ago from somebody who was involved at the state level and left for this reason. So this isn’t exactly new (please note I do not offer this as proof of the truth of such an allegation, I’m simply pointing out that this isn’t ‘new’).

    However, I do not insist that Doug is a racist, and, in fact, I doubt that he is. I think this is true of most of those posting here who disapprove of many other things Doug does (obviously, none of us can speak for everybody).
    The point of the racism issue is that this was first brought up by the disgraceful, juvenile site Fed UP and Matt Chancey’s unbecoming and thuggish parody of an ‘independent investigation.’ They made these allegations against the Epsteins. Their reasoning was unsound and foolish. In order to point this out, several people demonstrated that their flawed guilt by association logic applied just as much to Doug as it did the Epsteins, and that is what people are trying to point out- not to accuse Doug of racism, but to point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency at his buddy Matt’s not at all independent smear campaign.

    And it is certainly true that some of Doug’s associates and connections are racists (though I wish CJ would quit citing the Southern Poverty Law Center, a leftist organization I hold no brief with and wouldn’t take their word for anything ), as are some of the people he admires. This does not, contrary to Matt Chancey’s reasoning, prove that he’s a racist- which is the main point of bringing these things up. Matt Chancey’s allegations of the Epsteins being racists were faulty, based on flawed premises and weak and fallacious reasoning- as fairminded, unhypocritical people can see when they apply exactly the same standard to Doug.

    Speaking of Matt Chancey’s site, I remember that he also accused Brandon of being part of this racist conspiracy and promised further revelations on that front soon. How long ago was that? A couple of months at least, I think. Given that we’ve been waiting all that time for him to prove his allegations against Brandon, or do the right and honorable thing and withdraw them if he cannot prove them, and he has done neither, I think it’s kind of pushy to expect Jen to respond in less than two days.

    Matt’s ugly accusation of Brandon without any proof or attempt at substantiation reminds me of something else- it is not ‘tact’ when somebody makes a vague, blanket accusation without specifics. It’s not tactful to say ‘there are inaccuracies’ in somebody’s statement without explaining what they are. It’s ridiculous to take such a vague statement seriously, and it’s a hateful way of making a blanket accusation against which there is no defense. Would you call it tact if I said, “There are things about Ann and Lucy which would reduce their credibility to nill if you only knew what I know?” Of course not- that would not be tactful, that would be ridiculous and nobody should pay the slightest attention to me if I say things like that but am unwilling to provide specifics. It would be grossly unfair of me to say such a thing without specifics, and it would be equally unjust for anybody to take my allegation seriously without specifics.

    The same is true of those of you who think such vague accusations against the Epsteins are proof of anything.

    I am quite sure there are points where the Epsteins and LBW’s accounts would differ, not because of dishonesty but because of humanity. Any two witnesses of the same event will report things differently, will see what happened differently, will remember things differently. Until the other side is willing to say in what fashion Jen’s account is inaccurate, I see no reason to assume it’s inaccurate in anything essential. It would be unjust to assume otherwise.

  72. Esther Says:

    “You people do realize that the clothing that the VF fencing team was wearing is standard issue fencing clothing, right?You can purchase them from any standard issue company, for example.

    Who in their right mind starts calling it a “thong” or a “g-string”?”

    Do the macho psuedonyms come with the outfit? :o)

  73. Mark Epstein Says:

    Justice Prima,

    Well said! Your analysis of the unsubstantiated disguised as factual is the core issue of our excommunication.

    The Epstein position is simple: (1) The excommunication was unbiblical and Jen demonstrated why this is true (2) the excommunication was devoid of this country’s due process, let alone the higher biblical standard, and Jen demonstrated why this is true (3) the excommunication was orchestrated by an unordained sole elder trained in one of America’s ABA approved law schools (4) yet the excommunication included conflict of interest, i.e., Doug’s employees “voting” in said excommunication (5) the excommunication failed to incorporate even one SPECIFIC excommunicable sin and BCA’s own statement demonstrated why this is true (6) Phillips, BCA, Vision Forum, Matt Chancey, the writers at Fed Up/SFU have ALL FAILED to provide one scintilla of evidence that Phillips et. al have been slandered, libeled, or smeared and, BTW, the TRUTH is always a defense against such baseless allegations (7) Phillips and his proxies have engaged in a logically fallacious campaign of guilt by association, ad hominem attacks, red herrings, faulty appeal to authority, appeal to pity (specifically Beall Phillips and the women of BCA), genetic fallacy, straw man, etc. (8) Phillips and his proxies have yet to address one substantive issue raised by Jen, me, Ministry Watchman, or the commenters on the three blogs just mentioned (9) Phillips and his proxies continue to obfuscate and cloud the real issues by continuing item 7 above and (10) even when offered full authority to articulate specific sin and misbehavior and exercise ecclesiastical authority despite previous abuse and tyranny(July 2006 Letter to Doug’s Attorney), Phillips, his attorney, and BCA chose to ignore the opportunity.

    Thus, what we are really dealing with is a group of individuals who act autocratically and expect all of Christendom to support their dictates. Not only is this antithetical to the the biblical text, it is antithetical to our Constitutional Republic that Phillips insists is in covenant with God!

    As I’ve noted before, Phillips is a lawyer and he should know better. Phillips’ excommunication relied on baseless, unsubstantiated and non-specific allegations of sin that would not only be impossible to prove in a secular court, Phillips knows they have no chance of withstanding scrutiny at the appellate level. This is the underlying WHY Phillips and his proxies have not and will not provide the specifics of sin that rises to the level of excommunication and WHY they continue to hide behind smoke screens of their own design, as well as squandering the Epstein-given opportunity to continue in their pattern of ecclesiastical tyranny more than a month before the Ligonier issue even surfaced. In and of itself, this last statement underscores the disingenuous nature of Phillips’ and BCA’s public persona and behavior in relation to the Epsteins.

  74. Corrie Says:

    Hi Lynn,

    Yes, it should have been “levity” not “brevity”. Maybe it was an unconcious slip?

    CJ,

    Thank you for the lesson in fencing outfits. I am fascinated! I am going to look into it. I noticed that those fencing shirts with the snaps go OVER fencing pants of the same color so the whole “onesie” affect isn’t really that noticeable. I know I would be a bit self-conscious wearing only the shirt. 🙂 So, I would need to get the whole outfit. What sort of earrings do you think would go with it?

  75. Swordbearer John Says:

    Mark, my man, I think I will take your challenge. I will be happy to answer your 10 points on my blog in the next day or so.

    You say a lot without saying much so it shouldn’t be too difficult.

    I’ve said it on my blog and I think it bears saying here…

    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)

    oh and if anyone wants to dialog with me my blog is not the place ….but my email is on my blog profile.

    Four churches, two homeschool leaders, a few lawyers and lots of regular folks agree:

    Mark and Jen are wrong and need to repent.

    Mark – I’m not the one who has

    “engaged in a logically fallacious campaign of guilt by association, ad hominem attacks, red herrings, faulty appeal to authority, appeal to pity …genetic fallacy, straw man, etc.”

    You and Jen and the nature of these blogs prove my case.

    S.J.
    P.S. I kinda like Switchblade Juanito. It has a nice old west feel to it…and yes I’m Still Fed Up.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: