Doug Phillips Refuses To Hire Women At Vision Forum

But If Doug Phillips Says He Doesn’t Hire Women, Then What Are All Those Females Doing Working At Vision Forum?

Doug Phillips has a policy against hiring women employees. In fact, he’s privately boasted to various men, “I don’t hire women.” If you ask him why he doesn’t hire women, you’re likely to get a very Bill Gothard-like response about the sin of females being out from under the “umbrella of authority” of their husbands or fathers.

Doug Phillips has often been heard to say, “Your wife is your helpmeet, and not another man’s.” What he means by this is that if a wife, or even a daughter, is employed by “another man,” then she becomes that man’s helpmeet. Doug Phillips has also been heard to say, “Too many problems with having women in the workplace.”

Most people wouldn’t be aware of Doug’s anti-female hiring policies. After all, even though he’s privately quite proud of himself for it, it’s still not something that he’d probably want to advertise.

Doug Phillips knows that women are the primary readers of his Vision Forum catalog, and women place most of the orders from his catalog. Just imagine what might happen if he had a statement in the Vision Forum catalog, “Vision Forum is an all male employee business and does not hire females.”

Even though many of the women who patronize Vision Forum know that Doug Phillips is one of the chief spokesmen for the Patriarchy movement in America today, I seriously doubt that many of them are aware of Doug’s anti-female hiring policies. I think it only reasonable that this become common knowledge.

However, if you ever happen to visit The Vision Forum, don’t expect to see only males working there. In spite of what Doug Phillips privately boasts to various male colleagues and friends, you will regularly see female workers at The Vision Forum. They’re just not thought of by Doug as “employees.” In this way Doug gets to boast to fellow Patriarchs that he doesn’t “hire females,” and yet he still gets the benefit of their very competent labor. With such “straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel” thinking, Doug Phillips epitomizes the very reason why Jesus said, “Woe unto you lawyers.”

So if there are women workers at Vision Forum, but they’re not classified as “employees,” what are they? Some are unpaid volunteers. Others, however, are paid. They’re probably just not paid directly. Doug probably pays their husbands for their wives’ and daughters’ labor, or he makes some other arrangements so that he doesn’t have to pay them directly. That way Doug gets to say that he doesn’t hire women. This is just another expression of Doug’s Phariseeism — his Gothardite hyper-patriarchy.

Being a Pharisee can be challenging. It’s hard juggling all those legalistic balls and not dropping any. It becomes especially hard when Doug suddenly finds himself needing a bunch of additional workers. For Vision Forum, this happens very predictably, every year. Vision Forum’s busiest time of year is the Christmas season. Doug himself doesn’t celebrate Christmas. In fact, he disdains Christmas. He calls it a “Catholic holiday.” Doug hates Catholics in some ways even more than he hates pagans, atheists and feminists. When we were members of Boerne Christian Assembly we often heard Doug express his contempt for Catholics. This has never dissuaded him, though, from going all out in promoting this “Catholic holiday,” at least in the commercial sense.

Christmas for Doug isn’t a time to celebrate our Savior’s birth, but it is a time to celebrate other things, like, for instance, being able to rake in a big pile of cash. Christmas is big business, and in order to make that big business flow smoothly, and keep those shipments flying out the door, Doug has to hire a lot of extra help. Where does he get that help from? I’ll share that part a little later.

Several years ago I noticed the very obvious need that Doug had for additional workers to cover the Christmas season. Just like any other retail mail order business, Vision Forum’s Christmas-season business suddenly skyrockets, starting immediately after Thanksgiving. I wasn’t impressed at all with how Doug was addressing that short-term labor need. In fact, it appeared to me that the way that he went about addressing that labor need was a public image disaster just waiting to happen. So I made a suggestion to him: Organize home school families in the San Antonio area to come in and cover the short-term need. To me this made perfect sense. It would be a true win-win, and just about any of the work that needed doing could be easily accomplished by some home school families.

Doug is supposedly a big proponent of internships, cottage industry, family businesses and entrepreneurialism. He even offers an Entrepreneurial Bootcamp. What better way for Doug to promote his entrepreneurial internship vision than to hire home school kids and offer them a seasonal internship program at Vision Forum? In some cases it might be wise to also hire some moms, so that they could also supervise the kids.

To me it seemed like a great idea, but Doug hated it. Why did Doug hate it? For the same reason he hates having women employees. In Doug’s Gothardite Patriarchal view, females should never be out from under the “umbrella of authority” of their husbands; or if they don’t have a husband, then out from under the “authority umbrella” of their fathers. Hiring home school kids, supervised by their mothers, apparently violates this Gothard/Phillips principle. Doug preaches that it is a sin for a female to work outside the home, because in doing so she’s coming out from under the authority of her “head.” “Wives and daughters shouldn’t leave the home to be under the authority of another man. Females must remain under the authority of their husbands or fathers.” Doug could have hired just home school boys and then hired a home school dad to supervise them, but he wouldn’t consider doing even that.

So what about those women who do work at Vision Forum? Why, in Doug’s view, are they not out from under their “authority umbrellas”? Apparently the reason why is because some of them are probably just unpaid volunteers. It’s not clear to me why that logically should make any difference, but apparently it’s logical in Doug’s mind. Even the Phillips’ family nannies, maids, and maintenance workers are often unpaid volunteers. Several young ladies have worked in the Phillips’ home for many years, unpaid. From all accounts, most of these young ladies are anything but financially well off. Sometimes, though, Doug does pay their travel expenses to send them on a Faith and Freedom Tour with him and his family, so they can take care of his children there as well.

One poor family has the mother, daughter, and son all volunteering at the Phillips’ home on a regular basis. Doug appears more than pleased to daily “oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy” (Deut 24:14) and have them come out from under their “authority umbrella” to come and help raise Doug’s children. There are also other women who work for Doug as unpaid volunteers. They do so at Vision Forum’s facilities. Just like with his unpaid poor nannies and maids, Doug sees no inconsistencies between what he preaches and what he practices.

Some of the other women who work at Vision Forum are the wives and daughters of male Vision Forum employees. Rather than legally hiring the women, Doug probably pays their husbands or fathers for the time that they work there. In Doug’s mind, those women don’t work for him — they’re working for their husbands or fathers, who in turn work for Doug. In order for that to make any sense, the first thing you’ll have to do is disregard the fact that most, if not all of those women, aren’t working for their husbands or fathers at all. In most cases their husbands or fathers don’t supervise them at all. In most, if not all cases, those women are clear on the opposite side of the building and their husbands or fathers may not see them at all, but perhaps at the lunch break.

Back now to the “Catholic holiday” season. How does Doug cope with the sudden demand for additional labor? He hires employees through a Temporary Agency. Does Doug get to tell the Temp Agency to only send him male workers? No, that would be job discrimination. Doug could get into big trouble for that. Does he get to tell the Temp Agency, “I don’t want any Catholics or pagans. We’re a Christian business, so I only want Baptists”? No, again, that would job discrimination. Doug could get into trouble, so he doesn’t do that.

Christmas season at Vision Forum is truly a sight to behold. The warehouse is full of foul-mouthed, scantily-clad, non-Christian males and females processing orders for this so-called family-friendly Christian business. Break times and lunch time are an even more disturbing sight. Many of the temp workers go out into the alley in back of Vision Forum’s building to puff their cigarettes. After a few weeks, the alley literally piles up with cigarette butts and even empty beer bottles.

To me it’s very sad that Doug never took my advice about hiring home school kids instead of temps from a Temp Agency. Perhaps he rejected the idea only because it came from a woman? I don’t know. What I do know is that this is just another one of the many examples of Doug Phillips’ hypocrisy.

A Father’s Day Poem

by Doug Phillips

The Patriarch

More noble than the valiant deeds of shining knights of yore,
More powerful than earthly plights that make the rich man poor,
More kingly than a royal throne or a lion with his pride,
Is he whose babes sleep well at night sure Daddy will provide.

There is a spirit in this land and Jezebel’s her name.
She’s calling you to leave your home for power, fun, and fame.
She wants your wife, your children too — she’ll never compromise,
Until your house is torn in two by listening to her lies.

But though a hundred thousand million men may fall prey to her lures,
And wives en masse leave home in search of “more fulfilling” chores,
Though preachers praise, and friends embrace, her pagan plan of death,
Stand strong and quit you like a man with every blessed breath.

Stand strong and rise, O man of God, to meet this noble call,
The battle is not new you see, it’s been here since the Fall.

Your wife is your helpmeet, my friend, and not another man’s,
So care for her and keep her far from Mistress Jezi’s plans.
Protect, provide, and give to her your undivided life,
This is the dear one of your youth, your precious bride, your wife.

And rally to those tiny ones who trust you for their care —
A lifetime spent discipling them’s a lifetime pure and rare.
For when they put their hand in yours and know a Daddy’s love,
You’re showing them a picture of the Father from above.

Look not toward worldly goal or gain, or for your liberty,
Look only into their sweet eyes to find your ministry.
Devote your heart and sacrifice and make your manly mark —
There is none so great as he who finds his call as patriarch.

Posted by Doug Phillips on June 19, 2005

Advertisements

440 Responses to “Doug Phillips Refuses To Hire Women At Vision Forum”

  1. Corrie Says:

    Trish,

    “I would like the links only if they are sites that are authored by Doug Phillips.”

    Well, then there are no links to give you. Doug doesn’t sign his name to anything, not even the documents on his own church’s website nor on VF’s website.

    But, he does link to “independent investigator” Matt Chancey’s website via Vision Forum. They have been best friends for years now and they are closely linked in business and life and vision. They even wear the same trademark- a fedora. Hardly what I would call “independent” when you have your best friend and comrade in arms writing against your arch enemy on your behalf. I suppose the technicality is that Doug never specifically asked Matt. Matt most likely just volunteered to “independently” investigate and put his findings on the Mrs. Bino website with no resistance from Doug.

    Also, it has been told to me that the boys behind SFU work for Doug and/or closely related to Doug/VF. Bob Renaud has never denied being Fallacy Slayer. And they are the ones who leaked the confidential information concerning Jen’s preconversion sins to a group of people where they knew the info would be the most explosive and do the most damage and inflame their sensitivities. From there, we have this site calling for Jen to kill herself (among a number of horrible, hateful and UGLY names- you don’t know attack and ugly until you have read what I did on this site) without nary a word from our “spiritual leaders”.

    So, if you are looking for a website where Doug is speaking directly about this situation you won’t find it. He speaks through others. It is actually very clever for the very loophole you are proffering in your statement above.

  2. Spunky Says:

    Here is the link to Vision Forum which links to Mrs. Binoculars. He calls it an “independent investigation” and it is linked in three parts.

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

    The fact that he would link to this from Vision Forum’s website tells me that Doug Phillips endorses and supports what is written there.

  3. Corrie Says:

    Spunky,

    I noticed something funny.

    There is a letter from Vision Forum Ministries Board to Boerne Christian in one of those links.

    “The following note has been published with permission.

    November 28, 2006

    DEAR BOERNE CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLY AND ITS LEADERSHIP:”

    And then they sign the letter

    “May the Lord Give you Grace and Wisdom,

    Sincerely,

    The Vision Forum Ministries Board of Directors”

    Who do they think they are fooling? Maybe those that don’t understand that BCA is run by the same person who runs Vision Forum?

    The following note has been published by permission? 🙂

    Well of course because VF is publishing it and the same people who wrote that letter on behalf of VF are the same people who wrote the official BCA statement.

    It is like a shell game. It is all smoke and mirrors.

    Why not just come out with it and be straight forward and honest?

  4. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Corrie suggested a “scarlett A” for Jen to wear. That brings up an interesting story. Anyone read that book? A minister figures quite prominently in the story.

    I would suggest rather than just an A or as a substitute so as to reflect the full charges:

    E for excommunicated
    H for heathen
    P for publican
    R for republican (vs C for Constitution Party)
    D for dissident
    N for “non-normative”
    J for “jezi”
    S for slanderer or sinner
    I for she who dared to use the internet (Doug’s domain)
    F for feminist
    SC for sin cooties
    ETC…

    When will it end?

  5. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Why not just come out with it and be straight forward and honest?

    Because they’ve chosen to do otherwise.

    Via appeal to authority, they feel that they are not obliagated.

  6. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Corrie:
    It is like a shell game. It is all smoke and mirrors.

    Tell the big, outrageous lie blatantly enough and keep repeating….

    (I would refer interested parties to scroll back to my comment yesterday)

  7. Corrie Says:

    Trish,

    “Sorry to frustrate you. I am still working through my thoughts on Doug Phillips, but will not accuse or condemn until I know all the facts. I am working on it! There is a lot to wade through.”

    Can I just say that I haven’t experienced this personally from you? I also think Cynthia might not feel that you extend that same grace of not accusing or condemning until you have all the facts since you did basically accuse those of us whose statements you used as “proof” of “murder”. She has asked you a number of times to converse with her concerning the things you accused her of.

    Yes, there is a LOT to wade through and that is why we should take our time and get to know people and their personalities and their sense of humor before we begin calling them names.

    Believe me when I say that I write this with no anger or malice. I am totally calm and collected.

    “This web-site accuses Doug Phillips of many things, and if we just blindly believed it all without proof, we would be fools.

    I respect Doug Phillips because he does not have a web-site accusing the Epsteins of many things.”

    Trish, well many of us, as I have said to you before, we are no one’s patsy and most of the people on this site have way too strong of a personality to just believe anything blindly without proof. I would sincerely be afraid to try and pull something off in front of the people on this list because nothing gets past them. Believe me when I say that they have no loyalties and they will hold each other and me accountable but they can do this justly because they have taken the time to get to know each other so they don’t jump to hasty judgments.

    Morgan, I will only take you to task for pulling out your hair (glory). Shame on you!! You leave that hair alone. Do you want everyone to think you are a prostitute? 😉

  8. Corrie Says:

    Cynthia,

    So many choices!!!

    I like the “R” for Republican. 🙂

  9. CynthiaGee Says:

    “From there, we have this site calling for Jen to kill herself (among a number of horrible, hateful and UGLY names- you don’t know attack and ugly until you have read what I did on this site) without nary a word from our “spiritual leaders”. ”

    Including one name so obscene that somebody had to explain it to me — and me a semi-tomboy who grew up hanging out with a bunch of boy cousins !

  10. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Kids,

    Please call me Cindy. (God forbid you mix me up with that polemic Cynthia Gee with all her colorful commentary.) Ha, ha, ha.

    Gothard’s big on names, so I wonder if it is significant to note that Cynthia (one of the nicknames for one of those evil Greek godesses) can be interpreted to mean “the moon who reflects the light of the Sun to illuminate the darkness.”

    Or why thenonomy attracts Garys and Dougs? Or why legalism attracts Jacks?

  11. CynthiaGee Says:

    “Or why legalism attracts Jacks?”
    Because the chances are 10 to 3 that the Jacks will be the ones enforcing the rules rather than following them, unless some “joker” comes around and trumps their racket…

    Sorry, couldn’t help it. 😀

  12. Mrs. H Says:

    I appreciate the fact that Matt Chancey’s “Who is Mrs. Binoculares?” has all the facts and claims well documented for all to see.

    The claims made against Doug Phillips and Vision Forum on this post have not been documented or proven in any way.

    Thank you for recommending Mr. Chancey’s site.

  13. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Note: Presupposition about source of evidence and appeal to authority at work here.

    PDF files and documents are insignificant if you’ve already decided the evidence. Perhaps this isn’t entirely true. Maybe it will change as truth works on the heart of all who open themselves to it.

    What was Mike’s quote about those nice Russians and their declarations concerning their opponents?

    Right out of Lifton:
    SACRED SCIENCE. The group’s doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism. Many such leaders have patterns of avoiding accountability and aggression towards his critics. Leaders often have the appearance of accountability to a presbytery and an internal church government, but often the systems have been designed to avoid all accountability. Presbyters are often friends, associates or subordinates of the cult leader(s).

  14. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    I forgot these things at work too, over the course of the whole thread:

    Doctrine over person. Member’s personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group. The end ideology of the group must be maintained by any means, even at the expense or suffering of the group members. Love for the system or ideology supersedes that of the people, places or lesser causes. This promotes hatred and intolerance of all opposing critics or ideologies.

    Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group’s ideology. Within many Bible-based cults, a higher way of living or greater enlightenment may be obtained by striving and modeling the group’s ideals. If persons do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members, or may be viewed as lesser Christians. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility as the specialness of the group promotes greater desire for milieu control and a sense of martyrdom. Those within the group who demonstrate non-conformity may also lose privileges or the status of enlightenment, a very potent method of negative reinforcement. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also. Even after leaving a group, the former member tends to have a sense of loss of grace and a programmed sense of shame. Leadership thus makes it difficult to leave such groups, and departure implies a rejection of the only true means of religious transcendence.

    Adapted from Robert J Lifton’s Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, in the chaper entitled Ideological Totalism

  15. Mrs. H Says:

    After reading most of the information in the left-hand side bar, and reading Matt Chancey’s site “Who is Mrs. Binoculars?”, I have come to the conclusion that I have made a grave error in spending any time here at all.

    I will pray for all involved in this, that those who have been hurt will heal and forgive, and that those who have sinned so greviously and done the hurting will repent and return to the Lord.

    In Christ,
    Trish

  16. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Mrs. H swallows the blue pill…. (But I don’t suppose that she saw that film…)

    Hey, I don’t even deserve any acknowledgement at all. I wonder if she read anything I wrote?

  17. CynthiaGee Says:

    She still hasn’t seen Still Fed Up. Lynn, do you have the link to the article at SFU which called us carpet-eaters?

  18. Lin Says:

    Mrs H wrote: I appreciate the fact that Matt Chancey’s “Who is Mrs. Binoculares?” has all the facts and claims well documented for all to see. ”

    Q.E.D.

  19. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Refering to Cynthia Gee’s statement above that I don’t even want to copy or type…

    Is that to say that they called us homosexuals?

    Does anyone have links to this and the call for suicide? I would really like to have the links. I tried to read a little of that site, but as with the Bino site, it was like listening to a speech by one or both of the Clinitons. I understand the words, but they make little to no sense.

  20. CynthiaGee Says:

    “Mrs H wrote: I appreciate the fact that Matt Chancey’s “Who is Mrs. Binoculares?” has all the facts and claims well documented for all to see.”

    As Lin said, Q.E.D.

    Mrs H. — that’s right, Matt Chancey has it all documented. He and Doug are CLOSE friends — Chancey has even written poetry in praise of Doug, his mentor. (the poem is found on Matt Chancey’s blog , which used to be open for the public to read, but recently has been changed to an invitation-only blogsite.)

    Yet, Doug claims that Matt is an independent investigator.

    Personally, I’d say that Matt has a conflict of interest and is no such thing. Doug is an attorney — he knows what a conflict of interest is. Thus, when Doug called matt Chancey an independent investigator, DOUG PHILLIPS KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSELY TOLD AN UNTRUTH.

    Put bluntly, Mrs. H, Doug lied.

  21. CynthiaGee Says:

    “Is that to say that they called us homosexuals?”

    Yes, they did, and in a particularly nasty way, one that I had never even heard of. Someone had to explain it to me, and I am 48 years old!

  22. Spunky Says:

    Mrs. H. I admit to being a little confused by your abrupt departure. I have shown great forebearance in answering your questions, I hope you will indulge me for a brief moment more of your time and a final question,

    You stated without equivocation “I respect Doug Phillips because he does not have a web-site accusing the Epsteins of many things.”

    Please demonstrate how you can make such a bold statement with such certainty. There are numerous websites that accuse Jen Epstein of many things. How do you know with certainty that Doug Phillips has not participated or written what is contained there?

    Your reply will help me greatly understand how others are perceiving this situation and help me in my own search for accountability in regards to Doug Phllips and Vision Forum ministry. If you can say with certainty that he did not write them, please tell me how you know that to be true.

  23. Spunky Says:

    And lastly in regards to Mr. Chancey’s blog site…

    Mrs. H you said, “I appreciate the fact that Matt Chancey’s “Who is Mrs. Binoculars?” has all the facts and claims well documented for all to see. ”

    Really? I admit to being a little perplexed by such a claim. Please indulge me for a moment. Mrs. H. if you look at Part III of his expose Mr. Chancey wrote

    “The evidence I have examined has lead me to the following conclusion: that “Frank Vance” and Harry Seabrook are personal friends who live fairly close to one another and have been working closely together for quite some time.” and he references footnote 11.

    Going down to footnote 11 he wrote,

    “11. The evidence supporting several of my conclusions will be disclosed as my investigation continues. Stay tuned to MrsBinoculars.com for further details.”

    Mrs. H. Matt Chancey wrote that on January 22, 2007. I am still waiting for the evidence six months later. How is it that you were able to declaratively state that he has supported all his claims, when he doesn’t even make such an assertion?

  24. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    CynthiaGee Says:
    June 28th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
    “Is that to say that they called us homosexuals?”

    Yes, they did, and in a particularly nasty way, one that I had never even heard of. Someone had to explain it to me, and I am 48 years old!

    Ah, this is precious and wonderful. I asked my husband a whole list of similar things after we were married. Some still remain a mystery, thank God. My mother explained the original comment in question to me! (She picked it up from commentary of coworkers while she was out sinning by working outside the home.)

  25. Corrie Says:

    Cynthia,

    That site where Jen’s suicide was called for is now defunct thanks to Matt Chancey’s super-sleuth work. He tracked down the owner of that site and called his place of employment and threatened to out this guy to his racially diverse employer as a racist.

    The guy who ran the site is a “kinist”.

    This other “bad” guy was much more inflammatory. I don’t know how else to describe it but the people who also posted at this “bad” guy’s site were much more nasty in their racial hatred. He was a seething racist and he had a blog that was part of this “kinist” site.

    On this “bad” guy’s site is where someone called Lynn, Karen, Cheryl and I a name so vile (here it is, cleaned up for this blog: floor covering masticating bovine earthen dam that holds back the sea) that most people didn’t even get what it meant. I did. But, I think I had to explain it to a couple of people.

    You know why we were called this? Simply because we didn’t see the color of skin involved in this whole situation. You see, when the SFU gang leaked the confidential information to that racist site, they knew that the color of skin would inflame them and turn them against Jen and against Mark because of his Jewish background. At this time, before the info was leaked, this site was supportive of Jen and Mark because they had already had a beef with Doug Phillips.

    So, unless someone can get a snapshot of that site, I did not save any of the comments.

  26. Corrie Says:

    Hey, Lynn, if you Google that naughty name we were called, your blog is the first to come up! 🙂

  27. Bryan Says:

    Trish/Mrs. H will not be back, but she might still lurk. She is one of those people that no matter how much evidence there is, she will side with Doug Phillips because he can do no wrong.

    That’s cultism.

  28. Corrie Says:

    ““11. The evidence supporting several of my conclusions will be disclosed as my investigation continues. Stay tuned to MrsBinoculars.com for further details.”

    Mrs. H. Matt Chancey wrote that on January 22, 2007. I am still waiting for the evidence six months later. How is it that you were able to declaratively state that he has supported all his claims, when he doesn’t even make such an assertion?”

    Spunky,

    I have been waiting, too! Matt was finally going to reveal who Frank Vance was and how he tied in with Harry Seabrook and how Jen and Mark all fit in here.

    Just like he “proved” Jen was the woman in the photo? Oh yeah! I am still looking for the proof.

    I am still waiting for the proof and the longer I wait, the less credibility he has.

  29. Lin Says:

    Spunky, I am impressed. I did not catch that.

    The writing style on that site reminds me of one of those supermarket tabloids and I had trouble getting through it without feeling the need for a shower. Do grown ups really go for that sort of thing? All the time…the Globe sells.

    This is someone who has been schooled in the ‘non-art’ of political hyperbole. Why all the vitriolic language? Why the need for the histrionics?

    When he wrote a novel sized article to ‘prove’ Jen was Mrs. Bino, I knew he was a crank right away. Logic would dictate that if Jen were really Mrs. Bino and wanted to hide that fact…she would NEVER allow her picture. (Which we now know is someone named ‘Danny’ in Ireland)

    And Mrs. Bino is the grown up version of Fed Up? They are in trouble in Patriarchy land if that is the outcome.

  30. Red Ink Says:

    I know some of these comments started a while back, but I’m with those who say there’s an awful lot of speculation in this post.

    Rather than assume the man is a hypocrite and imagine his silly rationalizations, I’d prefer to assume that I don’t know the whole story and that there’s a reasonable explanation for the apparent contradiction.

    Bryan:

    Mrs. H was not a Phillips supporter, and objected to this site based on issues that had nothing to do with patriarchy or Vision Forum or anything like that. I relate to her in this respect. To suggest that she left because of cultism strikes me as glib and unfair. I can think of half a million other reasons, much more noble, that could explain her abrupt departure.

    It’s hard being in the minority on this blog (the time I spend reading and responding is immense and difficult to justify at times, and I think we minorities have a lot more to answer for). I imagine, once she grabbed the dog by the ears, she decided it just wasn’t worth it.

    And “cultism?” Goodness. Let’s all please extend each other a little courtesy and grace. Maybe she chickened out. Maybe we chased her off. Maybe she was convicted that her involvement here is sin. Let’s not suggest that she holds to a false gospel and is damned to hell.

  31. CynthiaGee Says:

    “On this “bad” guy’s site is where someone called Lynn, Karen, Cheryl and I a name so vile (here it is, cleaned up for this blog: floor covering masticating bovine earthen dam that holds back the sea) that most people didn’t even get what it meant. I did. But, I think I had to explain it to a couple of people. ‘

    Well, somehow in all of this I made a mental leap and ended up thinking that SFU had mad ethe nasty homosexual comment. It’s good to see that it was sopmeone else, and the SFU boys, bad as they are, aren’t as bad as THAT. And I owe them an apology for my error. Since they don’t take comments at their site, I guess they’ll have to read it here. I hope they see it, or maybe one of the lurkers can tell them about it.

    SFU, I goofed. I thought that you had called some of us a really nasty name, but I was wrong. I’m sorry about that, and glad that it wasn’t you after all. ….. Cynthia

  32. Mrs. H Says:

    Spunky, can I e-mail you using the address from your web-site?

    Trish

  33. Mrs. H Says:

    Spunky,

    I understand. We will let it go at that.

    Trish

  34. Spunky Says:

    Mrs. H.

    I received your email request and responded with the following,

    Thank you for your request Trish,

    However, shortly after I began blogging, I made a decision not to engage in private conversation about things I have said publically in the blogosphere..

    This was done for a two reasons.

    1. Contraints on my time. As a homeschooling mother of 6, I cannot spend my time answering each email I receive privately. This is done without partiality. I make my statements publically about the things others have written in an effort to maximinze my time.

    2. Accountability. I am not always right. I allow my comments to be public so that if I have said something that is not factual others may call me on it. It is easy to believe I’m right when no one challenges my assumptions. I allow my words to be scrutinized so that I can ensure that what I say is factual and true, and if it isn’t make changes accordingly. It also makes me consider what I write and how I say it before I say it. I continually ask myself before posting, if the statements I made are true and can I support them. If I cannot say so with certainty then I don’t click submit even if I believe I am right. Truth is my aim, not being right about an issue. I’m willing to make my comments known so that the Truth can be known and not just my opinion or feelings on a given topic. Without accountability for my words, I will only THINK I have the truth, and not know with certainty that what I think is actually the Truth.

    Thank you for your email.
    Spunky

  35. Spunky Says:

    Mrs. H. You must have posted after you read my email and before I had a chance to copy it over. You’re quick!

    You did however, make a public statement about Mr. Chancey supporting all his claims with documentation. I have shown that not to be the case. I do hope you consider revising your statements accordingly.

    You also made a statement without equivocation that said, ““I respect Doug Phillips because he does not have a web-site accusing the Epsteins of many things.”

    Trish, can you say with certainty that Doug Phillips does not have a webiste accusing the Epsteins of many things? If you can demonstrate with certaintly that none of the websites regarding this have Doug Phillip’s participation, that will help me greatly in my own question of accountability for Doug Phillips.

  36. CynthiaGee Says:

    Actually, Jen has asked Phillips to “accuse her of many things”, or even anything, as long as it’s something specific. She has asked Doug over and over again to show her what her specificsin is, but Doug has not answered.

    DP kind of reminds me of someone (and it’s usually women who are guilty of this) who gets mad at her spouse, but won’t tell him specifically why she’s angry; instead, she accuses him using generalities, saying, for instance, that he’s “indifferent” or “thoughtless”. When pressed for specifics, such a person invariably responds with, “If you loved me, you’d KNOW.”

  37. Brandon Giromini Says:

    Mrs. H,

    Simply put, to believe the “evidence” as found on Mrs. Binoculars, is about like believing everything in the National Enquirer. Matt Chancey has little evidence to back up his assertions but has to rely on conjecture, innuendo and speculation. We are all still waiting on the “hundreds of documents” he claims to have to be posted so we can see the “evidence” ourselves. You do understand that he is basically claiming the Epsteins are kinists because they posted a few comments on a kinist website? If you believe that, then you have to seriously question Doug Phillip’s praise of Dabney, whom the kinists just gush over. His ridiculous guilt by association claims can go both ways.

    As you may not be aware, I received a threat hours before Chancey’s latest article was posted, threatening to label me as a kinist and part of the Ministry Watchman cabal for pointing out errors in Chancey’s flawed analysis. Also, it is highly coincidental that the night before Chancey names me as a small player in the conspiracy, I get a threatening email warning me to get out of the whole debate. I give you a hint, it wasn’t coincidence…

  38. Lynn Says:

    Cindy:
    “She still hasn’t seen Still Fed Up. Lynn, do you have the link to the article at SFU which called us carpet-eaters?”

    It was taken down, as Corrie said. The key thing about those sites is that someone leaked confidential information to them which was way more than even Doug’s breach of confidence in front of BCA, Mark, Jen, and their children.

    Whoever leaked that information knew that this site would have no qualms about posting details about Jen’s sin, Mark’s Jewish background, and etc..

    The fact that some of us were called that nasty name pales in comparison to what those who were privy to the Epstein’s counseling did by leaking that information to them, and then the men on that site posting it.

    Mrs H wrote:
    “I appreciate the fact that Matt Chancey’s “Who is Mrs. Binoculares?” has all the facts and claims well documented for all to see.

    The claims made against Doug Phillips and Vision Forum on this post have not been documented or proven in any way.

    Thank you for recommending Mr. Chancey’s site.”

    Thank you, Spunky, for dealing with this in a subsequent comment, but it will serve no purpose for Mrs H at this time. If she is being this nitpicky about Doug hiring women from a temp agency and won’t believe those pictures are really hired women from a temp agency (which is legitimate), ignores that there is documentation on this site which includes advice to only appeal injurious abuse, and pastoral confidence breaches, and yet thinks Matt Chancey has proven that is Jen’s nose (because she says his site is documented with facts), it speaks volumes, and not in Trish’s favor.

  39. K. Says:

    Cindy said this to K.:

    I read your comments from earlier today, and I would like to appeal to you to be perfectly honest with me. You have maintained that you are very innocent in your participation here, but I believe that you do so by the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. Concerning the Chris Ortiz email and the four of five questions that you directed towards me, never providing your email address to allow me to respond, you remained strangely (WEIRDLY) secretive about your purpose. I still don’t understand why you didn’t just say “You shouldn’t be discussing a man’s actions without giving him an opportunity to respond. Either you contact Chris Ortiz or I will

    Sorry Cindy I saw this real late last night and needed to get to bed – this a.m. I researched waht I said and I think you have me confused as I never emailed you privately that I recall – I have emailed privately two unamed persons on this blog (and they know who they are 🙂 ) but I think you have me confused. . If you can direct me than please do . . . also I looked back at my 1-2 comments made yesteday and I was not asking you any specific questions – I just was stating something else for everyone to consider.

    I am sorry if you think I am “weirdly” secretive about my purpose here. I have no purpose but to point out that I think this blog is hateful. And that is perfectly honest as you requested.

    Frankly Cindy, I HATE debate so I am going to turn down your invite. But thanks.

  40. Lynn Says:

    Red Ink, glad to know you didn’t post any of those words! I’m sorry I made you so furious, but you made a final comment in one comment above that this blog isn’t biblical.

    Assuming it is true that the Epsteins bent over backwards to try to deal with their side of the story in private and were rebuffed, I don’t see the problem with this blog.

    I see problems in *parts* of things Jen writes. For example, I had some difficulties in the thread about Doug not honoring his mother, which I explained a couple of times back then.

    Red Ink:
    “I know some of these comments started a while back, but I’m with those who say there’s an awful lot of speculation in this post.”

    I agree with you on this, but as I believe Jen’s testimony that Doug uses a temp agency, and that he has said he doesn’t believe in hiring women, it isn’t as much of an issue with me. Jen isn’t speculating when she gives testimony to what she has seen. When she said presumably unpaid women “probably” compensated a certain way (referring to volunteers), that was pure speculation and she should have worded it as such.

  41. Bryan Says:

    RedInk wrote:

    “Bryan:

    Mrs. H was not a Phillips supporter, and objected to this site based on issues that had nothing to do with patriarchy or Vision Forum or anything like that. I relate to her in this respect. To suggest that she left because of cultism strikes me as glib and unfair. I can think of half a million other reasons, much more noble, that could explain her abrupt departure.”

    I would like to issue an apology to Trish/Mrs. H for writing the following:

    “She is one of those people that no matter how much evidence there is, she will side with Doug Phillips because he can do no wrong.

    That’s cultism.”

    I have absolutely NO EVIDENCE as to the truth of this statement. I should not have made it; it was mean-spirited and unfair.

    Trish, if you are reading this, please allow me to apologize and I ask you to please forgive me.

    You are absolutely right in that the tone here is sometime less than graceful, mine in particular.

    As Jen has posted above:

    “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.” Col. 4:6

    RedInk, you were absolutely right to take me to task. Thank you for the correction; I shall endeavor to be more graceful. That is the least we should be doing as followers of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Blessings,

    Bryan

  42. Lynn Says:

    RedInk wrote:
    “Bryan:
    Mrs. H was not a Phillips supporter, and objected to this site based on issues that had nothing to do with patriarchy or Vision Forum or anything like that. I relate to her in this respect. To suggest that she left because of cultism strikes me as glib and unfair. I can think of half a million other reasons, much more noble, that could explain her abrupt departure.”

    Bryan:
    “I would like to issue an apology to Trish/Mrs. H for writing the following:

    ‘She is one of those people that no matter how much evidence there is, she will side with Doug Phillips because he can do no wrong.

    That’s cultism.’

    I have absolutely NO EVIDENCE as to the truth of this statement. I should not have made it; it was mean-spirited and unfair.”

    Bryan, since the time you leveled that charge, Mrs H has come out slicing and dicing this particular blog entry, demanding proof about females being employed by Vision Forum.

    Yet, she sees no problem with mrsbinoculars. Although I would not have worded things the way in which you did, it is pretty clear to me that Trish sides with Doug Phillips to the point of

    1) ignoring that there is documentation on this site and claiming this is an undocumented site,

    2) being highly suspicious of Jen’s claim that VF occasionally employs women, whether as volunteers or paid, yet at the same time thinking mrsbino has no problem in the world, that that has to be Jen’s nose because Matt Chancey speculated that it was (even though the noses look anatomically different, Jen denies it is she in that pic, etc.)

    My thoughts about Trish, whoever he or she is — either this individual knows how to think clearly and reason clearly, but is siding with Phillips so much *they* are pulling out all the usual fallacy stops that persuade people, or else Trish really doesn’t know how to think and reason clearly, and doesn’t understand what goes with the territory of public debate — since she is accusing people of being nasty and not nice and hurting feelings and owies and boo-boos and these nasty bitter people are mean type talk — when most of what I see is public debate and discussion about public issues, starting with the public issue of excommunication, something Doug Phillips made public in the first place, in addition to his gross breach of clergy privilege. Sadly, because of Phillips, that is now public information, too.

  43. Lucy Says:

    Bryan, this was encouraging to read. Red Ink, thank you for your boldness.

    To any of the supporters here: would anyone be willing to discuss the reasons one might be concerned about this blog, having nothing to do with DP or VF support? I know that I, for one, would find that to be a useful conversation (as long as it remained civil), and I’m curious as to whether I’m alone on that.

    For my part, I have had a hard time re-engaging in the debate (as much as I would like to) because I’m tired of being asked to defend Doug Phillips. Similarly, I’ve had some very valid questions asked of me that I just can’t bring myself to answer as long as it’s still assumed that I’m on staff at Vision Forum or in cahoots with SFU (for example).

    On the whole, Jen has been setting a positive trend lately in dealing with the “teachings” rather than simply the “man”, and I think she’s made it clear that she wants to stay on topic with her threads. I hope this trend continues, and I think if we could follow her example (i.e. refrain from discussing frog statues, tax evasion, and other petty things that don’t reflect grace), the discussion could turn into something edifying. I hope you agree.

  44. Corrie Says:

    “My thoughts about Trish, whoever he or she is — either this individual knows how to think clearly and reason clearly, but is siding with Phillips so much *they* are pulling out all the usual fallacy stops that persuade people, or else Trish really doesn’t know how to think and reason clearly, and doesn’t understand what goes with the territory of public debate — since she is accusing people of being nasty and not nice and hurting feelings and owies and boo-boos and these nasty bitter people are mean type talk — when most of what I see is public debate and discussion about public issues, starting with the public issue of excommunication, something Doug Phillips made public in the first place, in addition to his gross breach of clergy privilege. Sadly, because of Phillips, that is now public information, too.”

    Lynn,

    Thank you. I really didn’t know how to put what I wanted to say into words and you did a very nice job of it.

    I have asked Redink repeatedly some questions concerning her behavior from the very first. I have received no response. She has ignored any sort of attempt on my part or the part of Cindy to rectify some very fallacious accusations she has made. I pointed him to the list of “proof” that she gave to me of my anger, bitterness and my unfounded suspicions/accusations. It was silly to the point of ridiculous and even after I explained each and everyone in a patient manner, I received no apology from her for jumping to conclusions and rushing to judgment.

    Add to that she already told us that she is friends with Shelley Hendry who is VERY close, along with her whole family, to Doug Phillips. Is it a stretch to wonder whether or not Trish was one of the phone calls Shelley made in those 3 hours she was on the phone getting counsel on how to approach this site? Is it a coincidence she showed up here only AFTER Shelley posted here? She said that she had posted two times previous to her first post, I asked her about it and I never got an answer. I cannot find the two times she posted prior to trying to conduct her “experiment”. Did she post under another name?

    Bryan may have not had concrete proof to make that statement but her actions, her attitudes and what appeared to be stubborn refusal to even APPEAR to look like she was open to reading all the documents and Doug Phillip’s sponsored websites lends to is the APPEARANCE that she is a supporter. If she is not a supporter then it certainly appears she has her mind made up. She basically told us that she doesn’t want to look at any websites unless they were authored by Doug, himself. That is exactly the game that Doug Phillips and Co. have been playing. He uses other people do write for him and then tells us that they are “independent”. Board of Directors at VF writing to the “leadership” at BCA? Come ON!! LOL We might be stupid but we are not that stupid.

    Look, when this whole thing first came out, I ignored it. I had bought hundreds of dollars worth of merchandise from VF and I have heard Doug speak multiple times. I did NOT have a beef with him. Yes, I had some problems with the teachings on his cds concerning patriarchy and the strict definitions of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman but I had bigger fish to catch, so to speak, when it comes to twisting scripture and hyper-patriarchy.

    I challenged Jen and MW multiple times. I questioned them and challenged them vigorously. I spent time reading all the documents and I spent time getting a “feel” for the people involved in posting on this issue. I thought some of the aspects of the situation were clearly wrong (ie., preconversion sins, excommunication without representation and due process) but there were other “holes” that did not sit well with me. As I said many times, I could care less if Jen and Mark are guilty as charged. That isn’t the point. The point is justice, mercy and how the leaders in this situation conducted themselves. Are they above reproach? Were they gentle, meek, humble, understanding and gracious?

    But, I didn’t try and make it look like I was a something that I was not. I was upfront and honest concerning where I was coming from.

    It is becoming clear to me that in these systems you must cut out the problem. M*** just posted a while ago about her situation. She was a problem, for whatever reason, and she was cut out along with other siblings. We cannot have any “purple-haired freaks” in our midst or it might make US look bad.

    Problem is with this thinking that they miss the whole point of why Jesus came to this earth. People are sinners. Sin is messy and complicated. If we are going to help and MINISTER to others, we had better realize that it won’t be pretty, it won’t be neat and it won’t be tidy. Our hands are going to get dirty. We are going to get splattered upon.

    Jen and Mark were trouble from day one. The formulas and methods were not working.

    These systems produce rebellion. No, we can’t always see it because our nature is to conform, not make waves and we WANT people to like us and we WANT to be accepted. But, we are not made to abide under systems of legalism. All rebellion is not bad as we can see from the example of Jamestown and the Revolutionary War.

    M***’s story still haunts me. I am still thinkin about it. I can’t figure it out. It is a puzzle. What did M*** do to get kicked out of her family and what did she do to be refused the right to see her dying sister? What in the WORLD could she have done? Or did she just not fit the mold at BCA. Did she “rebel” by doing things differently?

    There is a pattern here and as time goes on and brave people start being unafraid of telling their stories, more and more people will be empowered to shed light on this problem.

    All we need are a few brave men and women who do not fear men but fear God alone to tell their stories and shed light on all of this and to make sense out of it.

    I am not just speaking of Jen’s story. I am speaking about the WHOLE system. I am not just referring to BCA. I am speaking about all places that do not teach the word of God as it is to be taught.

  45. Corrie Says:

    Lucy,

    I would be very interested in such a conversation, especially because I can see this both ways. I can see why some people are strongly against this blog and that it can have nothing to do with their judgment on this situation.

    For me, it is MORE about the teachings than the situation. The situation is just a symptom of the real problem- the teachings.

    Thank you for your offer and I do hope that we can approach one another in honesty and a willingness to listen and not to be quick to judge or take offense. I am speaking to myself in these hopes.

  46. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Morgan, I will only take you to task for pulling out your hair (glory). Shame on you!! You leave that hair alone. Do you want everyone to think you are a prostitute?

    Nah its just my wanna be Britney stage in life….. 😉 🙂 of course at MY age….

    Besides…my hair is really really short…think Twiggy (if ya remember back THAT far…I do) and I have really geeky square tortoise glasses….hmmm wonder if I’d fit in with the Gothard bunch… 😛

  47. Red Ink Says:

    Corrie said:

    I have asked Redink repeatedly some questions concerning her behavior from the very first. I have received no response. She has ignored any sort of attempt on my part or the part of Cindy to rectify some very fallacious accusations she has made. I pointed him to the list of “proof” that she gave to me of my anger, bitterness and my unfounded suspicions/accusations. It was silly to the point of ridiculous and even after I explained each and everyone in a patient manner, I received no apology from her for jumping to conclusions and rushing to judgment.

    I’m just going to assume that you didn’t mean “Red Ink,” ’cause I’m quite sure that I wasn’t involved in this exchange. If I missed any questions, please point them out, and I’ll answer what I can.

    Lynn –

    It is unclear to me what you found unbiblical. I’m going to go ahead and assume that given my views on Church polity and our previous exchanges, we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on the point. But if you give me specifics, I’ll give you my two cents or at least try and clarify things.

    As for your last paragraph, I agree that the facts aren’t speculative. What I do object to is the many instances in the article where the logic seems to go:

    A. Doug Phillips says that he does not hire women
    B. Women are engaged in work at Vision Forum
    C. Doug Phillips is hypocrite and a liar and all of the Vision Forum employees are brainwashed and completely blind to this contradiction. [that one was editorial]

    It’s easy for many here to come to the “C” conclusion, because it is consistent with what they’ve come to believe about Doug Phillips. I’m not in that boat – I’m in some dingy somewhere with Lucy and K, and Mrs. H is now a little swimming dot on the horizon – and so I question the validity of C. I’m saying the syllogism is Ok, but I’m not so sure that the premises are accurate. With some clarification of A and B (which none of us presently have), there might not be any contradiction at all.

    Jen has reported the facts – I’ll give her that – but maybe not all of them. The fact that her conclusions include an awful lot of maybes doesn’t make the article any easier to swallow.

    Red Ink

  48. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    I guess this was missed by Red Ink who stated that no one answered her question as to why people who have no direct connection to VF have interest in this forum. I post it here again, copied and pasted from further up the thread:

    I’ll deal with this fact:

    Many Christians do not acknowledge anger as an acceptable human emotion. It is a God-given gift to help preserve our safety, although it is a volitale gift. Many Christians believe that all expressions of anger are sinful because we are called to be meek and gentle people who seek peace. Women also get a “double dose” of this expectation because anger is much less acceptable behavior for women and is more tolerated in men.

    One does not have to be a Vision Forum supporter to become emotionally stimulated by the Epstein story or by her mission to declare her opinion. Many here have commented, however kindly that this is an issue, having made statements about the hypocracy and excommunication, the Epsteins and everyone else should just move on. It is not pleasant to be informed of these deeply disturbing topics and events for anyone involved. Many do not view the declaration and airing of any of the church’s dirty laundry (even in non-public forums) as Christian behavior. We don’t like to air our own dirty laundry, and we do not like to look at anyone elses, especially when it concerns affairs of church goverment.

    Also, this subject would appeal to anyone with a background in a more pious group. Mrs. Hendry stated that we invaded her comfort and evening activities and infected her daughters with Jens Germs. As I have referred back to James on true religion in a prior post, Doug tends to isolate himself in a gnostic way by honoring the “keeping himself unspotted from the world” as more critical than “visiting the widows and the fatherless.” Visiting the widows and fatherless gets messy. Evangelism gets messy. Many Christians like to avoid the mess. This is certainly a fine mess.

    Here are three explanations for this unanswered question that no one else will allegedly speak to.

  49. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Concerning Claims of Cultism:

    I’ve stated this in previous posts over the past couple of months and detail it in an article that is posted on my site, an option near the top of the page on the left side entitled “New Cults of Christianity.” Anyone interested in a more detailed description of my use of the term can read there, then skip down and read about cultic characteristics in churches and characteristics of cult leaders.

    The short version: I do not use the term cult to define a theological one (a group that does not correctly apply Scriputure and alters the concept of the deity of Christ using Walter Martin’s definition as a standard).

    Social psychology defines a cult as a group that unfairly manipulates its followers by authoritative and social mechanisms without the knowledge and consent of the member/subject. The Pharisees used these tactics to manipulate people through unreasonable focus on shame. (All problems are the woman’s, you are not Christians, etc.) Communication is tightly controlled through propaganda and through negative and postiive reiniforcement. (Jen makes comment about the election contrary to the opinion of the leader….Jen is forced to “pay.”) There is an elite status or inner circle, a perception that I have called gnosticism: anyone who agrees with Doug is a better Christian. Those who live differently from Doug’s standard is not as good of a Christian or perhaps not Christian. Within the group, there is a second elite group, those who model the desired behavior and are rewarded for it.

    Social factors as defined by Cialdini (see my paper) play on the psychological tendencies of all people to reciprocate behaviors, to be viewed as consistent in their behavior and convictions, to be accepted by the group, ect. People believe that they are joining a group of people that truly want to worship God and honor him, but they are not told and do not realize that the group has an alternative set of rules that are not readily known to the subject or member until they have accepted many of these rules. By that time, the leadership has been esteemed as an unquestionable authority and asking questions becomes increasingly difficult.

    Leaving the group becomes especially difficult due to many factors. Johnson and VanVonderan define some of this as “sweat equity.” You risk to lose all your social contacts and to see the fruit of your labors from the ministries you have invested in. By this time, the concept that this group has something that no other church can offer, this spiritual specialness, leaving the group suggests a type of apostasy. The social influence and shame of even thinking about leaving contributes to the concept of shunning. Zimabardo’s new best seller, the Lucifer Effect, also describes much of this in great detail. Some of these things can be researched on his website at http://www.lucifereffect.com where he also talks in depth about the difficulties of speaking against and leaving the group. The soldier who reported the Abu Ghraib abuses and his family had to enter wittness protection for several months because of shunning and retaliation against his dissent.

    When Mrs. H said she was signing off, I listed three characteristics of thought reform that she demonstrated by refusing to evaluate the question of reliablity of evidence and by complete refusal to address me and her passive-aggressive comments against me.

  50. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    K,

    I can understand if you don’t get my point. Perhaps it was actually Kate that was making the inquiries about Chris Ortiz email address? I don’t remember. There has been mention of some issue of that here.

    Whoever it was, if it was K or not, did not email me via my site but entered it into the guestbook instead. I had to remove two guestbook entries that were questions about Chris Ortiz correct address. This followed several cryptic questions on the forum here. It made no sense.

    So I apologize if it was not you, K, who sought to run interference for Ortiz. If it was you and you just don’t understand, then you just don’t understand. It was strange and unusual to me.

  51. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    More on the cultic nature of Doug’s Legalism:

    Here is a comment that Jonathan posted on the new thread: “In essence this whole situation is an example of spiritual rape. To turn your back on someone that has asked for help and then revel in someone’s sin. It’s absolutly disgusting.”

    If you scroll up near the top of this thread, in my note to Mrs. Hendry and an email that I sent via her listed website when she made her first posting, I cited the same example of “spiritual rape.” This is not a term that I coined, but one made by Lalich in her cult literature. There is a high degree of what psychologists describe as “learned helplessness” that is created by heavy use of positive and negative reinforcement. Eventually, you come to believe that any attempts to protect yourself or get free will be futile, so you just give up and give in to authoritative control. This is highly characteristic of domestic abuse situations and those who suffer spiritual abuse have striking similarities in their symptoms and thought processes. Here is another example in support of my use of the term “cult” from a psych perspective.

    In biblical terms, as I’ve previously mentioned, the Pharisees demonstrated this abuse of earnest Jews who really did strive to follow the law and be justified before God. We know, under grace, that this is impossible, but the Pharisees ignored the futility when Jesus provided an alternative in mercy. They manipulated people with their sins and berated them. In Matt 23, as I’ve alluded to recently, they ignored their own gross violations of the law, but made much demonstration of the minor points of the law. They hung millstones of impossible rules and regulations about the necks of their followers. They even cajoled them for making vows and denigrating them. In this same chapter of Matthew, in litigious fashion, they harrassed people for swearing by the temple vs the gold of the temple. It was a minor point that did not facilitate the honor of God in the life of the Jew but served to shame them and make fun of their best attempt to serve God.

    These techniques stun and suppress critical thought and cognitive function much like the learned helplessness of the battered wife. Under the law, we are helpless and all attempts to earn justification are futile. This state of helplessness, when we are held down in it by legalists, shuts down your ability to reason and plan and think. You give up. In the terms of social psychology, this is called cognitive dissonance. It creates a huge amount of psychological stress and promotes compliance when used from a pulpit or in a group that seeks a specific behavior. It overcomes thought with emotion and emotion with thought. Behavior follows closely behind as a means of venting the psychological stress. It seems to be the primary MO of Dougism, as we have seen it played out for us in the experiences of the Epsteins and in the ongoing actions and responses of DP. We have seen it in the behavior of Mrs. H. If you can bring yourself to really look, you will see it easily. That is with the eyes of your understanding enlightened. Bryan, though he apologized for the comment, applied this very astutely to Mrs. H.

  52. Lynn Says:

    Red Ink:
    “It is unclear to me what you found unbiblical. I’m going to go ahead and assume that given my views on Church polity and our previous exchanges, we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on the point.”

    What I found unbiblical? I don’t understand. I said you claimed this blog was unbiblical, and that I think it is Scripturally permissable for Jen to have a blog like this. You were the one who said it was unbiblical; I was disagreeing with you.

    You said:
    “A. Doug Phillips says that he does not hire women
    B. Women are engaged in work at Vision Forum
    C. Doug Phillips is hypocrite and a liar and all of the Vision Forum employees are brainwashed and completely blind to this contradiction. [that one was editorial]

    It’s easy for many here to come to the “C” conclusion, because it is consistent with what they’ve come to believe about Doug Phillips. I’m not in that boat . . .”

    I understand. That conlusion, just based on that evidence, amounts to a hysterical overreaction. It’s a division fallacy, I think it’s called — people who know the whole well assume each part must have the same general properties the whole has, and this isn’t necessarily true.

  53. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Lynn wrote: I understand. That conlusion, just based on that evidence, amounts to a hysterical overreaction. It’s a division fallacy, I think it’s called — people who know the whole well assume each part must have the same general properties the whole has, and this isn’t necessarily true.

    Good observation, Lynn. Perhaps when I state that Doug uses techinques to dull critical thinking, people assume that all those who associate with VF and all the Doug related outlets that anyone who participates is a zombie. If that were true, people would never leave a group. More people walk away from controlling groups, in fact. The tactics work, but they don’t work long-term. There comes a point when each person much make a choice, and people under the influence of control still can and do think. They still make choices.

    I’m motivated to participate here and draw the conclusions that I do in hope that those who read this information on cults with consider if they themselves could be so influenced. It isnt so much that people are programmed into clones, although this is one perspective, but that they have been deceived and lulled into a sleep of sorts. I hope that what I write might wake them up so that they can momentarily see things from a different perspective. Truth will do its work from there, and each person’s mind will direct them out of deception. The Holy Spirit leads and guides us into all truth from there.

    It is interesting that you bring up division fallacy, what I would call “black/white thinking” or psychological “splitting” in making the assumption that because it’s true of Doug, it is equally true and applicable to all that have any tie to Doug. This kind of thinking is typical of people in high-demand groups. Hopefully, those who read it and react will remember their reaction at some point. Even if it’s ten years from now, and they don’t quite remember where they heard or read the concept, it will be available in their minds. Kill the messenger, but the message lingers, if it is true. I believe that it is.

  54. Red Ink Says:

    Lynn, you said:

    “Red Ink, glad to know you didn’t post any of those words! I’m sorry I made you so furious, but you made a final comment in one comment above that this blog isn’t biblical.”

    I completely and totally misread what you said. Funny – I reread it several times just to make sure I wasn’t missing something. Turns out I was missing something. Sorry to be so thick. And I’m glad we can be pals.

    I’d go farther with that syllogism, I think (my attempt at humor obscured my point). Seems to me that Jen is saying:

    A. Doug Phillips has taken a public stance that he will not hire women and that they should not work alongside men
    B. Women work alongside men at Vision Forum
    C. One cannot consistently hold to both (A) and (B)
    D. Doug Phillips holds to (A) and (B)
    E. Dough Phillips is inconsistent

    I think, now that the hysterical overreaction has been removed, that the conclusion is still faulty. (A) and (B) could perhaps be misunderstood by us, and I’d rather hold my tongue on labeling Phillips a hypocrite until I hear their attempt at an explanation.

    I say this, not because I’m blindly defending Phillips (I have utterly no reason to), but because of something else you said at the end of your post. The whole division fallacy thing is not what I was driving at, but it is inferentially a major concern of mine. This “women at work” issue is such an obvious contradiction that I’d be surprised if anybody at Vision Forum actually bought it. Even if some did, I’d have to assume significant spiritual blindness or stupidity on the behalf of each and every employee to accept the final premise, and that sits uneasily with me. We all know that if any one employee dissented, they would be fired, excommunicated, their family crests would be desecrated, and they would be burned in effigy at the next Vision Forum gathering. I can see the reflections of the flames dancing in their reproduction Revolution-Era bayonets.

    Somehow, I still find this widespread blindness (or fear, or idolatry) difficult to believe.

    Of course, if we believe that they’re all deluded and members of a cult (social, personality, theological, or otherwise), it’s easier to accept. Still, cults are subtle and insidious. They are easy to fall prey to because they look so much like the truth. This is not subtle deception. This is not sophistry. This article is suggesting mass stupidity.

    I dunno. Bottom line is I think this is one of Jen’s weaker articles.

    Cindy, you said:

    “I guess this was missed by Red Ink who stated that no one answered her question as to why people who have no direct connection to VF have interest in this forum. I post it here again, copied and pasted from further up the thread”

    I’m sorry, there must be some misunderstanding. I don’t know that I said that. I certainly didn’t ever mean to say that. I haven’t yet felt that a question of mine has gone unanswered. And I have a pretty good idea of why somebody not connected to VF would have interest in this forum: the same reasons I – as somebody not connected to VF – am here. I’d nod assent to most of the reasons you gave, and add that we should expect at least a few others to come because of itching ears or bitterness, another reason why I think we should all take heed, examine our hearts, and make sure we honor Christ by what we do and say here.

    PS, I’m still going to have to strongly object to your assertion that Mrs. H was exhibiting characteristics of cultism. I’ll grant your semantic nuances. Simply put, she – like me – is under no real social or theological pressure to defend Doug Phillips, so I don’t think cultism applies. My concerns aren’t cultic in the slightest, unless you consider a strong belief in Anglican or Presbyterian polity and praxy cultish. I’ll stand by my prior statement – lets give her the benefit of the doubt. Where she missed the point, let’s chalk it up to an untrained mind and not spiritual blindness. Where she objected to tone, let’s try to hear it as Christian meekness and not Doug-induced emotionalism. After all, we teach rhetoric and logic in school for a reason: the human mind does not come well-equipped for rigorous discourse, especially when that discourse is limping along in an ever-expanding comment section on a blog. Please, let’s just give her a break.

  55. Red Ink Says:

    “Dough Phillips?”

    I think I spilled some Frued on my keyboard.

  56. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Red Ink:

    Thank you for responding. I submitted a post here following Lynn’s last post that did not make the list. It addressed your comment. I’m not sure why it doesn’t appear here as it may have gotten lost in cyberspace.

    In the event that the moderator held it, I’d like to wait and see if it shows up.

    If not, I’ll pop back on in a while and try to reitterate.

    Thanks, Red Ink for answering since I would say that I’ve been the most bold and vocal concerning the term “cult.”

  57. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Red Ink,

    Now I see that it’s posted.

    The fact remains that Mrs. Hendry or Mrs. H (neither have answered any of my specific questions, although Mrs. Hendry did make an indirect acknowledgement in the content of one of her posts concerning a request for her to pray. I posted the characteristics per Lifton that I felt applied to Mrs. H’s response to me (none) and why she might have done so. As I stated also, some of these traits are also just an exaggeration of human nature. We don’t like to look bad, we dont like to make others look bad, we reciprocate postive behavior, we respond to those we like, etc. I hope to get the reader’s attention so that they might question whether or not they are falling prey to tactics. If it is truth it will stick. It is also not done to be mean-spirited, but to hopefully jolt people into asking themselves the questions. The rest is the Holy Spirit’s responsibility, but I am responsible to my conscience to pose the possibility.

  58. Patty Says:

    Cindy,
    Your on target. Many women have been socialized at home, church and workplace that learned helplessness is how they are supposed to act. They really don’t think for themselves and its reinforced by men around them. Your response IS a wake up call and can be a rude one at that. Thats why we are to judge ourselves lest we be judged. Better to get insight now and make some corrections than when we stand before Christ and He exposes it.

  59. Patty Says:

    That also might be why some women resort to manipulation so much… wrapped up in the guise of submission.

  60. K. Says:

    Cindy: It most certainly was not me that left a message on your guestbook. I do not know Chris nor do I plan to grab that “dog” by its ear. Also I have visited your website only briefly and it is not a place I plan to “hang out. I have contacted a few people on this blog and that is it – – as I said the debate is not my cup of tea.

  61. Spunky Says:

    This may indeed prove to be one of Jen’s weaker articles, but it speaks loudly to many of the homeschooling mothers out there.

    Trust me.

    The idea that a man who sells “women at home” ideals, while using young women working at night in a Christian ministry, taking orders for Vision Forum along side young men, just doesn’t sit well with many conservative moms in my part of the country. Nor does the video of young ladies packing “tea gloves” using Vision Forum work gloves along side young men. Some of the products shown in that video are in our home today.

    So it may be weak, but it hits close to home where; many moms live and spend our husband’s hard earned income to educate our children.

  62. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Spunky should get a medal of honor for persevering through this one!

  63. Marsena Says:

    Doug Phillips has NANNIES for his family? I didn’t think his family would need them, since his beloved Beall is supposed to be “woman” enough to take dominion over a family of 7 children. So that’s how these “fruitful and multiplying” families manage! I don’t know if you can even call them nannies (my mother was a former nanny, and she DEFINITELY got paid well!); they sound more like indentured servants or slaves to me!

    What hypocrisy and exploitation! He won’t “hire” women, but he’ll use their unpaid labor for his own benefit! He believes that women should be barefoot and pregnant, yet he has no problem with taking their money for his various products (and I assure you that as long as the money is coming in, they don’t care if the customer is a working mom!) What a mockery! I’d rather have my own home-based business than be an unpaid volunteer for a hypocrite who wants my labor but not my input in the home, church or society.

    The worst thing is that these women don’t realize how wrongfully used they are. I certainly would not spend that much time outside my own home doing so much labor for another family without some serious pay! Doug Phillips has sinned against these women and the God Who created them by using them for slave labor. The Bible clearly states that the workman is worthy of his hire. Even the daughter of Pharaoh, who paid Moses’ own mother to nurse him, did better than this man!

  64. Maria Pauline Says:

    I just happened across this, and I am shocked that you can criticize anyone like this. It was very obvious that you have stated things you do not actually know just to make them look bad. And who are you to say how he runs his company? You do not say how you have come across this information.

    Somewhere on your site, you say you have been saved by God. I cannot believe this. Real Christians do not insult other Christians. I can believe that Doug Phillips has faults, but as part of the body of Christ, you should be building the rest of the body up, not tearing it down.

    I think it is sad that you have to turn up your nose at Christians who you don’t agree with. Christ commanded us to love our neighbors, including our enemies.

    I know you’re probably going to ignore me, but I hope you won’t. Let Doug Phillips be and take the plank out of your own eye.

  65. Nathanael Says:

    @Maria:
    “… It was very obvious that you have stated things you do not actually know just to make them look bad.”
    Pardon me if I’m overlooking something, but how can you say Jen stated “things she doesn’t actually know”? Because she didn’t cite a source? Maybe I’m missing the gist of this article, but it looks like a personal anecdote. (I’m not saying that necessarily makes it true or factual, but where are you getting the “very obvious” part?)

    “Somewhere on your site, you say you have been saved by God. I cannot believe this. Real Christians do not insult other Christians.”
    Ouch. Are you sure you aren’t insulting Jen by asserting that her faith is not genuine?


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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: