Doug Phillips is a Tool and Vision Forum is Dead - Part 8

[Boogalou]

Part 1: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19831

Part 2: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19945

Part 3: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20076

Part 4: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20272

Part 5: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20492

Part 6: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20934

Part 7: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21372

 

Doug Phillips resigned, Vision Forum closed, lawsuits were filed.

 

I'm not caught up on the other thread so if someone wants to provide a better summary that would be great. Otherwise, the discussion continues.

[MrsFoxx]

Doug is a tool, probably a rapist, and resigned. A lawsuit has been filed by Lourdes.

In lesser news, "old" friend and colleague of DPIAT westchamps has been regaling us with his opinions on our salvation and our understanding of the situation. Fun times.

ETA - Also, I'm praying for you now!! YAY!

[lipstickgoalie]

You might have saved us a lot of back and forth if you had said the above, about 20 pages ago.

You are the one who decided that I was saying more than I was. Fundamentalist Christianity is anti intellectual.

Also, please quit editing my posts when you quote them. If you can't help yourself at the very least indicate you have done so. By quoting in the manner that you did you changed the context of what I was saying. You left out the entire part where I refuted the idea that we had absolutely no common language because I am not your version of Christian and I don't for a minute think that the bible is meant to be taken literally.

[Marian the Librarian]

Hooray - I've been waiting for Part 8 (Part 8!!!) to start so I can post this without its getting buried.

Where are the Botkins??

Other than two excellent blog posts by Katie (the sane cousin in Idaho) Botkin, there's been nary a peep about this from the Geoff Botkin Clan in Tennessee. I realize the impending Isaac Botkin-Heidi Roach nuptials are undoubtedly taking up some time. Nevertheless, given their long-standing business relationship with VF, and their many appearances on Doug's blog over the years; and the fact that they used Lourdes as one of their examples in "Return of the Daughters," one would think they might want to make some public statement. A smidgen of support, a modicum of sympathy, a hearty congrats to Lourdes and Nolan, or even a "We had no idea, our affiliation with Dougie is all in your imagination, and we never really liked him anyway?"

Come on, Botkins - we know you're out there. Quit hiding.

[Talitha Cumi]

Hooray - I've been waiting for Part 8 (Part 8!!!) to start so I can post this without its getting buried.

Where are the Botkins??

Other than two excellent blog posts by Katie (the sane cousin in Idaho) Botkin, there's been nary a peep about this from the Geoff Botkin Clan in Tennessee. I realize the impending Isaac Botkin-Heidi Roach nuptials are undoubtedly taking up some time. Nevertheless, given their long-standing business relationship with VF, and their many appearances on Doug's blog over the years; and the fact that they used Lourdes as one of their examples in "Return of the Daughters," one would think they might want to make some public statement. A smidgen of support, a modicum of sympathy, a hearty congrats to Lourdes and Nolan, or even a "We had no idea, our affiliation with Dougie is all in your imagination, and we never really liked him anyway?"

Come on, Botkins - we know you're out there. Quit hiding.

LOL NOPE! If anything, they'll post some vaguely-worded statement that won't be directed toward anyone in particular.

[thoughtful]

Let's take a moment to review what Westchamps has said:

- he is disgusted/disappointed/(insert disapproving feeling of your choice here if I'm getting it wrong, W) by Doug's recent actions. He does think Doug is more to blame than Lourdes (although, if I remember correctly, it took a long time for him to say that).

- we lump Fundamentalists together into one stereotype of being uneducated hicks and bumpkins, who openly hate and scorn all women.

- his kind of Christian teaches women to submit to their husbands, not all men.

- he has not flounced.

- Christians don't use coarse language -- the fact that this did not seem to be Jesus' first priority is moot.

- we think people can't change.

- he won't change any of his opinions.

Since he keeps picking out the instances where FJers say something that he thinks contradict the above, it might be prudent to avoid doing so, or make even the slightest appearance of doing so.

Why, you ask? Because repeatedly answering those (non-)issues, accusing us of not reading him for comprehension or of trying to change him, and reacting with scorn to things that sound inflammatory to him, seems to be part of his way of acting like he is actually in this conversation, without dealing with other challenges:

- he seems to have an inconsistent view of whether the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God (in English, in whatever version he is reading), understandable by all, or a complex historical work that is sometimes in need of context and interpretation, but won't address his inconsistencies.

- he won't address blatant discrepancies in the Bible (the two Creation stories, for example).

- he ignores any analogies, links, articles, or personal stories that try to explain to him how someone can descend into feeling helpless enough that it is hard to just say "knock that off, perv" and call the police when abused (I think he lives in the Fundamentalist version of Lake Wobegon, where all of the men are pure and protective, all of the women are strong and empowered, and all of the children are perfectly safe at all times).

- he feels strongly that Doug has changed since he knew him, but won't say when that was or what the changes are, avoiding what could be an interesting discussion of ingrained narcissism vs. falling for the pull of self-righteousness, power and money, and how/whether evil people are born/made.

- he refuses to address whether he thinks other types of Christians are actually Christians.

Disclaimer 1 -- I'm not telling anyone else how to post, just reacting to the patterns I see in his posting.

Disclaimer 2 - he has a perfect right to ignore what he wants and answer what he wants, of course.

:D

[RachelB]

- he ignores any analogies, links, articles, or personal stories that try to explain to him how someone can descend into feeling helpless enough that it is hard to just say "knock that off, perv" and call the police when abused (I think he lives in the Fundamentalist version of Lake Wobegon, where all of the men are pure and protective, all of the women are strong and empowered, and all of the children are perfectly safe at all times).

Watching him steadfastly ignore that evidence is like watching the Just World Theory in action.

People who are strongly committed to the idea that the world is already just, rather than in need of repair, do not feel compelled to work toward justice. And they seem unable to process or comprehend, let alone empathize with, the experiences of people whose lives don't fit that theory.

It's the sort of belief that makes people side with abusers. It's socially toxic and it makes the world worse.

[hoipolloi]

Thank you, thoughtful.

westchamps - still waiting for you to address Artemis' excellent points in the comment here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21372&start=800#p721706.

[formergothardite]

Westchamps:

you can find a Protestant Fundamentalist Christian who defends the Inquisition and the entirety of the Crusades as being Biblically supportable endeavors, please let me know. I learned the unvarnished truth about both growing up, as have my own children.

What I was saying to Curious, and I am pretty sure she understood, was that they didn't defend the Inquisition or Crusades as being done by Christians. They said the people who did those things weren't "real Christians". But the point was, the history I was taught would never put any Christians in a bad light. Even the Trail of Tears was put in a positive light.

Curious provided this link, which, from what I can tell, Westchamps has avoided reading. If he had read it he would have not asked the question he did.

http://parentingfreedom.com/discipline/

I wrote this:

Quoting this for Westchamps because it is a perfect example of why you can't just go on what the English translation says. For example there are NINE Hebrew words for the time of childhood all meaning different periods of childhood. Translating it to just "child" misses the context of the original writings and gives an inaccurate impression of what is being said.

Westchamps:

Please enlighten us on how the Scriptures about child discipline really are incredibly more complicated and nuanced than they seem to be.

Let me try to explain in an easier way.

~There are NINE different Hebrew words for childhood.

~Each of these words represent a different period of childhood.

~When you translate the word to just "child" and take it at the English meaning, you miss the age that the original writers were meaning.

~They are not meaning child in the way we consider child, they were using the term that is used for older teens/adults.

~The term for "child" that would represent what we would typically consider a child is never used.

~Therefore if you are only going on the English translation "child" you are missing that the original term used is not one that is used for what we consider children.

~So as you can see it is very clearly more nuanced than it appears to be at a casual glance. This is why it is important to look at what the original writers meant(not just the English translation) and the context.

[FJSharkJump]

Well I have to come clean and apologize to westchamps. Shortly before the close of the previous thread, I posted the following:

westchamps didn't say he would believe his daughter if she told him she was being abused/harassed by their trusted pastor/elder. He said he would investigate.

He'd be willing to investigate, y'all.

Oh thank you kind father for deigning to look into the matter. No, I don't need you to believe me and trust what I am telling you at all. Sure, do your investigating and then decide if I have told you the truth. It's totally okay that it makes me feel like an accused criminal and not your beloved daughter.

Gross.

That was based on my memory of what I read late last night when catching up on the thread. I should have gone back to find the post before I responded to it this morning. I would have found that I was mistaken in what westchamps said. He did, indeed, say that he would believe his daughter, before investigating.

1) Knowing what I know now? Of course I wouldn't. But that supposes I would have allowed her to work for him in the first place, and I wouldn't, not because it's Doug, but because, among other things, all of my older children help us in our family business.

2) My children do not lie and make up fanciful stories (okay, the little ones do sometimes, as all little ones do), so if one of my older daughters came home and gave me a story like that, yes, I would believe her and I would immediately investigate.

3) No, I would not sue Doug for everything he has. I ask again - how does $ help heal emotional scars? If he did something criminal, I would definitely be looking into bringing criminal charges.

I am very sorry for that mischaracterization, westchamps.

I hope you will understand where my kneejerk reaction comes from. Even outside of fundy circles in the broader secular culture: Girls and women are not believed when they are victimized. Routinely. As a matter of course. Girls and women are blamed when they are victimized. Routinely. As a matter of course. They are not believed and they are blamed by the very people they go to for help. Family. Friends. Clergy. Law enforcement.

You seem to be operating under the illusion that there is actual justice in this world. That rapes get reported because the victim knows she will be taken seriously and that the police will make the crime a priority enough to gather evidence and that district attorneys will feel confident enough to press charges and that juries will be level-headed enough to find rapists guilty of rape. In the real world -- even the secular one -- it just doesn't happen like that.

Here's a link breaking it down how "only about 3% of rapists will ever serve a day in prison".

https://www.rainn.org/get-information/s ... ting-rates

I know I have read estimates based on statistics that have it closer to 1%.

And I hope you are thinking, "Why??? How can this be so? Why is the world so unfair to women? Why can't women have the assurance that the law is on their side and justice will prevail?"

And the answer is patriarchy and misogyny. That's it in a nutshell.

So if all of that is true of the broader, secular culture, how much worse is it in an insular, patriarchal cult community?

And on top of all that, this does not even get into the issues of sexual grooming. Based on your posts, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just must not know what grooming is. Here's a link with a quick overview of grooming from Vermont's DCFS site: http://dcf.vermont.gov/stepup/educate/h ... s/grooming Here's another from Oprah: http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Child-Se ... f-Grooming There are a lot of links out there. Please educate yourself.

[thoughtful]

Hooray - I've been waiting for Part 8 (Part 8!!!) to start so I can post this without its getting buried.

Where are the Botkins??

Other than two excellent blog posts by Katie (the sane cousin in Idaho) Botkin, there's been nary a peep about this from the Geoff Botkin Clan in Tennessee. I realize the impending Isaac Botkin-Heidi Roach nuptials are undoubtedly taking up some time. Nevertheless, given their long-standing business relationship with VF, and their many appearances on Doug's blog over the years; and the fact that they used Lourdes as one of their examples in "Return of the Daughters," one would think they might want to make some public statement. A smidgen of support, a modicum of sympathy, a hearty congrats to Lourdes and Nolan, or even a "We had no idea, our affiliation with Dougie is all in your imagination, and we never really liked him anyway?"

Come on, Botkins - we know you're out there. Quit hiding.

I would love to be a fly on the wall of their house.

Botkins! Oh, Botkins! Where are you?

[Othello]

Even the Trail of Tears was put in a positive light.

I know this is a bit OT but I had to note this! That's in the Bob Jones American history textbook, I believe? I remember that—it essentially said "a lot of Native Americans died and everything while being evicted from their homeland of generations, but it wasn't so bad after all because some of them were converted during the journey, because Providence!" Disgusting. I will add, however, that just because 99% of European (and European–extracted) culture at large self-identified as "Christian" doesn't mean that everyone actually was a Christian or acted at all in a Christ-imitating manner.

[Arete]

I would love to be a fly on the wall of their house.

Botkins! Oh, Botkins! Where are you?

Geoff is no doubt busy shedding his current skin like the snake he is in order to repackage the same old daddy worship in some new wrapping. He'll resurface with a new plan to cash in. :disgust:

[formergothardite]

I would love to be a fly on the wall of their house.

Botkins! Oh, Botkins! Where are you?

Probably trying to think of some way to turn this into a money making event for themselves. How can they snag the people who are abandoning the VF boat?

[thoughtful]

Geoff is no doubt busy shedding his current skin like the snake he is in order to repackage the same old daddy worship in some new wrapping. He'll resurface with a new plan to cash in. :disgust:

If I can ever afford it, I really need to get Photoshop.

[ThisOlGirl]

I've been neglecting my DListed reading, and frankly, I need a palate cleanser. I'm going to go read about Michael K's love of peen, pot and puppies.

[FJSharkJump]

Watching him steadfastly ignore that evidence is like watching the Just World Theory in action.

People who are strongly committed to the idea that the world is already just, rather than in need of repair, do not feel compelled to work toward justice. And they seem unable to process or comprehend, let alone empathize with, the experiences of people whose lives don't fit that theory.

It's the sort of belief that makes people side with abusers. It's socially toxic and it makes the world worse.

You posted this while I was still typing out how westchamps is operating under the illusion that we live in a just world.

Thanks for that link. It explains the issue so well.

[formergothardite]

I know this is a bit OT but I had to note this! That's in the Bob Jones American history textbook, I believe? I remember that—it essentially said "a lot of Native Americans died and everything while being evicted from their homeland of generations, but it wasn't so bad after all because some of them were converted during the journey, because Providence!" Disgusting. I will add, however, that just because 99% of European (and European–extracted) culture at large self-identified as "Christian" doesn't mean that everyone actually was a Christian or acted at all in a Christ-imitating manner.

I do realize this but at the same time there were things like Christopher Columbus was presented as the godly person who was used by God to come here and save the souls of the heathens, but they never also included that he sold nine year olds into sex slavery. No, he was a godly man who got a little filled with pride and greed towards the end of his life, but God really used him and he should be greatly admired as a man of God. The Pilgrims were presented as practically being saints, no inclusion on them robbing the graves of Indians days after they arrived. The Pequot War was presented as God giving victory over savage Indians, not hundreds of women, children and the elderly being burned alive, chopped into pieces by swords or sold into slavery. This is what William Bradford(who was praised as being a man of God) wrote that even though it was horrible to watch, it seemed to be a sweet sacrifice for victory. I have no doubt that the writers of the Christian history books knew of these events but they didn't include or they tried to paint them in a better like because it would have been hard to maintain, "they were so godly! We should be like them!" if they did.

Isn't it the biggest tool ever Doug Phillips who rants on praising the Pilgrims as being godly and bashing the Indians as being savages? I bet he doesn't include the Pilgrims robbing Indian graves.

[church_of_dog]

Let's take a moment to review what Westchamps has said:

- he is disgusted/disappointed/(insert disapproving feeling of your choice here if I'm getting it wrong, W) by Doug's recent actions. He does think Doug is more to blame than Lourdes (although, if I remember correctly, it took a long time for him to say that).

- we lump Fundamentalists together into one stereotype of being uneducated hicks and bumpkins, who openly hate and scorn all women.

- his kind of Christian teaches women to submit to their husbands, not all men.

- he has not flounced.

- Christians don't use coarse language -- the fact that this did not seem to be Jesus' first priority is moot.

- we think people can't change.

- he won't change any of his opinions.

Since he keeps picking out the instances where FJers say something that he thinks contradict the above, it might be prudent to avoid doing so, or make even the slightest appearance of doing so.

Why, you ask? Because repeatedly answering those (non-)issues, accusing us of not reading him for comprehension or of trying to change him, and reacting with scorn to things that sound inflammatory to him, seems to be part of his way of acting like he is actually in this conversation, without dealing with other challenges:

- he seems to have an inconsistent view of whether the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God (in English, in whatever version he is reading), understandable by all, or a complex historical work that is sometimes in need of context and interpretation, but won't address his inconsistencies.

- he won't address blatant discrepancies in the Bible (the two Creation stories, for example).

- he ignores any analogies, links, articles, or personal stories that try to explain to him how someone can descend into feeling helpless enough that it is hard to just say "knock that off, perv" and call the police when abused (I think he lives in the Fundamentalist version of Lake Wobegon, where all of the men are pure and protective, all of the women are strong and empowered, and all of the children are perfectly safe at all times).

- he feels strongly that Doug has changed since he knew him, but won't say when that was or what the changes are, avoiding what could be an interesting discussion of ingrained narcissism vs. falling for the pull of self-righteousness, power and money, and how/whether evil people are born/made.

- he refuses to address whether he thinks other types of Christians are actually Christians.

Disclaimer 1 -- I'm not telling anyone else how to post, just reacting to the patterns I see in his posting.

Disclaimer 2 - he has a perfect right to ignore what he wants and answer what he wants, of course.

:D

Hmm. It strikes me that there is an interesting parallel between Westchamps' apparent view that Lourdes should have reacted immediately to DPIAR's actions, and his apparent presumption that "we" on FJ don't recognize that people can change.

Westchamps -- may I call you WC? ;) WC, do you find that your opinion about someone changes immediately when you have an experience of them that is different from your earlier perception? If someone is considered trustworthy by you, if you are comfortable that that person is looking out for your best interests, and then something happens that doesn't seem to fit -- hmm, perhaps did they just make a comment that, you're not sure, but possibly you could interpret as an insult or as a joke made at your expense? Do you not question your reaction? Do you not temper your confusion or hurt feelings, continuing, at that moment, to trust the person even after some single instance of some behavior that doesn't fit your previous impression?

I think most people would presume, in that situation, that there had been some misunderstanding and that the person was still who they had seemed before. I think a person -- at least a humble person -- would often presume that they were the one who had misunderstood the other. I think it would take several/many instances to change an opinion.

And the stronger a positive opinion started out, the longer/more dramatic the new negative experience would have to persist before the opinion changed. Again, IMO.

And then add in the major factor that others have been mentioning -- when the culture is set up such that certain people are considered the epitome, the arbiter of what is acceptable, they become more and more knighted and less and less vulnerable to having people's opinions about them change.

Add in the lessons of how girls/women are taught to behave/believe/perceive in that culture. Add in the basic psychology of sexual abuse that various posters have been mentioning -- which most people who have not experienced it might not even be able to fathom until they learned about it. How people -- many people, men and women both, over many years and in many situations -- have not spoken up for many years, sometimes even decades, in the face of what seems to the outsider to be obviously wrong behavior on the part of others.

I completely understand how you might not have had certain experiences, and might not even be aware of certain things that are outside your realm of direct experience -- such as the frequent propensity for sexual abuse victims to keep quiet -- but what I can not fathom is how it is that an intelligent person would not be able to accept that there is more to a complex situation than they might immediately perceive. To say "it's hard for me to understand why she did X or didn't do Y, but I see now that there are so many confounding variables that obviously these things play out in ways I can't imagine, and therefore I will withhold judgment on her."

That is a place where I personally do think people's views change quickly -- when input from others prompts a person to realize that they don't know the whole story. There is no shame in acknowledging that one is tempted to think a certain way, but that one is intelligent enough to recognize that such temptation doesn't lead to sound thinking, and thus it's best to shift to an open mind. That change can happen immediately by a clear-thinking person whose ego doesn't get in their way. What is preventing you from seeing this?

[DomWackTroll]

Hooray - I've been waiting for Part 8 (Part 8!!!) to start so I can post this without its getting buried.

Where are the Botkins??

Other than two excellent blog posts by Katie (the sane cousin in Idaho) Botkin, there's been nary a peep about this from the Geoff Botkin Clan in Tennessee. I realize the impending Isaac Botkin-Heidi Roach nuptials are undoubtedly taking up some time. Nevertheless, given their long-standing business relationship with VF, and their many appearances on Doug's blog over the years; and the fact that they used Lourdes as one of their examples in "Return of the Daughters," one would think they might want to make some public statement. A smidgen of support, a modicum of sympathy, a hearty congrats to Lourdes and Nolan, or even a "We had no idea, our affiliation with Dougie is all in your imagination, and we never really liked him anyway?"

Come on, Botkins - we know you're out there. Quit hiding.

David Noor (Nadia Botkin's brother) is now FB friends with Lourdes. No one else from the family-- yet?

[RachelB]

You posted this while I was still typing out how westchamps is operating under the illusion that we live in a just world.

Thanks for that link. It explains the issue so well.

You're welcome. I used to believe that theory, when I was a child. It was adaptive as long as it helped me deal with a scary and unpredictable parent until I was old enough to leave. (The alternatives were believing that someone who loved me could behave in incredibly hurtful ways, or that someone whose job it was to love me in fact didn't. It was oddly less painful to take responsibility for things that were not my responsibility.)

When I moved out-- when I had some say in the conditions of my own life-- the just world theory ceased to be adaptive, and I painstakingly unlearned it.

[twin2]

Since we seem to have a break from ME ME ME LOOK AT ME ME ME HEY EVERYONE ITS ALL ABOUT ME Bollockfaced shitnubbins westchamps...

I wonder if BRADRICK! or any of the other "men" who went to confront Doug about his sins, they apparently had must have observed, if they could be disposed/called to testify. Man, I wish sippy cup hadn't closed his FB account.

[cindyluvs24]

WC says that he used to work with Doug and that they were friends. I posit that WC is a former intern or the like and is here at someone's behest. I find the whole "just looking for info" unconvincing, to say the least.

[lemonhead]

I do realize this but at the same time there were things like Christopher Columbus was presented as the godly person who was used by God to come here and save the souls of the heathens, but they never also included that he sold nine year olds into sex slavery. No, he was a godly man who got a little filled with pride and greed towards the end of his life, but God really used him and he should be greatly admired as a man of God. The Pilgrims were presented as practically being saints, no inclusion on them robbing the graves of Indians days after they arrived. The Pequot War was presented as God giving victory over savage Indians, not hundreds of women, children and the elderly being burned alive, chopped into pieces by swords or sold into slavery. This is what William Bradford(who was praised as being a man of God) wrote that even though it was horrible to watch, it seemed to be a sweet sacrifice for victory. I have no doubt that the writers of the Christian history books knew of these events but they didn't include or they tried to paint them in a better like because it would have been hard to maintain, "they were so godly! We should be like them!" if they did.

Isn't it the biggest tool ever Doug Phillips who rants on praising the Pilgrims as being godly and bashing the Indians as being savages? I bet he doesn't include the Pilgrims robbing Indian graves.

I grew up with A Beka textbooks, not Bob Jones, but I too remember a lot of history lessons that turned out to be not very accurate once I joined the real world and went to college. A little off-topic, but The Wonkette did a hilarious and very revealing series on the historical inaccuracies of BJ and A Beka history books starting here: http://wonkette.com/481427/things-you-c ... eal-part-i (not broken b/c it's an ungodly secular satire site, ya know).

[MrsFoxx]

I grew up with A Beka textbooks, not Bob Jones, but I too remember a lot of history lessons that turned out to be not very accurate once I joined the real world and went to college. A little off-topic, but The Wonkette did a hilarious and very revealing series on the historical inaccuracies of BJ and A Beka history books starting here: http://wonkette.com/481427/things-you-c ... eal-part-i (not broken b/c it's an ungodly secular satire site, ya know).

Haha. We were homeschooled, and my mom loves telling the story of how my brother found a gross inaccuracy in a Christian history text and proved it using two library books as sources. He was in first grade. It was secular history books for us after that.