Doug Phillips is a Tool & Vision Forum is Dead - Part 7

[westchamps]

What...? Is this one of those trick questions? :shifty-kitty:

Just pointing out the absurdity of the idea that, if not for Doug being a proponent of "patriarchy", that this affair never would have happened. One of the silliest things I've ever heard.

[thoughtful]

OK, I've had my silly fun, now to be serious.

Westchamps, I think your ire has affected your ability to read for meaning. Just a few things, off the top of my head:

Nobody has said that only Patriarchal people have affairs. It is just especially ironic that someone who goes on (and on and on) about Manly Men protecting their families and how important Men as Leaders are did so.

You yourself made reference to the Shakespearian source of the pseudonym Hero. So you take issue with the comparison not being exact, since Shakespeare's Hero was chaste -- point taken. But the use of the name (capitalized) does not mean we are all holding this woman up as a hero, as in, someone to be emulated, etc.

There is no uniform "you people" here -- several FJ posters are just as disturbed by the woman's choices as they are by Doug's.

[westchamps]

We don't hate God. We dislike intensely (with the heat of a thousand red hot supernovas) people (men and women) who use the Bible and any other religious tract to manipulate others. Specifically men like Doug Phillips (is a Tool) who used his position as a "godly Christian" man and leader of a religious movement that needed [(and still needs) to put women down in order to feel manly] to espouse patriarchy as something god wanted. In the course of his "manliness" he acquired lots of money (not very Christlike), many expensive possessions (again, not Christlike), and power (you know not very Christlike). And then he cheated on his wife by having an affair with a woman of tender years who was a follower of his non Christlike godly Vision Forum whatever. But I'll take your word that he was a swell guy (pssst this is sarcasm).

Can you please point out where the Bible says that being wealthy, having nice possessions, and being in a position of authority/power are things that Christians should not have? I'm not talking about Doug Phillips here, I'm just asking in general. You seem to be somehow equating money/possessions/power with patriarchy=affair.

[thoughtful]

I'm not defending the Doug Phillips of now. I don't know that guy anymore. I wish he had been exposed years ago for what he has become. The Doug Phillips of many years ago was a really great guy. That guy didn't put down his wife in order to feel manly. I don't know what happened.

I don't know that Doug puts his wife down now (as in, insulting her -- if that's not what you meant, let me know). He may be as sweet as syrup with her.

I'd like to hear some details about what was so great about him in the past.

Doug strikes me as someone many people would have seen through from the beginning, and unlikely to have changed over the years, but I could be wrong.

Maybe he hid it better in the early days. Maybe he hid it from you but not others, and you gradually saw more and more of the man behind the curtain. Maybe he had a stroke.

So, what was Doug like when you knew him?

[westchamps]

Blah, blah, blah; wall o' text.

Sorry, westchamps--there are too many Christians and other theists here for us to "hate God." (And the atheists here don't even believe such an entity exists; it's impossible to "hate" something non-existent.) We REFUSE to conflate any patriarchal fundamentalist movement with the Deity.

We hate Doug's smarminess, phoniness, and duplicity. We acknowledge that there was indeed a considerable power imbalance between him and the young woman I dubbed "Hero."

What happened between Doug and her has its roots firmly planted in the very patriarchal "Christianity" you tout.

One might have a hard time coming to that conclusion based upon the general coarseness of the language and discussion in this thread. :?

[thoughtful]

One might have a hard time coming to that conclusion based upon the general coarseness of the language and discussion in this thread. :?

Hmmmm . . . I'm no Biblical scholar, but I think the people equating Christianity with not greedily angling for riches are more on the mark about what Jesus taught than someone saying "Christian=no cussin', kids."

[westchamps]

OK, I've had my silly fun, now to be serious.

Westchamps, I think your ire has affected your ability to read for meaning. Just a few things, off the top of my head:

Nobody has said that only Patriarchal people have affairs. It is just especially ironic that someone who goes on (and on and on) about Manly Men protecting their families and how important Men as Leaders are did so.

Hane said: "What happened between Doug and her has its roots firmly planted in the very patriarchal "Christianity" you tout." Sure sounds to me like the implication is that Doug's "patriarchy" caused the affair.

And maybe you missed the part where I said the following in my original post?

"Sexual sin of this kind in any Christian man is awful. In a man with a wonderful wife and kids, it is much worse. In a man whose whole career and reputation are based on principles so diametrically opposed to what Doug has been caught in, it is a million times worse"

You yourself made reference to the Shakespearian source of the pseudonym Hero. So you take issue with the comparison not being exact, since Shakespeare's Hero was chaste -- point taken. But the use of the name (capitalized) does not mean we are all holding this woman up as a hero, as in, someone to be emulated, etc.

Referring to her in either respect is absurd.

There is no uniform "you people" here -- several FJ posters are just as disturbed by the woman's choices as they are by Doug's.

Those people are strongly outnumbered by people here who have been practically patting her on the back.

I don't feel sorry for her except in the same way that I feel sorry for Doug. Their lives have both been greatly affected by, and likely will continue to be affected by, the bad/sinful decisions they made in this saga. Just because God forgives us our sins does not mean we get to escape the consequences of those sins, as Doug (and his whole family) are finding out right now.

[westchamps]

Hmmmm . . . I'm no Biblical scholar, but I think the people equating Christianity with not greedily angling for riches are more on the mark about what Jesus taught than someone saying "Christian=no cussin', kids."

So, you're of the general opinion that people who are wealthy can't be Christians? Or just the ones who got their riches by "greedily angling" for them? By the way, is it possible for one to angle for riches in a "benevolent" fashion? Or is anyone who is wealthy just automatically "greedy" unless they inherited their money from their greedy parents?

[westchamps]

I don't know that Doug puts his wife down now (as in, insulting her -- if that's not what you meant, let me know). He may be as sweet as syrup with her.

I'd like to hear some details about what was so great about him in the past.

Doug strikes me as someone many people would have seen through from the beginning, and unlikely to have changed over the years, but I could be wrong.

Maybe he hid it better in the early days. Maybe he hid it from you but not others, and you gradually saw more and more of the man behind the curtain. Maybe he had a stroke.

So, what was Doug like when you knew him?

I answered most of these questions in my original post.

[Arete]

I must have been hallucinating that Jesus said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven. Then there is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus...the whole "give us this day our daily bread" part of the Lord's Prayer, then their is "woe to you Pharisees, hypocrites!" which covers both wealth and power...the fact that in the early church wealth was held collectively, not individually (what was the name of that guy struck dead for withholding part of his wealth from the collective?). Oh, and Jesus declined several times to take on earthly power.

But you know all this, you just think the cussing harlots over here never picked up a Bible or hate God.

[thoughtful]

I answered most of these questions in my original post.

This?

The man I once knew was sincere, hospitable, very principled and Godly, and a great friend. I am not at all ashamed to say that he was the single strongest male figure who influenced my life when I was making the transition from teenager to man. Was he a bit of am embellisher? Yes, he was, but that minor character flaw paled in comparison, in my opinion, to the good qualities he had.

That's all you said about why he was so wonderful. There are no specifics there.

It's no big deal -- I just thought you might have some anecdotes, some real examples of what he did and said, how you knew he was sincere. Even you admit he was a bit of an embellisher.

I know a lot of people IRL, none of whom are holding themselves up as paragons or leaders, who never embellish.

I have known a few who embellished, always seemed to remember every event as if they were either a victim or the only person in the room with a brain.

It struck me as a real red flag for lack of trustworthiness, and I got away from them whenever possible.

[thoughtful]

So, you're of the general opinion that people who are wealthy can't be Christians? Or just the ones who got their riches by "greedily angling" for them? By the way, is it possible for one to angle for riches in a "benevolent" fashion? Or is anyone who is wealthy just automatically "greedy" unless they inherited their money from their greedy parents?

That's not remotely what I said, so I don't quite know what to say to you, but I'll give it another try.

Doug is the person we are discussing, and Doug clearly went after wealth, position and anything that would build his ego. That strikes me as being contradictory to some of the teaching of Jesus.

You were equating being "coarse" with not being Christian. I don't know of anything Jesus said about that -- correct me if I'm wrong (I was sincere when I said I am not a great Biblical scholar, and am sincere in this request).

In other words, you seemed to be deciding that people were not Christian based on a small part of their behavior.

As far as I know, the only prerequisite is belief in Jesus as divine.

[Othello]

@Westchamps, a couple of thoughts. No, nobody here is a fan of Doug Phillips. However, there's a very very broad range of convictions and lifestyles represented on this board and to dismiss everyone as a group with some of those generalizations is a bit short-sighted. Here's why we don't like Doug Phillips:

(1) He's sold a particular lifestyle that, while it has in some ways an attractive façade, is primarily built upon very dangerous theology and ideologies that are a bit more apparent in some of his compatriots but nonetheless are part of his ideological construct. I could give any number of examples.

(2) Many of us have been, to put it politely, screwed by his teachings, and we don't want others to experience the same. We've experienced the VF patriarchy/neo-Confederacy/anti-women/anti-children's-best-interests/ad nauseum culture at its worst, and that does not make one inclined to harbor any trace of fondness for the figurehead and perpetrator of this movement.

(3) Not only has he peddled this ideology but he has fleeced a lot of well-meaning but gullible people by doing so, becoming quite wealthy and traveling the world on the backs of people who just want to do the right thing and are deceived by his charisma and clever use of Scripture into thinking that the narrow gate and straight road of Doug Phillips' devising (not from Scripture, but his ideological construct) is the way to heaven, both in this world and the next (although, being Christian Reconstructionists, they believe they can usher in heaven on earth by enforcing Calvin-in-Geneva-like martial law, so that's beside the point).

(4) To compound the former reasons, he has been selling this picture of human perfection by following the Law of Phillips while simultaneously living a double life, doing shameful things and betraying those whom he has strung along for years while indulging himself in any number of vices, including greed, narcissism, taking advantage sexually and emotionally of a young woman who essentially grew up in his home watching his kids (yes, she is not absolved of responsibility entirely, but given the circumstances the weight of responsibility clearly lies with DP), the legal screwing of many compatriots (ever heard the Allosaur/Dana Forbes/fossil museum story? The circumstances of his leaving HSLDA while pinching their contact lists in order to jumpstart his business?) for personal gain, etc. etc.

I know you knew him personally for some time, and believe he was at least at one point an honest and well-meaning man. I really don't know; all I know is that I have personally been very very negatively impacted by his teaching and ministry and while I definitely feel for his children and wife (you can't say you haven't seen many people on here expressing sympathy and hopes for a bright future for the Phillips children) it's also been very good for many to see that the emperor had no clothes.

[FundieWatcher]

It is interesting Westcamps, that you are also on this site. And you seem to know quite a lot about us. One could say you have spent some serious time here as well..

[redcurls]

The last time I saw and spoke with Doug and Beall was more than 5 years ago. But I worked with him on a daily basis some time before that, for more than a year, and got to know them very well. I'm not going to say when or where I worked with him, but I did, and spent a lot of time with him, at work, at home, in the car. I spent time in the Phillips family home, went on a family trip with them.

The Doug Phillips who betrayed his principles, his family and practically everything and everyone he held dear is not the Doug Phillips I once knew. The man I once knew was sincere, hospitable, very principled and Godly, and a great

If what you say is true, it sounds like you were close with Doug Phillips Is A Tool during the height of his affair. Looks like you were in a position to notice something was amiss, and you were fooled just like everyone else.

You're not angry because we are telling the truth about DP- that he is a liar, a scumbag, dishonest, untrustworthy, hateful, manipulative, and downright evil. You're angry because the idiot you looked up to turned out to be a worthless liar and fooled you along with everyone else.

[thoughtful]

Hane said: "What happened between Doug and her has its roots firmly planted in the very patriarchal "Christianity" you tout." Sure sounds to me like the implication is that Doug's "patriarchy" caused the affair.

You pointed out that non-Patriarchal people have affairs, as if we somehow believed that wasn't possible. If I remember correctly, you even accused us of thinking that (I'm not going to back for the quote now -- correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think that's true of anyone here.

People from any background can have affairs. But Patriarchy does set up an entire society in which men lead and women submit and obey, in which men are touted as leaders, regardless of their qualifications or charisma. This man was the head of an entire Patriarchal community, and to some, very charismatic.

When I worked in a church, we had a workshop on the responsibilities of people in power. No matter how medium-sized a fish one is, no matter how teeny the pond, one can abuse that power. The "fiduciary relationship" is a real thing -- preachers, teachers, doctors, etc. have a responsibility to say "no" even if the other person initiates and wants to break boundaries.

Believe me, I've only been a smallish fish in teeny ponds. Unlike Doug, I am not in a community where people who fit my description (female, old, etc.) are touted as Spiritual Leaders, let alone the Leader of all the Leaders. Unlike Doug, I have not taken people who think I'm the bees knees into a palatial home as unpaid workers. Unlike Doug, I have no ability to dazzle others with gifts and trips and flattery. Unlike Doug, I'm pretty low-key and generally dressed in dull clothes.

But I have felt that hero-worship directed at me. I have felt that vibe that says "if you jump off a cliff we will follow you." I find it deeply creepy, and try to defuse it when I can. I sure as hell have never taken advantage of it, and never will.

Doug did.

Can you see that it is not really the same as two people who meet on equal footing and decide to have an illicit affair? It is much more complicated than just "they both sinned equally."

[hoipolloi]

One might have a hard time coming to that conclusion based upon the general coarseness of the language and discussion in this thread. :?

Re: bolded. Hon - maybe you have poor reading comprehension (fundies often do) or perhaps you haven't been reading quite as carefully as you imply.

Whatever the case, allow me to direct your oh-so-discerning eyes at the TOU (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15380), particularly the following:

By joining this board, you acknowledge that people here will use VERY BAD LANGUAGE and possibly express opinions derogatory towards certain fringe groups. You are fully aware that most of us are making fun of the freaks and fruitcakes that drop litters of children. You are here because you're fascinated by the societal currents that give rise to these whackjobs. If you ARE one of these whackjobs, be aware of what you're stepping into and stop crying.

[hoipolloi]

[wall o' text]... We have continued through that time to receive the VF catalog and have been regular customers of VF, mostly for their excellent quality re-prints of old books.... [wall o'text]

And what "excellent quality re-prints of old books" would these be? By any chance would these be the absolutely sick & perverted Elsie Dinsmore series, complete with its glowing portrayal of African-American slavery? Or, would these books you're referring to be the G.A. Henty books, which are paeans to white male superiority, with stuff like the following (from Sheer Pluck):

They are just like children. They are always either laughing or quarrelling. They are good-natured and passionate, indolent, but will work hard for a time; clever up to a certain point, densely stupid beyond. The intelligence of an average negro is about equal to that of a European child of ten years old. A few, a very few, go beyond this, but these are exceptions, just as Shakespeare was an exception to the ordinary intellect of an Englishman. They are fluent talkers, but their ideas are borrowed. They are absolutely without originality, absolutely without inventive power. Living among white men, their imitative facilities enable them to attain a considerable amount of civilisation. Left alone to their own devices they retrograde into a state little above their native savagery.

[wall o'text]...Doug had to fight for Beall's hand in marriage and when they were married he treasured her all the more for it....[wall o'text]

Doug reportedly alienated Beall from her family at or shortly after their marriage. If this is true, would you call this behavior godly/Christian/manly or whatever adjective you "Christian" men like to apply to yourselves?

[RachelB]

Blah, blah, blah; wall o' text.

Sorry, westchamps--there are too many Christians and other theists here for us to "hate God." (And the atheists here don't even believe such an entity exists; it's impossible to "hate" something non-existent.) We REFUSE to conflate any patriarchal fundamentalist movement with the Deity.

We hate Doug's smarminess, phoniness, and duplicity. We acknowledge that there was indeed a considerable power imbalance between him and the young woman I dubbed "Hero."

What happened between Doug and her has its roots firmly planted in the very patriarchal "Christianity" you tout.

Yup. I don't hate God. (I yell skywards sometimes, as one does at an exasperating loved one, but anyone who thinks God cannot handle that hasn't actually read the Psalms.) My contempt is reserved for people who abuse their authority.

[Palimpsest]

I must have been hallucinating that Jesus said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven. Then there is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus...the whole "give us this day our daily bread" part of the Lord's Prayer, then their is "woe to you Pharisees, hypocrites!" which covers both wealth and power...the fact that in the early church wealth was held collectively, not individually (what was the name of that guy struck dead for withholding part of his wealth from the collective?). Oh, and Jesus declined several times to take on earthly power.

But you know all this, you just think the cussing harlots over here never picked up a Bible or hate God.

::Waves hand:: Me! Me!

The guy who was struck dead for withholding part of the proceeds from the sale of his property from the Church collective was Ananias. His wife Sapphira was also struck dead for repeating his lie to Peter a few hours later. That story scared the daylights out of me as a child.

I'm not surprised that Westchamp is ignorant about these New Testament stories. In my experience, many of these Patriarchal "Christian" Dominionists also subscribe to Prosperity Theology. They far prefer cherry-picking texts from the Old Testament to fit their beliefs to actually reading the Gospel. I forget where I saw this -- perhaps it was CnD or Nolan who said that Doug Phillips rarely preached from the Gospels.

Boiling down Westchamp's exceeding long ramble to the salient points, and looking at his follow-up responses all he really seems to be saying is that:

- Doug Phillips was a very cool guy.

- He, himself, was far too smart to put Doug on a pedestal.

- He, himself, is far too manly to need manly man Hazardous Journeys.

- He is pissed that Vision Form is gone because he liked the products.

- Patriarchy is good and his wife likes it.

- The young woman in the case is a harlot and a Jezebel.

- We are ignorant harlots because we don't all agree with him that the young woman is a harlot.

- We are childish because we curse.

- We haven't shown compassion for the Phillips children and Beall.

- We all hate God.

And he demonstrates that he thinks he has clever arguments (not!) and lacks reading comprehension - particularly over our supposed hatred of God and supposed lack of compassion for Beall and the family.

I have a few questions for Westchamp:

- Do you think that Doug has repented from his sin?

- What do you think about Doug's threatening legal action against 3 of the men that confronted him?

- What would you consider evidence that Doug has truly repented from his sin?

- If Doug recreates his business in the future will you continue to buy his products?

- When, if ever, do you think Doug will return to a pastoral position?

And, finally, why are you reading, let alone posting all this on Free Jinger? This is a snark site. You could be saying what you have here on other more "Christian" blogs and sites -- many people have written articles about Doug Phillips -- or commenting on the news articles. Is it just because you feel the need to chastise us?

[Marian the Librarian]

I'm traveling, and away from my usual level of connectivity comfort - thus, I've been hitting the "like" button a lot, but not able to say much until now. Westchamps, at one point you questioned whether anyone on FJ really cares about Hero. I do. Several threads back, I quoted a great line from a great old movie ("Dr. Zhivago," should you be interested): "What happens to a woman like that, when a man like you is finished with her?" Doug Phillips's relationship with Hero was clergy sexual abuse. Period. What happens to someone who's grown up thoroughly steeped in the Patriarchal/VF/stay-at-home-daughter Kool-Aid, once that whole house of cards comes crashing down? Yep, she made a mistake - and I wish her only the best, and hope she is able to move forward into a happy and productive life.

I also feel great compassion for Doug's wife and kids. I know what it feels like to be cheated on, and to feel betrayed by a parent.

One other point that I've made here on FJ before: based on what I've observed of Doug's affect and behavior in the videos he's made public, especially in the last few years, the word that consistently comes to mind is "manic." I believe a mental health assessment, with the possibility of appropriately prescribed medication, might benefit all concerned.

[thoughtful]

And, finally, why are you reading, let alone posting all this on Free Jinger? This is a snark site. You could be saying what you have here on other more "Christian" blogs and sites -- many people have written articles about Doug Phillips -- or commenting on the news articles. Is it just because you feel the need to chastise us?

It certainly seems that way.

[Palimpsest]

I've been sitting on my fingers for a couple of hours waiting for someone else to post this ...

But Marian's post is such a great lead in ...

And happy news is better than arguing with stubborn silverbacks like Westchamps...

I just can't resist ...

Nolan Manteufel has updated his profile picture on Facebook!

I congratulate them both and wish them full recovery from the cult, every success in moving forward, peace and much joy in the future.:D

[thoughtful]

I've been sitting on my fingers for a couple of hours waiting for someone else to post this ...

But Marian's post is such a great lead in ...

And happy news is better than arguing with stubborn silverbacks like Westchamps...

I just can't resist ...

Nolan Manteufel has updated his profile picture on Facebook!

I congratulate them both and wish them full recovery from the cult, every success in moving forward, peace and much joy in the future.:D

Well, whattaya know! I hope they can build a fully healthy relationship and recover from the cult, as well.

[MrsFoxx]

Sexual sin of this kind in any Christian man is awful. In a man with a wonderful wife and kids, it is much worse. In a man whose whole career and reputation are based on principles so diametrically opposed to what Doug has been caught in, it is a million times worse.

This quote pissed me off more than the rest of the westchamps holier-than-thou rant about how little people outside of him understand the true nature of DPIAT. So, infidelity is the least bad if you have a wife and kids who are just so-so? By whose standards are we judging which women and children make infidelity worse?

And when your career is based on principles related to fidelity, that makes it worse. Okay, check.

And when your reputation is based on principles opposed to infidelity. (Um...aren't most reputations?!)