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

[westchamps]

School of the dining room table. Many of us come from that school.

Gotcha. My parents were never particularly strict about where in our house we did our schooling, so long as we did it. We're pretty much the same way with our kids. One of my daughters needs absolute silence to do her work properly. Another one works best with headphones on, listening to classical composers. To each his/her own, different children learn best in different environments.

[westchamps]

If it were, don't you think there would be something about that in the registration? I mean we'd have to have some way to verify that we are only allowing women on the forum, right? Since the forum is open to the public to read, what would be the purpose of only allowing women to post? Just using a tiny bit of logic or common sense I'm trying to figure out why someone who claims to be well educated would even have to ask this question.

Because people keep talking about how I've come to educate the "wimminz", that's why, as though men were a scarcity at this forum.

[westchamps]

The entire creation of fundamentalist Christianity had its beginnings in the reaction to linguistic studies of the bible. It was and is predicated on the idea the idea that anyone can interpret the bible. That was the beginning. It continues to this day. I highly suggest you read up on your own history. I recommend the Oxford short history of fundamentalism. Or anything by Stuart Appleby. Smart people fall for fundamentalism. But bottom line fundamentalism in general and Christian fundamentalism in particular is anti intellectual. You can huff and puff and stomp your feet all you want but truth is truth.

And what are you hoping to accomplish here?

What is your definition of intellectual?

[Arete]

I never new it took outside help to raise a large family. Thanks for the info. Not sure what got into us, thinking we could raise a large family without outside help.

You just demonstrated my point that like the Bible, you cannot take one sentence from a paragraph, divorce it of its context, and then claim it's intent was for you specifically,

Thanks for helping a cussing woman out. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[westchamps]

Really? What change was that? Would "the guy I knew" be this guy, described by Michael Farris of the HSLDA & Patrick Henry College as follows:

Phillips left the HSLDA about 1998. Why, that's about 15 years ago or so, isn't it?

Amazing - homeschooling, manly men just like yourself, westchamps, noticed 15 years ago or more how screwed up Doug was. Either you lacked the perspicacity to notice or, more likely, you were happily lapping up all the patriarchal swill that Doug pushed your way.

1) I still haven't said when it was that I was close to Doug and Beall

2) If Doug was such an awful guy back then, why was he employed for several years by HSLDA?

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

Hi, westchamps. Fellow fundie here. I'm really curious as to what your purpose is here, as well. I mean this with sincerity. There is much here I don't agree with, and I regularly vacillate as to whether I should even be here. But I have my reasons. Aside from an occasional incident of not being able to control myself from defending something/someone, I tend to avoid hand slapping and preaching. I figure I know what this forum is about, I come here willingly, I should put up with that with which I disagree. Like you, I found this place by googling someone I was trying to get more info on. I'd like to know what your purpose for engaging here is, if you actually know, and if you wouldn't mind sharing. Thanks.

[Marian the Librarian]

Utter coincidence, I can assure you. :lol:

I'm not sure I believe you, but whatever.

You say you came here looking for information about the Doug Phillips case. Providing information to people is my business, so here are some informative links you can cut-and-paste into your browser:

#1 - this is the 30-page complaint Ms. Torres-Manteufel filed against Doug Phillips et al. It should prove an excellent place to start:

wnd.com/files/2014/04/TorresComplaintFinalwithCoverSheet.pdf

#2 - spiritualsoundingboard.com. This website contains a wealth of information about Doug Phillips, and the detailed timeline you seek.

#3 - this is the relevant section of the Texas Penal Code:

Texas Penal Code Chapter 5. (22.011)

Title 5. Offenses against the person. 


Chapter 22. Assaultive Offenses.


Sec. 22.011. Sexual assault.
(b) A sexual assault [...] is without the consent of the other person if: [...] 10) the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual adviser …

Texas Penal Code 22.011(b)(9): “by exploiting [the patient or former patient's] . . . emotional dependencyâ€; and (b)(10) “by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual advisorâ€

(full link here: statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm)

You're welcome.

[lipstickgoalie]

What is your definition of intellectual?

In this context the definition of intellectual that best applies is: "a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, especially on an abstract and general level." (Taken from dictionary.com) and also "a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher." (Also taken from dictionary.com)

I don't know why you are asking me this. If you read any writings from the Second Great Awakening onward from Fundamentalist Christian leaders it is impossible to argue that the movement is anti-intellectual. Heck even the idea that the bible is to be taken literally is a relatively recent development, like the last 100-120 years.

So I have played along. Now answer me this: why are you here? What is your goal or aim?

[westchamps]

I don't think YOU understand, Westchamps. Christianity isn't about what YOU expect. It's about what each person believes Christ expects of him or her.

Actually, no, it isn't. The Bible is pretty clear about what God expects of us. If it goes against His written Word, it's a pretty safe bet Christ isn't making exceptions for individual Christians to act differently than what the Bible says.

And I don't believe for one minute that you joined FJ to "find information."

Believe what you want, won't keep me up at night that you think I'm being dishonest when I know I'm not.

[westchamps]

ETA -- hey, Westchamps, since you are back -- what do you think of the lawsuit? Have you read the complaint?

Yes. If even half of what she says in there is true, it's disgusting. But, wasn't there enough information known already to know that Doug's behavior was disgusting?

I do think there are some pretty big holes in the credibility of the picture she is trying to paint of herself as some sort of sex slave. Like, for example, the number of years that she supposedly was coerced and forced to put up with this behavior that was so terribly offensive to her, and yet she continued to interact with him and the family for years during all this, never tried to break free until 2012? Sorry, it doesn't pass the smell test to me, doesn't paint a very convincing picture that it was all one-sided on his part and she was an unwilling participant through it all. If she was able to break free in 2012, why not in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011?

Maybe one of you women can explain to me what it is about $$$$ that can magically take away the pain of "sexual abuse"? If things really and truly went down just like she stated in her complaint, she should have filed criminal charges against him. Filing for monetary damages is just....gross, in my opinion. If she really was abused, how can money make those emotional scars go away? And how will Doug having to pay out a monetary settlement keep him from abusing some other woman in the future, if in fact he did abuse this woman? If he really did criminally abuse her, shouldn't she be trying to see him behind bars instead of trying to collect $ from him? Sorry, it just makes me feel "ick". I'm expecting any day for Gloria Steinem to sign up as one of her attorneys.

[Clementine]

I think Hero can use the $$$ to get adeqate councelling to heal from her experiences with Doug. As far as I understand, she worked for his family without getting a proper salary and insurance, so the money could cover that too and I hope she will use some of it to get a good education, something that Doug encouraged her not to get.

This woman is over 30 and spent her 20's, the decade where most people work hard to build a good foundation for the rest of their life (getting an education, finding a spose, build a cv, start a home), being an unpaid maid / sex toy to a cult leader.

She is at least ten years behind most of the people in her generation and has no education and a blank cv. She will need money to get ahead and start a normal life.

[Anise]

Yes, I would, and do deny it.

Really?

I happen to be from the Conservative Christian homeschooling subculture, so I know what people say when there are no unbelievers around.

It's a safe bet that you've used words like Jezebel, hell, damn, and fool to refer to someone at the very least.

And why this particular game of holier than thou over something as trivial as strong language? It just seems so shallow to me.

[lipstickgoalie]

Yes. If even half of what she says in there is true, it's disgusting. But, wasn't there enough information known already to know that Doug's behavior was disgusting?

I do think there are some pretty big holes in the credibility of the picture she is trying to paint of herself as some sort of sex slave. Like, for example, the number of years that she supposedly was coerced and forced to put up with this behavior that was so terribly offensive to her, and yet she continued to interact with him and the family for years during all this, never tried to break free until 2012? Sorry, it doesn't pass the smell test to me, doesn't paint a very convincing picture that it was all one-sided on his part and she was an unwilling participant through it all. If she was able to break free in 2012, why not in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011?

Maybe one of you women can explain to me what it is about $$$$ that can magically take away the pain of "sexual abuse"? If things really and truly went down just like she stated in her complaint, she should have filed criminal charges against him. Filing for monetary damages is just....gross, in my opinion. If she really was abused, how can money make those emotional scars go away? And how will Doug having to pay out a monetary settlement keep him from abusing some other woman in the future, if in fact he did abuse this woman? If he really did criminally abuse her, shouldn't she be trying to see him behind bars instead of trying to collect $ from him? Sorry, it just makes me feel "ick". I'm expecting any day for Gloria Steinem to sign up as one of her attorneys.

I am too tired at the moment to deal with 99% of what you just said and the complete lack of understanding of what patriarchal Christianity does to women but I will say that the last sentence gives me a clear indicator of how very little you do know about the history of feminism, and let's face it, history in general.

Gloria Steinem was not and is not an attorney. She is a Journalist and at the height of second wave feminism, one of the most recognizable faces of the feminist movement, but by no means spoke or does speak for every woman, nor every feminist*

And I ask yet again: Why are you here? What is your end goal or aim?

*And fun fact for all the other people reading, she is Christian Bales' stepmother. And the ceremony was performed by Wilma Mankiller, the first female Primary Chief of the Cherokee Nation.

[westchamps]

Biblical teachings according to whom? You? Doug Phillips? Bill Gothard? The Pope?

According to nothing but the Bible, no human "interpretation" needed.

because there are women who lead, women who are educated, women who don't take any shit from anyone.

Always comes back to the "women" around here, doesn't it? This is why I asked if this was a "women-only" forum, because apparently everyone on this forum is under the impression that it revolves around women and anyone who comes here to talk about anything is here because of the women.

[westchamps]

Westchamps, no this forum is not women only. Obviously. You are are here and a male. No one said it was women only. Nobody implied it. It is mostly women.

I answered your so answer mine...Why are you here? You don't think the Christians are real and you are indifferent to everyone else. And if you as smart as you think you are, you have figured out that no amount of throwing Bible verses around is going to change any minds about patriarchal stuff.

I stumbled across this forum trying to find information. I registered and posted because I saw a lot of misrepresentations, half-truths and straight-up lies masquerading as the truth, about the way that I and many others were raised and are raising our own children.

I'd have to go back through all my posts to make sure, but I'm pretty sure I didn't post any scriptures except as a response to various people saying the Bible didn't say this or didn't say that. Sorry if you just wanted me to let those slide, I couldn't.

[westchamps]

Have you gotten around to reading my response to you or are you still too gobsmacked?

Patience is a virtue.

[westchamps]

I've got news for you. You don't even believe that the bible means what it says. Beat means beat and stripes mean stripes. If you're not beating your children until you leave marks, then you don't follow biblical teachings either. And this is coming from a Jesus lover, so you can't pull the non Christian on me.

There are more scriptures in the Bible about child discipline that do not mention the words "beat" and "stripes" than do mention them. And I didn't see any that ordered us to beat our children until they have stripes.

[westchamps]

You just demonstrated my point that like the Bible, you cannot take one sentence from a paragraph, divorce it of its context, and then claim it's intent was for you specifically,

Thanks for helping a cussing woman out. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I didn't think your comment was for me, specifically. I was just commenting on your comment.

[lipstickgoalie]

According to nothing but the Bible, no human "interpretation" needed.

Always comes back to the "women" around here, doesn't it? This is why I asked if this was a "women-only" forum, because apparently everyone on this forum is under the impression that it revolves around women and anyone who comes here to talk about anything is here because of the women.

What is with all the scare quotes?

Back to the conversation about fundamentalists being anti-intellectual you just illustrated my point. Fundamentalists believe that they have the same amount of knowledge as experts in biblical scholarship, linguistics, and ancient historians. (Just to name a few fields.) Context is everything. How language shifts and changes and translations are even more problematic. To say that anyone can read the bible without any "interpretation" as you put it, or any context as I would put it, is anti-intellectual and irresponsible.

[lipstickgoalie]

Patience is a virtue.

Wow. Condescend much?

[westchamps]

Hi, westchamps. Fellow fundie here. I'm really curious as to what your purpose is here, as well. I mean this with sincerity. There is much here I don't agree with, and I regularly vacillate as to whether I should even be here. But I have my reasons. Aside from an occasional incident of not being able to control myself from defending something/someone, I tend to avoid hand slapping and preaching. I figure I know what this forum is about, I come here willingly, I should put up with that with which I disagree. Like you, I found this place by googling someone I was trying to get more info on. I'd like to know what your purpose for engaging here is, if you actually know, and if you wouldn't mind sharing. Thanks.

See my response a dozen or so posts after yours.

[westchamps]

Biblical teachings according to whom? You? Doug Phillips? Bill Gothard? The Pope? I personally don't feel the need to wear my "nice little Christian girl" outfit anymore at all. I prefer to ACT on my beliefs instead of spewing endless platitudes and being judgmental towards those who may not be like me. I seem to remember something about "love one another as I have loved you"...now, does that only apply to ignorant, stuck-up fundies like you or does it apply to everyone? I believe that it applies to everyone...unless and until they show their total assholeness and at that point I feel free to tell them to shut the fuck up and go the fuck away.

When it comes to patriarchal dickwads like you...well...your attitude tells me everything I need to know about you...you, like so many of your ilk suffer from little dick syndrome so you feel the need to beat your chest and puff yourself up because you're afraid of running into anyone who may be smarter, stronger, better educated, or just different than you. One day you will figure out that your manhood is not in danger because there are women who lead, women who are educated, women who don't take any shit from anyone. Me? Yeah...I gave up that sweet little SAHM shit years ago...right about the time I got sick of the X beating the shit out of me and the kids...so he could prove his manhood. So...fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

I note, by the way, that you didn't address my response to your comments about Scriptures about child discipline with the rod actually being about a shepherd and his sheep....

[westchamps]

I'm not sure I believe you, but whatever.

You think I knew this lawsuit was about to be filed and that's why I showed up here at this forum? Seriously? I've said many times that it's been many years since I was close to Doug and I've also said I barely know any of the people who have been close to and around him for the last many years. How would I know this lawsuit was about to be filed?

#1 - this is the 30-page complaint Ms. Torres-Manteufel filed against Doug Phillips et al. It should prove an excellent place to start: wnd.com/files/2014/04/TorresComplaintFinalwithCoverSheet.pdf

Yep, already read it.

#2 - spiritualsoundingboard.com. This website contains a wealth of information about Doug Phillips, and the detailed timeline you seek.

Been there too.

[westchamps]

In this context the definition of intellectual that best applies is: "a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, especially on an abstract and general level." (Taken from dictionary.com) and also "a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher." (Also taken from dictionary.com)

According to that definition, I am definitely not anti-intellectual. Does that mean I can no longer be a Fundamentalist Christian? Learn something new every day.....

[Tesseract]

The scope of this rant is literalists.

It never ends. Another, "Trew Christian" rolls in. Actually, just insert whatever fundamentalist religion in there because it all sounds the same. :roll: To some, the Bible is the word of god and infallible, to others, it's the Koran and the prophet Mohammed through the Hadith, again the word of Allah, again infallible etc... Each believes they have the one right answer, the one right way. And they battle each other and kill each other for centuries upon centuries to prove it. It is absurd, repetitive, and downright dangerous.

When pointed out to this "Trew Christian" he is not stoning people, or the plain language references to cannibalism, putting children to death for not obeying, selling his daughters, owning slaves etc... suddenly, context matters or he doesn't think that is what god meant. Uh, huh. The parts that get attention are the parts about beating children and subjugating women, oh, and pointing out how unchristian other Christians are. He goes all word for word there, but, at least here in the west, he and they, are forced to stop short. Thankfully, women in this culture have the law on their side when they are grown and reject the BS.

Thankfully, in the west there are secular, humanistic laws that spell out basic rights for all, though not enough for children, whose tiny minds/bodies do not deserve to be assaulted. Thankfully, given his parents and his attitude toward his sister, she was born here and not in a legal/political patriarchy. She can make her life as she sees fit, and if she wants, tell them all to go to hell. Without the safety net of our larger culture, she'd be another beaten down casualty relegated to incubator and domestic servant, period.

Hey, Saudi Arabia is clearly following the rules, what with the stoning of women/girls, chopping off of heads, cutting off of hands, the real stripes they leave on people, women covered head to toe without agency etc... That is what it really looks like when patriarchy and legalism rule. And this idiot wants to babble on about following the letter of the bible... because, that's the world we all should live in :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: The whole lot of 'em make me sick. :angry-banghead:

Oh, and fuck you, apologist, just fuck you. Money does not make things better asshat. What that bastard did to her can never be undone. Exposure, telling the story in a big way, holding him publicly and legally accountable is a fine way to begin to heal, leave a public record, and make others aware of who he really is. If money is part of his restitution, fine. She's got one hell of a therapy bill to pay for al long time to come. She has no education because of his teaching and "mentoring". Why on any rational level would she not insure that she never has to be dependent on a man again and why should not the perpetrator pay for what she needs to make her able to do that going forward?

This is our system. She didn't invent it and she gets to avail herself of it. A civil suit does not rule out a criminal one. There really are not enough "fuck you's" to cover the attitude of "IF, he did it, it's awful, BUT, always BUT.... then pointing the finger at the victim in any way possible to how horrible she is for daring to do what she feels is in her best interest after years of abuse at his hands. You have no idea and never will of what's involved mentally or in any other way for a woman raised the way she was, with no inside support to pursue action of any type. How sooper Christian of you.

Edited for clarity