Bill Gothard, God, and sexual molestation

[SledCat]

I find it funny that Alfred tells a commenter they sound like a "gossip columnist", meanwhile, he's allegedly a mouthpiece for Gothard and slipping what he believes are favorable anecdotes (which sound remarkably gossip like), into the conversation.

I am no fan of Bill Gothard, but I agree that if he is indeed communicating with this Alfred fellow, he should nip that in the bud pronto. In the face of a looming lawsuit, this can be nothing but a liability.

[older than allosaurs]

I had read many of the women's accounts on Recovering Grace over the years, as well as documentation of the impressive whitewashing abilities of IBLP leaders and board, so the shock value of the lawsuit is slightly blunted for me. I am surprised by the rape accusation, as I had Bill pegged as incapable of more than footsie and gropes.

What I have left to be shocked by is Bill's lack of guile in responding to the suit--of course he's ready to return to ministry, having made everything all better. Of course the board is foolish to stand in his way. Of course contradicting his previous written testimony is just fine. I'm so glad not to be his attorney. On the other hand, I'm horrified to learn that BG and I have same birthday. 

 

[DaisyD]

I was surprised by the rape too, until I read the recap of the girl's story (I can't read the actual lawsuit. Those things make me want to keep my children locked in the house forever). She had been reporting molestation and rape her whole life, and no one had ever either believed her or done anything about it. Her history was quite different from the girls that he behaved just criminally creepily with (I hate to put it that way, it's all really awful. There just seem to be different degrees of awful with Gothard). I think he decided that he could get away with it with her.

[paganbaby]

On 1/7/2016 at 9:49 AM, NachosFlandersStyle said:

Another Iowan! I don't even live there anymore but I've still got a 515 number so I'm getting 2 or 3 calls a day from pollsters and campaigns. I cringe so hard hearing far-right candidates talk about "Iowa values"... speak for yourselves, idiots!

So true. When they talk about "Iowa voters," most of the time they mean, "people willing to give up an evening on one of the coldest days of the year to mill around a public school cafeteria for a few hours." The caucuses take a lot of time, and because my husband and I have attended every Democratic caucus for about 20 years, we are deluged by pollsters.

Candidates are so desperate they hang out in every pizza joint and coffee shop, trolling for voters. When my kids were little, I saw Pat Buchanan lurking in front of the library one day, and took my daughters in by the back door, because there was no way I was exposing them to that bigoted fool.

On top of all that, a lot of Republicans I know have stepped away from the process because they can't deal with the right wing nuttiness that's taken over their party. So the shit storm taking place here among the Republicans is a fight for a tiny portion of the population.

[NachosFlandersStyle]

50 minutes ago, paganbaby said:

On top of all that, a lot of Republicans I know have stepped away from the process because they can't deal with the right wing nuttiness that's taken over their party. So the shit storm taking place here among the Republicans is a fight for a tiny portion of the population.

Exactly. Turnout is super low even in a good year, and on the R side they're actually just electing delegates who are free to vote however they like in the convention. So they're competing for a handful of die-hards with time on their hands. I'm guessing that Gothard's followers fit the bill nicely. 

[apandaaries]

20 hours ago, daisyd681 said:

I was surprised by the rape too, until I read the recap of the girl's story (I can't read the actual lawsuit. Those things make me want to keep my children locked in the house forever). She had been reporting molestation and rape her whole life, and no one had ever either believed her or done anything about it. Her history was quite different from the girls that he behaved just criminally creepily with (I hate to put it that way, it's all really awful. There just seem to be different degrees of awful with Gothard). I think he decided that he could get away with it with her.

I agree.  He chose his victims carefully.  This was one who already had a horrific past which was consistently ignored.  She was just the kind of victim he needed.

[formergothardite]

He was very careful to pick his victims. One of the reasons Alfred says he doesn't believe any of the stories is because these were "troubled" students so they can't be trusted to tell the truth. 

[Cleopatra7]

5 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

He was very careful to pick his victims. One of the reasons Alfred says he doesn't believe any of the stories is because these were "troubled" students so they can't be trusted to tell the truth. 

But I thought Gothard's teachings were meant especially for troubled youth, and what Alfred is saying is that troubled youth are basically too damaged to be helped. So which one is it?

[Palimpsest]

24 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

He was very careful to pick his victims. One of the reasons Alfred says he doesn't believe any of the stories is because these were "troubled" students so they can't be trusted to tell the truth. 

A very common MO.  Also used by Jimmy Savile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile  and many of the predator priests in the Catholic Clergy scandals.

Alfred is a dolt and a sycophant.  He's never going to make sense.

[Walking Cat Bed]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

He was very careful to pick his victims. One of the reasons Alfred says he doesn't believe any of the stories is because these were "troubled" students so they can't be trusted to tell the truth. 

Which is exactly why Bill Gothard wanted one-on-one time with them. Because they were "troubled".

 

My knowledge of sexual predators is based almost entirely on Law & Order SVU marathons, and *I* know that.

[Dollypeeps]

I never thought it would go this far because of the brainwashing that goes on,but I'm glad they found a voice and took it further. 

I have to say I have only read parts of it. Harrowing reading for what I did read though. 

 

 

[Gimme a Free RV]

Weren't troubled boys/youths the targets of Jerry Sandusky's "mentorship"?

 

(My ex preyed on women eager to receive couseling because of their marriages.  Sick.  All of the above.  It takes a very special--not in a good way--deviant to scheme and target.)

[nolongerIFBx]

On Saturday, January 09, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Georgiana said:

I think in this case, it's a case of that Gothard chose his victims wisely.  He chose already "fallen"  or "suspicious" women on the edge of the religious community.  Again, that's what happened in witch trials.  The community already mistrusted them to a certain degree, so when the accusations came out, there was more doubt from the believing community.  People were ready to believe them to be liars and in the work of satan, so it wasn't hard to convince them that was the case.

These are women that the ATI community for the most part considers fallen, suspect sinners.  It's not going to be hard to convince them that THEY are lying rather than pure Mr. Gothard.  After all, it goes along with EVERYTHING they've been taught.

Now, if someone in good standing from the community comes forward with accusations (Michael or Erin Bates, for example), then a lot of heads will turn.  People often weigh the source of the information (whether it is trusted or not) over heavy when determining if they want to believe the information.  Fox News could run a story for WEEKS, but until it ends up on CNN, I'm probably not paying attention.  I think it's much of the same case here.  

I wrote a paper in school about how the very metaphors used to describe a virgin (mostly females) assist perpetrators in justifying their actions towards victims. Gothard (and others) chose victims who weren't absolutely "pure" according to their standards--that lollipop had already been licked or bubblegum chewed-- so the god of purity wasn't besmirched by their actions.

I remember on another forum when victims of Hepzibah House claimed abuse one of the most "popular" ways to shut them down was to drill them about their level of spirituality. If they wore pants or weren't married yet held hands or read another version of the Bible than the KJV (or whatever "standard" they chose) then the victim wasn't to be believed because they weren't above reproach in the disbelievers' eyes.

Even if Erin came forward with allegations, I think that her fertility issues and anything that she has done to space or prevent pregnancy would be held up as proof that she isn't above reproach so could not be believed. It is amazing the contortions of justification that people will go through when they just don't want to believe something despite a multitude of accounts to its truth.

[QuiverDance]

I read the lawsuit.  Wow.  I fully admit that I am not super informed about RG and don't know a ton about Gothard or IPLP/ATI/Whatever except for what a friend whose parents were involved in the movement  has shared.  I was shocked at how systematic the grooming was and how similar the patterns of abuse were.  It was a compelling read.

I also became super confused at the end wondering, ,"Wait... How on earth does attorney David Gibbs not have a conflict?"  Then I googled and realized the Plaintiffs' counsel is the son of Gothard's former attorney/CLA investigator.  

So many  levels of messed up.  

[formergothardite]

According to Alfred Gibbs III was representing Gothard and tricked him into signing an affidavit that shows that Gibbs Jr had close ties to IBLP. This is being used to help show that the investigation IBLP did was a sham. Gothard is now asking that the affidavit be removed because he wouldn't have said all that stuff if he knew it would be used against him. 

Someone points this out about the claim:

 

Quote

Also, for Mr. Gibbs III to do what you are alleging, he would be putting his law license in jeopardy. It seems unlikely that a lawyer of national renown such as he would do such something that would put his career in danger. If I were you, I would question Mr. Gothard’s accounting of things before that of Mr. Gibbs.

Alfred responds that Bill has written proof that Gibbs was his lawyer.

Quote

 

If Bill has written proof that Mr. Gibbs was pretending to be representing him, then that would be a big problem. But it seems unlikely that an attorney of his caliber (with a national reputation as a defender of Christian liberties) would jeopardize his license in that way. I guess we shall see on that one.

You know that Mr. Gothard has always done his “exhorter” thing where he tells people that things are going to happen that aren’t actually going to happen. Like his plans for the Drake Hotel for example. Do you think that there is any chance that Mr. Gothard had something in his mind that Mr. Gibbs never actually said or promised?

 

I think the last part is most likely the closest to what really happened.

Alfred says that Gothard never would have said the things he said if he didn't think Gibbs III was representing him.

Quote

Oh, I have no doubt that Mr. Gothard thought Mr. Gibbs was on his side. The question remains whether (a) Mr. Gibbs lied to Mr. Gothard, (b) Mr. Gothard lied to you, or (c) Mr. Gothard had a narrative going in his mind that wasn’t true and Mr. Gibbs accepted an affidavit that was in the best interest of his clients.

C is most likely the answer.

Alfred tells people to stay tuned because he is bringing the proof that Gothard didn't lie. It is a news article, the only problem is that it doesn't say that Gibbs III was representing Gothard, Alfred is apparently so caught up in believing Gothard, no matter what, that he didn't realize that. Alfred still doesn't back down despite the fact that the news article isn't proof of anything. 

Quote

Bill has documents that I am to examine. I intend to get a full statement from him. But I stick with my version of the story.

If Alfred really wants to help Gothard, he should get him a lawyer. Discovering Grace is an awesome example of how fucked up Bill and his followers are. I wonder what it would take for Alfred to accept that Gothard lied? Would any amount of evidence work? I'm beginning to doubt it. 

[Palimpsest]

10 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

 

If Alfred really wants to help Gothard, he should get him a lawyer. Discovering Grace is an awesome example of how fucked up Bill and his followers are. I wonder what it would take for Alfred to accept that Gothard lied? Would any amount of evidence work? I'm beginning to doubt it. 

<snip for space>  This.  Gothard needs his own representation ASAP.  As he is now in conflict with the IBLP board he surely can't be represented by Gibbs, Jr.  Or can he?  Any of our genuine lawyers care to comment on that?

Of course, he could already have an attorney, have been warned to shut his trap, and be arrogant enough to ignore the advice.  At this rate he'll lose his own case.

Thanks for wading through Discovering Grace to glean this stuff, FG.  I tried to catch up there yesterday but got stuck in an strange argument between Alfred and Gabriel about white pigeons.

@QuiverDance.  There has been much confusion over the David Gibbs, Junior and David Gibbs III issue.  It is complicated because Gibbs III used to work with his father at the Christian Law Center.  Then he decided to strike out on his own, change his spots, and began to represent victims a few years ago.  Some of us are still a little chary of him.  He also represents Lourdes Torres who is suing Doug Phillips and the now defunct Vision Forum if you want another rabbit hole to fall down.

I suppose there is a very, very, tiny chance that Gothard didn't realize which Gibbs he was dealing with.  It's hard to tell whether he is simply too arrogant for worlds or delusional and showing signs of dementia. 

 

[Whoosh]

5 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

<snip for space>  This.  Gothard needs his own representation ASAP.  As he is now in conflict with the IBLP board he surely can't be represented by Gibbs, Jr.  Or can he?  Any of our genuine lawyers care to comment on that?

Of course, he could already have an attorney, have been warned to shut his trap, and be arrogant enough to ignore the advice.  At this rate he'll lose his own case.

Thanks for wading through Discovering Grace to glean this stuff, FG.  I tried to catch up there yesterday but got stuck in an strange argument between Alfred and Gabriel about white pigeons.

@QuiverDance.  There has been much confusion over the David Gibbs, Junior and David Gibbs III issue.  It is complicated because Gibbs III used to work with his father at the Christian Law Center.  Then he decided to strike out on his own, change his spots, and began to represent victims a few years ago.  Some of us are still a little chary of him.  He also represents Lourdes Torres who is suing Doug Phillips and the now defunct Vision Forum if you want another rabbit hole to fall down.

I suppose there is a very, very, tiny chance that Gothard didn't realize which Gibbs he was dealing with.  It's hard to tell whether he is simply too arrogant for worlds or delusional and showing signs of dementia. 

 

OK - back up the bus.  I think I missed something.  So, I know that Gibbs III is representing the plaintiff's, but if his dad actually representing the defendants???

Either way - I would say Gothard needs his own counsel.

[formergothardite]

Alfred must spend all day calling up Gothard and asking for answers. There are so many conversations going on there that it is almost impossible to keep up with  them all. One involves something about Gothard releasing a statement that he was regularly attending church and was a church member and then people showed up to say that they know the pastor/members of that church and Gothard doesn't attend and isn't a member. Last I checked Alfred was trying to get back with Gothard for clarification. 

 

[grandmadugger]

6 hours ago, nolongerIFBx said:

Even if Erin came forward with allegations, I think that her fertility issues and anything that she has done to space or prevent pregnancy would be held up as proof that she isn't above reproach so could not be believed. It is amazing the contortions of justification that people will go through when they just don't want to believe something despite a multitude of accounts to its truth.

That's the most effed up thing ever.  I know it's actually how it would go down but still.  I've seen nothing horrible out of Erin, from everything we've seen she's a very sweet girl.  But nope, Erin can't just have a random health issue, genetic actually, nope it's because she's done something horrible and God is punishing her. UGH!!! 

[Palimpsest]

3 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

OK - back up the bus.  I think I missed something.  So, I know that Gibbs III is representing the plaintiff's, but if his dad actually representing the defendants???

Either way - I would say Gothard needs his own counsel.

Yeah.  To clarify:  Gibbs, Jr. was retained by IBLP to do the sham investigation.   I believe he was called an "independent investigator" for that.  Haha. IBLP must have other representation too, but Gibbs, Jr. is still involved with that side.

However, my question for our genuine legal eagles is: As the amended complaint now names Gothard as a defendant, and Gothard has said IBLP is handling the whole thing wrong, does he need separate representation from IBLP?  I'd say he would be wise to get it but don't know whether he actually needs it?

[Whoosh]

4 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Yeah.  To clarify:  Gibbs, Jr. was retained by IBLP to do the sham investigation.   I believe he was called an "independent investigator" for that.  Haha. IBLP must have other representation too, but Gibbs, Jr. is still involved with that side.

However, my question for our genuine legal eagles is: As the amended complaint now names Gothard as a defendant, and Gothard has said IBLP is handling the whole thing wrong, does he need separate representation from IBLP?  I'd say he would be wise to get it but don't know whether he actually needs it?

I would say he would not only be wise to get independent counsel, but a fool not to.  But God will take care of it, so what do I know, really.

[formergothardite]

It seems to me like he would be a fool to not get separate representation, but he doesn't seem to be making wise decisions. The thing with Gibbs III is that he is representing the people who are trying to stop the BoD from selling off assets. Gothard also wants to stop that and he just seemed to assume that they were all on the same side. 

I think Gibbs III probably took advantage of the situation, but not in the way Gothard is claiming he did. I really doubt he told Gothard he would represent him and help him take back control of IBLP. 

Can you imagine Christmas at the Gibbs house? I wonder if any of them are speaking to each other. 

[Jigsaw3]

First quote from @nolongerIFBx

Quote

Even if Erin came forward with allegations, I think that her fertility issues and anything that she has done to space or prevent pregnancy would be held up as proof that she isn't above reproach so could not be believed. It is amazing the contortions of justification that people will go through when they just don't want to believe something despite a multitude of accounts to its truth.

20 minutes ago, grandmadugger said:

That's the most effed up thing ever.  I know it's actually how it would go down but still.  I've seen nothing horrible out of Erin, from everything we've seen she's a very sweet girl.  But nope, Erin can't just have a random health issue, genetic actually, nope it's because she's done something horrible and God is punishing her. UGH!!! 

 

When did Erin get brought into this conversation? Is she being used as an example? I would appreciate a clarification from @nolongerIFBx, because I am giving her the benefit of the doubt that Erin is a hypothetical case here, but it's unclear from the wording of the post.

In any case, I would strongly suggest NOT attaching real names and situations to hypothetical cases, because that gets dangerously close to speculating about the victims, especially for people who are reading quickly or don't know all the background here.

[grandmadugger]

6 minutes ago, Jigsaw3 said:

When did Erin get brought into this conversation? Is she being used as an example? I would appreciate a clarification from @nolongerIFBx, because I am giving her the benefit of the doubt that Erin is a hypothetical case here, but it's unclear from the wording of the post.

In any case, I would strongly suggest NOT attaching real names and situations to hypothetical cases, because that gets dangerously close to speculating about the victims, especially for people who are reading quickly or don't know all the background here.

I'm not @nolongerIFBx but I took it as Erin being an example.  That because she has problems carrying a baby to term, even she would be doubted.  It wasn't speculation but pointing out how screwed up their views are using someone we are all familiar with.  Erin is considered fundie royalty, her dad sits on the board, but because of their effed up beliefs, IF she came forward she wouldn't be believed either. 

[nolongerIFBx]

2 minutes ago, Jigsaw3 said:

First quote from @nolongerIFBx

 

When did Erin get brought into this conversation? Is she being used as an example? I would appreciate a clarification from @nolongerIFBx, because I am giving her the benefit of the doubt that Erin is a hypothetical case here, but it's unclear from the wording of the post.

In any case, I would strongly suggest NOT attaching real names and situations to hypothetical cases, because that gets dangerously close to speculating about the victims, especially for people who are reading quickly or don't know all the background here.

Erin (and Michael) was referred to in the post that I responded to.

Quote

. . .

Now, if someone in good standing from the community comes forward with accusations (Michael or Erin Bates, for example), then a lot of heads will turn. . . .