Where In The World Is Doug Philips (Who Is A Tool)?? (Part 4)

[Mrs. Bean]

2 hours ago, RebelliousEscapee said:

I'm still connected to several of my old VF friends, and so far I've yet to hear any murmurs from them about anything DP. Either they don't know or they're keeping their mouths shut. 

Meanwhile, DP is totes protecting the virtue of every young maiden that he can... 

 

Oh wow!  it seems that the wheels have comepletely came off the proverbial bus! 

[RebelliousEscapee]

5 hours ago, Marian the Librarian said:

How many young women's lives has that miserable, hypocritical little bastard ruined? It doesn't bear thinking.

(Search "Return of the Daughters" Review to find the complete thread - sorry, don't know how to link it here.)

Thanks for typing that up. I'm tempted to try and get my hands on a copy, although I'm not sure if I could get through it without getting sick. I'd almost forgotten how overt they were about fathers effectively owning their daughters. But then, that sort of teaching *is* what led my dad to try to "annul" my marriage after I eloped. 

[ladyamylynn]

Someone really needs to summon @twin2 to this thread!

[Hmmm_idolatry]

3 hours ago, refugee said:

You may just now be learning about this guy, but you hit the nail on the head.

He's always been kind of a slick showman. I don't understand the spell he was able to cast on crowds of people, but he was able to stir people's emotions with tone of voice and choice of words and gestures, and somehow make them want more, and get heavily invested in the fake vision he was promoting.

VF didn't sell anything cheaply*, either. They put out a catalog of carefully gendered toys, books, CDs and DVDs, and everything cost way more than you might pay for the equivalent at the local Target store. If I'm remembering right, VF's "Liberty Doll" was significantly more expensive than the "American Girl Dolls" it was trying to compete with. I could be wrong, though... it's been awhile since I saw one of those catalogs. 

*ETA: Actually, VF did sell cheap things, as in poorly made, but they didn't sell them cheaply, if that makes sense. It required sacrifice for the run-of-the-mill VF family to buy their stuff. "Royalty" of course bought the dolls and tea sets for their girls and adventure stuff for their boys--they were Douggie's best sales force. All the other kids wanted one when they saw the elite kids playing with them...

This guy triggers a "get the hell away from this situation, now" type of response in me.  Even Josh Duggar doesn't trigger that response from me when I see him in videos and photos.  There's something very, very disturbing about Doug.  Years ago, I worked at an insurance company.  We had a guy come in for an interview with the managing partner.  He didn't do anything to me other than walk in and say he was here for the interview, but the little hairs stood up on the back of my neck.  He didn't get the job, and a year later, I read a news article that stated he was the lead suspect in a rape case.  I get the exact same vibe from this Doug guy.  He seems like a total predator to me.  

[Quinquagenarian]

7 hours ago, DomWackTroll said:

@Quinquagenarian, can you (or anyone else) expand on this? Who was Beall's father? What did he do for a living? What kind of religion did he and her mother embrace? Were they Reformed, or just plain ol' evangelical? How do we know that they disapproved of Doug? 

I know that Beall was adopted, but that's about all I know. TIA!

I understand they were a nice normal Texas family. Her father was professional.  Conservative, thinking Christians. They were not “encouraging” of the relationship. Doug ran a paper at William and Mary called The Observer for a while  

 

[VodouDoll]

I can not believe those photos! That glamour shot on his cinematography page! He's going to glam-looking French parties and being an artiste! I'm just...speechless. He ran a cult predicated on patriarchy and chastity and sobriety and his own twisted version of The American Way, and now he's fawning all over a European burlesque dancer? She calls him her Panda? Doug Phillips, really?

What on earth is Beall thinking? And how hard do you guys think Doug laughed when he heard the Peter Bradrick gay rumors?

[MamaJunebug]

7 hours ago, Mrs. Bean said:

Oh wow!  it seems that the wheels have comepletely came off the proverbial bus! 

Somebody better be capturing the best of this train wreck. Because you know if he has a chance to make an easier buck some other way that's back on the morality bus, he sure enough will delete these gems without a moment's thought. 

(Oh, those ladies with their feet over their heads! No can do in floor-length denim skirt! Phony once, phony always.)

[ladyamylynn]

2 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

Somebody better be capturing the best of this train wreck. Because you know if he has a chance to make an easier buck some other way that's back on the morality bus, he sure enough will delete these gems without a moment's thought. 

(Oh, those ladies with their feet over their heads! No can do in floor-length denim skirt! Phony once, phony always.)

Don't worry Mama, I have it ALL saved.

[Quinquagenarian]

Can anyone help make sense of the following:. Under the "Flo in Costumeland" picture there is back and forth comments on Monday about it being her first meeting with DPIART. But he filmed her at Bal Rat Mort and even longer ago at her Watermelon birthday party ??

Also, forgive the scrutiny but that photographed bookshelf on the cinematographer's page is not very VF Friendly.   Oscar Wilde, JK Rowling, Dune and Star Wars  are some of the selections  -- no GA  Henty or Elsie books??

 

[Quinquagenarian]

15 hours ago, Mrs. Bean said:

Oh wow!  it seems that the wheels have comepletely came off the proverbial bus! 

Not many cellos in that number!

[Quinquagenarian]

I can't get this song from the stage version of Cabaret "Don't Tell Mama"-(not in the movie)-out of my head when reading this thread. It just fits. I tried to find a good video version of it but can't yet   

 

[CyborgKin]

20 hours ago, Marian the Librarian said:

I reviewed "The Return of the Daughters" DVD (a Botkin family pile of shit production here on FJ back in 2013.

Here, word for word, is what Doug Phillips had to say about the place and status of young women, who were to remain under the protection of their fathers until marriage:

<snipped RotD stuff which is what I'm actually responding to here, but whatev>

How many young women's lives has that miserable, hypocritical little bastard ruined? It doesn't bear thinking.

(Search "Return of the Daughters" Review to find the complete thread - sorry, don't know how to link it here.)

Typical reading comprehension failure from Dough. (I can't help but leave that typo in :P)

I remember reading somewhere that the reason Numbers 30 only lets a father or husband let a daughter or wife out of a rash oath on the day the oath is made, is because otherwise men would misuse their authority as a loophole to have a wife or daughter to make a promise on his behalf and then break it on her behalf if it couldn't be fulfilled, as a way of getting out of oaths without consequence.

Anyhow, I'm pretty sure this rule doesn't work on marriage vows (if they are even the same kind of vows this passage is about), because once a woman is married then she's no longer "in her father's house in her youth".

And widows and divorced women explicitly do not fall back under the protection of a man, so there.

Anyhow, DPIAT just keeps digging and digging.  Ugh!

[Flossie]

I remember reading somewhere on FJ that a man was talking about a VF leader he knew fairly well at one time.  I was wondering if the VF leader in question is Doug Phillips.  I might have the details wrong, but I remember it as follows:

The story was told by a former member of VF.  He said that there was a man high up in the organization that often spoke in double entendres, apparently with no idea that what he was saying could be taken in a very salacious way by the more worldly.

Eventually, it was pointed out to the leader that he sometimes said things that could be taken in the wrong way.  I'm not sure how many times it happened, or how many different people brought it up, but the result was always the same.  The leader would act shocked and saddened that anyone could take his words to mean anything that wasn't Godly, then he would express anger that the person he was talking to had so much sin in their own heart that they could twist his words to mean anything so vile.  People learned to withhold their thoughts on the matter.

Over time the former member began to wonder if the leader actually knew what he was saying but was pretending innocence.  Maybe the man would glance quickly around to see if anyone reacted when he made those statements.  The former member wondered if the leader was either trying to look more pure than he was, or if he was subtly joking.   

Finally the former member broached the subject himself.  The result was shocking.  The leader went from wounded to enraged in a heartbeat.  His behavior was so over the top that the former member was stunned by the ferocity of the verbal attack.  He found himself distancing himself from the man and eventually left VF altogether.

Does anyone remember this story?  It sounds like it could easily be Doug Phillips.  Didn't he scare Peter Bradrick so much when confronted by the Lourdes matter that Peter scooped up his family and moved to Washington?

[Quinquagenarian]

Sounds EXACTLY like DPIART 

[DomWackTroll]

1 hour ago, Flossie said:

Does anyone remember this story?  It sounds like it could easily be Doug Phillips.  Didn't he scare Peter Bradrick so much when confronted by the Lourdes matter that Peter scooped up his family and moved to Washington?

Yes, I remember this story, but I remember its teller defending Doug and saying (paraphrasing here), "I really don't think he had any idea that what he was saying could be taken that way." And I was like, "Riiiiiiight."

Doug is simply the trolliest troll who ever trolled. 

 

[Maxwell]

1 hour ago, Flossie said:

I remember reading somewhere on FJ that a man was talking about a VF leader he knew fairly well at one time.  I was wondering if the VF leader in question is Doug Phillips.  I might have the details wrong, but I remember it as follows:

The story was told by a former member of VF.  He said that there was a man high up in the organization that often spoke in double entendres, apparently with no idea that what he was saying could be taken in a very salacious way by the more worldly.

Eventually, it was pointed out to the leader that he sometimes said things that could be taken in the wrong way.  I'm not sure how many times it happened, or how many different people brought it up, but the result was always the same.  The leader would act shocked and saddened that anyone could take his words to mean anything that wasn't Godly, then he would express anger that the person he was talking to had so much sin in their own heart that they could twist his words to mean anything so vile.  People learned to withhold their thoughts on the matter.

Over time the former member began to wonder if the leader actually knew what he was saying but was pretending innocence.  Maybe the man would glance quickly around to see if anyone reacted when he made those statements.  The former member wondered if the leader was either trying to look more pure than he was, or if he was subtly joking.   

Finally the former member broached the subject himself.  The result was shocking.  The leader went from wounded to enraged in a heartbeat.  His behavior was so over the top that the former member was stunned by the ferocity of the verbal attack.  He found himself distancing himself from the man and eventually left VF altogether.

Does anyone remember this story?  It sounds like it could easily be Doug Phillips.  Didn't he scare Peter Bradrick so much when confronted by the Lourdes matter that Peter scooped up his family and moved to Washington?

I remember that thread as well.  The person relaying that story might have been @CloakNDaggerbut my memory may be faulty.

[CloakNDagger]

It wasn't me and there's a lot of idle speculation here. I'm not sure some of my past posts were done with the right heart or motive, either.

This is all very very sad.

[Quinquagenarian]

It is sad for the woman and children involved and for the families who were completely deceived but it's also infuriating and telling and ultimately just to see someone's true colors bear out what many, many people have said, seen and heard for years.  Idle speculation aside, there are enough documented activities that show this mountebank up for the absolutely dishonest flimflam man he has always been.  If that results, finally, in some accountability then that is not sad. It is actually good for the truth's sake and the protection of other women, children and families in the future.

[DomWackTroll]

I think it may have been John Robert Moore. Don't want to tag him, though, because our discussions are always completely pointless.  

@CloakNDagger, if Doug has once again revealed himself to be the biggest hypocrite on earth, well, how are we to react? These are public posts that he put up himself. I am sorry if you feel sad about it, though. 

[CloakNDagger]

It's sad because I think some of our motives, mine for sure, may have not been pure and restorative in the process. There is definitely a need for justice, and the path that this seems to be taking is obviously wrong, but I can't help but wonder if things had been done differently if the outcome might be different. We were all so messed up and a lot of us needed to take more personal responsibility for where things were going wrong.

 

7 minutes ago, DomWackTroll said:

@CloakNDagger, if Doug has once again revealed himself to be the biggest hypocrite on earth, well, how are we to react? These are public posts that he put up himself. I am sorry if you feel sad about it, though. 

That's not what I was thinking of and he certainly is on a destructive path!

[DomWackTroll]

9 minutes ago, CloakNDagger said:

It's sad because I think some of our motives, mine for sure, may have not been pure and restorative in the process. There is definitely a need for justice, and the path that this seems to be taking is obviously wrong, but I can't help but wonder if things had been done differently if the outcome might be different. We were all so messed up and a lot of us needed to take more personal responsibility for where things were going wrong.

But is it really your responsibility to "restore" Doug? And who was it who "messed you up"? Seems to me like you're guilt-tripping yourself for things you really had no control over. You know as well as anyone that Doug is going to do whatever the hell he wants and screw everyone else. You owe him nothing. 

[CloakNDagger]

The whole culture enabled Doug. He didn't do it in a vacuum. Doug may or may not have been restorable, but certainly each of us has to own our own actions and attitudes.

[MamaJunebug]

2 hours ago, Flossie said:

I remember reading somewhere on FJ that a man was talking about a VF leader he knew fairly well at one time.  I was wondering if the VF leader in question is Doug Phillips.  I might have the details wrong, but I remember it as follows:

(Snipped)

Finally the former member broached the subject himself.  The result was shocking.  The leader went from wounded to enraged in a heartbeat.  His behavior was so over the top that the former member was stunned by the ferocity of the verbal attack.  He found himself distancing himself from the man and eventually left VF altogether.

Does anyone remember this story?  It sounds like it could easily be Doug Phillips.  Didn't he scare Peter Bradrick so much when confronted by the Lourdes matter that Peter scooped up his family and moved to Washington?

I had a brief conversation with someone (who was in the VF bubble but not high up) who said the same of DPIAT -- he "innocently" said all these double-entendres. This was well before Lourdes' victimization became known, and the VF'er still adored DPIAT.

As to a thunderous rage: Well before DPIAT called Peter Bradrick "destroyer," he called on Peter to harass J. Epstein (and her children? IIRC) on the sidewalks outside a VF conference in San Antonio.  Does a gentle-mannered, peaceful-hearted man instruct his minions to do such things? To a lone woman and minor children? In a public place?

 

 

[Palimpsest]

One of the things that puzzles me is how Doug Phillips has any supporters left in the former Vision Forum circles.  And we do know he has them because they all came out of the wood work when he announced the settlement of the law suit wanting to declare him innocent.

Since he resigned from VFM (leaving the whole thing in a financial mess) he has also:

• Refused church discipline at BCA.
• Liquidated VFI, I hope his former employees got all the compensation due to them, and
• Scampered off and joined a church that is not exactly Family Integrated.

That should have been enough to turn the rabid defenders against him or at least make them reconsider.  

Certainly Doug did not do this in a vacuum.  It is fair to look at all his enablers over the years.  That includes the big funders, the pals who set him up at both BCA and VFM, the elders and board members, people who covered for him, and so on.  I always wonder why we have never given Little Bear Wheeler more attention here.  He's one of the people who paved the way for Doug.  

The victims - and I mean all of Doug's followers - perhaps should be looking at their reasons for falling for the con and their actions.   However, I don't think it would have turned out any differently.  I don't think there is much point in his victims blaming themselves too much.  I just hope they don't make the same mistakes again.

Doug has now been photographed openly consorting with (frequently scantily clad) women in Europe, which is not idle speculation.  Will that be the final nail in his coffin for these supporters and defenders?  Chances are, they will dump Doug but will continue to defend his false teaching.

Doug may or may not be cheating on his wife.  I rather shrug my shoulders at his flirting and filming with burlesque performers.  I don't see that as intrinsically immoral or evil so long as Doug keeps his trousers firmly zipped.

As he seems to have dumped his former rules - is he loosening the bonds he has over his daughters?  Chances are - no.  Because he is a hypocrite, a controller, and a bully, as well as a charismatic con-man who probably never believed what he preached.  

I feel sorry for his children, but I don't think anyone could have altered the way this all played out.  Doug is responsible for all the destruction he has left in his wake.  

Doug.  Not anyone else.

[RosyDaisy]

It's sad because I think some of our motives, mine for sure, may have not been pure and restorative in the process. There is definitely a need for justice, and the path that this seems to be taking is obviously wrong, but I can't help but wonder if things had been done differently if the outcome might be different. We were all so messed up and a lot of us needed to take more personal responsibility for where things were going wrong.

Fuck that noise. Sometimes the ends justifies the means. Forgive me, but that we were messed up excuse is getting olx.

Fuck that noise. Sometimes the ends justifies the means. Forgive me, but that we were messed up excuse is getting old and so are your cryptic posts.