Remnant Fellowship 19: Leaning on the Everlasting Gwen

[Granwych]

2 hours ago, Hane said:

Wow! I’m getting my right knee replaced on September 30, and this will give me something to watch once I’m recuperating at home!

I’ll be thinking of you-hope you feel better soon!

[SayonaraLara]

As the count(way)down continues, more outlets are running stories about The Way Down documentary. Here’s one:

https://www.looper.com/598959/the-way-down-release-date-cast-plot/

[ManyGoats]

7 minutes ago, SayonaraLara said:

As the count(way)down continues, more outlets are running stories about The Way Down documentary. Here’s one:

https://www.looper.com/598959/the-way-down-release-date-cast-plot/

Do you happen to know whether or not they tried to interview Gwen and/or people who are still members?

[SayonaraLara]

24 minutes ago, ManyGoats said:

“Do you happen to know whether or not they tried to interview Gwen and/or people who are still members?

They did not interview her. According to a NY Times story:

“Though archival footage of Ms. Lara preaching and making media appearances is shown in the documentary, neither she nor any representatives from Remnant Fellowship were interviewed on camera by the filmmakers.

“I never thought she would give us an interview,” the series director, Marina Zenovich, said of Ms. Lara. “Never.”

Remnant Fellowship did not return calls seeking comment about the series for this article. After the article was published, Remnant Fellowship responded with a statement which said, in part, that it denied the “false, slanderous and defamatory statements made about the church and its leaders.”

23 hours ago, TDHuggies said:

Unless they are purposely keeping her out of that position until after the documentary stuff settles down as a way to protect her?
Anyway with this documentary and Dan Gryder all over this too I just don’t see how this ends well for RF. September 30th can’t come soon enough!

I wondered if that’s maybe why her mansion listing was removed (it did not appear to have sold; its just off market) — perhaps a precautionary move to close off the home before the documentary airs and keep out curious gawkers.

[WeirdHarold]

10 hours ago, SayonaraLara said:

I wondered if that’s maybe why her mansion listing was removed (it did not appear to have sold; its just off market) — perhaps a precautionary move to close off the home before the documentary airs and keep out curious gawkers.

Hopefully some gawkers gawked with video rolling while it was on the market.

[ManyGoats]

14 hours ago, SayonaraLara said:

They did not interview her.

I did read the NY Times article and knew they had not interviewed her or any of the current members. I was curious about whether they attempted to, my thought being that if they didn't, they handed RF some good ammunition for a counter-attack. "You just spoke with disgruntled ex-members and didn't attempt to hear the other side of the story" will be what they say.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-RF. I just think they made a mistake if they didn't at least attempt to interview those inside for the documentary.

[SayonaraLara]

14 minutes ago, ManyGoats said:

I did read the NY Times article and knew they had not interviewed her or any of the current members. I was curious about whether they attempted to

Gotcha! I have not seen that addressed, though perhaps it will be in the documentary. I would suspect they attempted contact — to be fair and, perhaps more importantly, to cover their bases for any potential lawsuits.

[RFsurvivor]

24 minutes ago, SayonaraLara said:

Gotcha! I have not seen that addressed, though perhaps it will be in the documentary. I would suspect they attempted contact — to be fair and, perhaps more importantly, to cover their bases for any potential lawsuits.

I can’t speak to the most recent stuff with the documentary, but I remember Gwen telling the church body that she turns down almost all interviews unless she felt God’s leading for it. I would hope they attempted to contact and interview Gwen

[SayonaraLara]

1 hour ago, RFsurvivor said:

I would hope they attempted to contact and interview Gwen

Same. Either way, ultimately, Gwen’s tragic end was a lucky break for the documentary makers from a timing, content and legal perspective.

She and Joe are dead, and you can’t slander the dead. Everyone can speak freely with no fear of retribution.

[RFFriend]

On 9/10/2021 at 11:40 PM, SayonaraLara said:

I wondered if that’s maybe why her mansion listing was removed (it did not appear to have sold; its just off market) — perhaps a precautionary move to close off the home before the documentary airs and keep out curious gawkers.

I heard that it sold to a church member.  Maybe we can check property records to see whose name the house is in now....

 

Update:  I checked property records and it is still listed under Elizabeth and Brandon's name.  However, the last time I sold a house, it was months before it was updated with the new owners.  I kept getting tax bills on the place because it was still in my name.

I was told that one of those young couples bought it.

Must be nice to have that kind of money while you are young  (if this is true)...

Edited September 14, 2021 by RFFriend
Update

[RFSurvivor_2]

On 9/10/2021 at 11:40 PM, SayonaraLara said:

perhaps a precautionary move to close off the home before the documentary airs and keep out curious gawkers.

I actually noticed that most RF members on social media, in particular, Instagram, have removed any mention of remnant fellowship from their profile bios.

They most certainly are preparing for the documentary.

[throwaway9988]

A journalist is not required to tell both sides of the story, when reporting the facts of current events or reporting history in a documentary. A journalist should diligently investigate the facts about what happened, and then tell the audience what happened. One of the biggest things wrong with the world right now is that so many journalists have stopped doing this.
 

So many journalists nowadays are either so lazy, so amateurish, or so scared of being accused of bias (as if being “biased” towards actual evidence is somehow a bad thing) that they publish low-effort, milquetoast stories that boil down to “Person A said X, but Person B said Y; it’s up to you, Dear Reader, to decide for yourself who is right.” It usually seems to happen that Person A is an expert with years of education in a relevant field, a professional reputation to uphold, and is in agreement with >99% of their peers; Person B is usually an imbecile, a conspiracy theorist, or has an obvious political reason to either spin the truth or just straight up lie about things. If the journalist wanted to actually do a good job, they should have investigated both sides of the story, concluded that Person B’s opinion was not based in reality and therefore had no need to be published, and only presented Person A’s statement to their audience. The journalist would not be biased for only reporting what Person A said; they would be sticking to the facts, a.k.a. doing their goddamn job. Yes, it’s a “fact” that Person B said Y, but that doesn’t need to be reported to everyone else in the world as a possible truth about what happened when clearly what Person A said is what is supported by all the evidence, and what person B said is not. 
 

But journalists nowadays always seem to present what Person B said to their audience alongside what Person A said. The journalists are so scared of falsely being accused of “bias” that they cannot seem to resist the urge to cop out and tell both sides of the story even though one side of the story has no evidence and doesn’t deserve to be told to anyone—much less to be told to everyone via mass media. But by telling both sides anyways, these journalists create for their audience a false sense of equivalence between experts and laypeople, between fact and fiction, between truth and lies. Not everyone’s opinion is worthy of being published. In fact, most people’s opinions probably aren’t worthy of being published. Journalists used to know that. 

This isn’t just happening in the news, either. Nowadays, when people are confronted with facts and evidence that they are wrong, too often they respond by saying “Well, it’s just my opinion, and you have to respect my opinion.” Um, no, actually I don’t. Your opinion that can easily be disproven is not magically worth as much as a proven fact. Actually, your wrong opinion is not worth any respect at all. You don’t deserve a participation trophy for your steaming-sack-of-shit opinion. But unfortunately, this ridiculous notion that everyone’s opinions are equal has become pervasive.
 

As another illustration of my point, in 2014, Bill Nye (arguing for the facts of evolution) was criticized for even agreeing to debate Ken Ham (who was trying to sell young earth creationism bullshit). This was because despite audience polls showing that Bill Nye clearly won the debate, there was no need for a debate in the first place, no need to “tell both sides of the story.” One side has >99% of scientists performing literally hundreds of thousands of scientific experiments over decades and decades; the other side is <1% of scientists publishing low-quality, widely criticized papers that are full of holes as they struggle to overcome cognitive dissonance due to their own childhood religious indoctrination. There’s not actually any question about which side is correct, so putting the two men next to each other on stage and giving them equal speaking time in a debate format was already more of a win than Ken Ham, who had no real facts or evidence, deserved. The debate format itself provided a false sence of equivalence between the two sides, falsely legitimizing Ken Ham’s nonsense as something worthy of being discussed instead of something worthy of being immediately discarded into the rubbish bin. Many people think that in the end, it was harmful that the debate even happened, despite polls showing that Bill Nye won. 
 

As is usual for me, I went on a really long rant 😌 But my point is that I think it’s a good thing if the documentary didn’t interview Gwen or any RF leaders or RF members. The bullshit of the RF leaders and members doesn’t deserve a platform. They have lied to and gaslighted themselves and all of the rest of us enough for a lifetime. I reserve the right to judge the documentary for myself after it airs, but the documentary will not automatically be biased or less legitimate just because the journalists didn’t include RF’s “side of the story.”
 

The documentary can present tons of well-known and long-established facts about the history of Weigh Down; WD/RF’s many public controversies; facts about what Gwen, David Martin, Tedd Anger, and others are clearly recorded to have said on conference calls, videos, or talk shows; facts about the murder of Josef Smith; facts about the plane crash; etc. Any statements made by cult experts should be clearly presented as such. Any statements made by ex-members, just like statements made by ex-members here on FreeJinger, should be clearly presented as a statement made by an ex-member. 


Yes, documentaries can legitimately have an agenda and often do naturally lead the audience to reach a particular conclusion, sometimes due to the agenda of the journalist, but always because the facts support that conclusion. If this documentary is accused of being biased by people who don’t like that conclusion, the only defense the journalist needs is to point out that they reported facts as facts, they reported people’s statements which seemed supported by those facts as statements, and if RF has any evidence to the contrary, the makers of the documentary would be happy to evaluate the quality and veracity of that evidence and addend it to the documentary if it is deemed at all convincing. Period. RF leaders/members do not automatically deserve any screentime, which they would doubtless use only to obfuscate the truth and spew their usual garbage about “this message” and “relationship not religion” and “just come visit and see for yourself.”
 

Unfortunately, people have become accustomed to seeing the “Person A said X, but Person B said Y; choose your own truth” style of reporting, so I don’t disagree with you all that RF members will try to dismiss the documentary by claiming “bias” if interviews of RF leaders and members are underrepresented or absent entirely, even if I myself don’t think that necessarily equates to bias.  I’m sure RF will throw the word bias around constantly and they might even convince a small percentage of people. But unless RF can provide actual evidence that something presented as a fact in the documentary was fabricated, and that the documentary makers knew it was fabricated but presented it as a fact anyways, and that they did so with malicious intent, then I dont think they are going to find a lot of sympathetic ears amongst the general population, and most likely not within a courtroom, either. 

Edited September 14, 2021 by throwaway9988

[RFsurvivor]

One thing I’m curious about is how many members will be willing to be interviewed after the documentary comes out? There seemed to be a line up after the plane crash 🤷🏼‍♀️

 

[nelliebelle1197]

2 hours ago, throwaway9988 said:

A journalist is not required to tell both sides of the story, when reporting the facts of current events or reporting history in a documentary. A journalist should diligently investigate the facts about what happened, and then tell the audience what happened. One of the biggest things wrong with the world right now is that so many journalists have stopped doing this.
 

So many journalists nowadays are either so lazy, so amateurish, or so scared of being accused of bias (as if being “biased” towards actual evidence is somehow a bad thing) that they publish low-effort, milquetoast stories that boil down to “Person A said X, but Person B said Y; it’s up to you, Dear Reader, to decide for yourself who is right.” It usually seems to happen that Person A is an expert with years of education in a relevant field, a professional reputation to uphold, and is in agreement with >99% of their peers; Person B is usually an imbecile, a conspiracy theorist, or has an obvious political reason to either spin the truth or just straight up lie about things. If the journalist wanted to actually do a good job, they should have investigated both sides of the story, concluded that Person B’s opinion was not based in reality and therefore had no need to be published, and only presented Person A’s statement to their audience. The journalist would not be biased for only reporting what Person A said; they would be sticking to the facts, a.k.a. doing their goddamn job. Yes, it’s a “fact” that Person B said Y, but that doesn’t need to be reported to everyone else in the world as a possible truth about what happened when clearly what Person A said is what is supported by all the evidence, and what person B said is not. 
 

But journalists nowadays always seem to present what Person B said to their audience alongside what Person A said. The journalists are so scared of falsely being accused of “bias” that they cannot seem to resist the urge to cop out and tell both sides of the story even though one side of the story has no evidence and doesn’t deserve to be told to anyone—much less to be told to everyone via mass media. But by telling both sides anyways, these journalists create for their audience a false sense of equivalence between experts and laypeople, between fact and fiction, between truth and lies. Not everyone’s opinion is worthy of being published. In fact, most people’s opinions probably aren’t worthy of being published. Journalists used to know that. 

This isn’t just happening in the news, either. Nowadays, when people are confronted with facts and evidence that they are wrong, too often they respond by saying “Well, it’s just my opinion, and you have to respect my opinion.” Um, no, actually I don’t. Your opinion that can easily be disproven is not magically worth as much as a proven fact. Actually, your wrong opinion is not worth any respect at all. You don’t deserve a participation trophy for your steaming-sack-of-shit opinion. But unfortunately, this ridiculous notion that everyone’s opinions are equal has become pervasive.
 

As another illustration of my point, in 2014, Bill Nye (arguing for the facts of evolution) was criticized for even agreeing to debate Ken Ham (who was trying to sell young earth creationism bullshit). This was because despite audience polls showing that Bill Nye clearly won the debate, there was no need for a debate in the first place, no need to “tell both sides of the story.” One side has >99% of scientists performing literally hundreds of thousands of scientific experiments over decades and decades; the other side is <1% of scientists publishing low-quality, widely criticized papers that are full of holes as they struggle to overcome cognitive dissonance due to their own childhood religious indoctrination. There’s not actually any question about which side is correct, so putting the two men next to each other on stage and giving them equal speaking time in a debate format was already more of a win than Ken Ham, who had no real facts or evidence, deserved. The debate format itself provided a false sence of equivalence between the two sides, falsely legitimizing Ken Ham’s nonsense as something worthy of being discussed instead of something worthy of being immediately discarded into the rubbish bin. Many people think that in the end, it was harmful that the debate even happened, despite polls showing that Bill Nye won. 
 

As is usual for me, I went on a really long rant 😌 But my point is that I think it’s a good thing if the documentary didn’t interview Gwen or any RF leaders or RF members. The bullshit of the RF leaders and members doesn’t deserve a platform. They have lied to and gaslighted themselves and all of the rest of us enough for a lifetime. I reserve the right to judge the documentary for myself after it airs, but the documentary will not automatically be biased or less legitimate just because the journalists didn’t include RF’s “side of the story.”
 

The documentary can present tons of well-known and long-established facts about the history of Weigh Down; WD/RF’s many public controversies; facts about what Gwen, David Martin, Tedd Anger, and others are clearly recorded to have said on conference calls, videos, or talk shows; facts about the murder of Josef Smith; facts about the plane crash; etc. Any statements made by cult experts should be clearly presented as such. Any statements made by ex-members, just like statements made by ex-members here on FreeJinger, should be clearly presented as a statement made by an ex-member. 


Yes, documentaries can legitimately have an agenda and often do naturally lead the audience to reach a particular conclusion, sometimes due to the agenda of the journalist, but always because the facts support that conclusion. If this documentary is accused of being biased by people who don’t like that conclusion, the only defense the journalist needs is to point out that they reported facts as facts, they reported people’s statements which seemed supported by those facts as statements, and if RF has any evidence to the contrary, the makers of the documentary would be happy to evaluate the quality and veracity of that evidence and addend it to the documentary if it is deemed at all convincing. Period. RF leaders/members do not automatically deserve any screentime, which they would doubtless use only to obfuscate the truth and spew their usual garbage about “this message” and “relationship not religion” and “just come visit and see for yourself.”
 

Unfortunately, people have become accustomed to seeing the “Person A said X, but Person B said Y; choose your own truth” style of reporting, so I don’t disagree with you all that RF members will try to dismiss the documentary by claiming “bias” if interviews of RF leaders and members are underrepresented or absent entirely, even if I myself don’t think that necessarily equates to bias.  I’m sure RF will throw the word bias around constantly and they might even convince a small percentage of people. But unless RF can provide actual evidence that something presented as a fact in the documentary was fabricated, and that the documentary makers knew it was fabricated but presented it as a fact anyways, and that they did so with malicious intent, then I dont think they are going to find a lot of sympathetic ears amongst the general population, and most likely not within a courtroom, either. 

Well, boom. This is awesome.

[TDHuggies]

I’m not trying to wish my life away but I’m counting down the days to September 30th like it Christmas! lol 

[Howl]

On 9/7/2021 at 9:06 AM, quiversR4hunting said:

Oh crap, that is a blast from the past. Please don't say his name 3 times and bring him back!

Cabinetman AKA L. Ron Cupboard

Can't remember which FJer came up w/ that, but I'm forever grateful. 

[MamaJunebug]

No Wednesday service to report? They don’t observe Yom KippuRF ?  (I meant to do that.  ) 

[TDHuggies]

2 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

No Wednesday service to report? They don’t observe Yom KippuRF ?  (I meant to do that.  ) 

lol well I just suffered through it. Announcements, singing and then about 6 or so men of the church got up one by one and stumbled through scripture readings. Tedious. Finally a quick prayer and very NON excited clapping at the end. Also noticed it was not a “packed” house. Mostly full but definitely empty seats here and there. No Michael. No Elizabeth. No Gwen clip. VERY boring.

[SayonaraLara]

After getting hacked and all of his Gwen-related videos mysteriously disappearing first (fortunately followers had made backups), Aviation YouTuber Dan Gryder (Probable Cause) is fired up and will have some new content premiering in the next day! The title doesn’t hold back!

 

Edited September 18, 2021 by SayonaraLara

[RFIntrigued]

On 8/18/2021 at 8:49 PM, throwaway9988 said:

Let me start out by saying that I personally think that the CoC theory is the most likely reason why Gwen always told people to use the NIV—it was the truth she was used to, and so she found reasons to prefer it.
 

The reasons for preferring the NIV that Gwen gave to Remnant members during the years way back when I was in Remnant boiled down to that she felt the NIV used words that are in common parlance. I do remember that when revisions to the NIV eventually came out, Gwen went over the changes and said she didn’t agree with some of the changes, but I forget if she mentioned any specific changes or verses at that time. Hopefully others can remember better than I. 
 

Several threads ago, @Marmion cited several verses from the KJV, all of which used the word “fat” to cleary mean “blessed” or “prosperous.”  In contrast, the NIV did not use the word “fat” in any of those verses. No, I do not think that Gwen chose the NIV for this reason; I think the NIV is probably just what she was used to. But it was an interesting discovery!

 

You are very correct. We used the NIV Bible always in the church of Christ back in the day when I may or may not have gone to church with Gwen. (Pre Remnant, obviously)

[AmazonGrace]

Gwen sayeth: 

Spoiler

But I would contend that if somebody you know gives up the food it is very wise to regularly check  whether they're still alive, since if they starved themselves to death all by their lonesome and are left there for weeks or months you can't get rid of the stench easily.

[RFfamANON]

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Gwen sayeth: 

  Reveal hidden contents

But I would contend that if somebody you know gives up the food it is very wise to regularly check  whether they're still alive, since if they starved themselves to death all by their lonesome and are left there for weeks or months you can't get rid of the stench easily.

Gah!  I forgot how much I hate the way Gwen wrote. Not only was she just a terrible writer badly in need of a good editor, the twisting of scripture here regarding the will of God is beyond reprehensible. 

[Queen Of Hearts]

8 hours ago, SayonaraLara said:

After getting hacked and all of his Gwen-related videos mysteriously disappearing first (fortunately followers had made backups), Aviation YouTuber Dan Gryder (Probable Cause) is fired up and will have some new content premiering in the next day! The title doesn’t hold back!

 

The description doesn't hold back either. I can't wait! The RF hackers messed with the wrong You Tuber.

[WeirdHarold]

1 hour ago, Queen Of Hearts said:

The description doesn't hold back either. I can't wait! The RF hackers messed with the wrong You Tuber.

Here's a link to the video.

Spoiler

https://youtu.be/6ixX9KOBQIU

 

[ManyGoats]

7 hours ago, RFfamANON said:

Gah!  I forgot how much I hate the way Gwen wrote. Not only was she just a terrible writer badly in need of a good editor, the twisting of scripture here regarding the will of God is beyond reprehensible. 

Plus, she entirely missed the irony that society strongly promotes being thin. Being thin is what our culture considers to be ideal. Gwen wasn't going against society, she was backing it up 100%.