How is Vision Forum similar to Paganism?

[finleeport]

On wikipedia, it said that Vision Forum has a 'pagan top-down view of authority' what does that mean? and I did heard something about a Bride's price what's that? :?:

[debrand]

I have no idea what pagan top down view of authority means. Pagan can mean anything from Hinduisum to modern day neo pagan. It seems unlikely that they all have the same view on authority, doesn't it?

[bekkah]

If they are making comparisons to hinduism, hinduism has been incredibly patriarchly for thousands of years and they stress men are better then woman. This view is slowly changing though.

[Brainsample]

When I gave a talk on them for a counter-cult group a few years ago, they classified VF as pagan.

The idea with the father ruling and the wife and daughters staying home to the extremes that VF follows, and this idea of the wife having to accept and internalize her husband's beliefs comes right out of the Roman Paterfamilias -- it was the pagan culture's way, not what the Bible, particularly the New Testament taught. That's why I put up a whole series of stuff on my blog comparing Orthodox Judaism beliefs with VF, demonstrating that even they do not follow what Doug Phillips would like to have you believe was an Old Law Jewish practice. Their patterns do conform well to the way women were treated in Roman Culture. Jocelyn Anderson has a chapter or so on this in her book, Woman This is War!, where she calls it "Athenian culture," but it's the same stuff. All that "head of household" garbage is not Christian, and it's not even Jewish old law (in the way VF acts it out). It is from the pagan Roman Culture. The Apostle Paul was concerned about Christians being offensive in the culture, so some of this gender related stuff that he wrote was concerned with not offending other people just for the sake of being a spectacle or to be overtly rude.

So there you have it -- Doug Phillips' version of patriarchy looks more like contemporary Roman life at the time of Paul than it does like the behavior of the early Church, and in some cases, it is far more restrictive than patriarchal Judaism.

[Rosa]

They're using "Pagan" to mean "Roman or Greek" - that's how it's used in the Bible.

It has nothing to do with the rest of preChristian paganism, or modern neopaganism.

[xDreamerx]

Well, paganism to worship multiple gods and/or goddesses so in that sense, it's just wrong since last I checked Christianity is still monotheist. Also, so is Hinduism. Yes, they believe in multiple gods and goddesses, but they are all considered to be aspects or manifestations of Krishna. I would not consider Hindus to be pagans.

Despite my dislike for VF and Doug, I would say this picture is exactly what the Church presents, In the early Christian writings and those attributed to Jesus, we see notions of equality and the rejection of the earthly family in favour of spiritualism. They believed the end was coming and that the reign of God would soon break into the world, so it was vital to prepare. The Gospel of Mark shows this more the rest as it is the earliest. Matthew and Luke were written around the same time and John is the latest of the four. Luke does the most to either eliminate or minimize the role of women. Scholars believe that Acts and Luke have the same author. The early Pauline epistles are more open minded. Some consider Galatians 3:28 to have been a baptismal formula or creed in the early church, but the latter Pauline epistles are a different story (1 & 2 Timothy for example). Most agree that the radical notions of Christianity were rejected and the paterfamilias adopted in order to better assimilate and survive in Roman society.

[debrand]

They're using "Pagan" to mean "Roman or Greek" - that's how it's used in the Bible.

It has nothing to do with the rest of preChristian paganism, or modern neopaganism.

Now I understand that the writers meant an ancient Roman view of families. Thanks. The writers should be a more clear though. Even in biblical times, there were many different religions that we would be considered pagan. Lumping them all together seems unfair.

Rosa, is the word, pagan in the bible? I thought the word came about after the bible had been written. Of course, I might be wrong.

[Brainsample]

I forgot to mention the Bride's Price stuff.

It is my best guess that this is some fusion of idealized past eras along with Doug's version of Judaism (which is not Judaism, young or old), and what he claims to be Christianity.

Rushdoony liked the medieval period, I understood for the decentralization of government, but he also liked the agrarian system, too. It is my understanding that he never wanted to return to or recreate this society and had a conservative libertarian approach to things as opposed to the theocratic mindset of his SIL Gary North and those who embrace North. Needless to say, many theonomists and Presbys and reformed Baptists idealize the medieval period wherein there was the old idea of the dowry.

Many of you will probably know more about this than I do, and this is just a non-history person's summary. In the British Isles, the dowry was different than it was in places like Germany where they followed the morning gift, and whatever the father gave the groom by way of a dowry, the groom gave to the bride on the first morn of their honeymoon. In other areas within medieval culture, the son paid the father a price. I think. Again, definitely not my area, and there are different practices/I could have the details wrong.

But Deuteronomy 22 talks about what happens when a woman is raped or if she runs off with a man to have sex before the father approves, or if she's been a naughty girl and pretends to be virginal, and the new groom finds out he's been given a tainted woman. Because a woman without sexual purity must be supported for the rest of her life, and the father likely must do it, or if the groom accuses the bride falsely of being impure and was really virginal, the groom must pay varied amounts of silver to compensate the father for the embarrassment and for the woman herself. (If they were fornicators, however, they are both to be stoned.)

What's funny about this is that if a VF girl's groom pays the dad money for her, by Deuteronomy 22's standards, it is an outright admission that the girl was “impure,†or as Eugene Peterson's Message Bible states it, they are admitting that she's a “slut.†(Look it up, folks.)

So if this is some medieval practice VF has incorporated into marriage tradition, they can call it a dowry, but if they call it a Bride's Price, if you read Deuteronomy, it is calling the bride a “slut,†as the Message Bible states it.

They should just call it a dowry. It is not anything else.

Jen Epstein once wrote that Doug prefers that the groom pay the father a gold coin (which I'm sure he's supposed to by through that agrarian Sanders guy who deals in gold and is the Constitution Party's confederate expert favorite in agrarian economy).

I wrote a blog piece about it, before I considered that this was a dowry thing and before I knew that there were many different dowry practices.

http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008 ... -cost.html

[Brainsample]

The term pagan comes out of English and meant, originally, someone of the country, a country dweller, of the common folk, etc.

It has been adopted and adapted by English speaking JudeoChristian groups to mean anyone who does not follow Christianity or Judaism, a bit like Jews use goy as a pejorative. I was surprised myself when that group classified my talk on patriarchy under "Pagan Religions." (Though it did give me a great sense of satisfaction because it would fry the fannies of those practicing patriarchy.)

[Deleted12]

I get the sense that VF themselves view most mainline churches as pagan in their adoption of a professional clergy.

It's something that the VF has in common with Mormonism.

[Brainsample]

I went and updated the Criticism section to include what Andrew Sandlin has said of them and what I said at Midwest Baptist Theological Seminary, the talk that Voddie Baucham called a "rant" on his own blog.

The criticism section was incomplete without it.

[Soulhuntress]

I get the sense that VF themselves view most mainline churches as pagan in their adoption of a professional clergy.

It's something that the VF has in common with Mormonism.

Their baby worship is similar to the public belief about mormons. Funny quote from a co-worker when mentioning our tater tot loving "friends" the Duggars: "I know their mormon religion is all about big families." She was appalled when I mentioned they went to church in the basement and were too "conservative" for the baptists. :lol:I don't think they have spirit babies in the preexistence who need earthly tabernacles like the LDS do..... :mrgreen:

[Antigone]

being the nerd I am I would have loved to hear more :) and being a history major (and freak) I do not really consider the bible to be a primary source; it is a secondary source due to many authors and contributors writing from what they THINK that God/Jesus intends, hence my interest in this thread and glee over the fundies' heads exploding when they hear something like that :)

so Hell yes, put me down for some of that :) It's all about how you define it and present your evidence, and so far I like what I see.

No wonder the SODRT in fundie-land does not do well with history ;) (and by that statement I mean those people who do not take interest in actually educating their children about the world instead of only the bible- I'm pretty sure FJians can understand what I mean but I'm paranoid and feel like I have to put down some kind of clarifier or disclaimer, in case someone gets offended, even if I doubt anyone will. Thanks for putting up with that mini rant, lol).

[Rosa]

Debrand, in the NIV (the Bible I was given, and used for Sunday school the whole time) it's all over the new testament to mean "not Jewish" and in the context of the times, with Rome having conquered Israel, I was always taught Pagan = Roman in that context.

It's in a lot of the stuff attributed to Paul - Corinthians specifically calls out the sexual immorality of "the Pagans". But that's not the only place - Matthew refers to pagans & tax collectors in the same sentence somewhere.

That was a common usage in English in the 19th & early 20th centuries, as well - since pretty much the only pre-Christian art and literature that made it into Western canon was Greek & Roman, educated writers at the time often referred to them as pagan writers, pagan philosophers, etc.

[MamaJunebug]

Seriuosly asked question: Can we find out who wrote a Wikipedia article? I've often wondered the sources.

I think the points the Wiki writer was trying to make were these:

VF culture talks about the glories of womanhood, but in fact, VF culture values men far above women.

Ancient cultures (pre-Christian, non-Judaic, therefore "pagan") likewise valued men far above women; many considered men to be the brains of the operation, while women were those pesky things that were necessary to keep the human race in existence.

Of course VF culture won't go that far, but it comes as close as it can in 21st-century North America. Men make the movies, compose the music (Ben Botkin took command of the family recording studio away from Elizabeth), manage and sell (VF interns are exclusively males).

Women are lauded for their bearing of many children (Michelle as mother of the year; Beall rarely photographed without several of her eight [8!] (eight) children around her; wives of SAICFF award-winners brought on-stage with their broods to watch dad/husband accept his statuette).

Women are encouraged taught to have no ambition for themselves other than to support their fathers', and later their husbands' - and if they are widowed or never-married, their church elders' - visions and goals.

That, I believe, is the Wiki writer's point in describing VF as pagan. I presume the writer expected Christian readers to come across his/her entry as they searched for info on VF. To a lot of Christians, 'pagan' would have far fewer nuances than it does for folks like FJians who come from a variety of spiritual backgrounds, or who are theology geeks in general (like myself).

To those Christians, "pagan" means "not Christian" and they would be intrigued to read on and find out what the Wiki writer meant by that.

I, of course, think what s/he wrote is quite accurate, in that VF's attitude toward the genders is very unBiblical and against the spirit of what Jesus Christ, and even His later apostles, taught on the subject.

[hoipolloi]

In drumming up business enthusiasm for his Jamestown treasure hunt contest several years ago, Dougie made the following comments about what winner might do with the first prize of 400 American Eagle gold coins (visionforum.com/news/blogs/doug/2006/11/1930/):

"...The buried treasure is of sufficient value that it would certainly help the winner to get out of debt, buy land for his children, serve as investment capital for a business venture, fund a small film, or even provide a healthy bride’s price for a potential father-in law with big expectations for suitors...." [Emphasis added]

As for the Wikipedia entry, I'm surprised a VF intern hasn't been assigned to change it yet.

[Brainsample]

Mama Junebug,

I found a few years ago (give or take) that someone with a screen name of St. Anselm or something posted a synopsis of "biblical patriarchy" on wikipedia and cited both Andrew Sandlin and my seminary talk. I have no clue who he (or she) is.

All I did this past evening was copy the material from that entry under "biblical patriarchy" and post it under the Criticism section. I think you can go into the edit option and see who posts what. Then they have people who come along and clean things up, making sure that they are accurate, well referenced, ect.. If VF rallies to delete what I've posted there tonight in the "Critiicism" section, I'll rally to keep it there. It is well documented on Ethics Daily.com, and two or three newspaper websites documented the talk, as well as Wade Burleson on his well read blog. And God and everybody's brother can watch the video of the talk itself, plus there's a powerpoint presentation on SlideShare, too. The same info (sans "National Folk Religion") appears on the Biblical Patriarchy Wikipedia page, and it's been there for at least a year or so. Sandlin's original article has been republished at least two other places besides my own blog. If it was appropriate to keep it in the biblical patriarchy section of Wikipedia, then it should stay on the VF site.

I poked around tonight, but in my headache induced stupor, I cannot figure out who authored the main entry.

Have you guys all read the Don Veinot article that calls VF a "top down pagan religion"? The guy who wrote that article is the same guy who listed me in the ENMR conference section of "pagan religions." And I agree. VF is the paterfamilias mixed with Doug's weirdo version of Judaism revived (because he's more special because he's Jewish), plus the "family pew" mentality which merges American Nationalism, Christian faith and family. Then, Doug also borrows weird distorted theonomy (which has it's own problems), his weirdo version of Covenant Theology, Bill Gothard Theology, and what often seems to me like the IFB separatism which I only learned recently was an official doctrine (the "Doctrine of Separation"). But the patriarchy is borrowed straight out of the paterfamilias of Roman culture, not out of the Judaism of the day. It is also not Christian, which was then a cult of Judaism during the first century.

I don't know that my theology started out all that well, and I have my own hobby horses, but my goal is to be a whole lot more orthodox (right opinion) about God when I leave this life than I was when I entered into it. May that be true of Doug and all those affiliated with all of these aberrant "affinity group" religions.

[Brainsample]

All inspired by this, I found the history of the entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history

It looks like St. Anselm, the original author of the "Biblical Patriarchy" page, was responsible for at least adding to the page (probably adding the info about Don Veinot). Hope he doesn't mind that I borrowed from his other entry to expand the "Criticism" section.

Hope you all get a laugh out of my screen name there. I gave up after trying several other names including Zaphod and other silly philosophical sci fi related titles. Even the first few Monty Python names were taken.

ETA:

I went back to look at whoever it was who first wrote this page. Looks like a film interested guy who loved Kirk Cameron (get in line behind Doug on the gravy train). Here's his page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:American_Eagle

Hey ya'll, I'm American Eagle (or just AE).

I've been an active editor for a few years now, but my main focus as of late is to create and work on Christian film articles. I've been an administrator and bureaucrat on other projects, but am not either here. I know much about Wikipedia and how it's ran, but I still make mistakes on occasion.

Best projects

Kirk Cameron

Fireproof

Mercy Streets

ChristianCinema.com

Erin Bethea

Ron Miller

Christian film

...and hundreds more!

Does that mean that he edits Christian Films, or does he edit entries on Wikipedia?

[Cat]

Finally registered myself on the new board...hello everyone!

Bekkah, Hinduism is a complex and diverse religion/way of life with many contradictions. While mainstream forms of it have indeed been and continue to be patriarchal there are also strong strands that are not (and this is not just a contemporary phenomenon). Matriarchal cultures were common in India in several places.

xDreamerx, no all Hindus do not view the supreme Godhead as Krishna. Those who follow the ISCKON movement do. The supreme Godhead is sometimes referred to as Brahman (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman) not to be confused with Brahmin. Depending on the sect and philosophical school a person may belong to, one may see Shiva, Vishnu (of whom Krishna is considered to be an avatar) or Devi (the Mother Goddess) as the supreme Divinity. Or, one may see the supreme Divinity simply as Brahman, of whom the Gods and Goddesses are manifestations.

It is difficult to define Hinduism as a religion, the word Hindu was actually used by travellers to India to describe the inhabitants of the place. What is common and underlies the plurality of practices and beliefs is the sense of Dharma-but I won't go into that here!

[Rosa]

Brainsample, it looks like he's saying he's been a Wiki editor for several years, not a film editor.

[Brainsample]

Brainsample, it looks like he's saying he's been a Wiki editor for several years, not a film editor.

I figured, but I wanted to make the sarcastic comment! Botkin's DC think tank was a lobby group for a different cult, and his work on college campuses was the aggressive cult recruitment his group did at Towson State and U of Maryland, etc.. His multi-national conglomerate or whatever it was he called it was what he called a failing single TV station, a failing newspaper, and a fashion magazine that he and his former cult leader bought and ran in Christchurch, New Zealand. Phillips is about the same, saying that people hosted conferences and spoke at blah, blah, blah, making it sound like they addressed joint sessions of the UN and Congress and a stadium full of people when in reality, the person he talked up had merely rented a room at a local public library, and the guys' kids in attendance outnumbered the actual adult attendees.

So who knows what a person could mean by the editing stuff! ;) ;)

[MamaJunebug]

Fashion magazine? Srsly? May I presume it was for men?

ETA: Also, thank you for the information on page 1 of this thread. I shall look it up post-haste after my annual trip to the swimmin' hole. ;)

[purpleeee]

You can find out something about who wrote what on wikipedia, though it's time-consuming. Click on the "View history" tab in the top right.

For example, on June 27 someone erased the entire criticism section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =430452090) You can click on their IP address to find out the name of their service provider and where it's located. The IP address that erased the criticism was in San Antonio (http://www.ip2location.com/24.242.161.98), which is also where VF headquarters is, tho that doesn't prove it was an intern.

To find out who put in the pagan reference, you have to try various versions (unless the person kindly noted that in their edit summary). Anyway, Brainsample is right, it was a user called StAnselm (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =340609516) a year and a half ago. They were adding a Criticism section to respond to concerns that nearly got the article deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... sion_Forum) for being promotional spam.

Brainsample your name did make me smile. Someone supercritical for the criticism section :)

[Brainsample]

Fashion magazine? Srsly? May I presume it was for men?

ETA: Also, thank you for the information on page 1 of this thread. I shall look it up post-haste after my annual trip to the swimmin' hole. ;)

Entertainment and Style magazine was the only successful venture. You can read it here -- republished on the Rick Ross website which is one of the cool things about Rick Ross. (I have to finish compiling the news articles about the Pearls and the Tina Anderson business for him to keep there. Keep that in mind with any of these cultic groups -- Rick Ross will archive them.) This news article from New Zealand also mentions Geoff Botkin:

rickross.com/reference/mccotter/mccotter44.html

But this is what Botkin calls his multimedia, multi-national conglomerate that he was CEO for. He was CEO, but for a free magazine that published only irregularly (back when newspapers were still selling) and a run down TV station. Neither Botkin nor McCotter were any William Randolph Hearst, by any stretch of the imagination. And prior to this, McCotter's attempt to successfully run newspapers here in the US failed.

[Brainsample]

You can find out something about who wrote what on wikipedia, though it's time-consuming. Click on the "View history" tab in the top right.

For example, on June 27 someone erased the entire criticism section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =430452090) You can click on their IP address to find out the name of their service provider and where it's located. The IP address that erased the criticism was in San Antonio (http://www.ip2location.com/24.242.161.98), which is also where VF headquarters is, tho that doesn't prove it was an intern.

To find out who put in the pagan reference, you have to try various versions (unless the person kindly noted that in their edit summary). Anyway, Brainsample is right, it was a user called StAnselm (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =340609516) a year and a half ago. They were adding a Criticism section to respond to concerns that nearly got the article deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... sion_Forum) for being promotional spam.

Brainsample your name did make me smile. Someone supercritical for the criticism section :)

Heee, heee, Heee. (I tried all sorts of names before that one...)

If there is much said of it, I'm going to suggest that they merge it with the Biblical Patriarchy page which I think St. Anselm created. To me, they are just different flavors at Baskin Robbins (flavors that no one would want - like moldy prune and water treatment sludge flavor). Eeww.

FJ can make sure that the entry does not turn out to be promotional spam. Anyone interested in adding a synopsis of Kathryn Joyce's Quiverfull? That will really fry them. If no one else wants to do it, we can ask Burris to set them straight!

ETA: And Quivering Daughters should be referenced, too. Who wants to do it?