What about Schoenheit??

[doojable]

Cinderpelt - did you happen to notice the thread in the Prayer Forum for Sam?

I think I can safely say that regardless of any (possible) hard feeling towards CES or questions about JS - Sam's life is quite a separate deal. No one wishes anything less than a swift and complete recovery for him.

Edited July 5, 2008 by doojable

[Rocky]

Maybe they just don't want to get into endless verbal arguments mean harassments and harangues by former friends who once loved them but now are corrupted with hate and venom against them?

It's exceedingly rare that I would agree with OM on ANYthing... however, his supposition is not "out of the blue" or baseless.

Would it be reasonable for them to expect "endless verbal arguments... etc..." if they were to come here and post?

If that's what they would expect, WHY would they come here?

Is there some sort of OBLIGATION they have to answer to people here?

Maybe they were on the way to their keyboard and tripped and fell, injuring their wrist. Maybe they decided to take up knitting. Maybe they found a heathen website to post on saving souls.

Maybe you are projecting.

Chockfull, what OM suggested cannot be "projecting." Why? Because OM would have to have done the same thing (chosen not to come here to post) in order for it to even be considered as potential projecting. And OM does NOT stay away and posts plenty.

[cinderpelt]

Cinderpelt - did you happen to notice the thread in the Prayer Forum for Sam?

I think I can safely say that regardless of any (possible) hard feeling towards CES or questions about JS - Sam's life is quite a separate deal. No one wishes anything less than a swift and complete recovery for him.

Dooj~

My total Bad~ I haven't been around for so much as a donut in a while, and this thread just caught my eye. I wanted to post the link to caringbridge as I found it helpful and thought many here would too.

In re-reading my last post, I realize I was very "snarky" and I apologize. I also read the thread from the Prayer Forum and am very touched by the outpouring of heart and prayers.

Best to you, and all,

Cinder~

[doojable]

Dooj~

My total Bad~ I haven't been around for so much as a donut in a while, and this thread just caught my eye. I wanted to post the link to caringbridge as I found it helpful and thought many here would too.

In re-reading my last post, I realize I was very "snarky" and I apologize. I also read the thread from the Prayer Forum and am very touched by the outpouring of heart and prayers.

Best to you, and all,

Cinder~

No problem at all Cinder. I figured the "snarkiness" came from concern for a guy that is the same age as many of our own children.

Concern for our kids usually extends to the children of others, IMHO.

Take care,

dooj

[GarthP2000]

Maybe they just don't want to get into endless verbal arguments mean harassments and harangues by former friends who once loved them but now are corrupted with hate and venom against them?

Sorry Rocky, but I can find nothing agreeable in Oldies post. His is the same old, same old whitewashing the reputations of certain people who do not deserve such a defense.

DWBH called it spot on.

[WordWolf]

Sorry Rocky, but I can find nothing agreeable in Oldies post. His is the same old, same old whitewashing the reputations of certain people who do not deserve such a defense.

DWBH called it spot on.

When JAL DID post here, the responses were quite civil. Even though he posted that he was only going to post once and then

disregard any responses, directing anyone with questions to either look over his websites or contact him privately...

And if you decide to contact him, make sure you give your legal name....

Many people, myself included, are VERY suspicious of the "let's engage in even the most general dialogue in PRIVATE,

out of sight of everyone." Suspicion increases when stories begin coming in about what happens when one tries that-

JAL gives them an earful of commercial instead of dialoguing, and when commercials hold no interest, JAL suddenly

remembers he has to be elsewhere, and rushes off the phone.

Forgive me for not viewing that, say, as having anything to do with responses of people like DWBH- who neither advertises

anything nor blows off the questions nor views of others.

Even vpw said that people don't care what you know until they know that you care- and JAL's made it clear that he

only cares about CUSTOMERS for ces/stfi PRODUCT.

Me, I was a LOT easier on him when there was even any hope he might come and communicate openly with us.

If he's going to play "I'm only going to speak when I control the microphone and all reactions",

then I'm giving him the responses I think he's painstakingly earned.

[Rocky]

Sorry Rocky, but I can find nothing agreeable in Oldies post. His is the same old, same old whitewashing the reputations of certain people who do not deserve such a defense.

DWBH called it spot on.

That OM had posted the comment was almost incidental. It didn't matter who said it. The point -- that people don't particularly care for being harassed -- is what was SPOT ON.

I added the question of whether any of those people have any obligation to anyone here to come and tell their side of things... I don't see the obligation they (i.e. JAL) have to come here and be harassed.

Now, IF such people were to come here and tell their side, by all means, they'd be open to criticism, probably a good bit of which would be reasonable criticism.

And I don't think tongue man was at all "spot on" on this point.

I think he (dwbh) has valid criticisms of those organizations he's been involved in. But I don't see anyone having any obligation to come here just because of dwbh's criticisms.

[now I see]

Just to state it for the record, DWBH said the reason he took it to the board initially is because Jalvis didn't man up and follow through with DWBH as promised.

That is why he took it here, to the board, to discuss openly the reasoning behind Jalvis' handling of the people, and his offshoot ministry.  

In light of their mutual accord in the start of Jalvis' enterprise, it is DWBH's right to comment, as well as Jalvis' own entreaty and admonition to DWBH to comment on it, and in light of our mutual former affiliation in twi, it is our right as a board and body, dedicated to shedding the light on twi and enlightening the people, to comment in turn on everything STFI, Jalvis, personal prophecy, momentus, etc., ad nauseam.

[Rocky]

Just to state it for the record, DWBH said the reason he took it to the board initially is because Jalvis didn't man up and follow through with DWBH as promised.

That is why he took it here, to the board, to discuss openly the reasoning behind Jalvis' handling of the people, and his offshoot ministry.

In light of their mutual accord in the start of Jalvis' enterprise, it is DWBH's right to comment, as well as Jalvis' own entreaty and admonition to DWBH to comment on it, and in light of our mutual former affiliation in twi, it is our right as a board and body, dedicated to shedding the light on twi and enlightening the people, to comment in turn on everything STFI, Jalvis, personal prophecy, momentus, etc., ad nauseam.

I have no problem with any of what your post says.

I just don't see why anyone would believe JAL is obligated to come here and answer dwbh's concerns, comments or complaints.

[WordWolf]

I just don't see why anyone would believe JAL is obligated to come here and answer dwbh's concerns, comments or complaints.

From a legal standpoint, I agree there is no obligation whatsoever for JAL to answer to ANY level of inquiry,

or participate in ANY level of discussion- unless he's served a subpoena on it.

From a moral standpoint, I think the complete isolation from dissent is quite telling. JAL won't answer objections IN HIS OWN GROUP

in anything except a closed-door meeting, a "need-to-know" basis. If I were in his group, and supporting it with my money,

I would consider myself to have a "need-to-know"-especially when doctrine-and dogma- is being pushed and dissent

is not allowed.

If JAL was dialoguing to a degree with his own group, I'd easily say "he's too busy to chat with us- but if you want to know what

he says to specific complaints openly, check out their own messageboard."

I see a moral obligation-for RESPONSIBLE Christians- to be SERVANTS to their congregations and not LORDS OVER their

congregations- and to encourage polite, open, honest conversations rather than silence discussion categorically.

JAL's UNIVERSAL responses of "buy my book, buy my tape, and read my website" and

"if that doesn't address your issue, let's meet SECRETLY" don't strike me as how Jesus wants his disciples to conduct

themselves. He met openly and preached, and he told his disciples that what he told them aside, they were to

shout from the housetops. The disciples only got quieter when they were getting ARRESTED for speaking up.

Furthermore, both the Gospels and the Epistles show an incredible degree of TRANSPARENCY. A leader's getting out of

hand? Peter's foibles were laid out in technicolor. A leader breaks the law? We all know about Judas.

Sexual immorality becoming an issue in a local church? We read Paul address the Corinthians about this.

JAL doesn't have to communicate with us HERE to be fair- but he needs to communicate openly with SOMEONE SOMEWHERE.

As it is, he considers himself ABOVE the possibility of error- he's shut off all healthy communication and avenues

for finding out he's drifted off the mark. No PUBLIC communication is permitted- and all PRIVATE communication

becomes one-sided, with JAL turning each into a COMMERCIAL. He's not legally obligated to do otherwise, but a

MATURE Christian, a Christian WORTHY OF RESPECT wouldn't stop his ears up.

[Rocky]

From a legal standpoint, I agree there is no obligation whatsoever for JAL to answer to ANY level of inquiry,

or participate in ANY level of discussion- unless he's served a subpoena on it.

From a moral standpoint, I think the complete isolation from dissent is quite telling. JAL won't answer objections IN HIS OWN GROUP

in anything except a closed-door meeting, a "need-to-know" basis. If I were in his group, and supporting it with my money,

I would consider myself to have a "need-to-know"-especially when doctrine-and dogma- is being pushed and dissent

is not allowed.

If JAL was dialoguing to a degree with his own group, I'd easily say "he's too busy to chat with us- but if you want to know what

he says to specific complaints openly, check out their own messageboard."

I see a moral obligation-for RESPONSIBLE Christians- to be SERVANTS to their congregations and not LORDS OVER their

congregations- and to encourage polite, open, honest conversations rather than silence discussion categorically.

JAL's UNIVERSAL responses of "buy my book, buy my tape, and read my website" and

"if that doesn't address your issue, let's meet SECRETLY" don't strike me as how Jesus wants his disciples to conduct

themselves. He met openly and preached, and he told his disciples that what he told them aside, they were to

shout from the housetops. The disciples only got quieter when they were getting ARRESTED for speaking up.

Furthermore, both the Gospels and the Epistles show an incredible degree of TRANSPARENCY. A leader's getting out of

hand? Peter's foibles were laid out in technicolor. A leader breaks the law? We all know about Judas.

Sexual immorality becoming an issue in a local church? We read Paul address the Corinthians about this.

JAL doesn't have to communicate with us HERE to be fair- but he needs to communicate openly with SOMEONE SOMEWHERE.

As it is, he considers himself ABOVE the possibility of error- he's shut off all healthy communication and avenues

for finding out he's drifted off the mark. No PUBLIC communication is permitted- and all PRIVATE communication

becomes one-sided, with JAL turning each into a COMMERCIAL. He's not legally obligated to do otherwise, but a

MATURE Christian, a Christian WORTHY OF RESPECT wouldn't stop his ears up.

Absolutely (on the highlighted sentence)... if I were supporting him with my donations, I'd feel that way too...

[Green]

I knew John S. when he was in the way and also kept in contact with him in CES, out of all the men leaders I have met in the way or CES, John is in fact the only one that when you disagree with him. He is willing to sit down and discuss the issue with you. He is very family originated and he cares so much for TRUTH.

[Rejoice]

nice enough guy, but still thought all his research was correct. He would discuss, but not very open to consider another opinion.

Just my experience...

[Tzaia]

nice enough guy, but still thought all his research was correct. He would discuss, but not very open to consider another opinion.

Just my experience...

Mine, too. Only he'd give me that goofy look of "are you really questioning me?"