Did He Do It? – History and Scandal

We expect that most coming to the website are familiar with Bill and his ministry, the high points as well as the low, so we will not focus on this now except for this synopsis. Bill began teaching his Basic Youth Conflicts seminar in the late 1960s based on principles he learned and applied from Scripture as he worked with troubled youth and gangs in preceding years.  The seminar catapulted to national and international fame, driven entirely by word of mouth, no advertising, consistently filling the largest venues in the largest cities in the land, often twice a year.  The 30 hour week long seminar was very low cost, $45 for most of a decade increasing to $65, this including a large course syllabus.  Alumni could re-attend the rest of their lives at no charge.  The honor and influence Bill had in the 1970s and 80s was stunning and unparalleled.  The loyalty was driven by real results, countless testimonies of lasting solutions to debilitating problems.

Bill was a pioneering force in the modern homeschool movement, laying the foundation in the Basic Seminar; many of those later choosing that option first heard of it in a BYC seminar. ATI was founded in the 1980s and also enjoyed substantial interest with many thousands of children and young people being trained.

A major scandal broke in 1980 when it was discovered that Bill’s brother Steve, executive Vice-President of IBLP, had repeatedly abused several secretaries. Bill did not fully believe the reports, subsequently exiling him to the remote Northwoods facility to clear his head and continue creating materials for the ministry.  In the wake of this, more young women were abused at that location, ultimately leading to Bill’s resignation for a period of time.  Uncorroborated accusations were made against Bill in national media of “fondling” staff women.  We spent a decade trying to find a foundation for these charges – in the end the individual behind this accusation cited “The Cabin Story”, below, as the primary basis for this allegation.  A lawsuit was filed against IBLP based on alleged financial misdeeds which was subsequently dropped.

A book was written in 2003 called “A Matter of Basic Principles” by Don and Joy Veinot with Ron Henzel.  It focused on damaging Bill’s credibility by documenting the 1980 issues and perceived problems in ATI and other ministries, as well as criticizing Bill’s teachings in general.  A long running Yahoo! group catered to hundreds of folks airing complaints in the early 2000’s.

Then in 2011 a group of young people trained through ATI founded a website – “Recovering Grace” – for this same purpose of countering and destroying Bill and his ministry. Their experience caused them to reject Bill’s “legalism” as they saw it and embrace a new perspective of “grace”.  Generally speaking this legalism is “rules” and “God is not pleased with your sin”, and the grace being recovered is “no rules” and “God accepts you the way you are”.  Many bitterly blamed Bill for the destruction that came to them or their families through rebellion or deficiencies at the hands of ATI.

The group began seeking stories that could link Bill and ATI to sexual abuse, citing the experiences of children in ATI at the hands of family members which were blamed on the “ATI culture”. They openly pleaded for stories of direct abuse at the hands of Bill or Institute staff.  In 2012 they published “Lizzie’s Story”, which detailed one staff member’s discomfort at Bill holding her hands too long, touching her feet with his.  A total of 6 other women followed to report similar concerns.  We know that RG actively recruited these accounts because of other women who have told us they too were contacted.  Recovering Grace includes professional editors who prepared well written stories to make the point.  It remains interesting that although other virulent anti-Gothard forums existed in the decade prior to RG which we participated in, to our knowledge not a single account alleging sexual harassment was brought forward until Recovering Grace organized itself.

One additional woman, Gretchen Wilkinson – “Charlotte’s Story” (http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/charlottes-stori/ ) – came forward to allege actual sexual fondling by Bill. Bill has declared publically and repeatedly that she is lying and has sought the opportunity to confront her directly.  She has refused these requests to date, demanding that he first publicly declare her story correct, which Bill will not do.  To date we are not aware of anyone else besides RG staff examining her account.   In her published account she speaks of major sex abuse suffered at the hands of her own father, things she says she was intensely counseled for as a teenager, yet when asked about it privately as an adult, she denied it had happened because she had “forgotten”.  She remembered in time to accuse both Bill and her father in the national spotlight.

In a published interview with the Washington Post (02/28/2014 –https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/conservative-leader-bill-gothard-on-leave-following-abuse-allegations/2014/02/28/51f1aac6-a0bb-11e3-878c-65222df220eb_story.html ) Gretchen indicated she had given a report to the Hinsdale Police Department about a week previously. We made inquiry with the HPD for that general time frame three different times under the “Freedom of Information Act” and were told emphatically no such report exists.  So, at this point this appears – to us – to be an embellishment.

Recovering Grace has released increasingly larger numbers – currently 60 or more total, 3 others detailing actual criminal sexual behavior – to the press reporting sexual abuse by Bill. Bill’s Wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gothard) states, “As many as 34 women who worked for Gothard claim that he harassed them; four claim that he molested them”. This information is sourced from a Washington Post article, which in turn got those numbers from “an organizer of Recovering Grace”.  They remain the only source for these numbers and have refused for the past several years to provide any more information. There are no additional accounts available, let alone named witnesses.  Some of us find this reprehensible.

Continue to Did He Do It? – “The Cabin Story” and More or visit the previous in the series, Did He Do It?

277 Comments

  1. DJ DJ
    November 1, 2015    

    “The group began seeking stories that could link Bill and ATI to sexual abuse, citing the experiences of children in ATI at the hands of family members which were blamed on the “ATI culture”. They openly pleaded for stories of direct abuse at the hands of Bill or Institute staff.”

    Can you produce evidence of this please?

    • Moderator Moderator
      November 1, 2015    

      A great example might be http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/05/gracenotes-sexual-abuse-wrap-up/ . . . which was the summary of the annual “Sexual Abuse Month” on the site, publishing any and all stories that might link ATI and ATI families to sexual trouble. To some of us – ATI families that had a fairly good feel for “ATI culture” and found it far less conducive to sexual abuse than even the average church – this felt like a blatant smear campaign.

      • DJ DJ
        November 1, 2015    

        Okay, so I may be missing it, but I don’t see anything on that link the fits the description of what you said. I see a group of folks trying to help with a very real problem in the church today, but there is nothing that fits the “pleaded for stories of direct abuse at the hands of Bill or Institute staff” scenario that was mentioned. Perhaps there is another article (or other evidence) in which they do that?

        • David David
          November 4, 2015    

          DJ, they don’t have evidence of this because it’s probably not true. If they had evidence they would have produced it long before now.

          • Moderator Moderator
            November 8, 2015    

            Woman have contacted Bill after being contacted by RG folk looking for stories. Woman have contacted us after RG contacted them looking for possible dirt. According to some one of the opening salvos in the creation of RG was a bulletin board Ad on “The Crossings”, closed social forum for former IBLP staffers and ATI kids looking for, you guessed it, stories of sexual abuse that could be used to attack Bill with. I do not have that in front of me, but the people telling me were deeply offended.

          • DJ DJ
            November 8, 2015    

            So, all of your information is second and third hand? Would it be possible for you to get a copy of that “bulletin board ad” on the crossings? If RG did paid advertising looking for stories, that would be pretty damning.

          • Moderator Moderator
            November 8, 2015    

            “We” read the ads ourselves. That probably was 3 or more years ago. To resurrect that we would need a “Way Back Machine” for closed forums.

            RG did in fact pay FB to promote their post highlighting the recent court action, push it out in front of the audience that they feel might appreciate it . . . or be really bothered by it.

          • David David
            November 9, 2015    

            A quick look at RG’s Facebook page will show that they’ve been utilizing paid promotion for various articles since the beginning of their existence. Nothing wrong with that.

            And, having had a conversation or two about this with some of the RG leaders over the weekend, I can say with confidence that they have never paid to solicit harassment allegations, nor have they contacted any woman looking for “dirt.” The only thing that my RG friends could think of that could come close to what you are alleging would be the “vetting process” RG used to verify the published accounts prior to release. Perhaps this was misconstrued as “looking for dirt,” when in reality it was “looking for the truth.”

          • Moderator Moderator
            November 10, 2015    

            It they promote all their posts with ads, point taken. If they paid to shove the article on the lawsuit in as many faces as possible, sorry, that is reprehensible. If it were their own father, let’s say, John Cornish’s father, that was being sued for sex related mischief there would be a reaction of disgust from others. Even if you believe it had merit, especially if you had any doubt. You don’t highlight tragedies like that – lawsuits in the church – involving people you care about. You mourn, you try to resolve it quietly because it hurts so much. It appears to reveal the true nature of the intentions here. Lord, remember Bill.

          • David David
            November 10, 2015    

            1. Bill Gothard was not sued, IBLP (a 501c3 corporation) and their board was.
            2. This lawsuit is not “in the church.” It involves women vs. a non-profit corporation.
            3. Again, you are judging intentions. Scripture forbids that.

          • Moderator Moderator
            November 10, 2015    

            1. You are correct, although we would be fools to not note that the establishment of damage will necessitate a proving of the allegations, all of which center on Bill. We recall main players on the RG team exulting at the prospect of getting Bill on a witness stand so he can be publically humiliated.

            2. So I presume you see no reason that Bill should not sue the entity “Recovering Grace” and their principals for defamation, as some are urging him to, assuring him that he would most definitely prevail? That is outside the “church” as well, being promoted in every available news outlet to the secular world, vs. the world of believers. Just trying to understand the depth of the point being made.

            Regardless, it involves someone that the accusers and many in RG once considered a close friend, one they spent in some cases countless hours and days working and living with, a brother in Christ. Assuming the bond between believers to be stronger than the bond of filial relationships, with strong commands to love and care for, the point made holds.

            3. What do you make of verses like this? “Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth.” (1 Cor. 5:12-13) or “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?” (1 Cor. 6:2) It is our responsibility to judge intentions – a motive of love gets a completely different treatment than a motive of vengeance which IS, in fact, forbidden.

          • David David
            November 10, 2015    

            1. I’d like to hear more about the “main players on the Recovering Grace team exulting at the prospect of getting Bill on a witness stand so he can be publically humiliated.” Pretty sure that is either false or grossly exaggerated.

            2. 1 Cor. 6 might have something to say about that, and it would definitely go against his own teaching on the matter. Also, it would be extremely foolhardy to do so, as websites are protected under the first amendment. Keep in mind that all of their writings are either testimonies written by others or commentary on certain events, both of which are protected.

            3. Scripture is clear that God is the only one capable of judging men’s hearts. “I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.” Jeremiah 17:10

          • Sandy Sandy
            November 10, 2015    

            #1 – “so he can be publically humiliated” or so that he will have to give direct and specific answers minus his famous doublespeak?

            #2 – No, I see absolutely no reason that BG should sue RG for defamation, and whoever has told you that he is likely to prevail is just wrong. (Let me guess, though – Mr Bill has told you this, no? Not that it matters, but you obviously believe anything and everything he says, so I’m just assuming here.)

            RG exists for the stated (and actual) purpose of being a forum for victims.

            Defamation is the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation (thedictionary.com).

            Specific statements would have to be proven to be untrue, and good luck with that. The overwhelming majority of content on RG is personal experiences, statement of feelings, and words of support and encouragment. Yes, some talk of BG himself, but they are personal experiences that you’d never get to court with. The burden of proof on BG is nothing he dares delve into, I’d bet!

            Just because BG claims to remember things differently as he gives defense after defense doesn’t mean that people have deliberately lied about him in order to ruin his reputation.

            So he would do well to quit soliciting additional admiration from you because he’s showing godly restraint by not suing people who are sharing stories that leave him in an unfavorable light.

            Your description of him as “a brother in Christ” is your own, not necessarily others’, I should point out, but won’t argue about or debate.

            #3 – “12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked person from among you.’”

            Yes, we are instructed to be very discerning. But where did the idea of judging “intentions” come from? Oh, let me guess again – Mr Bill, right? Alfred, how can you not see what is plain before your face? You have allowed yourself to believe every line this man has offered you. Not least of which is that he might have done any number of things, but all he has to do to string you along is to tell you that he didn’t MEAN to do it. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t attempt to discern motives (many a court case comes to this), but how many crimes is one to be aquitted of by merely saying, “I didn’t mean to do it”?

            The overwhelming message of your site here is that you have been used by a manipulator to believe every excuse he has thrown your way (mainly “my intentions were good”) in light of an extensive history of very bad behavior. Yes, the truth will be known one day, as you say. Just brace yourself, and I mean that in a very kind way.

          • Moderator Moderator
            November 10, 2015    

            David:

            “2. 1 Cor. 6 might have something to say about that, and it would definitely go against his own teaching on the matter. Also, it would be extremely foolhardy to do so, as websites are protected under the first amendment. Keep in mind that all of their writings are either testimonies written by others or commentary on certain events, both of which are protected.”

            1 Cor. 6 is in lieu of the church gathering to judge a matter. Since there is no common church authority to which to appeal, not sure that applies. Besides, RG welcomes everybody that wants to post, irrespective of their status with respect to Jesus. That is not a church. I have no idea what Bill will do, but it would be unreasonable to call for and support a lawsuit against IBLP, a Christian organization in every sense of the word, and then complain about getting sued.

            And you have a lot to learn about “free speech”. That right has absolutely no bearing on defamation, and has been shown over and over in court. To slander a public person you have to dealing in things that are not true – say alleging on a website, that quoted in public media the world over, that 60 women claim sexual abuse at the hands of Bill when in fact you can only produce 1 – and you have to do it with evil intent, malice, desire to hurt him, his reputation, his finances. Nothing else comes into play.

          • Moderator Moderator
            November 10, 2015    

            Sandy: That post was right on the cusp of unacceptable. I mean . . . basically all you did – again – was disparage, “revile”. Get some substance, please.

            You said: “Specific statements would have to be proven to be untrue, and good luck with that. ”

            OK. RG is the sole source for this statement, quoted as fact in many publications:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gothard : “As many as 34 women who worked for Gothard claim that he harassed them; four claim that he molested them”

            They have, in fact, published the account of a single woman to allege “molestation”, and we believe they did not properly check her story out. There are 7 published accounts alleging “harassment”, not 34. Try to step back and read those accounts through the eyes of a secular court some time, even if you accept every statement to be accurate. We are being told that number is now 60, that the number they are going with of women alleging “harassment”. They refuse to put any of these women in touch with Bill, although he has asked repeatedly. One would think they could come up with one at least one (1) that would be able to call Bill’s bluff and in the presence of witnesses end the support of people such as ourselves for good. Hasn’t happened. We suspect that when the light shines on these accounts they will fail every test a reasonable person would use to claim “sexual harassment”. With prejudice, meaning that those collecting and promoting the stories should have known that it was irresponsible to post and stand by such a claim with the evidence they had. And THAT is defamation.

          • David David
            November 11, 2015    

            Keep in mind that Bill himself taught that no Christian should sue another Christian for defamation under any circumstances. I checked…Wisdom Booklet 11, Law Resource F.

            That being said, to win a defamation suit he would have to prove that RG knowingly and willingly fabricated false stories with the sole intent of damaging Bill Gothard. The leadership of RG is at least partially comprised of two pastor friends of mine, several lawyers (Kari Underwood is one), and of course Dr. Cornish (a professor at a Christian college). Beyond the fact that I hold my friends there in high esteem and know them be of great integrity, I know without a doubt in my mind that there is no way they would do what you are alleging. They are compassionate and caring individuals, and have sacrificed many hours for their cause with no hope of personal gain.

            As far as your comments to Sandy trying to point out that they only published seven stories while alleging more, I was told that they stopped publishing stories once the board made the decision to move on from Bill. It wasn’t that they didn’t have them, there was just no need to put more women through the public crossfire that publishing a story brings on. A crossfire that websites like yours cause by making false accusations about them, their pasts, and their stories. So, RG is not bluffing. They just care more about the women than strengthening their case about Bill. Besides, they didn’t start the website to bring Bill down. They started it to provide a healing place for the hundreds of thousands who have been damaged by Bill’s false teachings, which is what they have continued to do in the year and a half since they last published a sexual harassment testimony.

          • Moderator Moderator
            November 11, 2015    

            I have the Wisdom Book in front of me. Please highlight where you see him stating that no Christian should sue another Christian for defamation under any circumstances. I know Bill has given special consideration to the example of Paul, who appealed to the secular government on the basis of laws that protected him, in this case from the illegal activities of the Jewish leaders of his day.

            To win a defamation lawsuit as a public figure you need to prove irresponsible, false statements – even those they believed to be true – were made with evil intent, i.e. deliberately to harm. We believe the statement “60 women have alleged being sexually harassed by Bill” is false, both in the number and in the allegation. In other words, we doubt that there are anywhere near that number willing to state for a court record, “Bill sexually harassed me by sitting too close, touching my feet or shoulders.” Even fewer of those – we suspect none – will pass the test of “sexual harassment” by any reasonable standard. We believe RG knows this, which is why they are so concerned that no one find out who these women are, and definitely not allow Bill or his representatives to examine their stories.

            See, saying “Bill sexually abused women” is defamation “per se” if false, if no reasonable effort was made to corroborate the accounts . . . and asking the individual, “did he do that?” is not corroboration. “Per se” is discussed in that “Law Resource”.

            As to the veracity of the pastors of which you speak, allow me to relay a recent incident. One of these individuals stated to us with full authority that Bill has been seen in the last several weeks with a young woman at Navy Pier. We went back to Bill who laughed heartily, stating that he has never set foot on that Chicago landmark in his life. We took that information back to the individual asking for any evidence we might present back to Bill to catch him in the act of lying. We stated that if we find even one example of a real lie, one that cannot be reasonably explained by a faulty memory, confusion, etc., we “to a man” would drop our support for Bill. We were told that “the team” would not permit this, and nothing further was stated or given.

            See, this is representative of the problem we see at RG. The end justifies the means. They got another heartfelt juicy story, and they ran with it. The leadership of RG believed it, even if they hadn’t gotten to the point of publishing. We suspect that they so believe Bill to be a sexual pervert that all evidence to indicate this is accepted – and published – with minimal vetting. We have pointed out glaring problems with “Charlotte’s Story”, the “Cabin Story”, even with one of major sources of information there, Tony Guhr. In no instance has RG ever apologized or corrected any item they have published like this. If the simple efforts we put forth to check these accounts were not followed by them, it does not speak well to their veracity. And, we suspect, would make “malice” fairly simple to prove. It just means they don’t like Bill and want to damage his reputation, where just about any story will do as long as it is given with passion.

          • David David
            November 11, 2015    

            Page 401, Law Column:

            “Should a Christian sue one who defames his character?
            Nowhere in Scripture are Christians encouraged or commanded to defend their own reputations. We are only to protect Christ’s reputation. In so doing, we must obey Scripture, which includes church discipline for Christians and practicing good works before non- Christians. (See I Corinthians 6:1-10 and I Peter 2:15-25.)”

            Page 436, concluding two paragraphs of the resource:

            “The Apostle Paul was a constant victim of libel and slander. Not only was his name defamed, but he states,“…We are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day” (1 Corinthians 4:13). However, it was through his persecutions that Paul received an extra measure of God’s grace and the promise, “. . . My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness . . .” (II Corinthians 12:9).

            Paul took pleasure in his reproaches and through God’s strength was able not only to win multitudes to Christ, but to give them instruction on how they should respond to libel and slander. After reading I Corinthians 6:1-10, discuss why Christians are not to take fellow Christians to a court of law when they have been libeled or slandered.”

            Concerning your other baseless accusations about my friends, honestly, they disgust me. You have no idea the months and research they did into every. single. one. of those stories. You don’t know that they first heard from “Charlotte” in June of 2013 but didn’t publish until 8 months later because they wanted to make sure they had pursued every possible avenue of verification. They knew the ramification of what they were publishing and they took it very seriously.

            You don’t know that they had no intention of ever publishing the Navy Pier account because they only had one source and they do NOT post articles they cannot validate beyond a reasonable doubt. Which, by the way, YOU just made public. If they operate the way you say, why didn’t they just post it like all of the other accounts?

            You don’t know that Dr. Cornish spent hours on the phone with people like Gary Smalley, Tony Guhr, and Larne Gabriel, not to mention former HQ and training center leaders. Not a one of them had a thing to say in Bill’s defense, and to a man they were grateful for the work and tone of RG.

            I’m sick and tired of you posting these lies about good people just because you want to protect your leader. You are doing the very thing you are accusing them of.

          • Moderator Moderator
            November 11, 2015    

            David: Note the careful wording, “not encouraged nor commanded” . . . stopping short of “prohibited”. Now, we need to again note that we do not know exactly what Bill is thinking, but since he has brought it up in our presence multiple times as various counselors of his have presented it to him, we suspect it is not “off the table”.

            Paul took pleasure in reproaches, but when the Jews threatened his life, prepared to do whatever it took to “take him down”, he appealed to the laws of his day for redress, the “Ministers of God for good”, as Romans 13 describes them.

            We really have no idea what effort went into investigating Gretchen, but is highly unlikely they spoke to the family members she had offended previously – if so they would have been given a completely different picture. Also allowing her to present a version of her “calling” to HQ that is even on the surface at direct odds with what the “witnesses” testify is just strange. The witnesses speak to the picture that has been painted for us by some that knew her then. That is careless at best.

            With respect to Gary Smalley, we find that statement amazing in the light of the results of a single email from us to him. And we would encourage you to speak to Larne, who is no friend of Bill’s, does not trust him . . . but if we read correctly, seems to be pleading with folks in the “Cabin Story” thread to basically “drop it” even in the last few days. HOW can there be this enormous disconnect between these months-long examined and published tales . . . and the reality that we are finding? Please, David, explain it.

            You are right, no Navy Pier account was published. But it was cited in a formal communication from one of the principals as an example of Bill’s wickedness. Meaning it was believable enough to stake a bit of reputation on, knowing we would surely be examining it. This is not an example of cool headed journalism, let alone those pursuing Bill as a brother in Christ to see him fixed.

            Tony we too have spent countless hours and emails with. A man who refused for a decade to disclose even the name of the alleged “immorality” of Bill’s he was privy to. Not names of individuals, places or dates . . . just a description, like “groping over or under clothes” or “pornography” or “sex” or “talking dirty” or whatever. When he finally offered us something – and this after a literal 10 years – he cited “The Cabin Story”. This account, accepted by him as fact, constituted “fondling” because Bill’s genitals would have been separated from the woman’s genitals by millimeters of fabric. With astonishment we proceeded to inform him that some of us had our fiancées on our laps prior to marriage and would dare him to accuse us of “fondling”. Yet his materials became the basis for the “fondling” claim that was published in the Los Angeles Times in the early 1980s.

            See, did RG ever even ask Tony to explain himself before making these public slanderous claims? It would have been wise for them to do so. So, you can see why we are unmoved by your attestations of honor for your friends.

      • alb alb
        November 7, 2015    

        You do understand that sexual abuse has been such a problem in Bill Gothard’s ministry that he had to publish special materials just to deal with the problems? You do understand that in many families there were similar problems as those suffered by the Duggar girls? What about the pain and heartache caused by Josh Duggar’s Ashley Madison account? Yet, Bill Gothard is still telling the world (through the ChicagoTribune) that this young man is exemplary. For those of us who suffered this kind of abuse, sanctioned by Bill’s teachings, your assertions are ridiculous.

        • Moderator Moderator
          November 8, 2015    

          That is so misleading. Bill has his life long dealt with the biggest , the worst human problems in his 50 years of ministry. “Basic Youth Conflicts” was his seminar, he went to the courts and prisons to work with troubled youth. Now, why would you imagine he would develop counseling materials for sexual abuse?

          And . . . With allegedly 1 in 5 girls experiencing sexual abuse nationwide, a problem greatly affecting the church, pulling out the Duggars and several other ATI families as proof of a special problem in ATI is wrong. ATI has no “abuse” problem, certainly not compared with the overall church. In all my years and close associations with ATI families over 20 years, including several children serving, I am aware, personally, of exactly two problems, one of which is Josh. If it were otherwise, I would say so.

          That having been said, are you saying you suffered sexual abuse during the time you were in ATI? And if do, what has been done about it? We are trying to do what we can to fix broken things.

  2. Sandy Sandy
    November 2, 2015    

    “Then in 2011 a group of young people trained through ATI founded a website – “Recovering Grace” – for this same purpose of countering and destroying Bill and his ministry.”

    Would this be a case of assuming the motives of someone else? You state that the purpose of Recovering Grace is countering and destroying Bill and his ministry while their stated purpose is:

    “Recovering Grace is an online organization devoted to helping people whose lives have been impacted by the teachings of Bill Gothard, the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP), and the Advanced Training Institute (ATI).”

    That’s not just a serious accusation on your part, but it sounds like a deliberate untruth to me, just saying.

    Also, you say here that there are professional editors on their staff. Not that there would be anything inherently wrong with this, but can you back that up? All I can find that they mention on their site are pastors, lawyers, teachers, professors, accountants, businessmen, office managers, business leaders, and stay-at-home parents. I’m not on the RG staff or an insider in any way – just curious about your statements here that seem to contradict theirs.

    • Moderator Moderator
      November 5, 2015    

      No, we correctly have identified the purpose of the website . . . unless destroying Bill and his ministry is the only possible way to “help people”. We don’t think so.

      We know many of the folks that form their group. At least one of them is an editor by profession.

      • David David
        November 5, 2015    

        So, you say they are lying about their purpose? That’s a pretty heavy accusation.

        What about the vast majority of their articles that have nothing to do with the harassment claims? What about the counseling resources they have accumulated for ATI survivors? What about the facebook groups that they spend countless unpaid hours moderating? For a group that you think has a sole agenda of destroying Bill, they spend an awful lot of time on activities that wouldn’t accomplish that goal in a million years.

        • Moderator Moderator
          November 5, 2015    

          I guess we are focusing only on Recovering Grace, not sure what else is going on. From our experience analyzing every corner of that blog it is clear that every feature has as its primary objective to tear Bill and his ministry in as many pieces as possible. Again, the only “help” being given is leading people away from him in every way possible. We attempted unsuccessfully multiple times to generate any interest in those offended actually going to Bill in love to help recover him from the offenses they expressed. Any number of reasons for this fly in the face of Jesus’ commands with respect to dealing with the perceived failures of fellow believers. We noted that they recently paid Facebook to promote the account of the recent lawsuit. Instead of weeping over the damage to the name of Jesus regardless of how this pans out, they are clearly celebrating it.

          And who can forget this little gem, a billboard outside the ATI convention in Nashville in May of 2015 to destroy confidence in Bill and lead families away (http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Nashville-Billboard-Small.jpg). Direct public attack on Bill, nothing resembling Matthew 18. So, that is our opinion. Jesus knows for sure . . . “I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.” (Jeremiah 17:10)

          • David David
            November 5, 2015    

            No, all of those things that I referenced are “branches” of what RG is doing. RG links survivors to counselors, moderates the recovery groups, and writes hundreds of non-sexual harassment articles.

            Now, let’s put the shoe on the other foot. If you knew of a powerful spiritual guru who taught damaging heresy, promulgated a homeschool system that was a petri dish for abuse, and was guilty of sexual harassment, which of those lengths (Facebook marketing, billboards) would you not have gone to to see that people were warned? I’m not asking you to debate the merits of their beliefs, rather, just the reaction to those beliefs.

          • Moderator Moderator
            November 5, 2015    

            There are clear, Biblical steps to address that, David! We are not left to “carnal weapons” used by crooked politicians and sleazy people. Sure, they work in a fashion . . . RG has succeeded in sullying Bill’s name very publically and turning many away from him.

            If, of course, they are right in their allegations perhaps the end will justify the means in the eyes of many, but in the Body of Christ, it is reprehensible. Your comments suggest a very small god who just can’t fix things, leaving people in dangers he simply cannot control. Too little to protect little children, the weak. I think He has a very different opinion.

            And if they are wrong – and we are convinced they are very wrong – then that becomes a crime in every sense of the word.

          • David David
            November 6, 2015    

            I’d love to hear those clear biblical steps! And please don’t pull out Matthew 18, because this is not the type of situation to which Christ was referring, and I’m really tired of hearing defenders of abusers use that passage as a weapon to silence victims.

            And seeing that you just built a website and a facebook page, it would seem that you believe in the same “very small god” that RG does.

          • Moderator Moderator
            November 7, 2015    

            Matthew 18 is frustrating . . . because it is designed to keep us from executing vengeance, which is what we want to do to people who hurt us. But that is forbidden, for Christians at least. We all fall far short of what we should be in this department.

            “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Romans 12:19)

          • SJR SJR
            February 20, 2016    

            ” Instead of weeping over the damage to the name of Jesus regardless of how this pans out, they are clearly celebrating it.” That is exactly how you can discern the motive of RC. A lover of Jesus would be heart broken over such atrocities as well as the soul of the offender. RC clearly rejoices in seeing Mr. Gothard broken and will not stop until their goal is complete.

  3. DJ DJ
    November 5, 2015    

    One of the things you noted above is that “to date we are not aware of anyone else besides RG staff examining her account.” One of the things that makes me lean towards believing her account is the fact that she has spoken to several media sources who have reported a consistent story. Do you not consider them as parties who have examined her account, especially in light of the the fact that journalists stake their reputations on accurately reporting the truth?

    • Moderator Moderator
      November 7, 2015    

      We stand by our statement. If they had examined her they would at least have provided some explanation for the obvious problems in her account. AND would have gone back to Bill and family members who deny her testimony to crosscheck.

      • DJ DJ
        November 7, 2015    

        But your statement really is incorrect. If you want your site to stand up to examination, you need to make sure that clearly disprovable statements are not published on it. There have now been multiple media sources that have examined her account.

        I do agree that reporters should get all sides of the story. Is Bill taking and/or returning calls from reporters? I know that was something in the past he didn’t like doing, but if he wants his side to get out perhaps he needs to do so.

        • Moderator Moderator
          November 7, 2015    

          Your definition of “examined” and ours differ. They did a great job recording her words, but there is no evidence they did anything else.

          He speaks with reporters. World Magazine, for example, carried an article which included his statements.

  4. carol carol
    November 12, 2015    

    If I remember correctly world magazine only used his issued statement. (This would not be talking to Bill to have him answer questions.) If I am not remembering correctly please link to the article or quote the article that includes comments from Bill other than the official statement that was publicly released. I can’t do either from my phone right now. Comment about what you might have read or seen will not be recognized as proof of your statements above. Links work best as we can all go see his words in print. Thank you.

    • Moderator Moderator
      November 12, 2015    

      Try this: http://www.worldmag.com/2015/06/bill_gothard_defends_himself_on_new_website . . It includes comments from an interview.

      • Carol Carol
        November 12, 2015    

        Thank you for the link.
        I will point out the writer did say after writing this article.
        “Though the IBLP board did force Gothard’s resignation, many alleged victims believe board members turned a blind eye to Gothard’s behavior for years, if not decades.” This author was under the impression that the board Forced the resignation so at least they seem to think his being removed from the organization was NOT voluntary.
        Also
        “The alleged victims claimed the Gibbs report was a whitewash. The IBLP board claimed Gibbs interviewed Gothard’s accusers, but Wilkinson said he never contacted her and Burrell knows of only a few who were interviewed.

        “Of the 60 girls whose stories we’re aware of, to our knowledge only a couple of those girls were contacted by David Gibbs Jr.’s investigation,” Burrell said. “And of the eight girls who shared their stories on our site, none of those girls were interviewed. Because of this, we don’t consider Gibbs’ investigation to be valid, and have repeatedly called for the board to bring in a truly independent investigation.” ”

        I would agree that if someone is going to look into a matter that they need all sides right? How could an “investigation” have been thorough if they didn’t really talk with any of the girls who did have their testimonies published? I am guessing this question should be under a different post but I will just leave it here anyway.
        Do you feel this supposed internal investigation was at all complete and thorough? And if so how can that be justified knowing the above information? If you don’t think it was complete would you call for a subjective third party with no ties to Bill or IBLP to be done to really get to the truth of the matter or do you feel every possible effort has been made to find the truth and it should now be left alone?
        I look forward to your clear and direct answers to my questions.

        • Moderator Moderator
          November 12, 2015    

          We are among those that wished the Board had assumed a fuller role in all of this. Perhaps they felt their hands tied as Bill backed away to fix it himself. Regardless, there is hardly a person out there that does not wish they had fully interviewed Gretchen and the others. Whatever their investigation it convinced them at a deeper level of that which many of us are convinced of from the publically available information: Bill did nothing illegal or immoral. Having spoken to Board members we have seen enough resolve and concern that if it were otherwise, they would have said so.

          We continue to welcome a fuller inquiry.

          • Carol Carol
            November 12, 2015    

            So just to clarify, Do you or do you not feel the “internal investigation” was really complete? Or, would you call for an objective 3rd party to come in to do a real investigation without having the ties to the organization? You were not very clear on these questions that I asked.

          • Moderator Moderator
            November 13, 2015    

            Different purposes result in different investigations. They wanted to see if Bill was guilty of criminal or immoral crimes which would encumber IBLP. That investigation was completed to their satisfaction – it is our opinion thorough interviews with the 8 published accusers could not have changed that perspective. If they had wanted to completely clear Bill’s name, a more thorough investigation would be called for, including active participation in the reconciliation process.

          • Carol Carol
            November 13, 2015    

            I do believe that any investigation done by a person with ties to IBLP or one done by a reputable organization like G.R.A.C.E both have the stated intent to find out if anything “criminal or immoral” occurred but I think it is obvious that if you only speak to one side you don’t have all the information needed to make a informed decision. Would you say that a court judge has done is duty if he only hears one side of a case? I am sure you wouldn’t, yet you seem more than confident in the biased “decision” from a party who is clearly tied to IBLP. You have stated many times that because this internal investigation found nothing you are fully confident that the case is closed. To say that actually talking to those who have made the accusations wouldn’t change the outcome of the decision from a biased party I would agree with. It would be better for them to NOT speak to the accusers because it might cause them to have to lie if they don’t want anything to come out.
            Lets put it this way. Lets say say you make the accusation that you saw someone you know hit your car with a bat. They call in their friend who they have known for years and even works for their company. That person talks to them and everyone they know but never comes to talk to you. They then declare that that person didn’t do what you say and everyone accepts this statement as fact since he did, in their eyes, a thorough investigation of the facts. I am guessing you would be quite upset if not angry with this outcome! To say you wouldn’t seems a bit non human. Also to try and say it’s not the same because you don’t believe the stories told by the girls involved is also not the point of this example but this is just to show how heretical it is to say this example is not a truly thorough investigation but the one done for IBLP was! You can’t have one side only in a matter and say you know what went on, even you must acknowledge that as common sense.

            So, One last time since you didn’t really give a direct answer again. Would you call for an UNBIASED third party to do FULL investigation of all the facts? Or is a one sided view of the facts enough to prove innocence? Please be direct and answer this particular question. Thank you

          • Moderator Moderator
            November 13, 2015    

            “So, One last time since you didn’t really give a direct answer again. Would you call for an UNBIASED third party to do FULL investigation of all the facts? Or is a one sided view of the facts enough to prove innocence? Please be direct and answer this particular question. Thank you”

            We have satisfied ourselves that Bill is not guilty of any crime or offense against the Body of Christ that would preclude him from resuming his ministry, for whatever that is worth. We are not opposed to a “full investigation” by a “3rd party”, specifically one set up by mutually recognized spiritual luminaries. The notion of “unbiased” is an interesting one since folks are rarely neutral with respect to Bill Gothard, so we would prefer a group with members evenly balanced by those that respect him and those that are inclined not to. Given the difficulty encountered in even getting as far as has been gotten the likelihood of this seems remote.

            However we would like to see Bill return to IBLP in some capacity. It is an opinion shared by others. Whatever investigation the Board would feel required to conduct to be responsible under the laws of the State toward that end, plus the current staff feel is responsible toward alumni and donors and former staff, we would favor.

  5. Dan Dan
    December 18, 2015    

    You write in your introduction about Bill:

    …program that eventually led to seven Biblical non-optional principles of life which, when followed, will result in harmonious relationships in all areas of life.

    So maybe you can explain which of the seven principles Bill failed to follow since the promise is “harmonious relationships in all areas of life”. Given his recent resignation, the existence of Recovering Grace(RG), the counter to RG, Discovering Grace, the fact that virtually all of the posts on this blog severally question Bill & his ethics, to say nothing of his Biblical interpretations, and numerous women who are or have accused him and his organization of sexual harassment and abuse…just where did he fail to have so many angry and skeptical former staff, ATI members, etc..

    • Moderator Moderator
      December 18, 2015    

      Yeah, that may have been a bit overzealous. Since Jesus guaranteed that we would not have harmonious relationships with those not under the control of the Holy Spirit. Will have to find a better way of stating that.

      “34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matt. 10)

      Just the same, the Universal Principles put us in the best relationship possible, with Him, with our families, with neighbors, authorities . . . spouses.

      • Dan Dan
        December 20, 2015    

        I do not find your comment overzealous at all. It seems to me to capture the very essence of what Bill has been selling for 50 years. It is certainly what we were selling 35 years ago. Can’t tell how many times I quoted Proverbs 16:7 when I would talk with people at seminars – “When a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.” His new program is marketed with the promise of “A Guarantee of Total Success” (even as it is not defined). What could not be more successful that “harmonious relationships in all areas of life”?

        But you rightly point out the inherent conflict. This is not at all what Jesus preached. Furthermore, to have harmonious relationships in all areas of life means one has to become a master control freak to manipulate everyone in their community of influence or they must submit to being totally co-dependent. But these are probably left for a different discussion.

        • Moderator Moderator
          December 21, 2015    

          ““When a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.” His new program is marketed with the promise of “A Guarantee of Total Success” (even as it is not defined). What could not be more successful that “harmonious relationships in all areas of life”?”

          That first quote is a verse, Proverbs 16:7. You did well to quote that, because it is true.

          As to a guarantee of total success, that is Bible too: “whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.”. (Psalm 1:3). Sounds like God personally guarantees it. Jesus guarantees it, since He is God.

          • DJ DJ
            December 21, 2015    

            This brings up an important question related to how you are interpreting these passages:

            1. What role does genre play in interpreting Scripture? Most understand that the books of the Bible are written in different styles or genres. Some books are historical (e.g. Judges, the Samuels and the Kings), some are prophetic (e.g. Major and Minor prophets), some are gospels (Matthew-John), and so forth. Psalms is poetry, and Proverbs is “wisdom.” As such, most Biblical teachers apply different methods of interpretation to the various genres. For example, we don’t take God’s commands to obliterate pagan tribes in the Pentateuch to mean that we today should commit Christian jihad.

            So, to get to the crux of the matter here, you seem to believe that the aforementioned passages are universal promises to all believers forever. Is this the case? If so, on what basis do you draw that conclusion?

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 21, 2015    

            “For example, we don’t take God’s commands to obliterate pagan tribes in the Pentateuch to mean that we today should commit Christian jihad.”

            Those commands were written to an entity God set up specifically for the purpose of bringing physical justice on earth with swords and such. He still has those specifically designated for that purpose, the government:

            “4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain:for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.” (Romans 14)

            That does include judgment on nations that do evil . . . it is no accident that American has functioned as the worlds “policeman” for so long.

            And why use the prejudicial “jihad”, while we are at it? Sort of like calling David in the Bible “Hitler” or something, because he destroyed the enemies of the Lord as instructed?

          • Sandy Sandy
            December 21, 2015    

            But you side-stepped Dan’s question, sir.

            There wasn’t the qualification of “with other believers” given with the pitch. Even if there was, I don’t think anyone would say that Bill’s in much harmony with too many believers, either. Or would you have to add another qualifier – “…program that eventually led to seven Biblical non-optional principles of life which, when followed, will result in harmonious relationships with other Christians that agree with you in all areas of life.”

            Back to Dan’s original question, but I’ll re-phrase a little … Based on the observation that Bill doesn’t have too many harmonious relationships going on in various areas of his life even with Christians, and based on your own words (“About Bill Gothard”) that the seven non-optional principles that he built basically an empire on will, when followed, result in harmonious relationships in all areas of life, which one or ones did he not follow?

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 21, 2015    

            “Based on the observation that Bill doesn’t have too many harmonious relationships going on in various areas of his life even with Christians”

            On what empirical evidence do you base that? The Internet? :-) Good luck with that. Bill continues to have millions that love and respect him. The percentage of seminar attendees or ATI participants involved in the public fussing is fractional compared to the whole.

          • Dan Dan
            December 21, 2015    

            You write:

            Sounds like God personally guarantees it. Jesus guarantees it, since He is God…

            So what do you say to the thousands of missionaries that work for years with little visible fruit? I’m not denying the Word, again, I wonder at your interpretation. It will be interesting if Bill’s current promise of “Total Success” will be all that successful. If it falters, does it mean something is wrong with him?

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 21, 2015    

            Was Jesus, who was put to death, a success? Was Paul, who ended his earthly life all alone, rejected by most of his converts, a success? Emphatic YES to both! And you do know that one of Bill’s favorite quotes is: “God writes last chapters”. Book hasn’t finished. God always wins, He is always right.

          • Sandy Sandy
            December 21, 2015    

            You still didn’t answer my question or Dan’s earlier one.

            What does it matter my source of information, internet or otherwise? Bill was removed from a position he’d built his life around, and reportedly wasn’t able to return to it when he asked to do so, even after stating at one time that he didn’t want to go back to it. I don’t see that as very harmonious. There’s a plethora of accounts that call him a sham … internet, print, and oral. I’m not even referring to females you refuse to believe he groomed, but men and women of great faith and theological background – not what I’d describe as harmonious relationships in all areas of life, either. So did he violate any/which of those non-optional principles??

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 21, 2015    

            ” There’s a plethora of accounts that call him a sham … internet, print, and oral. “

            Lies, misinformation, confusion. Sorry, we are so tired of that. We have hunted down EVERY single “fuss” that we have been permitted to. They seem to evaporate the closer we get. And there is a plethora of accounts that call him an unmitigated blessing, life changing ministry, continuous stream of people that weep for gratefulness as they speak of what God has done through him. Come on. You hear what you want to. We see things so differently. Spend your time elsewhere.

          • Dan Dan
            December 21, 2015    

            You write:
            Was Jesus, who was put to death, a success? Was Paul, who ended his earthly life all alone, rejected by most of his converts, a success?
            I think we can all agree on this, that both were successful even though they died very lonely. However, neither of them have been accused of improper sexual conduct, of giving factual evidence to the local church that was wrong for personal ambition, of character assassination, of forgetting that that multiple female staff were being sexual harassed and abused right under their noses, and of then lying about it for 30 plus years.

            So I don’t think equating Bill with either God or Paul is a very good comparison. I could be wrong on this account, but something tells me that Bill does not quite measure up to either one.

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 21, 2015    

            “However, neither of them have been accused of improper sexual conduct, of giving factual evidence to the local church that was wrong for personal ambition, of character assassination, of forgetting that that multiple female staff were being sexual harassed and abused right under their noses, and of then lying about it for 30 plus years. “

            How do you know? It doesn’t have to be correct to be alleged.

            “being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.” (1 Cor. 4-12-13)

            Filth of the world, offscouring of all things? BOY, that sounds like Bill, doesn’t it?

            Jesus: Friend of “publicans and sinners”, traveling with a band of women who “ministered to him”, having prostitutes come and wash his feet with their hair. You KNOW that Pharisees made hay with anything they could get their hands on. I think you are wrong, I think they accused Jesus of everything Bill is accused of and far more.

          • DJ DJ
            December 21, 2015    

            Wow, whoever is manning the battle station tonight needs to take it down a notch. I was using the Christian jihad thing as an illustration of the importance of understanding biblical genre, not as an accusation of the same.

            So, I repeat my question, which went entirely unanswered: What role does genre play in interpreting Scripture? You seem to believe that the aforementioned passages are universal promises to all believers forever. Is this the case? If so, on what basis do you draw that conclusion?

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 22, 2015    

            “What role does genre play in interpreting Scripture?”

            “Genre”? Do you have any Scriptural basis for approaching interpretation this way? The Bible, all of it, is God breathed, infallible. “Holy Bible”

          • DJ DJ
            December 22, 2015    

            “The Bible, all of it, is God breathed, infallible.”

            I agree entirely.

            But you didn’t answer my question, so I repeat it for a third time: “What role does genre play in interpreting Scripture? You seem to believe that the aforementioned passages are universal promises to all believers forever. Is this the case? If so, on what basis do you draw that conclusion?”

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 22, 2015    

            The Bible is the infallible Word of God. I see nothing significant in there regarding ‘genre’ which somehow makes us not believe the words? I am not sure what you mean. For the record I asked you to provide a Bible based defense of this theory of yours. The ball is in your court.

          • DJ DJ
            December 22, 2015    

            This theory of mine? Haha. The concept of genre is a vital part of any basic hermeneutics course that one would take at a Christian university or seminary. You should probably research the topic before writing it off.

            Nevertheless, I believe every single word of the Bible. But it is an understanding of hermeneutics (of which genre is one of only many principles) that helps us as believers (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to interpret scripture in a 2 Tim 2:15 manner. Mr. Gothard (who, incidentally, mocked seminaries as “cemeteries”) often failed to use these principles appropriately (or at all), especially when it came to the pentateuch, the poetic books, and the wisdom books. As such, he showed an extremely low view of scripture because of the haphazard way he would eisegete from it to prove his latest theories.

            Anyway, before you continue to set yourselves up as the educators of the “uninformed rabble,” I would humbly suggest you consider doing a little more “self-informing.”

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 22, 2015    

            I share Bill’s perspectives. Seems to me that “hermeneutics” become a great way to explain away, ignore essential things God is trying to tell us. But let’s stop the theory. Go ahead, DJ, give an example where “genre” would make us understand a passage differently than those that ignore “genre” would. That would probably bring your perspectives into focus.

          • DJ DJ
            December 22, 2015    

            Wait, what?!? Hermeneutics is the study of how we understand what God is trying to say to us, not how to ignore what he is saying. Your statements are getting really bizarre, especially for a site that is supposedly trying to teach biblical truth.

            Truthfully, the only people who I know that have a problem with hermeneutics are those who adhere to teachings that don’t stand up the scrutiny that hermeneutics causes. Perhaps that is the case here with you.

            I’ve already given an admittedly rather crude example above, but here is an article from our good conservative friends over at Answers in Genesis who explain it far better than I ever could. https://answersingenesis.org/hermeneutics/literary-forms-and-biblical-interpretation/

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 22, 2015    

            Which simply highlights two totally different approaches to how to understand God’s word. One that relies on a bit of “science”, and one that treats it as a living book provided by a living Holy Spirit who actually explains it to His children, real time. Which is as far as I suspect this can go.

          • Sandy Sandy
            December 22, 2015    

            You said, “Spend your time elsewhere.”

            Geeeeze! I knew you’d never answer that question, but Okay.

            I hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas, Alfred.

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 22, 2015    

            Thanks, Sandy. And may the Lord grant you and yours the richest measure of the same blessings in the days ahead. And perhaps use you to make me wiser than I am in the days ahead.

          • Sandy Sandy
            December 22, 2015    

            LOL, that would fall into the category of stuff I never saw coming (no offense), but thank you, and may it be so.

  6. Dan Dan
    December 21, 2015    

    You write:
    On what empirical evidence do you base that? The Internet? :-) Good luck with that. Bill continues to have millions that love and respect him. The percentage of seminar attendees or ATI participants involved in the public fussing…

    So again we see his same core value and attitude – that those of us who disagree and oppose Bill, his theology, and those that are his disciples are nothing more than “uninformed rabble” and just voicing disagreeable “fussing”. Sounds like what my grandmother use to refer to as “fuss budgets” or those that make mountains out of nothing. If your boy Bill is still loved by the millions, where are they? I guess those of us that have seen more than enough evidence that Bill is deceitful and will lie his way to his own ambition are just mere rabble.

    If we are in such a minority and nothing more than rabble and “fussers” over nothing, why do you spend so much time with this blog. Don’t you have something better to do with your time?

    • Moderator Moderator
      December 21, 2015    

      “If we are in such a minority and nothing more than rabble and “fussers” over nothing, why do you spend so much time with this blog. Don’t you have something better to do with your time?”

      I shall now give you more fodder to fling back at me. We have a command:

      “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” (Prov. 26:5)

      This is not Bill’s idea. His preference has always been to just let the lies and “fussing” die away, move on. It is a policy that has worked well for many decades, but the Internet caught him by surprise. To this day I am not sure he understands all of what was done to slander him. So many of these accounts, had they been answered in some measure as they came up, would have gone away for real . . . the “Cabin Story” being exhibit A. Yet his adversaries kept the stories alive, embellished and promoted them unimpeded – he woke up somewhat when “the Cabin Story” ended up in his Wiki. It took 10 years before we caught up with it all.

      As recently as last week he called – again – wondering if we should be doing this, just “move on” with his new ministry. As we again explained the dynamics of what put him in this position where his public reputation is damaged . . . by lies . . . and exaggerations . . . it made sense again. Not that that would much matter – as we explained to him, we are gunning for bigger things than just winning the battle of the Internet stories. We do not report to him, although we respect him and do consult with him regularly.

      So . . . the accusations must be answered because his adversaries are “wise in their own eyes”. The Bible says there is more hope for a fool than for someone trapped there . . . the “echo chamber” . . . Nobody has been served by ignoring it, eternal consequences.

      • Dan Dan
        December 21, 2015    

        Nice quote. You do this well, blast out a few misplaced Bible verses and make everyone else who does not think like you a fool: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” (Prov. 26:5)

        If you want fodder (you seem to relish it so you can take the spiritual high road) here goes: You forget, many of us have real life experiences and we operate not from some made up internet research but from first hand, eye witness accounts called – being there! To say nothing of what wives and close friends who were also there when they have no reason to lie about their own experiences. This is just great, call every one that opposes you fools, conceited, and prideful (wise in his own conceit). Guess it fits us though since we are also uninformed rabble and “fuss budgets”. Just a group of low life’s trying to make life miserable for your boy Bill. At least he is now being honest about what he really thinks of those who oppose him. He use to say it in private, now he is just saying it through the medium of the internet where it is pretty hard to reel the deception and narcissism back in. Of course, I would ask again, if we are nothing but conceited fools and low life’s why bother?

        Of course, you can always take the high road and claim you are working for higher authority. But maybe those of us who have seen the abuse and deceit could make the same claim.

        • Moderator Moderator
          December 21, 2015    

          It gets a tad irritating for you to continually tout your superior knowledge due to “being there”, Dan. We have “been there” too, including being on staff, being young people in various aspects of the program, including being one of the long term focused upon young ladies. Long time ATI parents . . . plus working with a great many others who were there when you were, one one of the violated 1980 secretaries . . . and they have such a different understanding of things than you do. You have come through at times so very respectful, respectable and, well, humble. Good feelings gone.

          • Dan Dan
            December 21, 2015    

            Too bad. I have been trying to be respectful and nice, but when you call me and everyone else that think differently and see facts differently as “uninformed rabble”, as “fodder” and as “conceited” then you need to know that you hardly engender any kind of mutual respect. Remember, I have not called you “rabble, fodder, or conceited”. These are your words my friend.

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 22, 2015    

            I actually distinguished you from the “uninformed rabble”, Dan, remember? That was kind of the point. Lots of armchair quarterbacking and handicapping and pontificating on the horrors of Bill’s doctrines – in this case “Chain of Command” – by folks that have never been to a seminar, let alone met him . . . but YOU are not among those so uninformed. So when you start talking like the “rabble”, that ATI girls are taught to never question their parents or Bill because they speak for God, then I know something is broken. Bill does not teach that, Bill has never taught that. And I get to put 21 years as an ATI father on the line for this one.

          • DJ DJ
            December 22, 2015    

            I’ll put my two decades being raised in the program on the line and say that Dan is absolutely right. Honestly, I can’t believe this is even a question. All ATI children were taught joyful, instant, unquestioning obedience. If you didn’t fall in line, you were in rebellion against God and opened up to his punishment. In fact, Mr. Gothard commonly used to tell tragic stories of how God “punished” teenagers who who “rebelled” against their parents.

            Oh, and remember this little ditty, anyone?

            “Obedience is listening attentively,
            Obedience will take instructions joyfully,
            Obedience heeds wishes of authorities,
            Obedience will follow orders instantly.
            For when I am busy at my work or play,
            And someone calls my name, I’ll answer right away!
            I’ll be ready with a smile to go the extra mile
            As soon as I can say “Yes, sir!” “Yes ma’am!”

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 22, 2015    

            Obedience is an essential character quality! Ask the military about that some time. Obey or die or other people die. Come on. That is a world removed from “zombie control”, unquestioning acceptance in all areas of life of a guru. THAT is a cult. ATI is not a cult.

          • DJ DJ
            December 22, 2015    

            Wow. Your response had nothing whatsoever to do with what Dan and I are talking about. Cults? Zombies? Military? What?!?

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 22, 2015    

            :-) Humor me. IS it important to teach the character quality of “obedience” to children and adults? You cited the little song, suggesting that it was bad, somehow?

          • DJ DJ
            December 22, 2015    

            Actually, no, I won’t humor you. These matters are too serious for you to be playing word games. If you want to address the point that Dan and I were raising above, feel free to do so.

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 22, 2015    

            That is fine, we will proceed. But let’s drop the “genre” concerns . . . unless you can find a direct application to matters being discussed. In other words, “You don’t know what you are talking about because you don’t understand genre” is off the table.

          • Dan Dan
            December 22, 2015    

            You write:
            I actually distinguished you from the “uninformed rabble”, Dan, remember…

            Well, I guess I should be grateful. I am not one of the “uninformed rabble” . Instead I am just a piece of conceited fodder.

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 22, 2015    

            I suspect we should “move on”. The “fodder” comment you have brought up repeatedly . . . just humor me and go back and look at it. I giving you “fodder” – ammunition – with which to attack me.

          • Dan Dan
            December 23, 2015    

            You write:
            The “fodder” comment you have brought up repeatedly . . . just humor me and go back and look at it. I giving you “fodder” – ammunition – with which to attack me.

            I can respect the fact that you might feel I and others are attacking you. But please understand, language to describe those who oppose your thinking like “uninformed rabble”and “fussers” are your words not, ours. When you use this kind of language, when you try to describe Bill as a kingly old preacher from the hills of Appalachia who’s loving and generous ways have just been misunderstood, and when you seem to equate Bill’s current situation with that of Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul…. well, you are just going to get a reaction and it will probably not feel very good. Frankly your descriptions of him are so over the top of bizarre I don’t know what is beyond it.

            I absolutely mean you no ill-will. But words have meaning.

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 23, 2015    

            “kingly old preacher from the hills of Appalachia “

            Ozarks, Ozarks . . . this is quite important (not).

            ““uninformed rabble”and “fussers””

            YOU are none of those things. I guess I have had 10 years of bellyful of “fussing”, first on the Yahoo “Metochoi” Gothard forum, then several years on RG. When people are informed, and particularly when there is some attempt to be objective and fair, I have no problem with anyone and their opinions. Again, you have been somewhat of an “ideal” adversary, if I could classify such things. I am learning from you, and you appear to operate on the basis of truth and facts – and, most importantly, a reverence and love for Jesus – rather than surface level judgements from armchair quarterbacks who form opinions off of the everloving Internet.

  7. Dan Dan
    December 21, 2015    

    You write:
    We have hunted down EVERY single “fuss” that we have been permitted to.

    So how many young women have to tell Bill that his Sr. VP and little brother was wanting to take them to bed, or had taken them to bed, and how many senior executives have to tell him (Bill) that his Sr VP and little brother is having sex with his secretary within steps of his (Bill’s office) before it exceeds a “fuss”.

    An just so you know, your so called internal intelligence of secretaries during this time is woefully inadequate. However, to correct you I would have to step to the same kind of character assassination Bill does with impunity. And frankly it is just not worth that.

    • Moderator Moderator
      December 22, 2015    

      “how many senior executives have to tell him (Bill) that his Sr VP and little brother is having sex with his secretary within steps of his (Bill’s office) before it exceeds a “fuss”. “

      If he had raped them, that is one thing. That was not the case. If the secretaries had come forward to complain, that would be something else. Again, that didn’t happen. So we are down to an – apparently – confused account that left Bill with the impression that they came on them with Steve’s zipper open, exposing himself. And he confessed to hugs and kisses. You tell me. Hindsight of those not in the line of fire is always fairly precise.

      And Bill was NOT there, in his office. He was across the country, doing seminars. You knew that, I think.

      • Dan Dan
        December 22, 2015    

        So a young woman has to be raped before by a senior executive of IBYC and IBLP before it becomes worth of a “fuss”? My word man, do you have idea that you only serve to strengthen the points that virtually everyone on this blog is saying? But let’s assume your point, that no one actually found the Sr. VP with his zipper open and his secretary laying on his desk, (don’t think we need to be more graphic here), the question remains, how many times does the man (Bill) need to be told the same thing and how many women need to tell him that his little brother is trying to take them to bed and get his hands in places they should not be before it becomes more than a fuss? In addition, does it become a fuss with Bill consistently tells the world 1) I did not know, 2) then says yes I was told but a forgot, then 3 says no I never knew at all, and 4 now says (after 35 years) – ya I did know. Just when does a pattern of deceit about something as important as the sexual conduct of senior leadership of a well known christian organization with millions of dollars in assets becomes something more than a fuss to you?

        • Moderator Moderator
          December 22, 2015    

          “how many times does the man (Bill) need to be told the same thing and how many women need to tell him that his little brother is trying to take them to bed and get his hands in places they should not be before it becomes more than a fuss? “

          Giving the same answer I gave last time, I don’t know, but from Bill’s perspective it never happened, not until the dam broke at the end. The secretaries did not tell him, and they had ample opportunity, it appears, with visits from the Gothards to their respective families to try to fix it . . . from what Larne indicated, the one secretary who confided in her friend then denied it when asked. Bill did not track with what was alleged, his perceptions being completely different.

          • Dan Dan
            December 22, 2015    

            Well, sorry to disappoint but in one of our many long meetings the single guys were asked to leave the room because some of our friends, and co-workers were going to tell Bill some rather graphic details. One of them, I won’t share her name, told us to not leave, she had nothing to hide and was explicit on where and how Steve tried to touch her. When I ask Bill how it was that he could not remember this, his words (quote) “I have learned to put these things out of my mind”. Translation – if I hear or see evil I mentally get rid of it. Nice job, but he was the CEO of a large organization and had made it clear he was accepting the role of a father to protect their daughters. Which means he failed on two fronts 1) he failed in his corporate duties, and 2) he failed to do what he assumed fathers had done when they sent their daughters to him – protect them.

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 23, 2015    

            Again, I will ask him specifically. The timing of these events as she related as well as the point where and how she told Bill would be important.

            As I am preparing the email to him . . . are you alleging she had told him this previously, which he then forgot? If so, roughly when and how?

          • Dan Dan
            December 23, 2015    

            Well, I am not sure who the “she” is that you are referring too. There were multiple women who had told Bill what was going on. There was one who told the single guys to not leave our meeting she had nothing to hide. When I asked him how it was that multiple women could tell him in detail what his Sr. VP was doing and attempting to do and he somehow forgot, his response was (again) “I have learned to put these things out of my mind”. The specific meeting was either the one where the boys from Bob Jones University came to blast away at us or within a day or two of them being there.
            By the way, I still remember one of their comments. I think the guys name was Brown but I would not swear to it. He said, and this is an exact quote: “this sort of thing happens at Bob Jones University and when it does we sweep it under the rug and keep right on going”.
            Also, if you are going to ask Bill about sequences, you might consider that someone with dyslexia often has trouble with sequential events. Often, their brain will sort of short circuit. I noticed you had no response to my early comment about his dyslexia. Too bad, because this is the one thing that makes his behavior understandable.

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 23, 2015    

            “I noticed you had no response to my early comment about his dyslexia.”

            I guess I didn’t really track with that. I am unaware of his dyslexia. What do you base that on?

            ” When I asked him how it was that multiple women could tell him in detail what his Sr. VP was doing and attempting to do and he somehow forgot, his response was (again) “I have learned to put these things out of my mind”. “

            You comment to Bill was in response to the woman’s testimony, right? That is “she”. You are implying that Bill had heard this testimony before, from secretaries, right? That is my question: Who said what when. Do you know that he had heard that testimony from someone previously? He claims the men that came to him gave a confusing report. I am giving him every benefit of the doubt, until I can’t righteously do so.

          • rob war rob war
            December 23, 2015    

            Bill had stated that he was dyslexic in his first pamplet to start his new ministry. He obviously had some kind of learning disability because he did repeat 1st grade and barely made it through school until high school when he started to memorize scripture. I am very surprised you would not be familar with this story.

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 23, 2015    

            “Bill had stated that he was dyslexic in his first pamplet to start his new ministry.”

            I recall him referencing his struggles as a grade schooler and beyond, but hearing no specific diagnosis. I just went to my enormous 1973 red Basic Seminar syllabus and scanned in the pertinent page. Nothing there:

            Basic Seminar Syllabus,

          • rob war rob war
            December 23, 2015    

            What I meant by his first pamplet for his new ministry was over the power team ministry. Bill gave himself that diagnosis in the original pamplet on mediation and prayer power teams, not the beginning of IBYC. Someone that repeated a grade means they didn’t pass it which is a sign that they have some kind of learning disability. Now in the 1930s when he was growing up and going to school, there was little help for those that struggle in school but to repeat a grade. Bill has stated that openingly through the years and the books about him, 1976 Gothard and the Matter of Basic Principals, likewise did their research and discuss Gothard’s early school years. Bill repeated stated himself at the seminars that he attributes his turn around in school to memorization of the Bible. All of this shouldn’t be news to you at all. I think Bill’s rigid approach to the Bible, his black and white, all or nothing views may stem from being learning disabled and having a predetermined mindset.

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 24, 2015    

            If you can find that, I would appreciate it. I have not seen that (dyslexia). He attributes he turnaround in school to the discipline of meditation, which Scripture says will make everything you do prosper (Psalm 1:3). Unless God was joking, lying, hyperbole-ing . . . or allowing his servants to exaggerate? Since we reject all of those options, we believe that if you meditate day and night on the Bible, everything you do will prosper.

          • DJ DJ
            December 24, 2015    

            “He attributes he turnaround in school to the discipline of meditation, which Scripture says will make everything you do prosper (Psalm 1:3). Unless God was joking, lying, hyperbole-ing . . . or allowing his servants to exaggerate? Since we reject all of those options, we believe that if you meditate day and night on the Bible, everything you do will prosper.”

            So, are you saying that you believe that all of the Psalms should be interpreted as promises and/or guarantees? In other words, you believe that God is promising that if you meditate day and night, everything you do is guaranteed to prosper? And would you apply this understanding of all 150 of the Psalms?

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 25, 2015    

            “So, are you saying that you believe that all of the Psalms should be interpreted as promises and/or guarantees?”

            I believe God’s word, so that is a promise and a guarantee. Obviously our idea of “success” may not match God’s, and setbacks in life are part of normal Christian living – think Job or even Jesus, the Savior. But, as an old preacher used to tell us: “A Christian will always end up”. Looking back from eternity it will be exactly as God said it would.

          • rob war rob war
            December 24, 2015    

            The source of the info where Bill himself admits dyslexia is the blog:
            http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/10/12/bill-gothard

            She quotes his pamplet which was launching his new ministry, Power teams and talks personally to Bill himself.

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 24, 2015    

            “Dyslexia”

            Two comments:

            1). This is a self diagnosis. He admits he had lots of strikes against him. The success that came from meditating on Scripture overcame all of that, his testimony.

            2). This has the flavor of some outside editing. Bill has had lots of help from lots of people, some of us included. He has been far less concerned about parsing every word that has gone out in his name than he was when he had a full cadre of full time assistants. I have a hard time believing Bill to use those words, even if he believed them true. This is likely someone editorializing a tad.

          • DJ DJ
            December 25, 2015    

            “I believe God’s word, so that is a promise and a guarantee.”

            That was not an answer to my question. I believe all of God’s word, too. But not all of God’s words are promises. Some of it is history, some is poetry, some is prophecy, etc. That doesn’t mean it is any less true, but its application varies based on God’s intent.

            So I repeat, “are you saying that you believe that all of the Psalms should be interpreted as promises and/or guarantees?” It’s a yes or no question. Obviously mine is no.

            I would encourage you to read Psalm 91. Do you interpret it as a promise for all believers? If so, how do you account for tragedy occurring in the lives of believers? Is there another way that those words can be God’s truth and not be a guarantee for protection from all evil?

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 25, 2015    

            “I would encourage you to read Psalm 91. Do you interpret it as a promise for all believers”

            I do. You know that it is first applied to Jesus, even quoted by the devil about Him. If it applied to Him, He who suffered the violence, shame, ignominy of the cross, then it surely applies to us as well. Read this:

            “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.” (Hebrews 5:7)

            God has never failed, regardless of the short term appearances. If Jesus was heard, I will be heard as well.

          • DJ DJ
            December 26, 2015    

            Psalm 91:9-10 says: “If you say, ‘The Lord is my refuge, and you make the Most High your dwelling, no harm will overtake you, no disaster will come near your tent.'”

            How do you explain that “promise” to the young Christian mother who loses a child, the Christian family who tragically loses a father to a drunk driver, etc?

            According to your view, God is promising to all believers at all times that NO HARM and NO DISASTER will occur. Either God is a liar or there is a different way to understand these passages.

            Which is it?

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 26, 2015    

            The same is overtly “promised” to Jesus (He promised Himself). What is your stance on that?

          • DJ DJ
            December 26, 2015    

            Heh heh…nice try. You have a bad habit of working your way into a corner and then trying to turn it around on the person who helped you get there.

            I’ve already stated my position, and am asking you to defend yours, which so far you have not done.

            It’s very simple, really. You have argued that the Psalms are to be interpreted and understood as universal promises. How do you defend that position to the Christian who has experienced “harm” and “disaster” in their life? Did God break His promise? Or was it a promise to begin with?

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 26, 2015    

            Unless you can explain how that applied to Jesus – who is overtly referenced in the passage – then I can’t explain how it applies to Bill.

  8. Dan Dan
    December 22, 2015    

    DJ writes:
    All ATI children were taught joyful, instant, unquestioning obedience. If you didn’t fall in line, you were in rebellion against God…

    I was never part of ATI, This was coming on board just as I left. However, I was taught this at home and my father made pretty darn sure that I equated “honor” in (Eph 6:2) with the word “obey”. Furthermore, when staff are told how to dress, how to look, who to date (pretty much not allowed), etc, unquestioned obedience is pretty much the standard. When a young woman is causally seeing a young man who carries the approval of both her mother and father and Bill comes along and says cut off the relationship – it got cut off.
    This being said, if the moderator of this blog actually taught his sons and daughters the difference between obeying authority and honoring authority, then let’s acknowledge him for his care to both the Biblical text as well as simple common sense.

  9. Dan Dan
    December 22, 2015    

    You write:

    …unquestioning acceptance in all areas of life of a guru. THAT is a cult. ATI is not a cult.

    You know, i have spent most of the last 35 years believing the IBYC and IBLP was cult like but not a cult. I believed that Bill walked right up to the line of cult status but never walked across that line. In the last yea or so, I have changed my mind. I may be a majority of one, in believing that a cult is one of those things that you cannot really define until you see one. But it gives me no great joy in now saying I gave the most productive years of my life to a cult and a highly manipulative cult leader. Your above statement is about as good as it gets from my experience. Unquestioning acceptance in all areas of life….that pretty much sums up my experience while being on staff with IBYC in the late 70’s. I mean when the wife of one of our senior executives says “when I feel the presence of Bill Gothard in my bedroom,…” just what is left?

    • Moderator Moderator
      December 22, 2015    

      Can’t speak for staff wives . . . but that was never our frame of mind. In our ATI group in Southern California we early decided that we fathers were assuming full responsibility for what was taught in our homes, not Bill. So as we met each month we began to focus on the things that were important to us . . . and with a couple of exceptions, in all those years, we never got the HQ VHS tape into the player. And that may explain why most of us survived. So . . . I stand by what I said. Anyone who treated Bill in the manner described was setting themselves up for an inevitable and hard fall. We had our share of stress and trouble, some that was so close to crushing us. At no point were we tempted to blame Bill . . . because we took what he said, we examined it, we applied what the Lord directed us to do . . . and so in the end it was to Him we went, not to him.

      • Dan Dan
        December 22, 2015    

        You write:

        can’t speak for staff wives . . . but that was never our frame of mind. In our ATI group in Southern California we early decided that we fathers were assuming full responsibility for what was taught in our homes, not Bill

        And for this, you should be congratulated (really). You took seriously your role and responsibility as a father. You probably saved your kids.

        • Moderator Moderator
          December 23, 2015    

          Thanks for the encouraging word. We are not done yet, but God has been good and gracious. We grieve for the trouble that has come to others. One reason we got involved in RG and continue here . . . Not just to defend, but also to acknowledge and help correct. Nobody is perfect – Bill is not. Many people have suffered because of his mistakes.

        • Moderator Moderator
          December 23, 2015    

          On “CIVIL”, those are statutes which have a general footing in employment law – nothing to do with non-profits. Or am I missing something?

          • Dan Dan
            December 23, 2015    

            Nonprofits get a few exceptions from normal employment law but I think the basics are all the same. Sexual harassment is pretty much sexual harassment if the employer is commercial, public sector, or nonprofit. Can’t do it and I think I am safe to say that the company is going to be on the hook for damages.

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            December 24, 2015    

            How about God command of living a Holy Life and becoming more like Jesus

    • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
      December 22, 2015    

      Dan make that two not one, I’ll join your not so small group and probably many more in the wings.

      Larne

      • Tyler Tyler
        December 26, 2015    

        Larne, can you explain why you believe ATI/IBLP is a cult? I am not a member, so it would help my understanding if I could hear your reasoning, for the sake of my friends who are in ATI.

  10. Dan Dan
    December 23, 2015    

    You write:
    Do you know that he had heard that testimony from someone previously? He claims the men that came to him gave a confusing report. I am giving him every benefit of the doubt, until I can’t righteously do so.

    I appreciate that you want to be careful about something as explosive as sexual abuse and harassment inside a Christian nonprofit that espouses such conservative ideals as IBYC and IBLP. What I will tell you is based on memory going back 35 years so the details will not be as much as I am sure you would like to hear. However, before I say anything I would like you to answer me one thing:

    If you were the founder and president of a large, highly successful organization with substantial financial assets, employed many young men and attractive young women (the joke was that Bill never hired anyone but attractive women), had these staff working and living in very close physical proximity to one another, regularly sent them out on the road for a week or more at a time to live in hotels and work long hours during the week with hardly a break for the weekend, and you took it upon yourself to be the father figure for your single staff, replacing the authority of their own fathers, how many of these young ladies would have to come to you with sexual and/or moral issues involving your Sr. VP before you would take action? One, five, ten?

    And one more comment, the idea that the three executives in question gave Bill a confusing report about his brother and Sr. VP – is pure nonsense. I can understand how one of them might be a little less than direct, but I knew the other two and direct is one word that would perfectly describe them both. I mean how confusing can a report of sexual activity inside the office be? The language might be softened a bit so not to arouse the imagination too much but what does it take to not be confusing – a youtube video?

    • Moderator Moderator
      December 24, 2015    

      “how many of these young ladies would have to come to you with sexual and/or moral issues involving your Sr. VP before you would take action? One, five, ten?”

      Not many. But that never happened, them speaking, until the end, right?

      “And one more comment, the idea that the three executives in question gave Bill a confusing report about his brother and Sr. VP – is pure nonsense”

      That is Bill’s testimony, again in the context of all the great stuff going on, the whirlwind of activity that was his existence, trying to understand this bizarre report that was being given him. We believe him.

  11. Dan Dan
    December 23, 2015    

    Dyslexia is a learning disability that affects somewhere between 5-10 percent of all students. Might be more but these things are often hard to diagnose. There are also a variety of symptoms. Some students will have some symptoms while others will have different symptoms. Some will get letters backward like a “b” will appear to be a “d”. Others will get numbers mixed up. Others will not be handle a list of instructions because their brains just sort circuits with more than 2-3 items on a list. They often get labeled as lazy with poor work habits. Kids probably call them stupid on the play ground.
    Now, place a young boy growing up in the 30’s and 40’s when there was no diagnosis for dyslexia, no interventions if anyone had ever heard of it, and no understanding that the boy was not stupid, his brain just looked at a page on a book and all he saw was jumbled up letters. Now, place this boy in a family where his older siblings all got really good grades, with an impatient father who was smart, well educated, and successful, and think about what might happen. Since I have this exact same scenario in my own family (only it was girl) what you get is a young person with no self esteem that is likely to commit suicide or end up in jail. If they do survive and figure out how to read, they often become very successful because they will spend the rest of their lives proving to themselves and world that they are not stupid (think Bruce Jenner, think Nelson Rockefeller, think Richard Bronson). They can also become very creative visually (Steven Spielberg) because their brain is more wired to visual learning than reading a page full of letters that make no sense.

    When Bill started memorizing the Bible, guess what, he taught himself how to read. It had nothing to do with Joshua 1:8. He just finally learned how to read. Just met a man this past summer. This was his exact experience. He started memorizing the bible when he was 13-14 years old. Prior to this he was a functional illiterate, (imagine what his life was like on the play ground and at home). But by memorizing his brain started to organize letters into words, words into sentences, and sentences into paragraphs. He finally earned how to read. Not well, but he did. He was officially diagnosed when he was 25 and a kind teacher worked with him for a few months and brought his reading from a 3rd grade level to the 12 grade level. I asked him about his father and his comment was that he had forgiven him for the emotional abuse and trauma he put him through, but it was pretty plain he was suffering from the emotional side effect – even pushing 70 years old.
    My guess, Bill Gothard is still suffering from the trauma of growing up dyslexic during the 30s and 40s with a father whom he idolized who was impatient, who was demanding, and had little tolerance for a lazy boy who could not do his school work.

    • Moderator Moderator
      December 25, 2015    

      “When Bill started memorizing the Bible, guess what, he taught himself how to read. It had nothing to do with Joshua 1:8. He just finally learned how to read.”

      Here is the verse:

      “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.”

      This Scripture says that if Bill meditated on God’s Word day and night he would be prosperous and have good success. You know this is confirmed by several other crystal clear passages, notably Psalm 1:3. Bill meditated on God’s word and suddenly everything prospered and he succeeded. And you say with authority that that had nothing to do with God’s promise? God’s promise is meaningless, doesn’t apply to Bill? This is . . . Not right.

      • DJ DJ
        December 25, 2015    

        Actually, no, God didn’t promise Bill anything. Joshua 1:8 is a promised specifically addressed from God to….Joshua.

        • Moderator Moderator
          December 25, 2015    

          Psalm 1:3 also?

          • DJ DJ
            December 25, 2015    

            See my response above on the other thread. No, Psalm 1:3 is not a promise from God to Mr. Gothard. It’s a poem of David contrasting the lives of the righteous and the wicked. Is it God’s word? Absolutely. Is it a universal promise? No.

            Question, though: If it is a promise from God to Mr. Gothard, how does he/you account for the lack of prospering that has taken place the past 3-5 years? Is God breaking his promise? Is Mr. Gothard not meditating anymore?

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 25, 2015    

            “how does he/you account for the lack of prospering that has taken place the past 3-5 years? Is God breaking his promise? Is Mr. Gothard not meditating anymore?”

            I account for it exactly like I account for Jesus apparent lack of prospering at the end of His ministry.

          • DJ DJ
            December 26, 2015    

            “I account for it exactly like I account for Jesus apparent lack of prospering at the end of His ministry.”

            I know comparing dear leader to Jesus Christ is the typical cult way, but I thought you all were above that.

            But since you started it…

            Jesus was God. Mr. Gothard is a man.

            Jesus was sinless. Mr. Gothard is a sinner.

            Jesus was the Word. Mr. Gothard is the recipient of the Word.

            Jesus was crucified for OUR sins. Mr. Gothard is facing the physical consequences for his own indiscretion (at best).

            Jesus raised himself from the dead. Mr. Gothard can’t even get his job back at the ministry where he was revered for so long.

            Would you like to try a real answer to my question that doesn’t compare Mr. Gothard to a deity?

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 26, 2015    

            So if “success” for Jesus can detour through the worst suffering and rejection ever seen, surely you can see it true for His disciples.

            “But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

            The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

            It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?”. (Matthew 10:23-25)

            How about Paul? He was not divine, just a disciple:

            “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.” (2 Timothy 1:15)

            “At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.” (2 Timothy 4:16)

          • Dan Dan
            December 26, 2015    

            You write:

            “I account for it exactly like I account for Jesus apparent lack of prospering at the end of His ministry”

            Wow. Not only an amazing statement but a telling one at that. You have just compared the “sufferings” of Jesus Christ with what you probably refer to as the abuse that is being heaped upon the lowly and innocent Bill Gothard. Let’s see, I must have missed the part in the gospels about Jesus being accused of sexual harassment and abuse. I probably missed the part about how he built a large multi million financial empire. Guess I also missed the part about how he protected his little brother when multiple people, including senior leadership and young women tell him about he (the little brother) is seducing young women.

            Great comparison, but then again we are being asked to believe that Bill is also a kindly old pastor from the hills of Appalachia. Oh, well

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 26, 2015    

            Jesus was accused of every crime under the books – are you kidding me? Just because the disciples did not record the words. He was “reviled”, called a “sinner” and a companion of such. The Pharisees noted with distain that prostitutes hung around and washed his feet, and applied expensive perfume to his head and feet. Women followed him everywhere, serving Him. Again, you can’t be that naive to believe that the bad guys pulled any punch currently thrown at Bill?

            Paul: “we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.” (1 Corinthians 4:13)

          • DJ DJ
            December 26, 2015    

            You are changing the subject. No one is debating whether difficulties occur in the Christian’s life. Believe me, I know that they do.

            The subject is reconciling those difficulties with your view of the Psalms, which you view as promises. If they are promises, then God is a liar. And I don’t believe that He is. I don’t know why it is so hard for you to admit that not all scripture is to be interpreted as promissory, other than that your leader built his entire ministry on that false premise.

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 26, 2015    

            We have two threads working the same topic. As I stated in the other: “Unless you can explain how that applied to Jesus – who is overtly referenced in the passage [Psalm 91] – then I can’t explain how it applies to Bill.”

          • DJ DJ
            December 26, 2015    

            Okay, we’ll keep this to one thread since they seem to have merged into a single idea.

            First, you keep saying that Jesus is overtly referenced in Psalm 91. I just reread the passage and He is not mentioned there. Please clarify.

            Second, you CAN’T explain how it applies to Bill, or you WON’T? If the former, then I think my point is proven. If the latter, you have stooped to pettiness.

            Thirdly, you still have not answered how you would explain the “promises” found in Psalm 91 to a Christian experiencing “harm” and “disaster.”

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 26, 2015    

            First, you keep saying that Jesus is overtly referenced in Psalm 91. I just reread the passage and He is not mentioned there. Please clarify

            “Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

            And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

            Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” (Matthew 4:5-7)

            Second, you CAN’T explain how it applies to Bill, or you WON’T?

            Can’t. Because if there is no explanation for how what Jesus went through fits Psalm 91, then there is no explanation. The Psalm is completely meaningless.

          • DJ DJ
            December 26, 2015    

            And thirdly?

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 26, 2015    

            Same as “secondly”. I am Jesus servant, and I will share in His sufferings and triumphs. Assuming that is what happened, fulfilling Psalm 91.

          • DJ DJ
            December 27, 2015    

            Wow. I suppose I have proven my point. Too bad you don’t have another way of understanding these passages. A lot of people lose their faith because of interpretations like yours.

            I guess then since you agree that God’s protection sometimes involves tragedy, you would also agree that Psalm 1 does not always guarantee success as Mr. Gothard interprets it (wealth and power).

          • Moderator Moderator
            December 27, 2015    

            “A lot of people lose their faith because of interpretations like yours”

            I beg to differ. A lot of people lose their faith because they begin to live by sight, experience, instead of faith in things they cannot yet see. Like the promise of God’s success and deliverance when everything is going wrong. In that respect you are guilty, for you are seeking to weaken God’s Word to fit experience, instead of reinterpreting experience to fit God’s Word.

            Exhibit A is the children of Israel delivered from Egypt, yet wandering hungry and thirsty in the desert. In the end many said, “You lied, God, you lied Moses. No pie in the sky, no promised land. Back to Egypt we go and make the best of it”. THAT is losing your faith. NOTHING in their circumstances would vote against their conclusion . . . JUST a promise, from an infallible God.

            Psalm 1 guarantees success to those that meditate in His law day and night. However success is defined, defined in a way that when I have it I may say, “THAT is way better than what I thought I wanted”. Success that I will miss out on if I do not meditate, to the point that I will say, “I wish I had taken the Lord seriously and meditated on Scripture day and night”. If it isn’t financial, in other words, I will say with all my heart that what I got was way better than $1,000,000.

      • Dan Dan
        December 26, 2015    

        You write:
        And you say with authority that that had nothing to do with God’s promise? God’s promise is meaningless, doesn’t apply to Bill? This is . . . Not right.

        We have already covered this over in your Trinity page but we might as well as address it again. What is “not right” is lifting one phrase or verse totally out of the context in which it is written and then developing an entire line of theology around it. For example, please read the entire passage of Joshua chapter 1:1-9. God is addressing Joshua and what he must do to be successful as a leader and the enormous task of taking over the promised land. First there is more than one command: 1) four times he says be strong and courageous (or about the same thing) 2) observe and obey every word of the Mosaic covenant (let me know how that is going for you), and 3) keep the Mosaic on your lips and mediate.
        And the promise: you (Joshua) will be prosperous and successful.
        So if you are going to take the part about mediation then you also have to take the part about fearlessness and strict obedience to the Mosaic covenant.
        While I doubt that anyone reading this blog would argue against the practice of memorization and mediation, to push the practice into a promise of personal prosperity and success is what is “not right”. If you insist, then tell me please, of all the millions of people that have heard Bill talk about the promise (and if God said it, it must be a guarantee) just how many have experienced the same kind of dramatic breakthrough that Bill experienced and what he has been selling? If the promise of prosperity and success is a promise, then the numbers have to be in the hundreds of thousands at a minimum and well documented. Also, since the promise is also clearly dependent upon strict obedience to the Mosaic covenant, then let all of us know exactly why Jesus came to pay us all a visit.
        And as for the Psalm 1:3 passage, read the entire passage again. Bill once again lifts a single phrase from a passage of Hebrew Poetry and uses it to support an entire theology. If this is what he wants to do, then he had better figure out what to do with the following:

        “How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock!”

        • Moderator Moderator
          December 26, 2015    

          “For example, please read the entire passage of Joshua chapter 1:1-9. God is addressing Joshua and what he must do to be successful as a leader and the enormous task of taking over the promised land.”

          Kindly read Deut. 25:4 and tell me who is being addressed. Do the same for Isaiah 8, verse 1 – 8 . . . Ezekiel 28 . . . Psalm 22. Please answer each one.

          “And as for the Psalm 1:3 passage, read the entire passage again. Bill once again lifts a single phrase from a passage of Hebrew Poetry and uses it to support an entire theology.”

          No, that is also witnessed by Joshua 1:8 and other passages, like Psalm 119:99

          “I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.”

          Just . . . meditating.

  12. Dan Dan
    December 24, 2015    

    You write:
    Anyone who treated Bill in the manner described was setting themselves up for an inevitable and hard fall.

    I think you are saying that anyone who gave Bill unquestioned authority over their lives…. is setting themselves up for an inevitable hard fall. Assuming this is what you mean, you have it backward. This is the kind of nonsense that the Rev. Dennis Kessar (sic) said in his so called investigation in 1980 or 1981. He, and your statement, effectively blames the victim for being victimized. Did I give my unquestioned obedience to Bill when I joined his staff? I did not. I gave it to him a long time before that. I did it when he taught my father and me that I was to obey first my dad and then any authority that might be over me. So by the time I got to Chicago I was already well trained in the fine art of unquestioning obedience. I did not do this “to Bill”, I was trained in it.

    From what I read in the other comments posted, DJ might have a similar experience.

    • Moderator Moderator
      December 24, 2015    

      ” I did it when he taught my father and me that I was to obey first my dad and then any authority that might be over me.”

      Of COURSE you are to obey your father and other amid ordained authorities. God says so. What else should you do?

      “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

      Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)

      That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.”. (Ephesians 6:1-3)

      • Tyler Tyler
        December 24, 2015    

        Very interesting discussion to watch! I just wanted to point out that while that is a very valid command to “children”, the lines get a little fuzzier as you get older… and older… and older, a line never drawn in the Bible. But there are very valid alternatives to drawing hard fast line in the sand to demand absolute and instant obedience from your children at all times. For example, my own parents have let me know of their desire starting when I was about 16 that I obey Jesus Christ above them and that I follow His leading and His Word above them if I ever found myself in a quandary between the two. I’ll be honest that that day greatly deepened my willingness to come to them for advice and even commands because they had demonstrated that their first goal was that I be in the will of God. They were freely willing to admit that they were imperfect and not able to find God’s will perfectly. I respect them all the more because of that.

        I say all that as an answer to your implication that “what else can you do!” but raise your children to give unquestioning obedience to your every command. There are alternatives that don’t deny the need for obedience but that still allow for the working of the Holy Spirit and the personal conscience of the “children” as they get older.

        Dan, as someone who has friends in ATI and friends who come out of ATI (and have been accused of several character flaws because of it), I would really appreciate it if you could be more specific about what was taught about authority by ATI. Could you specify what ATI taught about these things?

        • Dan Dan
          December 27, 2015    

          Tyler, good question. I was never part of ATI. This program was just ramping up as I was leaving what was then IBYC. I worked for Bill for nearly 6 years in the late 1970’s but my involvement went back to 1969. Thus, I will limit my comment to my experience prior to the ATI program.

          There are two things to consider, 1) teaching and instruction, and 2) the execution of that teaching. I don’t think any reasonable student of the Bible can deny that respect for authority is an important value. Bill formalized the whole idea of “Chain of command” during a time when social rebellion was the fad. It was question authority, free love, and down with the establishment. In retrospect, Bill provided a conservative counter to the nation unrest.

          Teaching that children should honor, obey, and respect parental authority was the basis of the Chain of Command. However, the question was always how far does the chain go? When does a child not have to obey parental authority? Does a 40 year old single daughter need to ask her father if she can go on a date? Does a wife have to get approval from her husband to cut and fashion her hair? And on the debate goes. I think we were eventually teaching parental authority and eventually the authority of the father was to be obeyed in everything up to the limit of anything that was clearly against God’s will. Whether we taught it or not, as a staff (mostly single) the line was pretty blurry between parental authority and Bill’s authority. Usurping parental authority did not seem to bother Bill in the least. Example, two young women I was close to were causally seeing and corresponding (mostly corresponding) with young men from their home towns. Both had the unequivocal blessing of their fathers. Bill told them both drop the relationship. While not directly stated, the implication was it is Bill or the boy back home.
          Eventually Bill developed the idea of “umbrella of protection”. In retrospect, this was just more power to the idea of unquestioned obedience. it was the idea that getting out from under authority removed oneself from the protection of authority. Again, not necessarily a bad idea, but how far does it go? A friend of mine, who spent a couple of years in the ATI program was 21 years old, was engaged to a girl his father approved of but literally 15 minutes before walking down the aisle the dad changed his mind and told him to call off the wedding. One of the young women I mentioned above had been with Bill for several years and had the audacity to cut her hair. Bill preferred his secretaries to have long hair and to be worn up high. She got tired of the fuss and cut it into a style that was easier to manage. Bill was pretty peeved and told her father that short hair on a girl was a sign of discontentment and a spirit of rebellion. After a short vacation to her home town her father called Bill and told him his daughter was leaving IBYC, At first, Bill was terrific. Since I was close to the family and from her home town Bill asked me to see that she made a good transition and even take company time to drive her home. Two days later he had written 14 pages of material on how to leave a ministry and was telling me to just get her stuff packed up and shipped to her (she lived 2500 miles away). He could not wait to get rid of her. He did not even want her to come back, say goodbye to friends she had worked and lived with for years and pack up her apartment.
          So this is a long winded response, but maybe you can see that the “chain of command” is not necessarily a bad idea, but that it can easily be pushed to a nonsensical extreme. My own father forbid my mother from cutting her hair, until she could not stand it any longer and just went back to styling her hair so that it looked good and was easy to manage. While the Apostle Paul clearly teaches respect to parental authority, I think I am safe to say that we pushed that to all authority. What happened to Bill’s umbrella of protection that allowed for 7 (I think it was 7) beautiful young staff women to be sexually abused and harassed by his little brother and our Sr. VP … is another question. One that he has spent the last 35 years denying any responsibility for.

      • Dan Dan
        December 27, 2015    

        The issue is not with mother and father, it is about extending this mandate to all authority. As a staff, Bill always said our fathers placed us into his care so he became our father. This is how he justified controlling everything we did on and off the job site.

        • Moderator Moderator
          December 27, 2015    

          I understand he said things like that. I was not party to it so cannot interpret it. However, I believe that is an incorrect application of the principle of authority if represented as a direct replacement. I will ask him how that worked. I do understand a father placing a child under someone else’s authority. But the father never reliquishes that final say-so, the principle that allows him to even release a young person from a foolish vow that would otherwise be binding.

  13. Dan Dan
    December 27, 2015    

    You write:
    Kindly read Deut. 25:4 … Isaiah 8, verse 1 – 8 . . . Ezekiel 28 . . . Psalm 22. Please answer each one….

    OK, if you want me to answer each one of your verses, please give me the honor of your same response when I ask one of you. Four times I have asked for a personal response from you and I have yet to receive one. But sense you asked:

    We were conversing about your promised of personal prosperity if I mediate based on Joshua 1:8. Now I am at a loss. Deut 2:4 talks about the Ox. Is 8 is about the coming Assyrian Invasion, Ps 22 is what Jesus quoted while he was hanging on the cross, and Ez 28 is about the Prince of Tyre.

    So maybe you can fill me in on what it is you are looking for.

    • Moderator Moderator
      December 27, 2015    

      “OK, if you want me to answer each one of your verses, please give me the honor of your same response when I ask one of you. Four times I have asked for a personal response from you and I have yet to receive one.”

      With your answers I can then answer you.

      “Deut 2:4 talks about the Ox.”

      No, this is not written to the Ox, but written to New Testament preachers, telling churches to support them financially:

      “For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

      Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:9-10)

      “Is 8 is about the coming Assyrian Invasion”

      Question is TO whom. Verse 1 says it is written to Mahershalalhashbaz . . . verse 8 says it is to Immanuel. So, this is really written to Jesus.

      “Ps 22 is what Jesus quoted while he was hanging on the cross”

      David wrote it . . . It is about him, or about Jesus? Most theologians call this a “Messianic Psalm”, meaning, it is really about Jesus, not David.

      “Ez 28 is about the Prince of Tyre.”

      Most evangelical theologians disagree, finding it to speak about the devil:

      “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

      By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

      Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.” (Ezekiel 28:15-17)

      So . . . you see? Things overtly aimed at one target are in fact aimed at something completely different. These things are spiritually discerned, not necessarily all logical.

      Promises aimed at Joshua are, in fact, aimed at us all. 2-3 witnesses from other sections have been cited to confirm that. Bill is right on.

      • Dan Dan
        December 28, 2015    

        Sorry, could not disagree more. Bill and you, as we have already discussed, are making up your own rules for biblical interpretation, applying them whenever and wherever you want. And when someone disagrees with you and calls you on this gross neglect of basic, really basic, elementary school level scholarship…. you just pull your trump car… “because we mediate we are therefore smarter than all our teachers”. Based on what you describe, you can make the bible say anything you want it to say. Congratulations, you have just turned God into your personal genie and the Bible your personal handbook of history and behavior. Since you control the rules of interpretation you also control the message and become its sole messenger.

        So review just three examples of personal interpretation that breaks the most basic rules of biblical exegesis:
        1) Chapter 2 of second Peter has no bearing on chapter 1 and how we understand it;
        2) The word “anxiety” (in your opinion) needs to be included in Phil 2:12 even though the biblical text does not use this word or even hints at it; and
        3) Deut 2:4 is written to the church as a biblical proof text to pay modern day preachers.

        Wow, as I have stated, there is not need to hope that any kind of reasonable and rational discussion of the Biblical text is possible on this blog. Also, since you have overcome the hurdle of interpreting the bible anyway you like, simple deceit, lies, obstruction of the truth are relatively minor technicalities to overcome. As you have stated concerning the sexual abuse and harassment in the 1980 scandal “If he had raped them, that is one thing …”

        Just a simple question, if I may, is it your understanding that God is still in the business of giving his people insights, knowledge, even revelation that rises to the level of Biblical truth?

        • Moderator Moderator
          December 28, 2015    

          “Congratulations, you have just turned God into your personal genie and the Bible your personal handbook of history and behavior.”

          God is no genie, but He is mine, all mine. And the Bible is mine too. My personal God, my Father wrote it.

          “Since you control the rules of interpretation you also control the message and become its sole messenger.”

          That is nonsense. The interpretation is what was meant by the One who wrote it.

          “For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:16)

          Whoever that “we” is, those are the ones qualified to interpret Scripture correctly. Some here have suggested that the “we” is just the Apostles. Do you agree?

          “1) Chapter 2 of second Peter has no bearing on chapter 1 and how we understand it”

          Backward: Chapter 1 has a bearing on chapter 2, and how we interpret it. That SHOULD make more sense than reversed, right?

          2) The word “anxiety” (in your opinion) needs to be included in Phil 2:12 even though the biblical text does not use this word or even hints at it

          Let’s pull that out again:

          Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12)

          I equated “fear and trembling” with “anxiety”. That is not too far fetched, is it?

          3) Deut 2:4 is written to the church as a biblical proof text to pay modern day preachers.

          Let’s read Paul’s commentary on the verse again. If anyone would know who Deut. 2:4 was written to, I bet it would be Paul:

          “For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

          Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.” (1 Corinthians 9:9-10)

          Scripture interpreting itself . . . sort of a 101 class rule, right? Paul says that Deut. 2:4 is written FOR us, NOT the ox.

          “As you have stated concerning the sexual abuse and harassment in the 1980 scandal “If he had raped them, that is one thing …””

          Now you are starting to misquote me . . . out of context. This sort of thing is just unworthy of you, Dan. The “he” referred to was Steve, right? The context was what happened and how people found out about it. Had Steve raped the women their response would have been far different, especially when asked about it by their parents, others. In that case criminal proceedings would have started and Steve might still be in jail today. But he didn’t. It was “consensual”, as the law defines it – they unlocked their doors, they let him in knowing full well what was going to happen. And that may well have had some bearing on the difficulty in getting women to fully come forward on this.

          There is a chasm of difference between forced sex and consensual sex. That fact does not make the second not fundamentally the responsibility of a stronger deceiver, male or female, but, again, the dynamics of a solution become so much more complicated. Which is why Scripture defined the “scream” as the acid test to differentiate. If no scream, the deceiver walks away with a fine and a possible wife he could never divorce . . . if a scream, he is killed.

          “Just a simple question, if I may, is it your understanding that God is still in the business of giving his people insights, knowledge, even revelation that rises to the level of Biblical truth?”

          In simple terms, absolutely not. What I will allow is that people will come to Biblical truth without the Bible. because that truth is written in their hearts from birth by God:

          For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

          Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

          In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” (Romans 2:14-16)

          The conscience is an independent spiritual insight showing the truths written in the Bible without a person ever reading it. But as far as “Holy Writ”, no, we have it all written down in the Bible we carry.

  14. Dan Dan
    December 31, 2015    

    You write: “Let’s pull that out again: Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12)

    I equated “fear and trembling” with “anxiety”. That is not too far fetched, is it?

    Getting back to you. Been out of town. Actually adding the word “anxiety” or even the idea is far fetched for the following reasons:
    1) Paul does not add it;
    2) Paul clearly says later “be anxious for nothing…”

    Here again, I see clear evidence of adding something to the biblical text to match or own preconceived ideas instead of letting the text speak for itself.

    Also, you seem to speak of fear of God in a negative sense while your friend WE Vine is clear that fear has two general directions as to its meaning – positive and negative. The fear of God is always positive, reverential awe theologians like to say. Paul is also clear to Timothy “For God has not given us a spirit of fear…” So somehow you keep wanting to ad anxiety and fear (in the negative sense) to the biblical text

    Also, how in the world did you jump from a discussion on Joshua 1:8 and God’s so called promise of personal prosperity to the discussion of the ox? Somehow this one passed me right by.

    And no, I did not miss quote you. The “he” I was referring to was Steve and not Bill.

    • Moderator Moderator
      December 31, 2015    

      Getting back to you. Been out of town. Actually adding the word “anxiety” or even the idea is far fetched for the following reasons:
      1) Paul does not add it;
      2) Paul clearly says later “be anxious for nothing…”

      I am not sure how you get from “fear and trembling” to “good fear”. This feels like theological mumbojumbo. Why do you, personally, tremble when faced with working out your salvation with fear?

      And as to anxiety, let’s examine this. “Be anxious for nothing” in Philippians 4:6 uses the word μεριμνάω merimnaō, which can mean “anxious”. Same word “care” used here:

      “That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.” (1 Corinthians 12:25)

      In fact, same word used two chapters earlier in Philippians:

      “For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state.” (Philippians 2:20)

      Jesus on the other hand says to us:

      “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” (Luke 13:24)

      Strive is ἀγωνίζομαι agōnizomai, to agonize, struggle.

      Nothing wrong with Christians being anxious.

      Also, how in the world did you jump from a discussion on Joshua 1:8 and God’s so called promise of personal prosperity to the discussion of the ox? Somehow this one passed me right by.

      The point is that you are insisting that God’s promise in Joshua 1:8 only applies to Joshua. I gave several examples from Scripture where things are overtly aimed at one target, but are actually directed towards someone different. You said that Deut. 25:4 applied to the ox, but Paul says it applies to Christian workers. You were wrong. I also mentioned Exekiel 18 which appears to apply to the King of Tyre, in context, but theologians are convinced actually allies to Satan. And a couple of others. Does that make sense?

  15. Dan Dan
    December 31, 2015    

    You write:
    It was “consensual”, as the law defines it – they unlocked their doors, they let him in knowing full well what was going to happen. And that may well have had some bearing on the difficulty in getting women to fully come forward on this.

    Will of course it is why the difficulty in getting these women to come forward. Of the 7 women who were sexually involved with Bill’s little brother and our Sr VP I believe all but one were from conservative Christian homes. They have moved on and tried to put this part of their lives behind them. You have interviewed one of them and if you knew her you would understand that your use of her so called testimony is just furthering her abuse by Bill.

    But there are two points to consider about the consensual nature of the sex that was going on:

    1) While there is no doubt that the women involved were of age and certainly knew what they were getting into, you also cannot deny the reality that there was a subordinate relationship going on. This is why employment law and most organizations do not allow romantic relationships between supervisors and subordinates. They understand that this puts an entirely different dynamic into the working relationship. As we were all getting kicked out of our homes several of our national volunteer leadership came to help mediate. One of the men, a good personal friend from my home town, said exactly the same thing “all they had to do was say no”. Then someone reminded him of the nature of the relationship and he said something like “oh, yes, forgot that” and that was the last of that kind of comment.
    2) You also fail to understand the nature of the corporate culture. Being subordinate, submissive, giving up ones personal rights, personal dreams, etc were all highly valued attitudes. Pop culture would probably say Bill and Steve both valued the prettiest and most co-dependent girls to work for them. I think this is an appropriate description. As such there was something like an indoctrination going on. This might be too strong of a word but not by much. How else does one understand 7 women, most from conservative Christian homes, having sex with a man who was fat, overweight, hardly a James Bond specimen, and certainly not a spiritual powerhouse. This is part of your entire discussion that I think you fail to take into consideration. There was nothing physical about the man that would make him a sexual idol. The only logic is that they were prepped for it in some way.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 1, 2016    

      your use of her so called testimony is just furthering her abuse by Bill

      It was amazing to see Bill squirm as she was speaking, he tried to end the interview several times. I was quite sure that this was anything but a subject individual parrotting back things that she knew Bill wanted to hear. Throughout our lives we gain some perception of others that we interact with. I go with my “gut” here.

      The only logic is that they were prepped for it in some way

      Of course they were prepped. I recall reading the account of one of them, how Steve would manipulate their emotions, first by acting distant, like they had offended him . . . etc. He was smart in all the wrong ways. In our lives we may not ever be fully tested . . . when we are, it is stunning how weak and messed up we all are. I get that. But that does not release us from our responsibility.

      In the sequence involving Adam and Eve, God queried each one . . . as each blamed the other, God went to the next one accused, then worked His way back. After Satan Eve was judged, then Adam. Based on the current “victim” theory, only the devil should have been condemned. It does not work that way. God holds us each accountable. The sins of Adam and Eve were consentual, nobody forced either one of them. One was deceived, one was not, according to Paul. And so it is with “consensual sex”. One may be deceived, but it is still a sin. Why? Because of God’s command, which pierces the fog and is designed to hold us when all else fails. It is our responsibility.

      He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul, but he that despiseth his ways shall die. (Proverbs 19:16)

      The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. (Psalms 19:8)

  16. Dan Dan
    December 31, 2015    

    You write:
    Which is why Scripture defined the “scream” as the acid test to differentiate. If no scream, the deceiver walks away with a fine and a possible wife he could never divorce . . . if a scream, he is killed.

    You are certainly free to use the laws of Moses as your basis for life and living if you want but if you are going to use part of it for your Biblical world view then you need to use all of it. This same set of laws says that a rebellions son is to be stoned to death, (Deut 28), anybody that works on the Sabbath is to be put to death (Ex 35), and any one who has ever had a homosexual relationship is to be executed (Lev 20). So feel free to live by this set of laws if you want but I doubt anyone is going to want your version of the gospel.

    In addition, the idea of “crying out” or a scream speaks to the idea of young women living in close physical proximity and if they screamed, someone will come running to help them. So let’s discuss this for a moment. I know of two women who told Bill exactly what Steve was trying to get them to do and I am confident there were more. In addition, 3 executives had clearly told Bill what his brother was up to.
    Now I suppose you may want to get really technical and say they did not “cry out” at the moment of the physical act of abuse but in all reality, many of them did “cry out” by going directly to Bill for help. But somehow an attractive young woman telling him that his little brother was trying get his hands inside her shirt was too confusing or too unholy for his mind to accept and he “put it out of his mind” (his exact words).
    Or maybe three executives meeting with him face to face was too confusing for him and he was just too busy building the organization to deal with something so trivial. (We were not that busy). So you can believe him if you want but you might want to ask how many witnesses does it take before there is enough smoke billowing out of the house before you think maybe there is a fire inside.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 1, 2016    

      any one who has ever had a homosexual relationship is to be executed (Lev 20). So feel free to live by this set of laws if you want but I doubt anyone is going to want your version of the gospel.

      Rabbit trail coming, but . . . this is so weird. This is when I just want to go somewhere and cry. Brother, the same law that condemns the homosexual to death also condemns the murderer to death, the thief to fines. These are not laws for the individual to execute, but a just government. How have we lost our way so much, consumed with the force of this age that we imply that someone who supports these consequences that God commanded in His law is sinning?

      If you cannot find a consequence for homosexuality you cannot find any just consequence for any sin under civil law. Unless civil law is to be driven by our feelings and opinions. Is that where you are going? Since you said it, state for the record, for the Lord, what your basis of civil justice is.

      if they screamed, someone will come running to help them.

      Someone like the Lord? His angels? He is always there. Remember, this was His idea. Besides that . . . what would happen if any one of these women had screamed, or even run out of the room and directly to someone for help? The overwhelming number of these things would end INSTANTLY at any vocalization of resistance.

      I know of two women who told Bill exactly what Steve was trying to get them to do and I am confident there were more. In addition, 3 executives had clearly told Bill what his brother was up to.

      You assure me of these things. Bill recalls things differently, especially the last statement. I did ask him about this specifically. I am processing what you are saying, but I am also processing what he is saying.

      Larne gave me some specific data points, a list, a timeline as a challenge. I need to go over that with Bill.

      • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
        January 1, 2016    

        “Larne gave me specific data points”

        Lets be more specific, what data points. One nice thing about telling the truth is you don’t have to keep changing the story in trying to remember what you told the last time. The truth is imprinted in you mind. My story has not changed unlike Bill’s story/lies which keep changing. Again don’t put my name in your post to give yourself the air of superior knowledge. Dan lived the Story just like me and was even there longer. Again don’t ask only Billy ask Ed, Ken, and Gary. The three men who confronted Bill 40 years ago. Bill has been living a lie every since.

        • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
          January 1, 2016    

          As long as we are checking facts there is one more I would like you to check. Since I could not find your post about your “witness in the Northwoods”. this is as good of a place to ask this question as any. I have doubled checked recollection of the event regarding my statement and questions with both her immediate supervisor and one other man. So in the mouth of two or three witnesses.

          You have a witness (only one) who disputes Ruth’s statements (which included her visits with the other women involved) that Bill would hug the women in their bedrooms when he knew they were ready for bed. I would ask you to inquire of her on what date she moved to the Northwoods. From our research she moved there in the late summer of 1979 after the new lodge by the airport was built. We do not believe she ever lived in Crazy Bear Lodge for other then a short stay. Your witness and other women were sent to the Northwood to work on publications when additional living space was made available with the completion of the new Lodge. Ruth had lived in Crazy Bear along with a couple other women for about 18 months and some for a longer period. They all moved to the new Lodge about the same time your witness arrived. Your witness was not an observer to all the despicable things done at Crazy Bear or the good night hugs by Bill during the period before she arrived. While her statement might be true to what she observed after she arrived, it is not completely accurate based on her short time there. Your witness, of course, would likely have not been able to observe Bill’s activities late at night in the rooms of other women down the hall or elsewhere on the premises. She would only be able to attest to whether or not Bill came into her room late at night for such activities.

          I could be wrong on the specific time she moved up North, but I don’t think so, ask her. You might ask her if she is willing to make those statements in a court of law or under oath in a deposition. I’m not saying that there is talk of including her in the witness pool, as I have no contact with the plaintiff’s law firm, but this choice by Bill and the Board to prefer a legal process rather than the first opportunities for acknowledgment of wrong and care for those hurt and damaged by their deeds, will force the disclosure of very much sin and ugliness as justice is pursued (Romans 13:1-5).

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 1, 2016    

            I will ask, Larne. This may take a bit, but I will.

            Your witness was not an observer to all the despicable things done at Crazy Bear

            I don’t know. I do know that she gave me detailed descriptions of what she was aware of being done to other women. So she is a first hand witness to what Steve did to others.

            this choice by Bill and the Board to prefer a legal process rather than the first opportunities for acknowledgment of wrong and care for those hurt and damaged by their deeds,

            How can you conclude that? First of all, the threat of a lawsuit by other believers could be seen as illegal extortion. But then I know that the Board let alone Bill does not believe that there is wrong to be acknowledged of the nature you describe. We agree, brother. Anything can happen in court, but we remain very interested in what comes out of this when FINALLY an objective entity actually examines the facts. Here is some of what we know:

          • An account identical to the ones published has already been handed to the Hinsdale Police Department, which received a ruling from the Assistent State Attorney that it was NOT sexual abuse or harrassment (those were not charges considered).
          • The case as presented with fanfare was recently dismissed by the judge for lack of foundation, i.e. lack of proof. They are to try again, we understand, with more plaintiffs.
          • Why should the Board have been engaging in this mess independently? You and I both know that any action they would have taken, say “humbling themselves” by giving every benefit of the doubt, would simply have resulted in a stronger lawsuit. Bill has been trying to reach out on a Christian, human basis since this started, but nobody will talk. That just doesn’t sound like a situation that is going to get resolved, other than by a lawsuit. Stop blaming Bill and IBLP for getting us to where we are.

  • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
    January 2, 2016    

    You state:
    “How can you conclude that? First of all, the threat of a lawsuit by other believers could be seen as illegal extortion. But then I know that the Board let alone Bill does not believe that there is wrong to be acknowledged of the nature you describe. We agree, brother. Anything can happen in court, but we remain very interested in what comes out of this when FINALLY an objective entity actually examines the facts. Here is some of what we know:”

    When have I ever threaten a lawsuit? Back in 81/82 when the lawsuits were filed it was because Bill refused to admit to his sin in the abundance of evidence. That sin is evidence of an unrepentant man and the consequences of that unrepentance is described in Matthew 18:17. Because of his unrepentant sin he was treated as an unbeliever. (That said church discipline of Matthew 18:17 has nothing to do with a person’s eternal security, just unrepentant sin. Eternal Security is between him and God) Jesus says not to associate with them! Bill had every opportunity to fix the problem but he did not! There is no Legal extortion; again Bill could have fixed the problem in 1969, again in 1976, 1980 and multiple times since to including 2014. But his sin continued unchecked thru the ATI era, have you talked with any of the women that were negatively impacted from that era, I have and their stories are mirror images of Ruth’s.

    You state:
    “But then I know that the Board let alone Bill does not believe that there is wrong to be acknowledged of the nature you describe.”

    Of course they don’t believe, they are protecting their reputations and jobs, in Bill’s case his legacy. Bill Crosby has made the same denial. We are not saying Bill had done what Crosby did but from a Christian world view Bill has sinned against God and those he was entrusted with their care! I can almost guarantee you that if Bill would have repented at the time of his resignation in 2014 and publically acknowledge his sin against the women, through confession, repentance, asking forgiveness and making restitution (not necessarily money, but maybe counseling or letter of apology to families, ect) there would be no lawsuit today. How do I know that? That’s all the 1980 women were looking for and from my conversations with the ATI era women them too. Really simple, Confess and Repent that’s what the Cross and Blood of Jesus is all about!
    I’ll make this as clear as I can and from the IBYC staff, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT A SPIRITIAL SOLUTION TO A SPIRITIAL PROBLEM AND NOT A LEGAL SOLUTION! The legal/civil solution was a last result. Bill, the Board and IBLP have not acted in a Christian manor and are now been treated as “publicans and tax collectors”! For the ATI era lawsuit that again is evidenced by the amount of money the ATI era women was looking for, $50K is peanuts in today’s legal world.
    One last thought on this issue, we have made it abundantly clear to the Board, Dr. Tim Levendusky and others that we are willing to sit down with them and discuss this matter. At no time since the 1981/82 lawsuits were dismissed and negotiated away, has anyone on our team threaten a lawsuit. We have ALWAYS WANTED A SPIRITIAL SOLUTION! That offer still stands today. But I do need to make it clear that I am not speaking for those in the current lawsuit. Just remember Bill, the Board and the Institute have brought this on themselves! I don’t now God’s mind but I can’t help but wonder why he waited 40 years (since the time he was informed of his brother’ immorality by three witnesses) to bring this to a head. Maybe God gave him that 40 years to repent and now in the age of internet, email, instant messaging, faxes, scanning and free phone calls God is insuring Bill’s final legacy is that of disgrace and an example to the rest of us. Repent or Be Punished, just like the Israelite that got to spent 40 years in the desert for their unbelief.

    You state:
    “An account identical to the ones published has already been handed to the Hinsdale Police Department, which received a ruling from the Assistent State Attorney that it was NOT sexual abuse or harrassment (those were not charges considered).”

    The root of this is a spiritual issue and how it is view by God! I don’t care about the legal side at all. When we stand in front of our eternal judge we will be judged on our actions, intent and motives as viewed from God’s perspective.

    You state:
    “The case as presented with fanfare was recently dismissed by the judge for lack of foundation, i.e. lack of proof. They are to try again, we understand, with more plaintiffs.”

    I thought this was discussed in a previous series of post and it was determined it was not dismissed. I am not involved not have the time to research it but if your getting your information from Bill or IBLP I think I would change sources to the court system. This is the season of year end donations

    You state:
    “Why should the Board have been engaging in this mess independently? That just doesn’t sound like a situation that is going to get resolved, other than by a lawsuit.”

    Their failure to act for the past 35 years and take the leadership required by the State of Illinois to insure a safe work environment and to act on reported abuses. They have failed in their fiduciary responsibilities and this is the consequences.
    .
    You state:
    “You and I both know that any action they would have taken, say “humbling themselves” by giving every benefit of the doubt, would simply have resulted in a stronger lawsuit.”

    I don’t know that, in fact by their silence with us says just the opposite.

    You state:
    “Bill has been trying to reach out on a Christian, human basis since this started, but nobody will talk.”

    That’s because he refused to repent. He wants to change the narrative to his view point, his intent, and his motive thus remove all his responsibility for the incidences of the charges against him. He’s been doing this for 35 years with me!

    You state:
    “Stop blaming Bill and IBLP for getting us to where we are.”

    Why would I stop proclaiming truth, Bill, the Board and IBLP management have fostered an unhealthy work environment that preyed on the weakness of some and covered the sin of others. I would not be worried about the court system but God Almighty if I were them.

    Just tell Bill, the Board and IBLP to ask the question.
    WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

  • Moderator Moderator
    January 2, 2016    

    That sin is evidence of an unrepentant man and the consequences of that unrepentance is described in Matthew 18:1

    So even though his home church refused to act against him, excommunicate him, as long as others felt he was “unrepentant” that makes it OK to sue him? Because he is then not a brother? Boy. I know he is being counseled to sue Recovering Grace. This is an angle that I will have to present to him.

    I thought this was discussed in a previous series of post and it was determined it was not dismissed

    It is most definitely dismissed. A new filing is permitted because it was done “without prejudice”. Meaning the judge did not rule on the merits, just on the lack of a case to proceed with.

    That’s because he refused to repent

    He has been tried in your court and found wanting. Not everyone agrees with you that there is a need to repent. Indeed, Bill does not see a need to repent, because he didn’t do it. Your judgment and verdict notwithstanding

    Just tell Bill, the Board and IBLP to ask the question.
    WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

    Here is quite literally what He would do:

    A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. (Matthew 12:20)

    See, Jesus is never in a rush to judgment, never ready to brush aside the smallest just concern, i.e. the tiny bit of smoke coming from something you want to declare quenched, the busted beam that you want to declare useless. He hears and considers the full matter from both sides. That is why His judgments are righteous, satisfying on all levels.

  • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
    January 2, 2016    

    Alfred writes:
    “Now you are being “disingenuous”. Sort of like Tony. Tony pursued, encouraged, talked up a “legal solution” for the same reasons you have supported it – it is just the only way to take down slippery Bill. You HAVE stated that nothing else will work. In Tony’s case he too sought at the last moment to wash his hands of it, failing to show up at the meeting convened to begin that process that he lobbied for. The Lord judges all of our hearts. “Do what I want – do it nicely, or by lawsuit, but you must do it” . . . that is NOT the spirit of 1 Cor. 6.”

    First of I just looked up the case 2015L 000980 at https://www.dupagecase.com/Clerk/allsearch.do
    It shows it was continued on 12-2-15 a full month ago
    Under Count Status it shows: ACTIVE
    Next Court date ins 1-13-15 at 9am
    Someone is giving you wrong info! But I suggested that before! End of Year Giving Season

    Regarding being “disingenuous” I have not advised anyone to sue but once they did I continued to support them as a friend or acquaintance understanding their courage. I have not had any contact with Gibbs III, his office or investigators. In fact I had no idea a lawsuit was in the works till it was announced. If I am subpoenaed I will testify, probably unlikely though. I challenge you to find where I said “nothing else will work”, I can’t find it with your search option but I would have said “nothing else has worked and Bill remains unrepentant”. Will and Has are too completely different word and convey two different nuisances. Again you are putting words in my mouth. Soliciting others to join the lawsuit and supporting in prayer and Christian compassion is another. If been there, I understand but I keep going back to this has always been about a SPIRITUAL SOLUTION and since Bill and the Institute keep rejecting that and act as unbelievers in the face of overwhelming evidence those involved have resorted to a civil action. Bill and the Board and IBLP are reaping what they have sowed! Its that simple!

    Lastly you state: ““Do what I want – do it nicely, or by lawsuit, but you must do it” . . . that is NOT the spirit of 1 Cor. 6.”
    How about in the spirit of 2 Cor. 7:9-11, how about in sprit of repentance, should I go on?

  • Moderator Moderator
    January 2, 2016    

    Someone is giving you wrong info!

    Frankly, I don’t care much, not like I would if dismissed “with prejudice”. However, the Institute published the following . . . I cannot imagine them doing so without legal counsel advising them:

    On Wednesday, December 2, 2015, a circuit judge of DuPage County, Illinois dismissed the complaint filed by David Gibbs III against the Institute.

    http://iblp.org/news/judge-dismisses-david-gibbs-iii-lawsuit

    Bill and the Board and IBLP are reaping what they have sowed! Its that simple

    No. They are reaping the abuse that an unhappy devil has concocted for them because of the serious trouble Bill and IBLP represented to him. He went to work on some of the available weaknesses, including Bill’s busy-ness, and connected in big ways. He has always had one agenda, mute Bill and wipe the memory of him and his ministry off the earth. This has never been about “flesh and blood”, Larne. Some people never figured that out, inadvertently becoming “agents of Satan” in their short sighted zeal to conquer the wrong Enemy, “flesh and blood”.

    Ephesians 6:12

    “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

  • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
    January 2, 2016    

    Alfred writes:
    “Frankly, I don’t care much, not like I would if dismissed “with prejudice”. However, the Institute published the following . . . I cannot imagine them doing so without legal counsel advising them:”

    First you make a bold statement “what I would call in your face statement” that the suit was dismissed, even when you were involved in a discussion of that earlier and knew it was disputed. I even told you a couple of posts to check your facts. Now you say “Frankly, I don’t care much”, I think you might have cared when you thought it was dismissed. Maybe a little? I’ve been saying all along check your facts. I still pray this could be settled Spiritually. I believe even in our email exchange last fall you were hoping and praying for a Spiritual resolution, I know I was and still do. I put my hope in the Lord not in lawsuits, and on that great day when we stand before our Savior his true judgment will be on what in the heart regardless of any lawsuit verdict. And we know His judgment will be fair and just!

    Alfred writes
    “No. They are reaping the abuse that an unhappy devil has concocted for them because of the serious trouble Bill and IBLP represented to him. He went to work on some of the available weaknesses, including Bill’s busy-ness, and connected in big ways. He has always had one agenda, mute Bill and wipe the memory of him and his ministry off the earth. This has never been about “flesh and blood”, Larne. Some people never figured that out, inadvertently becoming “agents of Satan” in their short sighted zeal to conquer the wrong Enemy, “flesh and blood”.
    Ephesians 6:12
    “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.””

    Alfred this is the crux of the problem, while you looking at the problem from an inward perspective, we look at the problem as being centered from within. Yes, the devil is smoking a cigar and drinking a martini as he lounges in his lair watching this unfold. But from our perspective the reins he holds the tightest are Bill’s. That not to say there are not some angry and bitter people accusing him. Any more then to say there are not angry and bitter people in Bill’s camp observing us.

    We as Christians are commanded to live holy lives in all areas and be without reproach. To confess, repent, ask forgiveness and right our wrongs. God want all not to perish and to seek him but not at the expense of others. 2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” I find Peter being very specific in saying “is patient toward you”. That phrase is singularly addressing “YOU”, ME, one at a time not millions. He want millions and billions saved but its one at a time for lasting results. In Jesus’s Parable of the Lost Sheep in Luke 15 shows the importants of the one. The lost sheep is more important then the flock. One at a time. Jesus continues to make His point in the parable of the coin and Prodigal son. Again one at a time. It’s not about millions, its about one life at a time, one soul at a time. The millions who attended the seminar are not as important and the individual damaged souls Bill is responsible for. When I read Ephesians 6:12, I’m sure we can agree on the meaning of verse, but I would think our personal application might be focused in different directions.

  • Moderator Moderator
    January 3, 2016    

    Now you say “Frankly, I don’t care much”, I think you might have cared when you thought it was dismissed. Maybe a little?

    I am quite sure the case was dismissed. Perhaps at the request of the plaintiffs. I don’t care. Regardless, it had no chance of success as filed. I care that it purposed to be refiled.

  • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
    January 2, 2016    

    Alfred writes:
    “So even though his home church refused to act against him, excommunicate him, as long as others felt he was “unrepentant” that makes it OK to sue him? Because he is then not a brother? Boy. I know he is being counseled to sue Recovering Grace. This is an angle that I will have to present to him.”

    Two times Bill’s former church LaGrange Bible Church failed to take action against Bill. In 1981 in the previous document I posted http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/1-LaGrange-Bible-Church-1981-Event.pdf there is no official church documents of the rejection of pleas only notes from the meeting. I would assume, based on Dr. Chuck Lynch’s notes from his talk with Pastor Hovey, as I stated before it was probably because of Church Politics. Then again in 2013 they failed to deal with the issue since neither Bill nor Tony were members of LBB. In late 1980 or 1981 an attempt was made to mediate the 1980 scandal with the Christian Legal Society. This was rejected by Bill and the Institute.

    1 Corinthians 6 does not prohibit going to court with another Christian but makes it clear that it is on the highly undesirable list of things to do along with the reasons given. But by the strictest definition it does not say, “Thou shall not sue your brother”. Then what defines a brother is he unrepentant and removed from fellowship, does his works measure up to his faith or is he the 1 Peter 5:1-11 man? With the failure of the church to deal with Bill and his rejection of mediation and since we are not to judge and only God knows his heart where does that leave one?

    Now there is one more issue not addressed in 1 Corinthians 6 where it addresses civil disputes that generally involve property, contracts or money. But the 1980 Scandal and current scandal deal with a more important issue. One where the “rather suffering wrong” of verse 7-8 has no place in a Christian sphere. We might argue on the “abuse words” but I would imagine you would have sympathy if some of those actions reported by some of the women, including Ruth, if they were committed to your daughter or wife. The Catholic Church was faced with the same issues, priests abused children and in some cases adults, the church covered sin and because of the political power of the church the government took no action. It was finally stopped with lawsuits.

    I realize Bill is not charge with rape, but his covering of sin in 1969 and 1976 lead to the 1980 scandal and the sexual abuse of 9 women. In 1983/84 and again in 1987-90 Ruth was concerned that the same thing she endured with Bill was happening to the ATI era women. She confronted Bill and his reply was that his sister was his secretary, the Board had changed the rules and he had very little personal contact with the staff. He specifically stated things were not like the old days when were there. That might have been a true statement to a point but he also had “administrative assistants” he spent much time alone with them, both before and after his sisters work hours, working, counseling, they traveled with him both domestic and international or in drives to Indianapolis and other Institute locations. Yes, his statement was true, just incomplete and in regards to answering Ruth’s question was deceptive and false. That failure to deal with the problem by the Board, his church, and the greater body of churches that got involved, ultimately lead to what he faces today.

    So to answer your question above; “makes it OK to sue him?” Maybe the answer for us should have been yes in 1981. Ruth had an unbelievably heart for the other 1980 women and caution for what she saw in the ATI program. I am sure if Ruth could have seen the future pain Bill inflicted on those closest to him, she would have stood in the gap and taken the heat to protect those that followed in her footsteps, and her name would have been next to Bill Wood on the lawsuit. But then again the simple solution was that Bill could have stopped it all! But that old nasty word pride was just too powerful. Proverbs 16:18 “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”

    The body of the letter responding to Tony request for church discipline of Bill Gothard.
    I can’t copy and paste the document here but will type the words best I can. The forwarded link is also below:

    January 22, 2013

    Mr. Tony (redacted)

    Re: Mr. Bill Gothard

    Dear (Name redacted?)

    We are in receipt of your correspondences regarding Mr. Gothard’s desire for reconciliation with you and your requests of our involvement in resolving this matter.

    However, we will not be involved for the following reasons:
    1. W believe it is important to point out that contrary to assertions in your letters, Mr. Gothard long ago (over a decade) terminated his membership with LaGrange Bible church. Therefore, there is no membership affiliation with Mr. Gothard or support for his organizations. As such, we have no standing with or authority over him or his organization.
    2. Your specific request with respect to the actions (or lack thereof) of Rev. Hovey or the Board of Elders of LaGrange Bible Church who served during the times referenced in your correspondences are no longer matters that we can investigate or address given that Rev. Hovey as well as the Elders form that time have passed to be with the Lord.
    3. Lacking our ability to investigate these matters with those involved at the time and the fact that neither you nor Mr. Gothard are active members with LaGrange Bible Church, we have no authority, standing or means to take the steps you request. Also note that LaGrange Bible Church is no longer a member of the IFCA, to whom you have copied your correspondences.

    In closing, we are earnestly praying, in keeping with Matthew 18:15-17, that bouth ou you would resolve your differences, meeting privately one-with-one, and then, if necessary, with two or three witnesses who are presently involved in our lives, and finally, if necessary, the churches you are both members of who have standing and authority over you.

    Sincerely,

    Elders of LaGrange Bible Church

    http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/1.22.14-LaGrange-Bible-Church-Letter-to-TonyG-51.jpg

    1 Corinthians (ESV)
    Lawsuits Against Believers
    6 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers![a]
    9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

  • Moderator Moderator
    January 3, 2016    

    Two times Bill’s former church LaGrange Bible Church failed to take action against Bill

    Again, the execution of God-given authority in a different direction than you agree with invalidates their authority, correct?

    1 Corinthians 6 does not prohibit going to court with another Christian

    Let’s read what it says:

    Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? (1 Corinthians 6:1)

    That does NOT sound like it is just”undesirable” . . . it sounds fairly emphatic. Again, the specific focus appears to be “defrauding”, cheating . . . and COULD refer somewhat specificalliy about going to court to get a divorce, given the way the chapter ends. Obviously there is a sense that Christian tribunals should get involved . . . but he says that it would be better to be defrauded then go to court.

    Believe me, I am wrestling with the same thing, emotionally. We are really grieved at the evil that RG has perpetrated. And are quite sure that remedies for defamation were specifically invented to deal with this type of deliberate character assassination, playing fast and loose with the facts. Given that Bill has brought it up to us multiple times, I know he is thinking about it and counseled to consider it. I can think of several justifications that would apply. It is like the “resist not evil” statement by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Some take it to mean, “don’t ever defend yourself”. That flies in the face of other Scriptures, not the least of which is Paul appealing to secular government, even Jesus knocking the baddies out of the temple, or even more knocking the soldiers off their feet in the Garden.

    But, in any case, it appears that going the court against believers to get back something you were cheated out of is definitively prohibited.

    With the failure of the church to deal with Bill and his rejection of mediation and since we are not to judge and only God knows his heart where does that leave one?

    Remember, it is not that the church didn’t deal with Bill . . . it did. It “failed to find fault” intead of condemn.

    the future pain Bill inflicted on those closest to him

    I am sorry, but humor me. WHAT future pain?! Excluding “Charlotte” for reasons oft repeated, WHAT pain are we discussing? Slights? Uncomfortable hand holding? Foot tapping?! Things that are not even in the same league of what Ruth endured at the hands of Steve. I get so tired of this. Beieve it or not, much of what has driven us to step into this role and hang tenaciously in here has been those that HAVE in fact suffered morally, physically at the hands of perverted people . . . have also “endured” whatever Bill is and does . . . and get angry at what is being trying to be palmed off here . . . as “abuse”. There is a moral center that has galvanized . . . and frankly has had enough.

  • Moderator Moderator
    January 1, 2016    

    Larne, I think you misunderstood my comment. I was acknowledging that you have given me “Data Points” in a timeline that I needed to take back to Bill for comment.

    As to things changing, that is the process that we are engaged in. Apparently we are first to actually challenge some of the narratives that have been presented and passed from person to person for decades. Starting with the “Cabin Story” which you know better than most. We are finding witnesses that tell a different tale . . . and are receiving clarification from Bill on things that make them appear far from certain.

    He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. (Proverbs 18:17)

    That should have been the job of IBLP, but as you know, Bill is into “move on, move on”. That being the case, I assure you that some of the coffin nails you secured in Denver are not holding the corpse very well. When you asked, “Are you qualified to be in ministry?”, Bill heard, “Humble yourself”, and given that no sinful child of Adam is ever qualified for ministry because of things like pride and carelessness which we all have, it was correct for him to say, “No”. He just wanted to “move on”. When you asked, “Did you know of Steve’s immorality before you sent the women to the Northwoods?” he wanted to “move on”, so he could answer “Yes”, that he was aware that Steve was “dirty” sexually, but remained unconvinced that he had gone “all the way”. If you asked, “Did you hear of Steve going ‘all the way’ beforehand” he could recall – let’s say – the interaction with the first secretary that confided in Gary whom, when he interviewed, denied it. He heard, but he did not believe.

    A big clue for you would have been his objection that you were attempting to get him to acknowledge that he had deliberately sent the girls up there to be abused. See, IF what you believe is true, Bill DID deliberately send them into harm’s way. Bill cared for each of the girls, perhaps deeply, and would never have done that. So . . . please . . . think through what you imagine he DID do. IF there was any reasonable understanding on his part that brother Steve had had sex with multiple secretaries there was no reasonable way he would have sent more up to be with him. That just defies reason, unless he hated the women . . . or was a complete idiot. If the last, then you are dealing with a mental patient in need of compassionate and professional care, not someone to hunt down and harrass as you are. If the former . . . I then get why you keep sidling up to “Bill is a godless pervert that has never been saved and is headed to hell”. Honestly, Larne . . . there is a point where you need rethink where this has taken you.

    So . . . I accuse you of not thinking very clearly. Your eagerness to accomplish your objectives has made you accept premisses and conclusions which are not very rational. If you want to do God’s will you have take Bill a lot more seriously than you have. Bill has asked you if you want to reopen the discussion, this time to perhaps speak much more freely that he was able to in the middle of the inquisition that was underway two years ago. Do you want to do that?

    • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
      January 2, 2016    

      Wait a second Alfred, so in Bill unrepentance and failure to admit his sin it’s NOT OK to sue him when because of that sin we are told to treat his as a “publican and tax collector”, but when the truth is in presenting by RG, Bill is considering suing them. I fail to see your logic. Why is it OK for him and not others? By your rules everybody is wrong. You also might ask Bill if he has considered suing IBLP to be reinstated and if he has contacted any attorneys. If he were to do that where does that leave you? Brother suing a Brother? Alfred you will have a problem, you will have one foot in the door with Bill and one foot in IBLP’s door with your son and two daughters along with the ATI program. You will have to choose one or the other, your kids or Bill! What will it be Alfred?

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 2, 2016    

      Bill is getting a lot of advice from a lot of people. Since a “corporation” is a legal entity set up by the government he has been looking at legal redress in those areas. I would tell you that when the rubber hits the road you have to figure out what applies where. The matters of 1 Cor. 6 have to do with “defrauding”, one believer stealing something from another. Lawsuits for cash and property owned but the individual would appear to be in mind. Bill getting the government to prohibit illegal of inappropriate use of corporate resources so that others and the name of the Lord are not damaged might be different, as might be the case for public defamation? I don’t know.

      But I do disagree with the notion that we get to declare a brother a non-brother any time we think he has not done right by us. Treating a brother “like” a heathen and publican does not make him not a brother! That goes without saying. In fact the separation is more severe than for a “Heathan man & Publican” as Paul said, since if we would similarly separate from all sinners we would need to “go out of the world”. (1 Cor. 5:10).

      I love both Bill and IBLP, including the Board. I am crying out for a means to restore fellowship.

    • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
      January 2, 2016    

      You write:
      “Bill is getting a lot of advice from a lot of people. Since a “corporation” is a legal entity set up by the government he has been looking at legal redress in those areas. I would tell you that when the rubber hits the road you have to figure out what applies where. The matters of 1 Cor. 6 have to do with “defrauding”, one believer stealing something from another. Lawsuits for cash and property owned but the individual would appear to be in mind.”

      Are you saying IBLP stole cash and property “owned by Bill”. It that is indeed what you are saying then Bill has misrepresented himself as to his wealth if any of the IBLP properties are in Bill’s name. If I recall all the copy rights are owned by Campus Teams, IBYC and IBLP. Probably much the same as anything you have developed or invented in your employment belongs to your employer.

      You write:
      “Bill getting the government to prohibit illegal of inappropriate use of corporate resources so that others and the name of the Lord are not damaged might be different, as might be the case for public defamation? I don’t know.”

      Remember Bill is a public figure and most of what has been said was witnessed by many. Bill suing RG would be a very slippery and risky move on his part. But again why is it ok for him and not others. What’s so special about him that he gets special treatment. Lastly we seek a SPRITIUAL SOLUTION!

      You write:
      “But I do disagree with the notion that we get to declare a brother a non-brother any time we think he has not done right by us. Treating a brother “like” a heathen and publican does not make him not a brother! That goes without saying. In fact the separation is more severe than for a “Heathan man & Publican” as Paul said, since if we would similarly separate from all sinners we would need to “go out of the world”. (1 Cor. 5:10).”

      Well I guess we disagree. But then again I’m not the one seeking legal action nor have I tried.

      You write:
      “I love both Bill and IBLP, including the Board. I am crying out for a means to restore fellowship.”

      I understand your cry but remember we have been crying a lot longer then you for the same thing. Confession, repentance, asking forgiveness and making restitution involves all of us, even the mighty. But PRIDE is a mightily strong drive. This whole mess has a very easy fix but Bill, the Board and IBLP/IBYC have done this to themselves by covering sin for 40 years. We are still waiting for a call from them! But my phone doesn’t ring, nor my email chime and my mailbox is empty. Just how sincere are they?

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 2, 2016    

      Are you saying IBLP stole cash and property “owned by Bill”?

      Not at all. Bill never owned that. He just is very concerned as to what is done with this ministry which was painstakingly built up over 50 years. It is his baby. You can’t blame him for that.

      Bill suing RG would be a very slippery and risky move on his part.

      Personally, I think it would be a slam dunk. I have witnessed the shody standards applied there for many years. Let’s start with the “Cabin Story” which singlehandedly slandered him irreparably before the entire world. It was actually part of his Wiki for a time. Nobody, NOBODY ever followed up with Gary with a critical eye? Why would they, it was so juicy. I know for a fact that there are major problems with the account of their star witness to “sexual abuse”, problems they clearly have never addressed. I challenged them on it. Again, why would they? They have an agenda, even as they announced to the world at the point they cut me loose, one I was messing with.

      Saying someone is a sexual pervert, abuser, groomer is defamation “per se”, meaning if false, it guarantees a conviction. With a public figure you also have to prove malice, evil intent, intent to hurt, but that would be endlessly easy to prove. RG has sought to hurt Bill, his ministry, his reputation, IBLP in every possible way. They have a reason, he hurt others, so they believe. WHY they did it is irrelevant – there is and has been emphatic malice in RG that any jury would see. Again, that jury would not get to consider the why of the malice . . . just: WAS it defamation, and WAS it published with a desire to hurt.

      But then again I’m not the one seeking legal action nor have I tried.

      Now you are being “disingenuous”. Sort of like Tony. Tony pursued, encouraged, talked up a “legal solution” for the same reasons you have supported it – it is just the only way to take down slippery Bill. You HAVE stated that nothing else will work. In Tony’s case he too sought at the last moment to wash his hands of it, failing to show up at the meeting convened to begin that process that he lobbied for. The Lord judges all of our hearts. “Do what I want – do it nicely, or by lawsuit, but you must do it” . . . that is NOT the spirit of 1 Cor. 6.

      Just how sincere are they?

      And, again, what makes you the final and just judge of these matters? Bill nor the Board agree with you. They are as sincere as can be. They have sought to fix things – tell the truth that they tried. Some of the 1980 abused have overtly forgiven Bill and IBLP for what was done to them at the hands of Steve. Bill claims he has letters and emails from all 7 to that effect. Do you have information to the contrary? The current matters are, well, nasty. A cloven hoof skittering through the business. A coordinated attack from a group determined to take Bill down, whatever it takes. A group that openly asked for tales to publish to that end. That sent the offended to the police and publicly published their tales instead of seeking redress first with the organization as Scripture demands. That then refused to grant Bill or his advocates access to the allegedly offended, using that access as leverage to, again, further that agenda. A group that refuses to publish a retraction on accounts that have been proven false years ago. That is instead supporting a long longed for lawsuit, version 1 of which just got tossed, another try in the works. And you encourage and enable them because, deep down, you want Bill to pay, vengeance for what you believe he did and didn’t do 35 years ago. How sincere are you, Larne?

    • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
      January 4, 2016    

      Alfred writes:
      ‘That does NOT sound like it is just”undesirable” . . . it sounds fairly emphatic.”

      I just disagree on this, while a best practice, the chapter also makes the comparison to when we will be appointed to judge after the second coming. And the question of just who a brother is based on his actions as I discussed above still applies.

      Alfred writes:
      “Again, the execution of God-given authority in a different direction than you agree with invalidates their authority, correct?”
      No it’s not correct! I have not seen any official documentation of the church’s rejection of the complaints against Bill except Dr. Smalley’s notes and his conversation with the pastor. Just because they were a God-given authority does not mean they were acting in a Godly fashion! If have seen churches split over God-given authority Elder board’s decisions to embrace the acceptance of sin in direct contradiction of scripture. Those decisions always involved church politics and money. That appeared to be the reason for the first decision in 1981. The second decision was over jurisdiction, just like having a land dispute in New York and filing a suit in Washington. And contrary to your later claim in your post, “Remember, it is not that the church didn’t deal with Bill . . . it did. It “failed to find fault” intead of condemn.”

      This was not the case at all. Fault was not addressed at all in the second attempt (2013/2014), and in the first church politics seemed to rule, find the documentation of the 1981 event to prove me wrong.

      You write:
      “We are really grieved at the evil that RG has perpetrated. And are quite sure that remedies for defamation were specifically invented to deal with this type of deliberate character assassination, playing fast and loose with the facts. Given that Bill has brought it up to us multiple times, I know he is thinking about it and counseled to consider it.”

      What evil had RG perpetrated, Ruth’s story and what I encounter and observed is true. And about character assassination, those that I have worked with have only proclaimed truth of the story we lived and observed. Which in fact mirrors the ATI era stories, which is one of the reason Bill is still fighting us because it shows a pattern of behavior. Proclaiming truth for the purity of the truth is not evil and in fact commanded in scripture. Your example of “Jesus knocking the baddies out of the temple” in a perfect example of one of those command that we are trying to follow. Again this is a Spiritual Battle that Bill will only address if he can change the narrative based on recounting the actual facts in relationship to motive and intention because the incidents and motives used to prove the motive and intention are not accurate. Gobblely gook, yep, right from Bill. Just look at his changing story.

      He claims he didn’t lie, but his letters say something different but now he says it was not his understanding. So he rewrites history and blames the victumn for not being clear.

      He makes a statement in Denver in front of five witnesses and now claims he had no idea that his brother went “all the way”. Regarding his brother, in the early 80’s Bill’s story was he did not understand the depth of the problem when told to him in 1976 because the three men did not use the biblical term “fornication”. Then when I made the statement that “he sent the women to the isolated Northwoods knowing of his brother immorality and there they were abused”. Bill changes the statement of what I have said to “he sent the women to the isolated Northwoods to be abused by his brother”. By the change of words he gets to reject all of my statement. In Denver I showed him where I never made that statement he was claimiming and the issue was settled. Now it back in the forefront.

      He doesn’t like the cabin story so after years of discussions and pleading with Gary 2008-2014/5 Gary modifies his story and Bill now claims “Ruth ran around the desk jumped in his lap because she was playful at the very second that Gary opened the door and walked in on them.” So Bill’s responsibility as a spiritual leader and authority is preserved and the blame is shifted to Gary’s memory and Ruth’s playfulness. Playfulness has only been added to his story this week.

      His obfuscation of the above is an attempt to deflect the truth of his actions to the failures of other.

      Alfred writes:
      “WHAT pain are we discussing? Slights? Uncomfortable hand holding? Foot tapping?! Things that are not even in the same league of what Ruth endured at the hands of Steve. I get so tired of this. Beieve it or not, much of what has driven us to step into this role and hang tenaciously in here has been those that HAVE in fact suffered morally, physically at the hands of perverted people . . . have also “endured” whatever Bill is and does . . . and get angry at what is being trying to be palmed off here . . . as “abuse”. There is a moral center that has galvanized . . . and frankly has had enough.”

      In another post I wrote yesterday, further down in this topic (not approved yet), I quote from one of Ruth’s hand written documents in RG’s “Ruth’s Story”, there are other hand written and Ruth penned typed documents in the story I would suggest you go back and read. If you are unwilling that would be an indication to me of your sincerity in seeking the truth.

      The abuse that Ruth suffered under was first directed by Bill which lead to the final culmination by Steve. Bill required complete loyalty and required Ruth to be emotionally bonded to him. After years of pain and after an emotional breakdown she went to him and asked to be released. Bill’s response to her was that for him to release her she would either have to go back to an entry level position or work for Steve in the Northwoods. She chose the latter. At some point she told Bill she was under moral pressure at the Northwood to which he did nothing about and the rest is history. Bill required a complete emotional bonding and loyalty. This theme runs thru Ruth era and in the stories of the women in the ATI era.

      Just how bad was it? Ruth and I dated the Christmas of 72 while she was home on Christmas vacation. Returning to Oak Brook she told Bill she met a man (with parent’s approval) who she wanted to write. He told her if God was calling her to write this man (me) He was calling her out of the ministry. (Ruth had committed to 10 years to IBYC). She was upset as she only wanted to write me. The next day they came to a compromise, Bill would read all my letters to her and help her write letter to me and determine when they should be sent. (Prompt replies would indicate interest on her part which he did not want to happen) The first letter I got from her was asking my views of some chapter in John. That continued for a year, I called her but she was chastised about that, so the calls stopped and the same with flowers I sent on her birthday (again with parental approval). Another time I was flying through Chicago and with her parent’s approval had made arrangements to have dinner with her and she was excited about it, once Bill and Steve found out about it they quickly sent Ruth out of town for the night to prevent the dinner. In two more vacation back home over the next two years, she was still interested and we continued dated. By the fourth vacation it became evident that our relationship had been stymied by Bill and could go nor further because of his control over Ruth so I ended it, which broke my heart. But God had a better plan that involved her rescue and redemption. That sound like a good start to a book and to finish the one she started. Something to do in retirement! What shall we call it? “Rescue from the Abyss”, “Out of the Grips of Satan” or “A Sad Story of Lies, Deceit and Joyful Redemption”. What do you think?

      She dated another man after me who she met in the church Bill required her to attend and that ended fairly quickly for the same reasons and Bill’s interference. The story above is but a small part of Bill’s influence over his female staff. In Ruth’s story there is a photo of Bill sitting in a wicker chair surrounded by seven standing women, I seem to recall that the photo has caused you and Bill great distress based on your previous private inquiries to me. However, that picture does project a true “image” of the Bill’s influence with the women he surrounded himself with. It might have been taken in jest or at a fun time but maybe in God’s providence it was ordained by Him for an “appropriate” time. As they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

      Alfred writes:
      “There is a moral center that has galvanized . . . and frankly has had enough.”

      I couldn’t agree more with you. It is morally centered, it has galvanized and we too have had enough, 47 years of enough, 47 years of lies, 47 years of covering sin. This is a Spiritual battle, you have quoted Ephesians 6:12 which aptly describes the past 47 years, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” I know what side I on, what side are you on?

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 5, 2016    

      Just because they were a God-given authority does not mean they were acting in a Godly fashion!

      Which comes back to, “If they don’t decide the way I think they should, they have no right to be deciding.”

      Proclaiming truth for the purity of the truth is not evil and in fact commanded in scripture.

      Proclaiming half-truths and lies would be evil and condemned by Scripture. THAT is what makes it defamation. Bill has been accused of “sexual abuse” by RG repeatedly. So far I have read what they have provided and I have told them personally that they are in trouble. They have one witness that testifies to that, an account and witness they have not really vetted. Beyond that we now actually have the State of Illinois weighing in for the first time on the other accusations, failing to find “sexual abuse” or “sexual harassment”. That would be a “NO”, he is not guilty of those legally defined terms. And that makes defamation, when the allegations are presented with intent to hurt. Even this delicious term “groomer” much hurled. That one alone is “defamation per se”. They cannot defend that, because groomers groom for sex, and Bill never engaged in any such thing.

      Bill changes the statement of what I have said to “he sent the women to the isolated Northwoods to be abused by his brother”.

      That is exactly what you are, however, implying, Larne. A reasonably intelligent person would never send women to work with a morally compromised man if there were not some intent to “feed the wolf”, right?

      In Ruth’s story there is a photo of Bill sitting in a wicker chair surrounded by seven standing women, I seem to recall that the photo has caused you and Bill great distress based on your previous private inquiries to me. However, that picture does project a true “image” of the Bill’s influence with the women he surrounded himself with.

      I asked Bill about the picture. He said the girls thought it would be a great joke, given the immensity of the chair at the restaurant, I guess. “Bill’s Harem”. A JOKE.

      Bill with Ruth and others

      Bill recalls pondering or even stating that he trusted that that would never get out. Doing so was just a tad low, in my opinion. You have your perspective, you have the picture, you have allowed it to be circulated among the unsaved who have used it to laugh not just at Bill but at believers in general. Techniques that propaganda experts would be well versed in. People do not read the fine print – they see a headline and a picture, and they run with it. Again, “defamation per se”, if creating a perception that was in fact false . . . of a cult leader with his “girls”. It would be for a court to decide if false and posted “with malice”. I am not implying that Bill would do that, but this is not a game.

      I know what side I on, what side are you on?

      Some pretty good people have misfired in some pretty bad ways, Larne. God is the final judge of us all. A couple of verses to that effect:

      “But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.” (Acts 13:50)

      “They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service” (John 16:2)

    • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
      January 5, 2016    

      Alfred writes:
      “Again, “defamation per se”, if creating a perception that was in fact false . . . of a cult leader with his “girls”. It would be for a court to decide if false and posted “with malice”. I am not implying that Bill would do that, but this is not a game.”

      A picture tells a story not just what the photographer sees but what the viewer of the picture sees. An unrelated baby picture will bring back memories of a child. A photo of an old man fishing will bring back memories of a grandfather and a your boy. That’s not defamation per se. That not defrauding. A picture is truly worth a thousand words to the photographer and the viewer. You see what you want to see and remember what you want to remember. An artist might paint a classic nude that is praised as classic art while others see it as porn. Your view of Bill is as a great savior, ours is a unrepentant sinner.

      “posted “with malice”, Give me a brake, no, its a picture, that’s all, open for interpretation. Two of the women in that picture were at my home this summer with their families for a picnic, they were not part of the scandal, and neither one has complained about being in the picture. Regarding “this is not a game” your are so right, remember I buried the love of my life after a four year awful battle with cancer that the doctors said was probably stress educed. She had nightmares till 9 months before she died of the horrors caused by Bill and his brother. Yes Bill too but is a different way. You ask where the stress came from? Other have suffered and died too. You mention a verse from Acts and one from John. I will still stick to my Matthew 7:15-23 or Matthew 25:21 and Matthew 18:1-14 verses and then let God decide. From what I see from your comment based on your interaction with him and his comments to us it is oblivious he is not interested in repentance. Just moving on focused building another empire and changing history.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 5, 2016    

      Well, I disagree. I believe that a jury would find that “defamation”. See how it is being used: http://starcasm.net/archives/263843 The article doesn’t even talk about Ruth, but recounts Gretchen’s false testimony . . . with your picture. And “starcasm.net” found the picture so valuable that they put their watermark on it, because they KNOW people will want to share. The damage to Bill’s character goes on and on. If the picture leaves a damaging false impression, that is libel.

    • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
      January 5, 2016    

      Alfred writes:
      “Well, I disagree. I believe that a jury would find that “defamation”. See how it is being used: http://starcasm.net/archives/263843 The article doesn’t even talk about Ruth, but recounts Gretchen’s false testimony . . . with your picture. And “starcasm.net” found the picture so valuable that they put their watermark on it, because they KNOW people will want to share. The damage to Bill’s character goes on and on. If the picture leaves a damaging false impression, that is libel.

      No Alfred, the picture is a photo of Ruth and her friends all dressed up going out to dinner with their boss who happens to be Billy. It was published in a story about Ruth who worked for Bill. The photo is visual proof that she indeed had more then a “selfie with a star” photo in regards to Bill. There is nothing in the caption of the photo that suggests anything else, oh wait there are no captions under any of the five photos in the story and this is the only one of Ruth and Bill.

      What has damaged Bill’s character is his own actions which is evident by him being placed on administrative leave, his resignation and the failure of the board to reinstate him. The first two items made the headlines and then the sinful actions of one of Bill’s ardent followers ratcheted up the media pressure last May with the molestation charges against that young man. Bill’s ill-advised interview with the Daily Mail, a British scandal publication, claiming he healed this specific ardent follower by his teachings didn’t help him either. Then not long after that interview to have it backfire on him with the ardent follower’s Ashley Madison revelations and encounter with the porn star. (see your copy of my August 31st letter I sent Bill and cc: you on Sept 2nd) Bill has put himself in the public headlines not me. Again all of this was fixable starting in 1969, 1976, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1987-1991, 2006, 2013, 2014, 2015 and that does not count many other efforts I don’t know the details to.

      What do you know of copyright law? Do you know who actually owns the photo? Was this photo copyrighted? Who took the picture? How many original copies are out there? Is it in the public domain? You sent me a photo of your family 9/13/14 without your permission could I publish that? It’s not copyrighted nor is there any restriction in your email? It’s just a nice family picture I could use with one of my stories, who owns it? (Don’t worry I won’t) Do you remember the legal case of the monkey and the selfie? If you want a good laugh read it, it will give you some insight in photography law.
      ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/11/11/the-monkey-selfie-copyright-battle-is-still-going-on-and-its-getting-weirder/ )

      Back to the picture, I imply nothing in with the inclusion of the photo in “Ruth’s Story”. It just shows Ruth had an association with Bill. To me it does say more just like the photo of the “White Pigeon” to me and Dove to you does, we look at the photos differently, its art, its life, and it expressed the emotions of the soul based on the life story of each individual person. I have great wonderful memories of my grandfather including fishing, when I see a picture of an old man and a boy fishing, fond memories flood back in my mind. But to boy who was abused by an grandfather those images bring back a very different flood of memories. That’s what art the way art works, its in the mind of the beholder. There were lots of fun times at the institute and this might of been one of them but there were also nightmares. Each one of the women in the picture has their own stories some good some not. I can only speak for one and it was not good.

  • Dan Dan
    January 1, 2016    

    You write
    The point is that you are insisting that God’s promise in Joshua 1:8 only applies to Joshua.

    Actually, I do not insist that God’s promise is exclusive to Joshua. The point is that you cannot lift one verse totally out of its context and apply it whenever and wherever you wish. You have stated, Joshua 1:8 promises personal prosperity however one defines it. Clearly there are blessings to memorization and mediation. Claiming personal prosperity and miraculous healing from dyslexia is not one of them. The text has more to say about being courageous and obedient than just mediation. Bill insists that mediation is some magic activity that will ensure success. As such, he turns the scripture into a formula for personal prosperity. Until recently, I never put Bill in the same camp as the Joel Osteen’s of the world but the more I think about it, he is selling the same juice. Why does he not quote more of this remarkable promise to Joshua. Words like verse 9: “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.” The entire passage (1-9) is a fabulous encouragement to anyone embarking on a bold and new endeavor.

    The reason Bill does not quote more of this text is that it speaks of a God who is personal, intimate, and worthy of trust. Unfortunately, Bill wants to lift this one verse out of the entire message to Joshua and in doing so, turns God into his personal genie. This is how Bill orders his world. Make it a place where he is in control. I think you stated perfectly prosperity “however one defines it”. Isn’t this how you put it? So my question to you is this: “in your view, does the promise of personal prosperity that Joshua 1:8 is suppose to declare include freedom from habitual sin”?

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 1, 2016    

      Bill insists that mediation is some magic activity that will ensure success

      The following just sounds like a promise to me. That is how I take it. Lots of believers agree, outside of Bill’s orbit.

      “But his delight is in the law of the Lord;
      and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
      And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water,
      that bringeth forth his fruit in his season;
      his leaf also shall not wither;
      and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.” (Psalms 1:2-3)

      And we have already had long discussions on the meaning of success . . . that Jesus meets the full definition, including the horrors of the cross. Paul meets the definition, including being shipwrecked 4 times, stoned to death . . . and getting back up again. And ending his life alone, killed by Nero. Bill teaches nothing else. If he is into anything it is “getting ready to suffer”.

      in your view, does the promise of personal prosperity that Joshua 1:8 is suppose to declare include freedom from habitual sin”?

      Here are Paul’s words on that:

      What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

      But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

      For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

      Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. (Romans 7:7-8,19-20)

      Sounded like Paul struggled with lust . . . would you agree? Lust is a habit that dogs many. Was Paul not meditating in Scripture day and night? I am sure he was. So . . . the battle was won, but not immediately.

      • Dan Dan
        January 1, 2016    

        You write:
        Sounded like Paul struggled with lust . . . would you agree?

        No I do not agree. Once again you are reading something into the text that is not there. While lust might have been the issue we are not told. Maybe it was multiple issues. Maybe it was his reoccurring anger. Maybe it was his impatience. The point being, we are not told but we are told the solution and it is not my own anxiety, my own fear, or the number of hours of the day that I sit and mediate. Paul is clear: “who shall deliver me from this body of death… thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

        Let the text speak for itself. If we believe it is God’s word, then it quite capable of speaking for itself.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 1, 2016    

          You write:
          Sounded like Paul struggled with lust . . . would you agree?

          No I do not agree. Once again you are reading something into the text that is not there.

          I think I was completely accurate. Please explain how Paul was not struggling with lust. You do know the definition of concupiscence, a sexual word.

          Romans 7:7-9

          What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

          But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

          For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

          • Dan Dan
            January 2, 2016    

            Since you have stated that you respect the opinions of W.E. Vine, I would refer you to his very fine dictionary that has been a standard for years. The Greek word in Romans 7 can mean sexual lust but it can also mean anything else that is coveted. It is a fairly broad term that is used even in the context of idolatry. So you are free to believe that Paul was referring to sexual lust, he might have been referring to it, you just cannot use the text to say it categorically.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 2, 2016    

            Since you have stated that you respect the opinions of W.E. Vine

            W. E. Vine is my homey :-)

            W. E. Vine Library

            The definition . . . Strongs:

            ἐπιθυμία epithymia; from 1937; a longing (especially for what is forbidden): — concupiscence, desire, lust (after).

            Vines:

            2. epithumia (ἐπιθυμία, 1939) denotes “coveting,” Rom. 7:7-8, rv; kjv, “lust” and “con cupiscence”; the commandment here referred to convicted him of sinfulness in his desires for unlawful objects besides that of gain. See desire, lust.

            It is used several times in the new testament for good passions, but overwhelmingly otherwise. The context here would tell us that it is bad. I guess you could covet money, but that has another name. Passions that strong are pretty well always . . . sex. What else would you think that single Paul would be having the strongest of desires for?

      • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
        January 3, 2016    

        You have to take the whole chapter in context to get the full perspective of what the Psalmist is saying. That contrast of good and evil and in the end its all up to God because He knows his ways, wow, how awesome a God, don’t you agree?

        He is like a tree
        planted by streams of water
        that yields its fruit in its season,
        and its leaf does not wither.
        In all that he does, he prospers.

        The wicked are not so,
        but are like chaff that the wind drives away.

        Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
        nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;

        for the Lord knows the way of the righteous,
        but the way of the wicked will perish.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 3, 2016    

          don’t you agree?

          No, I don’t. Not when I read Joshua 1:8 and Psalm 119:99.

  • Dan Dan
    January 1, 2016    

    You write:
    ” Bill recalls things differently, especially the last statement. I did ask him about this specifically. I am processing what you are saying, but I am also processing what he is saying”

    Good. I am sure he will remember things differently. He has a habit of doing this. Seems like he is already rewriting his memory from the recent meetings in Denver. My point here though is urge you to consider that women did scream, they did vocalize, they did let it be known they were on a path or were being led on a path that would put them into a sexual relationship with Bill’s personally appointed Sr. VP. Sure, they could have screamed when Steve was harassing them, but they did speak out. They spoke (and I am not suggesting I personally know that all of them did speak out or any more than the two that I know) but Bill was somehow too confused, too busy, or too fearful that if it ever got out that he would be fired from his own organization. They also spoke to the three executives whom we all saw as some kind of corporate authority and they spoke with him. Whatever the excuse, he failed in his duties as the CEO, he failed as the father figure he claimed he was, and he failed in his duties as an ordained minister. This failure would not be so bad. He could have recovered. However, he has lied, deceived, and assassinated the character of those witnesses who chose to stand up to him. In my own opinion, this is the real grievance. I am confident that he lied to his board of directors, he has lied about the three executives who confronted him, and he has lied about his own physical involvement with his own secretary. And if I read between the lines of your own commentary correctly, you are suggesting she has not been all that truthful. Well I knew her and if anything she was more than honest about anything and everything she did or did not do. Of course since she is dead she can hardly defend herself so I guess she is fair game for those who want to degrade the character of Bill’s accusers in an attempt to right his own brokenness.

    Finally, Larne has been so involved in the details for longer than I have. He was impacted by Bill’s deceit way more than I. So I happily bow to his version of timelines, details, and dates. He has demonstrated more patience and tolerance of Bill than I would ever have thought imaginable.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 1, 2016    

      women did scream, they did vocalize, they did let it be known they were on a path or were being led on a path that would put them into a sexual relationship with Bill’s personally appointed Sr. VP

      WHAT do you base that statement on? Small words for a simple mind. WHEN did they vocalize and what did they say? I am aware of one woman that confided trouble to the Smalleys, then recanted when it was followed up on. At what point prior to 1980 did a woman go to someone to accuse Steve?

      • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
        January 2, 2016    

        Ruth told Bill she was under moral pressure at the Northwood in late 77 or 78. If you go back and read one of my earlier post Bill admits in an interview of knowing of ongoing immorality with one of the women in fall of 1979.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 2, 2016    

          “Under moral pressure” What did that mean? What did she mean, and how did she communicate that to him? When I go to the beach I feel “under moral pressure”.

          And, again, is that the woman that told Gary about stuff, then recanted in front of Bill and his father?

          • Dan Dan
            January 2, 2016    

            You write

            “Under moral pressure” What did that mean?

            You need to understand the corporate culture that Bill had created. No one ever used the word sex, sexual intercourse, etc. We were taught “don’t even speak of those things done in darkness”, (Eph 5:12). At retreats when we might watch a movie, even kissing scenes received a hand in front of the projector lens. So it would have been very appropriate for her to say “moral pressure” because anything else would have broken the code of our corporate culture. Since Bill created that culture it was his responsibility to understand what “moral pressure” meant and take appropriate action. Now Bill is saying “moral pressure” was too confusing for him. In our corporate culture “moral pressure” would have been clear enough to understand “I am being tempted to engage with someone sexually. Today it might not be clear because sex and sexuality is blasted at us from every corner but in that corporate culture it would have been abundantly clear.

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            January 2, 2016    

            Your write:
            “Under moral pressure” What did that mean? What did she mean, and how did she communicate that to him?

            She told his directly mouth to ear. I can’t tell you if it was face to face or on the phone. Years later I recall her discussing the event with him on the phone.

            Your write:
            “And, again, is that the woman that told Gary about stuff, then recanted in front of Bill and his father?”

            No that was not her, it was someone else. That event happen in 1969 and I don’t know which staff wife (not Gary) she talked to. I do think based on your various comment you have made there is some confusion regarding your understanding of the time, what and who of the events. It can be confusing if you have not lived it. In 1969 Ruth was in High School in Mt. Vernon, WA

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 2, 2016    

            She told his directly mouth to ear

            The biggest question, Larne . . . was she trying to tell Bill that she felt pressure from Steve to become promiscuous? “Moral pressure” can mean different things, including “pressure to think dirty” or “pressure to give in sexually to someone’s advances”.

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            January 2, 2016    

            You are a mathematician, add the numbers:
            Pretty, “groomed” compliant woman + isolated location in the middle of nowhere with no supervision + historical immoral man = Moral Pressure

            Once he had his prey he made them watch porn paid for by the Institute and rented by his right hand man who was a senior administrator. I remember flying supplies to the Northwood and movies were not unusual. In those days to rent a movie it was on 16mm film projectors in either cans or large film boxes . Bill allow old movies classics for entertainment up north. On time while loading the movies, the “administrator” told me not to open the film cases which I thought was odd. First I was not interested in the old classis movies and would have never opened them anyway and second I had no reason to ever suspect they were porn. When the scandal broke I gain a new understanding. “Coincidentally” the “inaccurate” testimony of that administrator was what lead to the dismissal of the first lawsuit in 1983.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 2, 2016    

            That makes me ill, Larne

            What I am hearing is that Ruth tried to tell Bill what was going on during her stay at Northwoods? That is the “moral pressure” conversation?

            I will be asking Bill for his recollection and clarification. We are having a great many conversations. That, again, just makes me ill.

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            January 2, 2016    

            Thank you Alfred, but you have no idea of the pain that was inflicted on her, sadly she was not alone.

            We were married six months after leaving what we affectionately called the “Funny Farm”, she was so controlled by the pressure of rejection by the Gothard family, that she passed out in the grocery story trying to decide what to buy. She was overwhelmed with making any decision and that was not from me. I was happy at any decision she made. She couldn’t go across the street in our semi rural neighborhood without doing her hair or dressing up. To me she look great in jeans, shorts and her hair in curlers. That was the training that was forced on her by the Gothards. By the time she died she ran a home business, homeschool and had a neighborhood women’s bible study, even while undergoing chemo. It took years of deprograming.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 3, 2016    

            I am sorry, Larne. Obviously all of what she endured at the hands of Steve must have played a role there as well, correct?

      • Dan Dan
        January 2, 2016    

        You write:

        “WHAT do you base that statement on? Small words for a simple mind.”

        Ok, so I am going to tell you this again for about the third or fourth time. In one meeting the single guys were asked to leave because several of our secretaries were going to remind Bill of what they had told him about his brother and Sr. VP.. I don’t know if there were 2 or 10 but it was more than a couple because several were there. However, one of them wanted us to stay because she wanted everyone to know what she had told Bill and because she had nothing to hide. Today, I honor her courage. She was very clear in what she told Bill and she was also very clear about what Bill had asked her for clarification. It was things like did he try to touch you below the wast, above etc. Let me know if this is not clear enough and I will be more graphic if you require.
        In response to all of this, Bill kept saying “I forgot”. So I asked him directly how could he forget? His response: “I have learned to put these things out of my mind”.

        So let me know if this is not clear enough for you. I have asked earlier and my question was ignored – how many witnesses does it take? How many people, going to Bill to tell him what his little brother and hand picked Sr. VP is doing before he is negligent of his duties, both as a corporate CEO, father figure he claimed to be, and as an ordained minister? Scripture speaks of 2 or 3. One might think that one would be enough given what he was teaching to hundreds of thousands. For him to say now that “I did not know” or the reports were too confusing, or I was too busy…Is just more lies, deceit, and obstruction to the truth. Frankly, he is hiding behind your kindness and belief in him and using you to protect himself.

        And one more thing, the idea that he was too busy and running around the country in his fancy Lear Jet is just nonsense. I was there. We had plenty of fun and while we were busy, there was plenty of times to sit on that jet and play games. I never beat him in checkers but one night on that plane I beat him in this other game that I had never played before or since. He was pretty hacked off about it too.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 2, 2016    

          In response to all of this, Bill kept saying “I forgot”. So I asked him directly how could he forget? His response: “I have learned to put these things out of my mind”.

          So, in this meeting she relayed a conversation between herself and Bill. When did you hear this and when did her chat with Bill take place, both in relation to the time secretaries were sent up to the Northwoods to be where Steve was?

          And since you mention 1-2 other witnesses, once again . . . Who communicated what to him when, in relation to the point secretaries went up to the Northwoods to hang with Steve?

          BTW, in conversation today Bill mentioned that it was not he but his father that sent the women up north. Do you know anything about that?

          • Dan Dan
            January 2, 2016    

            You ask:
            So, in this meeting she relayed a conversation between herself and Bill. When did you hear this and when did her chat with Bill take place, both in relation to the time secretaries were sent up to the Northwoods to be where Steve was?

            You know, at some point you are just going to have to accept the fact that barring more of the impacted women calling you up and reliving the worst time of their lives, a time they all want to forget, you are never going to get all of the facts you are looking for. But since you asked, I will give you my best reconciliation.

            It was in one of our all day meetings when we were dealing with the reality of multiple women being sexually harassed and abused by Bill’s SR VP and little brother. It would have been May or June of the year. Late morning if I remember correctly. I do not know the exact number of years prior that the one was involved with Steve but it would had to have been a couple of years because it was before he went up north to work on the Character Sketches,

            The deal about his father sending girls north to work with Steve. This would be laughable if it were not so disgusting. Mr. Gothard is dead so Bill can say anything he wants. But the simple reality is that it suggests that Bill was not running the operations of IBYC it was either his brother or his father. While I am confident in saying both had strong influences on Bill, the idea that his father sent girls north is pure nonsense (I would love to use stronger language but the family nature of this blog prohibits it). Bill was the President, CEO, founder, etc. He was responsible for the staff, staff operations, etc. He took a personal interest in everything. I don’t think any staff person was moved anywhere without his knowledge and/or approval. To now say it was his father that was responsible is so far from reality I must question his sanity. Maybe dementia is setting in? Even if Mr. Gothard did, Bill would have to had authorized it. He was the President and CEO!!!!

            I am sorry, but Bill is just floating excuses by you and hoping you will be his defense council so he does not have to deal with it himself. I don’t mean you any disrespect. You and your family has been blessed in some way by Bill. You are a loyal foot solder. But my fear is that you are the poor guy that is assigned to run head long into the field of fire so the general can enjoy is breakfast.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 2, 2016    

            To now say it was his father that was responsible is so far from reality I must question his sanity

            What role DID Mr. Gothard Sr. have in this whole business? I see his name referenced repeatedly. Sounds like he was front and center, conducting interviews at the very least. Why does it seem unreasonable that he lobbied for or actually gave direction that some should go there?

            But . . . I will ask again, in detail, about this.

            I do not know the exact number of years prior that the one was involved with Steve but it would had to have been a couple of years because it was before he went up north to work on the Character Sketches,

            This is somewhat significant to me. Is it reasonable that you could communicate the name of the secretary to me privately, contact@discoveringgrace.com ? It would be solely for the purpose of jogging Bill’s memory on this. This is significant, again, because you allege that there was no doubt left in that earlier meeting with Bill about what Steve had done and was capable of, and that the secretary testified for the purpose of documenting the earlier meeting in front of witnesses.

            We are not unjust here. I make not secret of the fact that we will give Bill every benefit of the doubt, hence the repeated challenges on things that seem unclear. But the ultimate goal is not to absolve Bill, but to come to ground on the truth.

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            January 2, 2016    

            This is getting to be fun seeing what new lies Billy comes up with next. Now he is blaming his father. Mr. Gothard Sr. was in charge of the finance department not art work and production of the books, that was under the control of Steve and Bill and others did the grunt work and coordination. The girls that worked up north mostly did production work or related administrative work. There was an art department there. The artist who did the Character Sketch books lived near by. Ruth still did most Bill’s secretarial work as Bill spent a lot of time at the Northwoods with the expanded staff in late 79-80. Mr. Gothard, Sr. had nothing to do with production except pay the bills. If you remember the story of Ruth it was Bill who gave her a choice of going back to a entry level position or go work at the Northwoods for his brother.

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            January 2, 2016    

            As I have said for the past two and a half years I refuse to divulge the names of the 1980 women! The one woman has put her name out there and that was her choice. The others I have been in contact with do not want to get involved and I respect that more then proving my points. The ones I have not been in contact with I feel the same way. I consider all of them friend even if I haven’t been in contact with them for decades. But you don’t have to jog Bill’s memory. If he shares their names it will show how much he really values them! Or should I say values his own skin over theirs. They have been through enough hell to get drug into this mess. Please respect their privacy. You might find you are opening Pandora’s box or a sleep giant.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 2, 2016    

            You might find you are opening Pandora’s box or a sleep giant.

            The time to worry about pandora and sleeping Giants is past, Larne. I would rather have it all out in the open – without compromising privacy – than deal with the stress of endless shadows.

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            January 2, 2016    

            I missed this comment. I agree truth is most important. That said I have not quoted the women except where it is in published print. There are other stories that are theirs to tell not me. What is more important is protecting them and their privacy. Since I have not shared those unpublished stories, there is nothing to verify. That sacred trust was entrusted to me by Ruth and now by her memory.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 2, 2016    

            I missed this comment

            I think we are cross posting with Dan. This forum format stinks. He was discussing a testimony of a secretary he personally heard, referencing a conversation she had had with Bill previously.

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            January 2, 2016    

            Alfred says:
            “The time to worry about pandora and sleeping Giants is past, Larne. I would rather have it all out in the open – without compromising privacy – than deal with the stress of endless shadows.”

            God talks of protecting the widows, orphans, fatherless, ect, for me that applies here and you won’t get that information from me. Personally I would rather have the “stress of the endless shadows” then involve them. They are not involved, except one and don’t want to be involved. They have endured enough! Just think of it if they were your daughters, wife or sister and I was digging for the same information your are. What would you do? Is Bill more important then them or are they a lost sheep? (not that their lost in the scriptural sense)

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 3, 2016    

            Is Bill more important then them or are they a lost sheep? (not that their lost in the scriptural sense)

            Is Bill important at all? Important to the Lord, important to you? He is important to us. We know him and care about him, we know but one woman by virtue of one one-hour interview who was abused by Steve in the 1970’s. And we know what he has done and meant to us. The Lord has allowed us to be an advocate for him at this point in the story. We will seek to keep our conscience clear before our common Lord by seeking and acknowledging the truth as we find it. I have humbled myself multiple times as I faced some seeming insurmountable evidence, prepared for the cold shower of having to publicly admit being wrong. So far, at each juncture, things have resolved, in some cases in competely unexpected ways. I KNOW the Lord is with us. Have no idea what His long term plans are, but I can only tell you that by all rights this website should be gone. And yet, right now, here we are.

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            January 2, 2016    

            Alfred writes:
            “THIS FORUM FORMAT STINKS”

            Hallelujah, we finally agree on something!

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 3, 2016    

            :-)

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            January 2, 2016    

            Alfred, I forgot to add maybe you could check with RG and they could help you with a better format:)

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 3, 2016    

            We started on a completely different path, a lot more high powered. With the time we had to give it just would never happened. As it was we were the second group to shoulder this, the first better financed and organized. It seemed better to run with with the jalopy that could than be left with the never finished hot rod.

            Frankly, if RG had not booted me, I doubt this would have ever flown. I respect the effective platform they built and I used to get my concerns out. But maybe the Lord had another plan.

  • Dan Dan
    January 1, 2016    

    You write:
    “I go with my “gut” here”

    You are free to go with whatever gut you may want to use. Facts are that 7 young women were sexually abused & harassed by the corporate Sr. VP, right under Bill’s “nose”, three executives tried to step in and confront him, others told him what was happening, if from Linda’s testimony, done of those women, living in close physical proximity with each other, knew that was happening to the others… Frankly this flies in the face of everything I know about women. You have more of them in our life than I but I have plenty and they usually know more about me than I know about me. They have a radar then we men just don’t seem to possess. The idea that done of them knew or even guessed at what was happening is well… just bizarre.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 1, 2016    

      I appologize for the lack of editing of posts with this software. One of the concerns we hope to figure out – probably would require rehosting, which is no small task. In any case, your comments were left a tad confusing.

      if from Linda’s testimony, done of those women, living in close physical proximity with each other, knew that was happening to the others

      Nothing Linda said suggested that she missed out on any part of this, that she was unaware. Quite the opposite, she was in close proximity to some of the abuse to others, enough to hear in graphic, painful detail.

      • Dan Dan
        January 2, 2016    

        Linda writes in her testimony:

        Even we did not know what was happening to each other. We were each sworn to secrecy with the promise of marriage.

        This is the part I find amusing if not a bit misleading. Linda is a mature women and she has earned the right to say or believe anything she wants. I have enormous respect for her. She has been through hell. But this statement just flies in the face of everything I know about women. As I stated earlier, women have a radar that we men will never understand. The idea that 5-10 (I don’t remember the number)women can live and work in close physical proximity and not know that something is going on of a romantic and sexual nature is well, defies everything I know about them.

  • Dan Dan
    January 2, 2016    

    You ask:

    Is it reasonable that you could communicate the name of the secretary to me privately…

    Sorry I will not. I would not without her permission and I would not even know where to start looking for her. She and all of the other women were put through hell, first in their relationship with Steve, then Bill, and then they were fired with the promise of “restoration” whatever that means.

    I do respect your desire to get to the truth but as I said, without speaking to each woman personally you will never be satisfied. However, you do have the testimony of guys by the name of Larne, Tony, Gary, Bill W, Ed, Ken, Gary, and Dan. That is 8 men who were there, who lived through it, who knew each of the women involved and had a close working relationship with Bill. If I may say so, each one is an honorable man. Each one is as committed to the truth both morally as well as Bionically. Each was deeply impacted by the ministry and Bill before they went to work for him and each has had their own hell to live through because of Bill. At some point you are just going to have to believe that if the house is bellowing smoke, if the chimney has fire shooting out of it, if the door handles are glowing red, and the shingles are melting…. maybe there is a fire inside.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 3, 2016    

      I do respect your desire to get to the truth but as I said, without speaking to each woman personally you will never be satisfied

      Not necessarily. But you know that Tony, with data from Gary, stumbled badly with the “Cabin Story” . . . and he misfired on several other things that I know beyond the shadow of a doubt. As I said, the devil has his own agenda, and if nothing else he has done his best to make this as big of a mess as possible. I am gunshy – it is our responsibility to come to ground on the accusations and not accept things because people who mean well say so. And . . . I believe Bill. Innocent until proven guilty. That is the right thing to do.

      • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
        January 3, 2016    

        You keep missing the elephant in the room regarding the cabin story. Its Bill, he encouraged the behavior, trained (groomed) the women, encouraged the opportunities for them to come to his private spaces after when he was there alone. Its not where the story took place, Bill’s office in Oak Brook, his cabin, his bedroom in Crazy Bear or his office there. Nor what she was wearing or not wearing. Its that Bill allowed it to happen at all and encouraged the lap sitting. This story has been out there for 28 years before Bill tried to enlist Gary’s help to change it on Wikipedia. Why did he not dispute it in the proceeding 28 years? My guess he was under external pressure from somewhere or somebody, that been the story with my involvement with him for the past 36 years.

        Alfred says:
        “I believe Bill. Innocent until proven guilty. That is the right thing to do.”

        The cabin story will never be tried in a court of law, Ruth walks with Jesus, I’m not suing, and statute of limitations is loooong past! Does that make Bill innocent since he won’t get a civil trial? Oh I forgot we are not allowed to sue. Lets look at the facts.

        1. Gary walked in on Ruth sitting on Bill’s lap in some kind of night wear in Bill’s cabin probably mid 70s
        2. This was from Gary’s 35+ year old notes that were not disputed till around 2008
        3. Bill changes story on Wikipedia around 2008
        4. I learn of the story 2013 while Ruth told me about everything this was not one of the stories. Probably not important enough. Except the part of her frequently sitting on Bill lap and the good night hugs in her Northwood sleeping quarters.
        5. 2014 Smalley’s story slightly changes, location probably Bill Office. Story now at least a 40+ year old.
        6. 2014 Bill adds part that Ruth ran around his desk, surprisingly jumped in his lap just when Gary opened the office door and walked in and seeing Ruth sitting in his lap.
        7. 2014 Norma adds to the story that she counseled Ruth about the event and Ruth told her that Bill called her to his office. With that in mind and since the story has her in night ware of some type, it means it was probably latter in the evening when Bill called her and probably knew she she would be getting ready for bed and maybe told her to come as she was and throw on a coat. She was following her spiritual authority, who had trained and groomed her and she would have done as she was told.

        I see that as a real possibility, I and others already know Bill liked to give the girls good night hugs and Ruth told me and others that Bill would call her late at night to check up on her and she hated it. For me the pieces fit.

        You wanted the truth, Norma’s part of the story as told to me in Denver puts Ruth in Bill’s office (as they now remember) after hours on his command, fact. Gary’s part puts her in Bill’s lap in nightwear, fact. Why he wanted her there I don’t know maybe for work or a good night hug or both. Personally I would have stuck with the original story from Gary’s notes. This takes us back to my original comments at the beginning of this post.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 3, 2016    

          he encouraged the behavior, trained (groomed) the women, encouraged the opportunities for them to come to his private spaces after when he was there alone.

          We don’t believe that statement, Larne.

          This story has been out there for 28 years before Bill tried to enlist Gary’s help to change it on Wikipedia. Why did he not dispute it in the proceeding 28 years

          That one is so easy, Larne. He has never been terribly concerned about his reputation, believing that false accusations will work themselves out. He was particularly dismissive of the Internet. When someone presented him with the account and told him the significance of his “wiki”, suddenly he got it.

          1. Gary walked in on Ruth sitting on Bill’s lap in some kind of night wear in Bill’s cabin probably mid 70s

          On July 26, 2014 I emailed Gary: “I was wondering if the comments you made about “sheer nightwear” and “skimpy nightgown” was merging some other things you observed at the Northwoods with this event at HQ?”

          On July 27th he replied: “I’m the last person who should be giving any details about what “she” was wearing and where it happened. The memory is what my wife remembers. Norma was a BFF with “her.””

          So, the “night wear” account is in the same category as the “cabin”. You told me yourself that the cabin did not even exist when Gary was there.

          2. This was from Gary’s 35+ year old notes that were not disputed till around 2008

          Again, Larne, THERE WAS NO CABIN when Gary was there. Please, explain this.

          3. Bill changes story on Wikipedia around 2008

          No, I think the powers that be over there dropped it because of all of the nonsense that had gone on. That was about the time they took the wiki into “protected” mode, I believe.

          4. I learn of the story 2013 while Ruth told me about everything this was not one of the stories. Probably not important enough. Except the part of her frequently sitting on Bill lap and the good night hugs in her Northwood sleeping quarters.

          Larne, thank you for your honesty. If it was ANYTHING like what was reported in Gary’s notes, she most definitely would have remembered it.

          5. 2014 Smalley’s story slightly changes, location probably Bill Office. Story now at least a 40+ year old.

          That is a mischaracterization. It changed DRAMATICALLY! :-) All we know for sure is that she was on his lap . . . fully clothed . . . in Bill’s office. No nightie.

          6. 2014 Bill adds part that Ruth ran around his desk, surprisingly jumped in his lap just when Gary opened the office door and walked in and seeing Ruth sitting in his lap.

          He told me that. “Playful”, she was.

          7. 2014 Norma adds to the story that she counseled Ruth about the event and Ruth told her that Bill called her to his office. With that in mind and since the story has her in night ware of some type, it means it was probably latter in the evening when Bill called her and probably knew she she would be getting ready for bed and maybe told her to come as she was and throw on a coat. She was following her spiritual authority, who had trained and groomed her and she would have done as she was told.

          That defies logic, Larne. A woman in night gear, coat or not coat, walking across campus? Did Norma recall night wear? Gary emphatically does not. Ruth recalled nothing about it either. THERE WAS NO NIGHTGOWN INVOLVED.

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            January 4, 2016    

            Quoting me, “he encouraged the behavior, trained (groomed) the women, encouraged the opportunities for them to come to his private spaces after when he was there alone.”

            Then you say:
            “We don’t believe that statement, Larne.”

            Lets dissect this. “he encouraged the behavior, trained (groomed) the women”,
            Well you don’t have to believe it, Ruth and other women told me the same thing and I believe them as they have never lied to me.

            “encouraged the opportunities for them to come to his private spaces after when he was there alone.”

            This is a little different because there are multiple reports of this activity. Bill’s office is his private space, you have not disputed that Ruth was in “some room” with him, just the two of them and you seem to really like Bill’s office as that private space. If you don’t think a CEO space is private try walking into your CEO’s office past his secretary and see what happens. Secondly Bill did not kick Ruth out; when people come to my door that I don’t know I do not invite them into my private space. I would imagine neither would you? Bill had the opportunity to send Ruth home but what Norma told me June 7, 2014 was Bill had called her to come to where he was, it doesn’t matter where that was. If you remember your RG days and the multiple women who told their stories and first hand witnesses that confirmed their stories of Bill meeting in his private space (office) well into the evening with his female administrative assistances and others. By Bill’s own words he was counseling them and encouraging them and praying with them. There are also storied of him calling them to his hotel room to do dictation.

            Your state:
            “That one is so easy, Larne. He has never been terribly concerned about his reputation, believing that false accusations will work themselves out.”

            Then why does he keep fighting the truth and changing his story. It seems that he cares very much because he know his actions, based on Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3, would disqualify him. He is constantly trying to change the narrative and thinks he can out last his critics. Which he normally does, they give up in desperation or think the problem has gone away and get on with their lives.

            Some of us are called of God to be the thorn in his side to get him to repent. For me God has given me the time and keeps dumping this in my lap. Since my self worth was never tied to his approval I don’t care what he thinks of me or what his followers think either. My self worth and hope is in the Lord. In the first few verses of Titus 1, Paul a learned man, train to the highest degree in Judaism, a scholar in the Greek language and writing and a citizen of Rome calls himself a “Servant of God”, some translation say Slave or Bond Servant. He sees his value tied to God not man to man’s approval.
            In 2 Timothy 2:9-13 it says: “….But the word of God is not bound! 10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 11 The saying is trustworthy, for:
            If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
            12 if we endure, we will also reign with him;
            if we deny him, he also will deny us;
            13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself.

            Our hope and identification is in Christ. I will continue to proclaim the truth of these maters but more important of the Grace through Faith we have in Christ that give us Hope and Peace only through Him! This might require suffering and ridicule of other but it does not matter.

            You then write:
            “On July 26, 2014 I emailed Gary: “I was wondering if the comments you made about “sheer nightwear” and “skimpy nightgown” was merging some other things you observed at the Northwoods with this event at HQ?” On July 27th he replied: “I’m the last person who should be giving any details about what “she” was wearing and where it happened. The memory is what my wife remembers. Norma was a BFF with “her.”” So, the “night wear” account is in the same category as the “cabin”. You told me yourself that the cabin did not even exist when Gary was there.”

            You are arguing these points with the wrong man, remember I have only know of the story for about two and a half years. Read what I wrote about that in the above post, “Its not where the story took place, Bill’s office in Oak Brook, his cabin, his bedroom in Crazy Bear or his office there. Nor what she was wearing or not wearing. It’s that Bill allowed it to happen at all and encouraged the lap sitting.” Gary’s notes that he gave to Tony stated “Cabin” and “skimpy nightgown”. Let me refresh your memory from a couple pages from Ruth’s Story written in her hand writing. While I find the whole document difficult the last two sentences that include Bill reply to her statement of starting her prayers as Dear Bill to be an indication of the adoration he expected and bathed himself in.
            http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Ruths-Dream-pg-1_Page_12.jpg
            http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Ruths-Dream-pg-1_Page_2.jpg
            “My belief in your dreams, Bill, died long before I left your doors. Yet my soul cannot seem to forget the agony of that death.
            Last night, for the countless time, I dreamed of my departure from the Institute. As I walked away, unexpected hands tore at me and pulled away the protection of my clothes as I screamed for help. As I opened my eyes in terror, I was reassured and comforted by the wakeful presence of my dear husband.
            These dreams that re-occur off and on are the marks of a soul that remembers and still cries out at the cruel blows that came from the hands of a one-time friend. Bill, true I do not feel bitter, I feel free. Yet the memories must fester somewhere in my soul. They rise in the darkness of night to frighten and trouble my mind. I want to forget and to forgive with my unconscious as well as my conscious self, but something holds me back.
            In many dreams I’m confronting you or your family with all the accusations that have never been acknowledged. The grievances cannot rest for having never been recognized and openly dealt with.
            Bill, how could one who trusted you so completely live to trust you so little? Young dreams die hard and the dying took ten years of my life. Perhaps, I muse, it is for those years I grieve. I don’t think so, though, for I am wiser for all I learned at your hands. The tragedy is that much of the learning came through the failures of yours and mine alike.
            If your soul should lash out at this exposure of mine, I shall not hide. God has strengthened my heart, and I no longer inadvertently begin my prayers with “Dear Bill.” Do you remember being amused at my confession of such actions?”

            With this in perspective maybe you might see the encouragement Bill gave her to jump in her lap and be in a private space with him. She “inadvertently” began her prayers with “Dear Bill” then Bill being “amused” by it. Thinks of the most amazing prayer we were told to say. “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.” Hallowed means revered, reverend, sacred, venerated, holy, just, righteous I could go on. “OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN, HALLOWED BE YOUR NAME” Why would anyone who truly loved the Lord as much as Ruth did ever start her prayer with Dear Bill. It could be accounted as blaspheme! But why? I believe because she was groomed to be under the Gothard Chain of Command teachings and to accept all direction them as being from God himself. This included both spiritual matters and physical matters. She was under constant pressure to conform to their desires and needs because when she did not measure up Bill had a self righteous way to show his displeasure as if it was from God himself. Every aspect of her life was controlled by him.

            Alfred writes
            “Again, Larne, THERE WAS NO CABIN when Gary was there. Please, explain this.”

            You need to ask Bill but if you recall the correspondence between Bill and Gary, Bill wanted Gary to change the Wiki statement. Personally I do not remember a cabin there in 1977 but you might ask John Johnson as others claim it was there. The institute record would be the proof. As I said before a “thousand times” before it doesn’t matter. Bill’s relationship with the women of the scandal era and ATI era confirms he spent time with them alone in private spaces. I don’t care where it was and they were not my notes! But the bigger issue is Bill’s approval of the practice and encouragement of the lap sitting. Even you witness said it “was happening”. Bill was the boss and is responsible for the actions.

            But since you seem to be fighting this tooth and tooth and toenail I would like you to ask a question to two different people. When you ask, do it privately and concurrently so the one does not sway the other’s answer. Remind them to make sure they are telling the truth because God is watching.
            1. To Bill: Did “your 1980 witness” ever visit your cabin at night and at times bring food? Did she linger while you ate?
            2. To “your 1980 witness”: did you ever visit Bill’s cabin at night and at times bring him food? Did you linger while he ate?

            Alfred writes:
            “That is a mischaracterization. It changed DRAMATICALLY! All we know for sure is that she was on his lap . . . fully clothed . . . in Bill’s office. No nightie.”

            I just love your brash misleading statements! There is not mischaracterization, according to Gary’s 35 year old notes she was in his lap in a “skimpy nightgown”. These are not my words but Gary’s that stood undisputed till the Wiki story. In general as I write my replies it is important to first recognize the original statements, and separate them from my observations, view or opinions and make sure each one is stated as such. That’s what I did above I quoted from the original story than discussed the revised version in you email with Gary and my conversation with them.
            But the truth could be anything regarding this story. First from my understanding, although I could be wrong, Gary’s notes were written around 1980 during the time he was interview the women. If that is the case he wrote the notes at least 4 years after it happened. When Gary left the institute he told me he went from the frying pan into the fire and was too busy with his new position to think of much else. He probably never dreamed the events of 1980 would ever occur. He told me he counseled Bill the day after he walked in on Bill and Ruth and Norma counseled Ruth. For them it was just another day at the “funny farm” and not a giant deal. But they realized it was when they got pulled back into the mess in 1980 and heard Bill’s confession, Steve’s confession and the girls they probably realized all these little event added up to what lead to the scandal and a much bigger problem. The notes were then written as he recalled them: “he walked into the cabin and caught Ruth sitting on Bill’s lap in a skimpy nightgown.”

            About 2008 Bill contacts Gary to change the story. In 2014/15 me then you ask them about the facts of the story, for me I just want the truth what ever that is, you are trying to save Bill. Anyway, in honest recollection of an events that had occurred about 40 years earlier the story changes to Bill’s office and Gary now can’t really recall what specifically she was wearing. To say “no Nightie” might not be correct based on the earlier notes, but again that is not the issue, Bill is! And to say “Fully Clothed” implies something that might not be true either.

            Then you go on to say:
            That defies logic, Larne. A woman in night gear, coat or not coat, walking across campus? Did Norma recall night wear? Gary emphatically does not. Ruth recalled nothing about it either. THERE WAS NO NIGHTGOWN INVOLVED.

            Alfred you defy logic, Ruth had a car, and neither one of us can say “there was no nightgown involved!” you weren’t there neither was I. Gary originally said she had a “skimpy nightgown” on in his notes, those notes were written a lot closer to the event then what an elderly sick man is recalling now. Listen when I first heard the story I didn’t like it either, she was the woman I loved, rescued, help heal, who bore my children, cared for in sickness and one I buried way too young. She loved the Lord like no one I have every met, had a heart for the unsaved and those in need. I too wanted the truth to preserve her memory.

            Then I remember she like me was a sinner who repented and sought to live a life to please God and become more like Him. Something we all need to do. She took her life lessons of failure, repentance and forgiveness by the Grace of God through Faith and shared them with a hurting world. That’s something we all need to do. We are all sinners saved by Grace. We are all dirtbags even Bill. Because what ever we do should be all about Jesus. We are His messenger for our story of our salvation and our hope in Him. When I realized that, I saw the bigger picture, of His truth, righteousness by Grace through Faith that leads to confession of sin, repentance, asking forgiveness and restitution. Does that sound familiar?

            From an earthly perspective neither one of us can say “There was no nightgown involved” since we were not witnesses. If a night gown was involved and we say there wasn’t then we would be liars. You and I are aware there is a dispute and since we don’t know our answer needs to state that. You can’t wish away the nightgown any more then you can wish away sin, truth is truth.

            One last thing and its about words: your state; “Ruth recalled nothing about it either.” That statement implies that Ruth was asked and did not recall nothing about it either. Suggesting that Ruth is validating Gary current story. First off I believe Gary is stating what he remembers today which could be accurate or might be hedged because he is not sure or his illness and old age has caught up with him. But Ruth was never asked and did not ‘recall anything” because she has been walking with Jesus for the past twenty one and a half years. You would be better to use a phrase like “Ruth never shared the story with Larne”. But with that thought and what just came to my mind, maybe I should ask one of her friends and maybe she shared the “vivid juice details” with them. I’m glad your brought that up! Thanks! Now where those phone number?

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 5, 2016    

            Ruth and other women told me the same thing and I believe them as they have never lied to me.

            Did Gary ever lie to you? There is a lot of confusion in accounts. Which is, of course, why an independent inquiry from an unbiased 3rd party would have been quite valuable.

            If you don’t think a CEO space is private try walking into your CEO’s office past his secretary and see what happens.

            This confuses . . . and perhaps bothers me a tad, Larne. See, I was not there in the 1970s and 80s, but the Bill’s office I have known and known about would function nothing like a “CEO Office”. It was always a coming and going, people being counseled, meetings, impromptu gatherings. Plus, during the time I am aware, those windows were always uncovered, open. Especially at night, light streaming out into the darkness, full view, especially from higher ground. Do you know any different?

            Personally I do not remember a cabin there in 1977 but you might ask John Johnson as others claim it was there.

            Another item added to my list :-) I will follow up with him.

            1. To Bill: Did “your 1980 witness” ever visit your cabin at night and at times bring food? Did she linger while you ate?
            2. To “your 1980 witness”: did you ever visit Bill’s cabin at night and at times bring him food? Did you linger while he ate?

            Also added to the list.

            according to Gary’s 35 year old notes she was in his lap in a “skimpy nightgown”. . . . . The notes were then written as he recalled them: “he walked into the cabin and caught Ruth sitting on Bill’s lap in a skimpy nightgown.”

            Not brash at all. Those notes are already in big trouble, because he said it was at the cabin in the notes, but his wife is crystal clear that it was not at the cabin. You heard her, right? Please . . . stop leaning on those notes. They are compromised. Since you keep spinning around on this, explain how this resolves. Is Norma wrong? Gary told me emphatically that she is right and he was wrong.

            neither one of us can say “There was no nightgown involved” since we were not witnesses.

            WOULD Ruth walk across campus – and this WAS at HQ – in her nightgown, skimpy or not? Please, Larne.

            There are also storied of him calling them to his hotel room to do dictation.

            Hearsay, but not basis in fact. I asked detailed questions of one of the senior executives in the past decades, one who left the ministry. Did he EVER see Bill alone in his office, room with a girl? His reply was an emphatic no. And he did work with Bill from early morning until late at night, lots of opportunities to observe, let alone hear of issues. Do you have any woman that has told you that this happened to her, or observed it for others?

            With this in perspective maybe you might see the encouragement Bill gave her to jump in her lap and be in a private space with him.

            You also need to deal with the testimony that Linda provided, calling her “madly in love” with Bill, including a conversation when Linda was first hired, telling her, “Hands off Bill, he is mine”. It is important that you tell me if you believe Linda is lying. The picture she paints would find other motives for her jumping in Bill’s lap than “conditioning”, as you are stating. I know she denied having any such feelings, but there would be some evidence suggesting otherwise. I know this is sensitive . . . and if I get a sense that I crossed a line I will edit this out of the post.

        • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
          January 5, 2016    

          Alfred says:
          “WOULD Ruth walk across campus – and this WAS at HQ – in her nightgown, skimpy or not? Please, Larne.”

          When I first learned of the story I had stated she was always cold and liked flannel nightgown and it would be unlike her to walk to Bill cabin at night. She could have put on a coat or driven to Bill’s office. Again for the one thousandth time, this is not about what she wore, where it happened but the IT HAPPEN AT ALL. A SECRETARY SITTING IN A SUPPOSED CHRISTIAN LEADERS LAP an activity that she told me was common and confirmed by your witness is wrong. Bill should have never let it happen. He was the leader who should have been above reproach, but was not. Alfred you are concentrating on the ant when the elephant is starring you in the face. I think you believe that if you find one false statement the whole house of cards falls and Bill is back walking on water. Yet when we list multiple lies of Bill you say they are not lies. You need to use the same yard stick you require of us. That said our story is not a house of cards. Its built on a rock foundation not on shifting sand as Bill’s shifting story.

          You state:
          “Do you have any woman that has told you that this happened to her, or observed it for others?”

          Yep Ruth, tons of over time till late at night with a required dinner afterwards and having to sit next to him one the bench seat of his Old 98. Then there was Meg’s Story and several of the others posted on RG. If I recall one of the gentlemen who shared his story talked of seeing women in the office late at night.

          Alfred writes:
          “Do you have any woman that has told you that this happened to her, or observed it for others?… “Hands off Bill, he is mine”. It is important that you tell me if you believe Linda is lying.”

          First off your witness has been through enough, I’ll leave that to you to decide her truthfulness. What I will say in a phone conversation between Ruth, Bill and me, Ruth told Bill she NEVER loved him as a suitor nor was she every attracted to him as a suitor. Based on what she had previously shared with me those comments were not for my benefit. She had shared with me because of the spiritual authority structure demanded by Bill that if Bill come to her and stated that God had commanded Ruth to marry him (Bill) she would have complied, not for love but in obedience to God. That how sick and far his control extended into the lives of the women around him.

          Regarding the “Hands Off” comment, Ruth had the gift of Mercy and that would have been very unlikely for her to make that comment. Ask your witness if she remembers Ruth reaching out to her during a time of need in her life. Not just Ruth but many of the ex-staff.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 5, 2016    

            I think you believe that if you find one false statement the whole house of cards falls

            I believe that you are deliberately ignoring the horrific impact of that one story. At stated to Dan, this was proof “per se” to many that Bill was compromised. There IS an explanation – at least two, actually – for how she might have ended up on his lap and why at his office at night. Neither involve evil, just poor judgment on the behalf of one if not both.

            And the house of cards does fall, for you know that “Gary’s Notes” are at the heart of much of what is alleged. If he could get this SO wrong . . . what else is being misreported, perhaps in stunning fashion?

            Yep Ruth, tons of over time till late at night with a required dinner afterwards and having to sit next to him one the bench seat of his Old 98. Then there was Meg’s Story and several of the others posted on RG. If I recall one of the gentlemen who shared his story talked of seeing women in the office late at night.

            Bench seat of car is not what we are discussing. If you are citing “Meg’s Story”, I am going to take exception. She is, as I recall, one of the women suing and we have come to the conclusion that these accounts have been massaged and morphed to fit the need. If so, perhaps the court case will shed some light. You cite something else that is, what, a story on Recovering Grace? Hearsay, Larne. I don’t believe it.

            Ruth told Bill she NEVER loved him as a suitor nor was she every attracted to him as a suitor.

            One of Bill’s insights, observations is the women speak from different parts of their beings, sometimes in rapid succession, causing completely contradictory statements at times. “Parts” including her spirit, mind, will, and emotions. Linda was emphatic with the “Hands Off” statement. That was “day one” of her tenure there. No, I do not believe she is lying, based on what I could gather from that one hour long conversation.

      • Dan Dan
        January 3, 2016    

        You write:
        it is our responsibility to come to ground on the accusations and not accept things because people who mean well say so. And . . . I believe Bill. Innocent until proven guilty.

        Well it might be the right thing to do for an independent arbitrator but you admit that your bias is that you believe Bill. I am also curious about what you have found that is “beyond a shadow of a doubt”.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 3, 2016    

          Shadow of a doubt

          His accusation of “fondling” is based on a secretary sitting on his lap. And wiping coke off a secretary’s top and lap in full view of senior staff. Baloney. Also his blaming Bill for ruining his life because he caused the church to excommunicate him. In fact that action had nothing to do with Bill, as testified by the church.

  • Dan Dan
    January 2, 2016    

    You ask:
    What role DID Mr. Gothard Sr. have in this whole business?

    I can only tell you what I saw. Officially, Mr. Gothard ran the finance department. When we would come back from seminars we would give the money to him or someone from his team. Unofficially, I think he had a great deal of influence on Bill. As I recounted in an earlier comment, on a Friday morning the father of one of our secretaries called Bill and told him his daughter was leaving (she was home on vacation). Because I was close to the family and from the same home town Bill called me and was as nice and supportive as I ever saw him. He asked me to be responsible for getting her home, even told me to take time off and drive her there. On Monday he called me and was angry, wanted the girl out of her apartment, did not want her coming back to say goodbye, and wanted us to pack up her things (she had been living there for 6-7 years) and ship them to her. He had also written new material on how to leave a ministry. (Evidently the father of a single woman calling him up was not the correct way). The only thing that ever made any sense to me was that Mr. Gothard got a hold of Bill and told him to get rid of her as fast as he could.

    I always got along fine with Mr. Gothard and actually enjoyed him a lot. However, I always thought he intimidated his family and did not mind bulling them. I doubt any of them ever stood up to him. But the idea that Mr. Gothard was responsible for sending single women north is pure negligent irresponsibility. Even if it were true, Bill was the CEO, the President, and founder. We like to say the “buck stops here”. Well the buck stops at Bill and now he is trying to push it off onto his dead father. There are no words in the English language that are appropriate in a family oriented blog to describe the laugh-ability of what Bill is trying to sell you.

  • Dan Dan
    January 2, 2016    

    By the way, you are actually doing a good job responding to everyone. I really don’t know how you do it and keep it all straight.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 3, 2016    

      Thank, Dan. I get some extra tools as moderator, to see the posts in order written. I miss the context at times.

  • Dan Dan
    January 2, 2016    

    You write to Larne

    The time to worry about pandora and sleeping Giants is past, Larne. I would rather have it all out in the open – without compromising privacy – than deal with the stress of endless shadows

    I’m sorry, but the responsibility for honesty, for transparency, and for public accountability is on your boy Bill Gothard, Jr. He was the President of IBYC so the responsibility for transparency is on him! By any measure he was and is negligent. It was HIS brother & Sr. VP that sexually abused and harassed single female staff. In the least, he could have at least said he was sorry but for 35 years he has hid behind this “I did not know” nonsense. Then he hired a pastor with no background in organizational management, sexual harassment, interviewing women who have been sexually abused & harassed, and who magically finds that they, the victims, were responsible for their own harassment. And who is now out of the ministry (if I understand his history correctly) due to his own sexual issues. You have the witness or have access to the testimony of 8 men who were there. If others wanted to spend the time more could chime in and give you more detail. As I have asked repeatedly, how many does it take?

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 3, 2016    

      You have the witness or have access to the testimony of 8 men who were there

      I do not believe everything related by those 8 men. I look ahead and see you have taken up the “Cabin Story” in another post.

      • Dan Dan
        January 3, 2016    

        Your are free to to ignore the testimony of these 8. At your own risk. To ignore all 8 means you have to assume:

        1) All 8 are lying about their own personal experience with Bill;
        2) All 8 are colluding together for some evil intent;
        3) Tony is the master mind and the other 7 are just using his research and parroting it back;
        4) All or most of all 8 are dishonorable men with evil intent; or
        5) While 100% of the claims of all 8 may not be perfectly accurate (it has been 35 years) the bulk of their claims are materially accurate and must be carefully considered. The burden of proof is also on Bill since virtually these 8 have said in the last 35 years has changed.

        One might also think that 2 or 3 witnesses are sufficient to confirm the bulk of evidence that is of a material nature. Somehow you now have to deal with 8 and we have not even started to discuss the 7 women who abused and harassed by Bill’s Sr. VP while on corporate time and in corporate facilities.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 3, 2016    

          3) Tony is the master mind and the other 7 are just using his research and parroting it back

          Add to that “group think”. Proof is as simple as, “Why did none of the 8 step forward to note that the “Cabin Story” simply could not have occured? Several knew that the cabin was not even built until Gary was gone”. Why, Dan? That points to . . . something. What do you think?

          • Dan Dan
            January 4, 2016    

            Group think? That assumes the 8 have been in close contact the last 35 years, that there is ongoing communication and all 8 are led by some invisible leader. Hardly the case, outside of two of them I have not seen any in over 30 years. To achieve group think the group actually has to be well defined at multiple levels. The reason this idea is so outlandish (stupid would be a better word) is that we HAVE been apart of “group think”. It was called the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, led by a brilliant and persuasive cult leader by the name of Bill Gothard. So speaking just for myself, I am pretty good at spotting group think. And the biggest “group think” I see are people who will believe the man no matter what the evidence and who’s personal sense of significance and value is based on their relationship with a man who has a history of treating people as throw away commodities. Bill becomes the father figure they never had so to find him as he is, they have to give up their own personal since of value and significance – a pretty tall order.
            And as for the “cabin story” issue, the fact remains that multiple people saw a woman or women enter Bill’s cabin late in the evening when it would have been highly inappropriate to do so, and he was still found with his secretary sitting on his lap with the excuse that he was pursuing a dating relationship (not approved by her father). 35 years can make the details fuzzy, just like Bill not being able to remember which secretary told him his brother was trying to put his hands inside blouse.

            So what material issue have you found to be “beyond a shadow of a doubt”?

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 5, 2016    

            And the biggest “group think” I see are people who will believe the man no matter what the evidence

            As we have found that there are some that can never find any good in Bill, that every motive was and remains compromised.

            the fact remains that multiple people saw a woman or women enter Bill’s cabin late in the evening when it would have been highly inappropriate to do so

            What do you base this on?

            he was still found with his secretary sitting on his lap with the excuse that he was pursuing a dating relationship (not approved by her father).

            Inconsistent with the strict principles he taught to the young people, but not evil. Completely different than a nightie story in a remote cabin, or an affair with married folk. He DID resign citing “defrauding”, which an unsanctioned “dating” relationship would entail in his definition.

            So what material issue have you found to be “beyond a shadow of a doubt”?

            I addressed that some posts back. His accusation of “fondling” by Bill which found its way into the LA Times was based on the “Cabin Story”, by his own words because millimeters of clothing separating their private areas while she was sitting on his lap constituted “fondling” per se. I did insert a likely unkind “baloney” in there. Second proof was the “wiping spilled Coke off secretary top and lap on Learjet in full view of senior staff”. Again, baloney. From this the world was told that Bill “fondled secretaries”. He also has alleged that Steve created the Character Sketch books, rendering them tainted – Bill is emphatic that Steve did no such thing, that he has the notes to prove that this was his work.

          • Dan Dan
            January 4, 2016    

            And by the way, if you think Tony is some kind of master mind, then you clearly do not know Tony nor do you know any of the other 8. Remember, these were all men who were personal eye witnesses and had a close working relationship with your boy Bill. And I am only referencing 8, there are others who just as soon not get involved because they have other things to do than waste their time with a narcissist who will never recognize the truth about himself even if God sent him a video message. The idea that Tony is some kind of master mind would be laughable if it were not so stupid. You are talking about men who are highly independent and able to think and take are of themselves. All 8 have said virtually the same thing for 35 years. You are old enough to remember Richard Nixon. His closest advisers could not keep their stories straight for 10 minutes.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 5, 2016    

            And by the way, if you think Tony is some kind of master mind, then you clearly do not know Tony nor do you know any of the other 8

            The “Cabin Story” says that something was wrong with the “personal eye witnesses” and “highly independent” men that are “able to think”. Please address this. I have also highlighted the major – slanderous – redefinitions of common terms like “fondling” and “adultery” that Tony engaged in to harm Bill. Please explain this.

          • Dan Dan
            January 4, 2016    

            Is this story really the biggest storyline? I suppose it is the most damming, but I would put 35-40 years of cover up, independent investigations that are anything but, character assassination and deceit way above the so called cabin story. This is a story that is never gong to be proved so frankly, it has never gone very high on my radar. The nonsense about Bill now blaming his dead father for sending single women north to be abused by his little brother is way more interesting to me. It is way more telling to the man’s deceit. I understand that the cabin story makes sensational headlines but it really says little about his basic narcissist personality. Other than this, what else do you have that is “beyond a shadow of a doubt”? Maybe you should ask him if he has ever lied about any former staff members as a way of protecting his own reputation or diverting guilt from himself. Ask him how it was that memorizing scripture could make him an instantaneous B+ – A- student but it could not cure him of regular issues with lust that most of us men face, especially since the focus of the gospel is holiness – as you say. if that is the focus, one might think that it would be more important that a boys grades in school,

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 5, 2016    

            35-40 years of cover up, independent investigations that are anything but, character assassination and deceit way above the so called cabin story.

            If you discredit this story then you have no idea the damage it did to Bill’s reputation. It was the de facto proof that Bill was immoral. It was the stated basis – letter to me – by Tony for his accusation of “fondling” that was broadcast to the world via the Los Angeles Times in 1980. It was included in his Wiki. THAT was how important it was to his adversaries. No, sir, you are being naïve or dishonest. I vote for the former.

            it could not cure him of regular issues with lust that most of us men face

            He does point to that as giving him the victory, citing negligence during the peak of ministry success.

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            January 4, 2016    

            Well, that’s simple until 2013 I never heard about a “Cabin Story” involving Ruth, I heard another one not involving Ruth. I did not pursue it till 2014. Somewhere in this mess I posted on that but don’t know if you moderated it yet. I’ve had other’s dispute my recollection of the cabin not being there during my first interview in 1977, maybe they just didn’t show it to me. Again ask John Johnson he might remember it. Ask Tim Levendusky for access to the archives and look for the billing. Why would the other men even care? It wasn’t their wife or their experience and would not be on their radar. It involved Bill, the Smalley’s and Ruth (As her representative I have not had a reply back from her yet:) but will have to wait for that “‘twinkling of an eye moment”, but then it won’t matter any more to me. But it might to Bill.)

  • Dan Dan
    January 5, 2016    

    You write to Larne:

    … women speak from different parts of their beings… causing completely contradictory statements at times. … Linda was emphatic with the “Hands Off” statement… I do not believe she is lying.

    Ever think that anyone could discredit anything a women ever says, including Linda’s statements to you for the very reason you discredit Ruth’s statements? From the way you describe Bill’s “insights” a woman’s statement about anything can be discounted. How do you ever know if a women is telling the total truth? By the way, a characteristic of a person with dyslexia is that they get timelines and sequences messed up. But then you have already discounted this as having any material impact on Bill.

    This sounds a lot like mixing more scripture that is lifted out of context, mix it up with some pop psychology and poof, Bill has just discovered something about women that no one in history has ever figured out. But then again, this would be totally understandable since Bill and his disciples are smarter than all their teachers.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 5, 2016    

      Bill has just discovered something about women that no one in history has ever figured out.

      That is so strange for you to say that. That insight has had a tremendous impact on husband “figuring out” their wives. I know it has for me. We are multiple people, all inside one body. Our mind is not the same as our spirit, the emotions can scream one way with the will tugging the other. A woman can tell her husband she hates him and then immediately after that she loves him . . . both true, as the first is her emotions, and the second is her will . . . or her spirit.

      Again, which is true? Both are. Men are more focused on not speaking until they have “the answer”, a unified response, which sometimes is long in coming, and frustrating for their wives.

      • Dan Dan
        January 5, 2016    

        You missed the point(s):
        1) based on your earlier comment you have the ability to discount anything a woman says about anything; and
        2) there is no debate that men and women see the world differently and communicate differently. The point is that Bill has a habit of discovering some new and exciting new insight, toss in a couple of bible verses (probably out of context) and all of a sudden it becomes “gospel” because A) Bill and 2) the bible “says it”. He also gets to come off like some kind of expert when he is not. Especially when several dozen books and research that has already been out there for dozens of years say the same thing. Bill is good (this is actually a compliment) at taking some complex topics and simplifying them and re-messaging them. In fact, I think he is really good at this. I saw him do it several times. I may totally disagree with his conclusions and I may get riled up at his habit of not giving credit where credit is due, (a very significant issue in my opinion) but he does have a skill set here and it is one that made him famous and his organization rich.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 5, 2016    

          based on your earlier comment you have the ability to discount anything a woman says about anything

          I know that is not what I meant, and I don’t think that is what I said. Are you referring to Ruth stating both that she claimed Bill in a romantic sense, and then denying ever having any romantic feelings for him? I say both are true. I am not the one discounting her words – you are.

      • rob war rob war
        January 5, 2016    

        You really paint a picture and characterization that women are a bunch of emotional flake brains. Bill didn’t know anything more about women than he does about marriage, children and families. For every characterization, there is going to be a woman and man that doesn’t fit that picture. It is totally annoying when someone like Bill thinks they have it all figured out and then paint the sexes with broad paint brushes as if it is reality.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 6, 2016    

          characterization that women are a bunch of emotional flake brains

          What part of what I stated would fall into that category? Women are much more verbal than men, any doubt? I live with 8 women. Not one is a flake brain. I think Bill was spot on.

  • Dan Dan
    January 5, 2016    

    You write:

    He does point to that as giving him the victory, citing negligence during the peak of ministry success.

    Maybe you can actually think about applying what you preach. Grace is the desire and power….., how do we get more grace to execute…. Prov 3:34 is pretty clear. But then again this means that Bill loses the opportunity to say see what God did… based on “my hard effort” or “I did this and therefore God responded…” Sort of makes God my personal genie. So who gets the glory – God or Bill. While I am not suggesting there is not some human action and responsibility involved, Prov 3:34 gives us a strong clue as to who does the real work. By taking credit one might wonder if the lessons of humility have really been learned.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 5, 2016    

      Sort of makes God my personal genie.

      WHAT does that mean? Is God not personal? Or His simply is unpredictable enough that you just never know what He is going to do, whether He will be pleased with you or He will curse you? He might help you and He just might not? My God is very personal . . . has given me “great and precious promises” that through them I might escape the corruption that is in the world through lust. Sometimes it takes a while for His truth to fully take over my heart, but as I meditate on those great and precious promises, it is guaranteed to happen. Because . . . they are promises, not possibilities. Do you disagree?

      • rob war rob war
        January 5, 2016    

        Dan means by personal genie is that God is going to grant you your every desire and wish.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 6, 2016    

          Maybe. The larger question is whether the things He does have for us are executed by an initiative at our end, or whether God just “does it”. We are not talking about wealth and pleasure, but “success” in life and relationships, freedom in a godly life.

          • rob war rob war
            January 6, 2016    

            How are you defining ‘success” here? What do you think Jesus meant in St. John when He said “They shall have life and have it more abundantly”? I ask because much of Bill’s teaching lines up more with Wo F health and wealth, Name it claim it. Having been involved with both, I know what I am talking about.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 6, 2016    

            I ask because much of Bill’s teaching lines up more with Wo F health and wealth, Name it claim it

            As an ardent foe of “Name it, claim it, God wants you rich”, I assure you Bill is anything but that. One of the 7 “Universal Principles” he teaches is “Suffering”, how the normal, successful Christian life must involve deep trouble, at times the loss of all things. The “Abase-Abound” cycle of Philippians 4:12-13: “I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”

            Bill’s success and prospering is seen in the Apostle Paul, highly effective in the kingdom of God, endlessly meaningful life, enormous treasure in heaven. Also in King David . . . Abase/abound.

          • rob war rob war
            January 6, 2016    

            Well, that’s good to hear you are against WoF but a lot of Bill’s teaching emphases is on following Bill’s ideas especially on memorization which according to Bill is suppose to promise success in all one does. Bill paints a mechanical God which the WoF teachers do as well which makes God to be one big candy machine and if one punches the right buttons, says the right prayer in faith and doesn’t have a negative confessions, memorizes the right Bible verses, then God becomes just as Dan pointed out one’s personal genie. The verse that you quoted here from St. Paul is more about being so contented with God, that whatever circumstances one is in doesn’t matter because one has Christ. It’s not about cycles but about a relationship with God that transcends one’s circumstances. Bill’s ideas about suffering which on the surface as you point out seem contrary to WoF ideas but has one digs deeper into Bill’s teaching, he seems to become like Job’s friends, and Bill’s overall teaching points to his ideas that one’s suffering and difficult circumstances are due to violations of so called principles that Bill teaches on. If one has health problems, then one must be bitter or ate pork or had a cheeseburger or wore mixed clothes etc. You didn’t answer my question on what you think Jesus meant by “abundant life”? What does that mean to you?

            On another note about suffering and review of Bill’s teaching on it, he falls more into the Calvinist camp in that God will’s the suffering or is the author of it in order to develop one’s character. Bill really is a conglomeration of conflicting theologies here. A little bit of this and that which really don’t blend well together if one can step back and look at the over all.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 6, 2016    

            “You didn’t answer my question on what you think Jesus meant by “abundant life”? What does that mean to you?”

            I did, I did! :-) “Bill’s success and prospering is seen in the Apostle Paul, highly effective in the kingdom of God, endlessly meaningful life, enormous treasure in heaven. Also in King David . . . Abase/abound.”

            God becomes just as Dan pointed out one’s personal genie

            So, please explain how, if I make a series of promises to my son, and he exercises the conditions for a promised blessing, how to I become his “personal servant” instead of remaining his loving, fully-in-charge Dad?

            God speaks, God keeps His word. It is offensive to call Him a genie. Good and bad. Example:

            “And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the Lord, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho:he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.” Jos 6:26

            500 years later, somebody had not read his Bible:

            “In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho:he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun.” 1Ki 16:34

            God is so predictable at times that even His mercies are as sure as the clockwork of the sunrise:

            “I wait for the Lord, my soul doth wait,
            and in his word do I hope.
            My soul waiteth for the Lord
            more than they that watch for the morning:
            I say, more than they that watch for the morning.”
            Psa 130:5-6

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            January 6, 2016    

            Alfred says:
            As an ardent foe of “Name it, claim it, God wants you rich”, I assure you Bill is anything but that. One of the 7 “Universal Principles” he teaches is “Suffering”, how the normal, successful Christian life must involve deep trouble, at times the loss of all things.

            Bill is a paradox in this area and his actions and words actually double speak. Bill is a proponent of measuring God’s approval by a human standard. Image is everything to him. Look at the headquarters facility, grass was to be cut at 4 inches, red brick and white trim made his buildings stand out as enduring, and symbolic of colonial America. He was surrounded by antiques and lovely things at the headquarters and Northwoods. Material success to him was a measure of God’s blessing, he told me that. Suffering or disasters were a measure of God’s displeasure and the removal of that blessing, he shared that with me too. His person image was a contrast marked by cheep suits and old cars. Yet he would drive those old cars up to his brand new Lear Jet and fly to his “personal” multimillion dollar retreat with mile long runway at the Northwood, yet sleeping in a small log cabin. His dietary needs were simple and he could live on a egg salad but stay in upscale hotels.

            Example, I owned a small airplane outright when I was hired. During my interview I mentioned that to Bill. He confirmed what a great investment airplanes were, and how the turbo prop (MU-2J) they currently owned had gone up in value and the Lear Jet (LJ-35A) which was not yet delivered was already worth more then the contracted price. ( A second larger Learjet was also on order LJ-55A) There was no complaint about me having an aircraft but then again I was not his employee. Then a couple of months after I was employed and after a brutal winter in Chicago, I started making arrangements to bring my aircraft from Seattle to Chicago.

            I was informed that Bill wanted to see me. Bill told me he had a YELLOW LIGHT and was concerned that if there was ever an incident with my aircraft it would show the world that God had removed his blessing. He used an example of a pastor that has a small light aircraft they used in their ministry and they had crashed and died. He explained how God had removed His blessing. (In reality most small light aircraft accident involve poorly qualified pilots who fly into condition they were not trained for or the aircraft was not designed to handle, clouds, thunderstorms, wind, low visibility, ice and snow, in the context of an overwhelming need to get somewhere.) In other words and probably, Bill’s example had nothing to do with God’s displeasure or blessing but was about people that probably made poor decisions. Maybe they even thought for good reasons or that God would protect them. If you play with an “hand grenade” you might get hurt, aka as the “Darwin Award”. I also had a new car that I had paid cash for after years of driving old junk. He didn’t like that either because it gave the wrong impression. I had invested in a rental property which showed an unwillingness to trust in God. Yet the Institute invested in art, gold, antiques and real estate. OK for them but not for us, a double standard. I wasn’t rich but was a saver and wise investor, I lived cheap and had a good job plus was a Army Reserve pilot as second income, both of which I gladly gave up to work for Bill and serve the Lord. This was not just me but many on the staff.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 6, 2016    

            In other words and probably, Bill’s example had nothing to do with God’s displeasure or blessing but was about people that probably made poor decisions.

            So . . . how awesome is your God, Larne? Can He in fact control the entire universe such that not a single hair falls to the ground without a deliberate act on His part? Or even that you can’t even stub your toe without His OK?

            “For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.” Luk 4:9-11

            “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.” Mat 10:28-30

            I say that blessing or lack of it is by deliberate acts of God. Our human stupidity may be punished or rebuked by Him . . . or not. I think Bill was right. Not that every interpretation of his of “Why Did God Let It Happen?” was accurate . . . but the question is.

            Paul gave this list, also a mark of success:

            “Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?” 2Co 11:22-29

          • rob war rob war
            January 6, 2016    

            I have no idea what you mean by St. Paul demonstrates abase and abound. Looking at St. Paul’s life, he repeatedly was beaten, thrown -out, ran out, ended up in jail and in the end beheaded by Nero. King David’s woes especially towards the end of his life was more of a result of his own behaviors starting with Bathsheba, his multiple marriages and how all of it spilled over in his children. He died shivering in his own bed, a sick man. One commentator I read said King David’s illness at the end was probably some kind of VD disease he picked up from Bathsheba. Not sure if that can be proven but the description kinda fits. Again, I don’t see how the cursing of the rebuilding a Jericho has anything to do with Bill’s teachings lining up more with WoF ideas and thinking. There isn’t an “abase and abound” principal. St. Paul learned that his peace and contentment was not based on his circumstances but Christ alone which transcends circumstances. WoF and Bill reduce promises of God to a genie in the bottle. That is not any effort to call God a genie but calling teaching that over emphasizes “promises” of God to material and temporal world and that these “promises of God” are contingent on following Bill’s principals or having the right “faith” and no “negative confession”.If you read Hebrews 11 and its hall of faith heroes, they were people that didn’t exactly receive promises in this life but beyond. All the apostles but St. John died martyrs deaths including St. Paul.

            Now again Alfred, I’m asking you what do you think Jesus meant by the “abundant” life? I want what that means to you, not Bill, not the Greek words, not what principal it lines up with in Bill’s teaching but what does “abundant life” mean?

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 6, 2016    

            I have no idea what you mean by St. Paul demonstrates abase and abound

            KJV: “Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.

            — I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.”
            (Philippians 4:11-12)

            Sorry, David did not have venereal disease.

            Again, I don’t see how the cursing of the rebuilding a Jericho has anything to do with Bill’s teachings lining up more with WoF ideas and thinking

            It just proves that God takes Himself, His word seriously. And He never forgets. If He says something will happen in response to something else, if you do something else, something is definitely going to happen.

            Now again Alfred, I’m asking you what do you think Jesus meant by the “abundant” life? I want what that means to you, not Bill, not the Greek words, not what principal it lines up with in Bill’s teaching but what does “abundant life” mean?

            The “abundant life” is, well, abundant. Full, deep, peace, joy . . . a life that matters forever . . . deep satisfying relationships, again which last forever. The joy of a secure future, power for victorious living here. Freedom from the tyranny of the devil and sin.

        • Dan Dan
          January 7, 2016    

          pretty close, more like follow the steps, mediate every day, follow the formula and “poof” God grants me my success, “how ever I define it”.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 7, 2016    

            success, “how ever I define it

            No, however God defines it. To your question of LPPT, “What is the promise of value that I will receive?”, you get “All that God is and has for you”. If God is good and means to bless you, that is what you get. If He is careless and arbitrary, not worth much. I think the “value” is exceptional, worth the investment of time to “meditate on God’s Word day and night”.

          • Dan Dan
            January 7, 2016    

            Life Purpose Power Teams…
            Here are the headlines:

            A Guarantee of Total Success!
            There is one activity by which God guarantees success and true prosperity.

            Maybe Rob, Larne or someone else reading the comments can comment, but this sounds lie prosperity gospel to me. He does define success but it is broad enough to drive half the galaxy through it which means it is not defined at all. Not sure what he has been saying of late, but way back when in the late 60s and 70’s he had no qualms in saying that he is proof that mediation can produce all kinds of miracles success. He would just quote Joshua 1:8. Ins spite of the fact that God is clearly giving Joshua direction on what he needs for the specific execution of a divine appointed mission. And in that passage he says more about obedience, courage, and fearlessness than simple mediation. Not denying the mediation part, but this must but in context with the rest. Too bad because at his core, I think Bill is a fearful man. Fears his secrets being found out, fears he will not measure up to his father’s expectations, fears his corporation will not look successful, fears his staff will not look perfect and fears how everything will reflect back on him on him, Too bad.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 8, 2016    

            . Too bad because at his core, I think Bill is a fearful man.

            You think many things, and you appear to have no fear of speaking evil of him. If the Lord does not care, you are in no danger.

          • Larne Gabriel Larne Gabriel
            January 8, 2016    

            Alfred writes:
            “A Guarantee of Total Success!
            There is one activity by which God guarantees success and true prosperity.”

            Dan I think maybe in your typo you were really saying ; “this sounds “like the” lie “of” prosperity gospel to me”. Something I would completely agree with. Remember Ruth meditated, memorized, prayed, evangelized, held a bible studies for the unsaved, comforted the hurting until the day she died at 41. What was she missing, OH I forgot she didn’t pay the $49 to join Bill’s program and it had not been revealed yet and would had to of held on for 20 more years when Brother Billy had the direct revelation from God that no other Christian in the previous 2000 could enjoy and have guaranteed success and true prosperity.

  • Dan Dan
    January 6, 2016    

    So as I look at Bill’s new website and if I knew nothing about him, IBYC or IBLP, what am I to conclude as to what it is that Bill is selling?

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 6, 2016    

      Selling? The post confuses me. The website declares his innocence. Not sure he is selling too much there.

      • Dan Dan
        January 7, 2016    

        His new program, Power Teams(?)… what is the value he is selling? If I were to join, what do I gain, what value do I receive? Asked in different way, what is the product I am buying (it is not his books, the books supplement whatever it is that I am buying). What is the promise of value that I will receive?

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 7, 2016    

          What is the promise of value that I will receive?

          To be on a Power Team with a leader with the ability to pray for and be prayed for that closed group. To have first crack at all the wonderful new resources and opportunities that are coming along, including conferences. All of this is off the top of my head.

          • Dan Dan
            January 7, 2016    

            Just read the headline. He is selling a promise of success. Do what i did and you too will be promised success. He also leaves out the part of success as “God defines it”. Sure sounds like prosperity gospel to me. He just does not limit success to financial success (but it is definitely included). After serving on the board of a large mission agency for over 20 years I am sure our missionaries will know that the reason they don’t have enough money to send their kids to college, buy them quality medical care, and they live from “hand to mouth” is because they did not mediate enough. (Or if they would just do more of it then God would might give them a few more dollars for their bank accounts.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 8, 2016    

            Just read the headline. He is selling a promise of success. Do what i did and you too will be promised success

            No, GOD is selling something . . . “whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.” It says . . . WHATEVER . . . have you discussed this with Him?

  • Dan Dan
    January 8, 2016    

    You write:

    No, GOD is selling something . . . “whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.” It says . . . WHATEVER . . .

    Hmm, thought Bill was selling this program. How do I get my check to heaven? I don’t have an address for Him or maybe God is on Pay Pal these days. I don’t know. “whatsoever he doeth shall prosper”…. sounds like a promise of prosperity to me.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 8, 2016    

      “whatsoever he doeth shall prosper”…. sounds like a promise of prosperity to me.

      Me too. Only, this isn’t Gothard but God. Still feel the same?

      • Dan Dan
        January 8, 2016    

        OK so we finally have it print. Bill is promising (based on lifting verses from Joshua and Psalms completely out of context) prosperity. This is the prosperity gospel that Bill is selling. What I find so disgusting about this “stuff” is that the only people that ever seem to gain the prosperity are those who sell the promise. Like I said earlier, for all those that I know and have worked with, who are ministering in very difficult lands, just barely making it, sacrificing enormously to serve the Lord and build His kingdom this is breath taking. I guess they are just total idiots for not mediating enough. They probably just mediate during their morning devotions. If they would just do it in the afternoon and evening God would grant them more success and financial rewards.

        So we can now clearly add another core value to the list we have established so far – prosperity as I define it. This is just great, now God is my servant and my genie.

        • Moderator Moderator
          January 8, 2016    

          God is my servant and my genie.

          How much does God matter in your daily life, Dan? I mean . . . what would be different if He didn’t care about you, than if He did? That is kind of the bottom line. We talk about a powerful God who is trustworthy and, frankly, is the most important thing in the Universe, let alone our lives. But what I hear you saying is that, when push comes to shove, He cannot be relied on for anything . . . anything tangible . . . things that we can’t see and hence can’t prove to exist or not exist, THOSE He is good at. No wonder the world laughs at us.

          “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” 2Ti 3:5

          That verse says . . . we talk a good talk, but when it comes to something where God existing really matters, a God with real power, we deny it.

          • Dan Dan
            January 8, 2016    

            The difference between preaching and teaching a gospel of prosperity is radically different than trusting in a god who’s kindness and love is without measure. Trusting in a god who is immeasurable in his love, kindness, and generosity means I can trust him with every part of my life and rest in that goodness because He is God. In Bill’s gospel of prosperity this relationship is flipped and God responds to my inputs. If I can exercise the correct inputs I get a piece of candy from His warehouse. Thus he becomes my genie. My correct inputs means I get my desired outputs. It is a great relationship: I give God what I think he wants and he gives me what I want. This is an exhausting journey because our basic nature is to fall away (Romans 7:15). Instead of relying on my abilities, my work, and my goodness (my inputs), I would rather rest in His. This is the message of the gospel. If you would only read the book of 2 Peter rather than a single verse you might discover that what He has already provided for are bookends on either side of your anxiety driven walk.
            This is what Hudson Taylor (hero of Bill’s) called rest – resting in the arms of Him who is always faithful. This is a rest I pray for you. A rest that trust in the arms of Him who is always faithful rather than your anxiety driven faith, which is really no faith at all.
            In one of your earlier comments you chastised the church for its religiosity. Religiosity is generally defined as the show, the pretense and all the outward signs and symbols of a Christian life. Sorry to tell you this, but your boy Bill is a master at the show and pretense. He has been a major reason for a church that is all about the show. Frankly!

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 8, 2016    

            Thus he becomes my genie

            This is so offensive to me, personally. And I suspect we have pounded on this point enough. Ships passing in the night. So let’s move on.

        • rob war rob war
          January 8, 2016    

          It is prosperity as American culture defines it. Dan, you are spot on and I use to own most all of Kenneth Hagin Sr’s booklets. I agree with you 100%. This isn’t prosperity as God defines it. Bill does the same thing that the Hagins, Croplands, Joyce Meyers, Joel Osteen and all the rest do, they take a verse or two out of context and put them together to try to prove that what they teach is “Biblical”. I can still hear in my head Kenneth Copeland stating the verse in Galatians that Jesus freed us from the curse of the law, then jump to Deut. and read the “list” of illnesses that were suppose to be a sign of the curse of the law to those that don’t follow it. Bill does the cut and paste with the Bible in his teaching. God then becomes a big Santa Claus and a candy machine and if you didn’t get what you claimed, the problem is you because you had a “negative confession” or not true faith etc etc etc. But the problem isn’t a negative confession but the teaching where God becomes a candy machine. The reality is that the candy machine is busted because the teaching is busted.

          • Moderator Moderator
            January 8, 2016    

            God then becomes a big Santa Claus and a candy machine

            My preference is to let the Lord explain any apparent discrepancy between His promise and my perceived reality. The only thing I am sure of is that if I meditate in His law day and night, everything I do will prosper. Pretty sure Joseph and his brothers and Dad disbelieved that he was prospering on the way to Egypt. Who knew! God wins after all.

          • Dan Dan
            January 9, 2016    

            Thanks Rob! And it is an exhausting way to live.

  • rob war rob war
    January 8, 2016    

    Alfred, then why did Bill change the name from prayer teams to power teams? I watched the One Accord video of Bill on IBLP (not sure if still there). Bill opens this with some pretty shocking comments. He openly stated that people follow the god they see as most powerful and now a days, Christians are not viewed as powerful. REALLY? So according to Bill, people don’t come to God because God is love, because we need Him, because “our hearts are restless until they rest in thee” (St. Augustine). No, according to Bill, people follow God for power. That really is pretty sick Alfred. So according to Bill, we need to get back the “power” of 1st Century Christians. However, Bill has no clue, no references but his fantasy about 1st Century Christians who were severely persecuted and on the run.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 8, 2016    

      Alfred, then why did Bill change the name from prayer teams to power teams?

      I THINK because “Prayer Teams” was much more limited than his vision was looking for. I mean, all prayer teams do is pray. Power teams . . . would do all kinds of things in the power of God.

      people follow the god they see as most powerful a

      I think that is correct. I mean, REALLY follow. Lots of people profess to love and follow God . . . but when push comes to shove, they deny that He has any practical power. You know, you worship the God you prefer because it makes you feel good, but if you are helpless, in need, you rely on yourself and your network and your planning and your doctors and your therapists and your resources. So as not to have to prove the Lord, that He is real, stress Him out, make Him look like your personal genie.

  • Dan Dan
    January 9, 2016    

    You write:

    This is so offensive to me, personally….

    My intent is not to offend you. But I will always point out the fallacy of of a theology that is based on a use of scripture that is astonishingly bad. By lifting 2-3 verses out of the bible, out of their intended context, I can make the bible say anything I want it to say. If I want prosperity, I can make it say that.

    The advocates of prosperity generally offer a formula. In essence they say: follow this formula and you too can be just like us. It is really rather sick. I keep thinking that if those formulas were that good the pharmaceutical or infomercial industries would have figured out how to get rich off them. On second thought, a few (infomercials) already have.

    All this being said, I do pray this benediction becomes yours:
    Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, 21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

    • Moderator Moderator
      January 9, 2016    

      Thannk you

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Categories