Saturday, December 29, 2007

12/29/07, Federal Vision's Fraudulent Revision of Reformed Worship

Some Necessary Background to the Current Federal Vision Assault on Justification By Faith Alone
(updated from 10/2/07)

While it is somewhat of an aside to the original reason for this website, it needs to be said that the relevant parties in the current Federal Vision controversy perturbing and disturbing contemporary P&R churches on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, previously had conducted a similar campaign and assault on the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). Their deceitful modus operandi of distorting and misrepresenting a confessional position in order to supplant it with one of their own imagination hasn't changed. Unfortunately. Perhaps if the P&R churches had nipped things in the bud, things wouldn't have got to this stage, but the compromises on worship being what they were and still are in modern American P&R churches - though there has been some improvement - the FV got off easy on the RPW. Now they are back at it and serious about modifying the doctrine of justification by faith alone to fit their popish and judaizing style of worship.


Friday, December 28, 2007

12/28/07, . . . . And In Secret Have I Said Nothing

[updated through 1/2/08]
Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. John 18:20

Persecution in the Past and Elsewhere
There is no question that here in America and Canada, Christians do not face anything similiar to the Killing Times in Scotland after the Second Reformation of 1638 -51 had been overturned in church and state by the Acts Recissory of 1661. The persecution of presbyterianism
which followed the Acts resulted in the secret conventicles, armed or no, and the religious societies for prayer and fellowship that continued on to become the basis for the Reformed Presbyterian (Covenanted) Church of Scotland and Ireland. Nor does the N. American church of Christ face anything like what it faces in China or Muslim nations today. There is no need for secrecy and an underground church. Not yet anyway.

Here Today
As long as one does not preach too loudly against the politically correct idols of abortion and marital pairing of perverts or even declare the not so peaceful/
orthodox nature of genuine Islam, American presidential comments to the contrary, the Internal Revenue Service will not revoke a church's charitable tax exempt status. Neither will the district attorney or the Atheist Criminal Liberties Union charge anyone with discrimination or a "hate crime". Granted, there are exceptions to the rule. But the religious entity referred to in the previous post is not an exception.


Secrecy as a Necessary Consequence?
Nevertheless we have been told by one credible witness that the same body is switching from emailing its members and adherents to phone or face to face conversations when it comes to any public announcements in the future concerning the church. This is evidently in order to prevent their "enemies" from learning anything or even harassing said group. We don't "know" this of course, because so far only one witness has come forth. But the circumstantial evidence is not good. [We do know that as previously reported, formal dissolution of the RPNA court is being considered. It is at least alluded to in the opening paragraphs of a sermon of Dec. 23, '07 entitled "Moving the Landmarks" on Prov. 22:28, of which sermon DV we shall have more to say later.] We think the concern for secrecy is not "enemies" per se, but rather the consequence of holding to an erroneous doctrine/application of ecclesiastical government. It could be tiresome enough to openly espouse and defend - or not so openly as we shall see below - an erroneous doctrine or application without having to work a day job at the same time.   

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

12/11/07, A Little Cloud Like A Man's Hand of 1 K.18:44?

If not Prov. 25:25?

As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country.

It has been called to our attention recently that the officers of a particular extraordinary ecclesiastical entity or court have been considering formal dissolution. This, in a recent communication of Dec. 2 to the members of the same body - not for spiritual/doctrinal reasons unfortunately - but rather the practical and financial. Giving is currently down and without improvement, there will not be enough money to support even the one full time officer. Consequently there would be no use in continuing as a formal organization.

Hear, hear, even Heb. 12:27:

And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

This is not anything like we think those who have been excommunicated might lawfully desire - repentance and admission of error from those responsible - but it is better than nothing and while we wish the officers personally no ill, we can not say the same as regards the “court” and its rulings.

Even further, we hope and pray God removes any and all scales from the eyes of any and all involved on both sides of this controversy; that right and wrong is providentially and decisively set forth so that no one might mistake it.

Yet the Lord willing, we look forward to more rain.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Some Comments on Boston regarding Schism

A couple of months ago, Garnet Milne of the Covenanted Reformation website (New Zealand) had some interesting comments on Thomas Boston's well known sermon "The Evil and Dangers of Schism" based upon 1 Cor. 1:10. Boston preached this sermon in 1712 aiming it at the Cameronian covenanters of his day and vicinity, who would not attend worship services of the Church of Scotland as settled in 1690 at the Revolution, of which church Boston was a minister. 

11/27/07, A Question Upon the Occasion of the Recent National Day of Thanksgiving

Thankful to Who, How and When?

There is no question that the Scripture calls us to be thankful and that first and foremost to God. An attitude of gratitude is a given and of the first principle. If we are not, then the progression in sin and judgement begins as set out in the first chapter of Romans. "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Rom. 1:21)." Rather the problem with or objections to the National Day of Thanksgiving in America for reformed presbyterians lies in other areas. One, there are no rote religious anniversary thanksgiving days authorized in Scripture other than the one day in seven New Testament Lord’s Day. Yet there are occasional days of public thanksgiving or fasting depending on the extraordinary circumstances of the time. Two, the civil magistrate does not have authority to call a religious thanksgiving or fast day without consulting with and advice from the church. Three, in a country such as ours which formally recognizes no religion and has trampled on the law of God, to observe a religious day of thanksgiving is hypocritical, if not presumptuous.

Monday, August 20, 2007

8/20/07, More Non Sequiturs from Mr. NS

A Reply to Principium 1643

[links added/updated 10/15/07]


Principium 1643 (P1643) seems to be of fairly recent vintage, first showing up on the radar screen about a month ago to our knowledge. (It used to be found here, but seems to have moved here and is dated 7/8/07.) For us, it printed out at 82 pages with numerous subheadings in two sections that together sprawl almost 40,000 words. (See it here for the pagination referenced in this reply). While some have called P1643 “masterful” and “brilliant”, we are not so minded. Rather as another has said, ‘methinks the brother doth protest too much.’ That, if not the brother is too clever by half. In our opinion, P1643 is a curious, confused and disjointed document regardless if one agrees with it or not. Obviously as below, we don’t, much more we think it a mean spirited and petty diatribe on top of and besides its errors and sidestepping of the real questions at issue, but in that we are party to the controversy, the readers may judge that for themselves after wading through it, if they are up to it.

I: An Erroneous Defence of the Extraordinary Court
The first section (pp.1-52) essentially defends the extraordinary international congregational court of the “RPNA(GM)” which has presbyterial, if not synodical power, authority and jurisdiction. (This is the same extraordinary court which released its official Position Paper on Sessional Authority (PPSA), justifying its existence just over a year ago, on June 4, ‘06.) Its main argument seems to be, in that it lacks any kind of introduction or an explicit statement of its thesis, that the fixedness of officers and members are not essential to either a presbyterian court or church. This from the Form of Presbyterial Church Government found in the Westminster Standards which P1643 quotes a number of times:
“The several congregations in Jerusalem being one church, the elders of the church are mentioned as meeting together for acts of government; which proves that those several congregations were under one presbyterial government. And whether these congregations were fixed or not fixed, in regard of officers or members, it is all one as to the truth of the proposition (FPP, 1997, p.408 as quoted pp. 4, 10,11,25,47, P1643, emph. added).
Unfortunately though, this is irrelevant and a diversion from the real issue that has split the former RPNA, however endemic to the “RPNA(GM)” and its apologists the whole idea is, of asking and answering the wrong question. Rather that before the house and publicly since 11/8/06, is whether the standard historical-grammatical exegesis of Matt. 18:20 ever understands “gathered together in my name” as anything other than two or more officers actually coming together face to face in a fixed stated meeting; that the officers in a given court actually “brush shoulders” with each other, never mind the members of the church or churches over which the court has jurisdiction. It was first asked in direct reply to the query by the elders 11/4/06 (under Section 6) as to where in Scripture, disaffected brethren could find proof for a temporary extraordinary [local] session, but not a permanent extraordinary [out of town] session. Any further comments on Matt. 18:20 have not been forthcoming from the elders that we are aware of, though perhaps as the future son in law of an elder, Mr. NS’s paper should be understood as an authoritative statement of the “RPNA(GM)” position in what seems to be the standard ad hoc/tacit/extraordinary/convenient/expedient/merciful mode of operation that is typical of the organization.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

7/8/07 Principium 1643

Principle, Application & History

Section 1

Historical testimony: Judicial criteria/presuppositional accountability



Distinctions:


  1. Circumstance (true facts)
  2. Principle (sound doctrinal position)
  3. Application (sound doctrine logically applied via argument)



Historical testimony ought not to be abusively used as an absolute and unalterable template regarding what may or may not be done within differing circumstances. Our historic subordinate standards themselves assume the same, a prior. Since the subject of ordinary and extraordinary applications has been quite popular in our day, the same subject may serve as an example:



11. In extraordinary cases, something extraordinary may be done, until a settled order may be had, yet keeping as near as possibly may be to the rule. The Form of Church Government, pg. 412



Questions:


  1. Extraordinary cases when?
  2. Applied in how many circumstances? One? Two? Three?
  3. What are the parameters of possibilities?
  4. How is possibility gauged between settled and unsettled?



Here we have a judicial determination establishing a general principle that may be applied, but it does not explicitly establish every particular case of application. It was never meant to explicitly establish every particular case of application, nor could it possibly do so. This being the case, to assume the application of our subordinate standards must have a 1-1 correspondence with every historical instance, would be to inject a foreign and impossible idea into documents themselves and the original intention of those who framed them. Such an approach operates upon a format of obsessive and abusive historical searches for the explicit. The approach would consequently choke the life out of the church from circumstance to circumstance. Logically, the church could never adapt or apply principle in any circumstance due to the absence of a preceding/explicit judicial action to “justify” it – thus terminating as a non-starter for any new judicial action throughout the history of the ecclesiastical world. Consequently, the necessary flow of judicial action would then be contingent upon the non-existent (historically explicit judicial instances), which categorically

Sunday, June 10, 2007

6/10/07, The Email Fraud: "To Whom It May Concern" Summarized

or The Case of the Belligerent (Want To Be) Barrister Revisited: False and deceptive pretenses are not agreeable to Scripture when it comes to either damage control or defending the faith.
[updated 12/28/07]


While we aren't scrambling to find Sherlock Holmes's current cellphone number, the latest "who done it" in the RPNA(GM) still should be of some interest to more than just the amateur sleuths in the audience. On 5/14/07, a number of those who were recently excommunicated from the RPNA(GM), received an interesting and anonymous email. In so many words, this unsigned missive threatened those who received it with a lawsuit. Certain unspecified items published or circulated on the internet by the parties who received the document were alleged to be defamatory of character and an invasion of privacy. They were to be removed from public circulation on the internet under pain of legal action and pursuit for damages. Entitled "To Whom It may Concern," it starts out by saying:
You have been identified as a person or organization that may be of interest in regards to the following matter under investigation. It has been brought to our attention by several private and aggrieved parties that the content of an Internet publication(s) that you either control, influence, or create or provide content for, allegedly contains that which is defamatory of specific persons and organizations expressly being named therein. You may have created or posted defamatory information, or facilitated its publication. . . . . . [Go here for the rest of the document.]
Unfortunately for its author and those who would approve of his tactics contra 1 Cor. 6, a public query went out 5/24/07 from one who had received it and the beginning of the end of our identity fraud/impersonator commenced.

Come to find out, Niwot, Colorado - rather than Nigeria - was the origin of this scam which utilized the services of an email address service. For a price, the Mail.com [updated] website allows you to send mail from lawyer.com, doctor.com or even toothfairy. com. (In the interests of full disclosure, unfortunately fraud.com was not listed, but one may still go here for a free account. Click the red "Sign Up Now" button. Then click the red "See all our domains" button and look under the “Jobs” heading.) The discussion and exposé of this low rent and rogue version of Perry Mason took place on two lists. One was that containing members and former members of the "RPNA(GM)." The other was on a RP covenanter discussion forum, the Covenant Reformation Club. The relevant posts for the first may be found here, the second here.

In both instances, some of the participants indicated that they would prefer not to see their posts publicized more broadly. We have attempted to meet them halfway as it were by putting initials for last names, but on the other hand there comes a time to stand up and be counted. What we have here, is a blatantly fraudulent attempt to squash public discussion of the Rpnagm's extraordinary court, its Position Paper, its Confidential Oath and its public Excommunications Notices. Those who would soft pedal that or ignore it, need to realize that and admit it. "To Whom It May Concern" is not a by any means lawful attempt, nor has there really been one, to substantially and materially deal with the objections and questions that bear on all the recent unpleasantness in Rpnagm circles. Neither is it a reasonable and specific request for the removal of unnecessary personal information or supposedly defamatory statements by any would be defendants. Rather it is an obvious attempt at intimidation and an open and shut instance of Rom. 3:8, 'Let us do evil, that (supposedly) good may come'. Evidently as per the doctrine of tacit consent in the Rpnagm, deception and intimidation are the best tactics when it comes to a defense of and a discussion of current public "judicial" rulings and documents.

But what else is new? The Confidential Oath never specified the plaintiff or charges and for all anybody knows, those who declined it still walk on in their unspecified sins to this day, not to mention the alleged sin of disobedience to the lawful authority of the extraordinary Rpnagm court in refusing the oath in the first place. Deceptive damage control though, is paramount in certain retro presbyterian circles and "TWIMC" is a sterling example. We also await breathlessly for the extraordinary Rpnagm court to abjure and condemn this and other similiar efforts to defend that same 'court'. Yet tacit consent again being what it is in Rpnagm circles, we can only assume TWIMC is an approved example and will become historical (we almost said hysterical) testimony on how the flock, much more the shepherds are to deal with objections to the pogrom.

That pogrom would include again:

1. The Position Paper on Sessional Authority

Scripture
The exposition of Matt. 18:20 (pp. 4-6) again ignores and glosses over what the text assumes. The two or more officers that meet to constitute a court, meet in one place in person face to face. That is the grammatical historical meaning of “sunago” in assembling or gathering together, from which the term “sunagoge" or "synagogue” is derived from in the Greek. As for Acts 15 (pp.7-9), not only is the extraordinary congregational court usurping the power of and impersonating a national or international synod, the apostles and elders personally accompanied the written edict from the synod at Jerusalem in order to preach, teach and answer questions about it personally face to face. But that is ignored as the PP cherry picks its way to the predetermined end. The synod could have just as well sent out its decision in writing alone, which was the technology of the day, just as the PP was sent out by email alone. But it did not. Something that important merited a better presentation and personal face to face treatment, which, need we say, is easier done today than in those days.

History
When it comes to Reformed Presbyterian historical testimony, again the Position Paper adds drunkeness to thirst and falls between the stools in that, if anything, the absence of any genuine RP historical testimony is notorious and telling. The instance from a secondary source such as the Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology is not authoritative in its own right, much more the section cited (p.11-12) does not categorically establish a extraordinary permanent standing congregational court as asserted (if not the quote from the DSCH&T on p.19 of the PP tells us that the particular elderships of the 2nd Book of Discipline 7:10 are greater presbyteries rather than lesser - classical assemblies rather than congregational sessions. The same could be argued of Geo. Gillespie, the most quoted theologian of the PP, in "Digression Four" of his Dispute Against Eng. Popish Ceremonies, (1993, NP, pp.380,1.)) A temporary session can just as easily fill the bill and has been the known solution of choice in the past in RP history, contra the unconclusive Privy Kirk example cited which preceded the establishment of the Reformation and the Reformed Church in Scotland.

To those who say that this one example of a temporary session is insufficient to establish any precedent in the discussion, we might as well reply that there is also only one example of “self excommunication” mentioned in the judicial Minutes of the Reformed Presbytery of America, the same of which the RPNA – when it existed – and now the Rpnagm claim to be the continuing moral person of and lawful constitutional descendant. But that did not stop the extraordinary court’s appeal to that one example, which is fair enough as far as it goes. But then maybe someone should follow their own example and get serious about the Reformed Presbytery instead of just using the name as eyewash and a cover for what it actually is, a departure from historic RP practice.

Particularly in that, as has been mentioned before, most recently in the Testimony Against Departure, the Act, Declaration and Testimony of the Reformed Presbytery (Supplement IV, XVII ) clearly states that:
They [the Reformed Presbytery] further reject and condemn that sectarian principle and tenet, whether in former or latter times maintained, that a kirk session, or particular congregational eldership, is vested with equal ecclesiastical power and authority, with any superior judicatory, and is neither subordinate nor accountable to them (in the Lord) in their determinations. (1876, pp.197-198)
But this is exactly what our extraordinary, never mind ordinary, ‘session’ has done above, in regards to Acts 15 in claiming international synodical power, if not also presbyterial and that on the basis of “Internet and modern phone communications (PP, p. 9).” All this as judicially and arrogantly assumed and asserted by the exact same court in question.

Reason.
The PPSA is also shot through with the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle term. Time and time again, examples are cited in which the significant parallels are missing between the "court" and the example. These run in Q.1 from a church alone in an island of which its officers can and ordinarily do meet amongst themselves (p.3) as compared to the extraordinary session which ordinarily can't and doesn't meet together to the example of Acts 15 (pp 7-9) and the Grand Debate on presbytery (pp.10,11), each of which have a plurality of teaching elders, again something which the Rpnagm court most emphatically does not have.

As for the PP’s justification of the name of the Rpna(gm) in Q.4 , it goes so far and no further. True the same terms of communion justify having the same name as another ecclesiastical body, but even further among that set, there are also finer distinctions to be made. Otherwise as noted before, we are left with the absurdity of being able to call the Societys of either St. Louis or Southern California for instance, the 'Session of the Rpna(gm)'. Rather names declare not only one’s agreement with certain terms of communion, but go on to further distinguish between groups that hold those terms rather than blur further geographic or governmental distinctions. The Rpna(gm) is not the Church of Scotland (Protesting) in the commonly understood sense, though it is in another in that they are supposedly agreed on the same terms of Communion. This contra not only the PP, but a personal letter by TE Price to the undersigned previously on the subject. As such it would seem to indicate that this erroneous reasoning and doctrine is ingrained in the thinking of the Rpna(gm), which is not to its credit.

2. The Confidential Oath

When it comes to the same, 'Compromised' would be more apt. One swears to uphold the PP and the court it attempts to justify. Yet it appears also to prelimit and commit one to they know not what, as well a defendant is never called to take a Loyalty Oath during a trial, never mind before. One is reminded of the behavior and historical testimony of the High Commission, in requiring an oath of Henry Barrow to testify against himself under questioning by the Archbishop in 1587. Any court worth its salt would merely charge the defendants and let the matter fall out as it may. If they refused to appear, they would be ruled in contempt and cited which is perhaps what would have happened in the end in all this, but be that as it may, the oath is still compromising and suspect, necessarily affirming as it does the erroneous Position Paper on Sessional Authority.

3. The Public Notices of Excommunication

These run pretty true to form and are largely boilerplate affairs. Basically those who refused to swear the oath to affirm the Session of the Rpna(gm) as a lawful court or who asked to be taken off the membership list or even refused to uphold the previous excommunications are considered guilty of a sinful division and schism in the body of Christ and to have voluntarily and actively excommunicated themselves from the Rpna(gm) and therefore the "Visible Church".

Even further, as pointed out in the last of the For Your Consideration series on excommunication, Q.6. there is an obligation to announce for three weeks the impending sentence of excommunication on those even guilty of offences that automatically deserve public repentance. The same offences automatically mean that one is called before the session immediately rather than going the Matt. 18 route of admonishment by private brethren first:
(T)he scandal being known, the offender should be called before the ministry, his crime proven, accused, rebuked, and he commanded publicly to satisfy the church; which if the offender refuses, they may proceed to excommunication, as after shall be declared. If the offender appears not, summons ought to pass to the third time; and then in case he appears not, the church may discern the sentence to be pronounced (The Order of Excommunication and of Public Repentance 1569 ).
"As after shall be declared" refers to the following paragraphs which deal with more minor and common offences which may, due to obstinacy, come to the point that public admonishment and sentence of excommunication is called for after being announced three Sundays in church. That "summons ought to pass to the third time" for the one guilty of an offence that automatically requires public repentance, further substantiates the interpretation contra the Rpna(gm) excommunications, that announcement for three Sundays ought to proceed excommunication of even those supposedly guilty of "common contempt of the order of the church". After all that was essentially what those who first publicly protested the Confidential Oath 10/18/06, were accused of, "common contempt of the order of the church" in refusing a 'lawful' oath by a 'lawful' court in a lawful church of Christ with the summary self excommunications following.

Conclusion

While the Oath and the excommunications have their own problems, everything, including the Rpna(gm)'s extraordinary congregational court, stands or falls with the Position Paper on Sessional Authority. If it goes, so too the court it attempts to legitimize. Likewise the Oath is meaningless and the excommunications null and void. Neither do we think that there is any confusion at all that we are obviously of the distinct and decided opinion that the PPSA has to fall under any reasonable examination by anyone knowledgeable of Scripture, history or reason. Of course it would be nice if the parties responsible for these three items of their own free will, would repent of them and make public restitution by retracting them. Barring that, we intend to continue to do what we can to expose the PPSA, the Oath and the Excommunications for what they are, empty excuses for the real thing and devoid of any genuine appeal to Scripture, history and reason in order to establish what they respectively and erroneously assert. This, regardless of our fearless and fraudulent barrister hiding in the shadows with his hollow cries and accusations of "defamation" and invasion of privacy by anyone who publishes the "relatively private" correspondence and documents that surround this mess.

We would further respectfully suggest that any defamation of character and corresponding sentence of incompetence is self inflicted by the parties he so zealously and mistakenly aims to defend in such a flagrantly crooked manner as he does in "To Whom It May Concern." Much more our pretended private investigator himself is also self condemned and defamed by this document which he needs to repent of and publicly retract. The cover of darkness is essential to the sleight of argument that would substitute the counterfeit Rpna(gm) doctrine of tacit - i.e ignorant - consent for the informed consent required of any who would claim to be the legitimate descendant and continuing moral person of the Bereans. But that is not how things are done in the church of our Lord Jesus Christ and if our brother was unaware of it before, he is not now.

Acts 17:10, 11 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Ephesians 5:13,14 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.



Wednesday, June 06, 2007

5/23/07, For Your Consideration: Q6. Misinterpretation by Price, Barrow, and Dohms

The other posts in the series are:
For Your Consideration
Q.1 Excommunication by Email?
Q.2 Limits of Modern Technology?
Q.3 Immediate Excommunication?
Q.4 What is the standard Presbyterian procedure for excommunication?
Q.5. Scriptural Justification for a Three Week Excommunication Notice
Q.7 Why Read the Banns?

From: Stan B.
To: List
Cc: Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007, 9:05 PM
Subject: Q6: Misinterpretation by Price, Barrow, and Dohms

Dear Brethren,

Thanking you for your continued patience, I submit the following for your consideration.

Your brother,
Stan

P.S. My private correspondence with Mr. Price, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Dohms, which is referenced below, is available to anyone who requests it.
===================================================================

6. Did Mr. Price, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Dohms misinterpret _The Order of Excommunication and of Public Repentance_?

In the last three articles (Questions #3, #4, and #5) I have presented arguments from Scripture, Presbyterian historical testimony, and the light of nature to support the view that multiple public admonitions should precede a pronouncement of excommunication, whether the case is private or public. This analysis, if correct, is sufficient to demonstrate that the proper Biblical and Presbyterian procedure was not carried out in the recent pronouncements of excommunication by Mr. Price, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Dohms, thus rendering these pronouncements null and void.

Nevertheless, I thought it might be helpful to explain in detail where these men erred in their specific interpretation of _The Order of Excommunication and of Public Repentance_. In their letter of November 4, 2006, they argue that this document allows for someone guilty of public sin to be immediately excommunicated (i.e., without any prior public admonitions). The question of their interpretation of this document is worth its own investigation, because it reveals a clear instance in which these men have distorted historic Presbyterianism beyond recognition, not only in their misapplication to "extraordinary times" but in their very misinterpretation of the historic document itself.

Lest anyone should take offense at my publicly arguing against the doctrine and practice of these men, I offer two points of defense. First, public errors deserve public correction, and my hope is that these articles of mine will assist fellow brethren in distinguishing truth from error. If even one person is saved from having to repeat our lamentable experience, the labor will be worth it. Secondly, I tried in all sincerity to avoid this public route as much as I could. . . . .
(Go here for the rest of the post)

Sunday, May 27, 2007

5/27/07, A Testimony Against Departure

From: Rod S.
To: [List]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 7:40 PM
Subject: A Letter To You

Dear Brethren;
As people of association and membership in the Puritan Reformed Church since 1993 (now known as the RPNAGM), we believe the attached letter may offer a perspective not considered by many up to this point and hope you will prayerfully read it without bias.
A reasonable amount of time has passed since we received the Confidential Oath. This has allowed us to reflect, pray and finally to carefully compose this letter in the absence of any attempt by Mr. Price, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Dohms to contact us in the past 6 months.
We do not speak on behalf of the Prince George Society, but only testify of our own household. It is presumed for purposes of brevity and minimal referencing that those to whom this testimony is written are reasonably familiar with the topic, with the correspondence of the past 3 or so years and with basic principles of Presbyterian church government.

Friday, May 25, 2007

5/25/07 - 6/6/07, The Further Unraveling of the "To Whom It May Concern" Email Fraud

As posted on The Covenant Reformation Club
[edited for email bloat, etc.]

#15802
From: Bob S.
Date: Fri May 25, 2007 8:50 pm
Subject: To Whom It May Concern

To Whom It May Concern,
Mickey Mouse et al.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist, to discern humble Werner (Von Brahn's) fingerprints all over the item below. Evidently when you can't beat them in an "honorable" or reasonable way, sue them. Or at least threaten to.

As for who has a reputation for religion in light of 1 Cor. 6:1-8 or Deut. 19:19, let the reader judge. Our humble litigants and those with a love for tort law more than truth or those who oppose them?

As for those who think the church of Christ a "relatively private" organization or club, let alone their own little private preserve or tea party where they may do as they please and officers may excommunicate with abandon all the while howling "invasion of privacy" when those publicly excommunicated publicly protest, Jeremiah 12:5 is reproof enough.

"If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?"

If you can't figure out the visible church of Christ is a public body and to be excommunicated from the same is a public action, you have defamed your claim to possessing any common sense or reason on the question, if not a claim to the public's ear and sympathy for your complaint. Hence we suppose this "gratuitously" helpful attempt to intimidate and harass in order to override that situation of one's own making. And no, that is not defamatory. Rather if somebody can't stand the heat, they ought to get out of the kitchen in the first place instead of blaming it on other people.

Yet we have one "simple request" of those who "allegedly" do the same: Specify the "specific names and specific content that you are hereby being requested to remove or amend" which "will not be provided to you for your direction in this matter [our emphasis]" or shut up and stand down. (Does this remind anyone of an oath to affirm a court before which a charge of sin has been made, but neither plaintiff or the specific sin is specified?) Play the man and come out from behind the curtains with your anonymous allegations and charges and make a reasonable request of those you disagree with rather than a ridiculous one.

Please. Otherwise this pathetic and wretched item will reflect poorly on everyone on your side, not just those responsible for it.

cordially yours,
in Christ
Bob S.

From: advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
To: advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
Sent: Monday, May 14, :06 AM
Subject: Notice
May 14th, 2007

To Whom it may concern:

You have been identified as a person or organization that may be of interest in regards to the following matter under investigation. It has been brought to our attention by several private and aggrieved parties that the content of an Internet publication(s) that you either control, influence, or create or provide content for, allegedly contains that which is defamatory of specific persons and organizations expressly being named therein. You may have created or posted defamatory information, or facilitated its publication. These allegations pertain to the express use of names within this publication(s), and assert that the defamation is either of a direct nature (being derogatory predications or false information that is directly stated about such express names), or of an indirect nature (express names being implicated within a derogatory context), or by otherwise facilitating any such defamatory activity or content (allowing links to defamatory pages, failure to enforce conditions of use by moderators or owners, etc.). . . . [go here for the rest.]

#15803
From: "bob_s*"
Date: Fri May 25, 2007 9:07 pm
Subject: Re: To Whom It May Concern

Whoops, forgot to mention that in order to call attention to it, I added the UL to the original post quoted from the 'anonymous advocate for lawful harassment of those we disagree with'. I don't want to misrepresent our Perry Mason mystery man in any way, shape or form.

Bob S.

"The specific names and specific content that you are hereby being requested to remove or amend will not be provided to you for your direction in this matter: The moral and legal burden is upon you topublish only that which you know to be, in legal fact, not defamatory;and to publish only those names and that content for which you haveeither legal right or permission to so publicly make known."


--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_s*" wrote:
>
> To Whom It May Concern,
> Mickey Mouse et al.
>
> You don't have to be a rocket scientist, to discern humble Werner
> (Von Brahn's) fingerprints all over the item below. Evidently when
> you can't beat them in an "honorable" or reasonable way, sue them.
> Or at least threaten to. . . . .


> From: advocate.for.law@...
> To: advocate.for.law@...
> Sent: Monday, May 14, :06 AM
> Subject: Notice
> May 14th, 2007
>
> To Whom it may concern:
>
> You have been identified as a person or organization that may be of
> interest in regards to the following matter under investigation. . . . .


#15804
From: Walt B
Date: Sat May 26, 2007 8:20 am
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Whom It May Concern humbled.learner


Bob,
I have just returned from 2 weeks in Singapore/China and finishing my work in Houston before returning home tonight. I'm assuming that you are not referring to me below, but since you talk in multiple tongues I am not always able to follow your discussions or allegations. If you are referring to me, I would request you provide some facts that you have received from others to lead you to this conclusion. Have you received information from other people alleging that I have written the document below? During the past 2 months I have been buried in work and privately have been in discussions with a couple former members of our church, but before you go out leading a massive smear campaign against me (as was done in previous documents I've read on your website about past situations involving you and others in our church creating all these public conspiracies) you better make sure I wrote the document below before publically leading others to believe it is an alleged fact. I'll be back home tonight and it will take me some time to get caught up on a host of issues, but if your comments lead anyone to believe something that is not true, or you are going to be pushing an agenda to smear me publically, I would ask you to kindly reconsider. I did not write the document below and you better be very careful what you and others are alleging privately (and now publically) about me if I'm the one you are talking about. You have no problem is smearing people publically as I've seen on your website, and if you are now going to drag me into this campaign I would ask you to reconsider and get your facts straight first. I will not tolerate how you have treated other peoples confidential and private correspondence, or the good names of others who have been allegedly involved in your perceived conspiracy against those that have been excommunicated. I will find it most interesting to learn who actually has written the letter below, as I have been out of the country, and indeed will put all my resources behind the legal cause should you begin a new massive campaign publically against me without having your facts clear. Please consider this a formal notice against you and others who are intending to drag me into this campaign to damage my name and reputation using your website, and the website of covenantedreformationclub. If this message makes it through, this will be your notice, if not, I will deal with your allegations directly (should you have publically intended that I'm the one referred to as "humble Werner (Von Brahn's)"). Again, so I'm clear, please be careful before you begin your public campaign leading others to believe another of your alleged conspiracies.
Walt.


#15807
From: "gmw"
Date: Sun May 27, 2007 7:11 am
Subject: Re: To Whom It May Concern raging_calvi...


Is it just me, or does this resemble the "You've been charged with a
sin, but we ain't telling you what it is or who is your accuser, but
the charges are very serious" thing that most of the X'd have received?

gmw.

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_s*"
wrote:
>
> Whoops, forgot to mention that in order to call attention to it, I added
> the UL to the original post quoted from the 'anonymous advocate for
> lawful harassment of those we disagree with'. I don't want to
> misrepresent our Perry Mason mystery man in any way, shape or form.
>
> Bob S.
>
> "The specific names and specific content that you are hereby
> being requested to remove or amend will not be provided to you for
> your direction in this matter: The moral and legal burden is upon you
> to publish only that which you know to be, in legal fact, not
> defamatory; and to publish only those names and that content for which
> you have either legal right or permission to so publicly make known."
>
>
> --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_s*"
> wrote:
> >
> > To Whom It May Concern,
> > Mickey Mouse et al.
> >
> > You don't have to be a rocket scientist, to discern humble Werner
> > (Von Brahn's) fingerprints all over the item below. Evidently when
> > you can't beat them in an "honorable" or reasonable way, sue them.
> > Or at least threaten to. . . . .
>
>
> > From: advocate.for.law@
> > To: advocate.for.law@
> > Sent: Monday, May 14, :06 AM
> > Subject: Notice
> > May 14th, 2007
> >
> > To Whom it may concern:
> >
> > You have been identified as a person or organization that may be of
> > interest in regards to the following matter under investigation. . . .
> .
>

#15808
From: Bob S.
Date: Sun May 27, :10 pm
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Whom It May Concern


Greetings Walter,

1. I said "humble Werner" not "humble learner".

2. That is not to say that you are not a possible person of interest/suspect in regard to the anonymous missive from our anonymous advocate. You have been very vocal in the past about what you consider to be your " confidential and private correspondence" on this public forum (as you mention below) so consequently the circumstantial evidence points in your direction.

Of course I glad to hear you affirm that you did not actually write it. Even further, I will take that to mean that you did not even put some green legal intern from a free legal service at lawyer.com up to it. Neither will I ask you to sign an affidavit.

4. That is because, as you say below: "I will find it most interesting to learn who actually has written the letter below." Well, it is not only interesting, it is downright hilarious. That is because a couple of `anonymous' brethren put together an impromtu Internet Fraud Detection Detail to snooker this whole thing out. Evidently, after looking over the email headers, it seems,

"The originating IP of the email resolves to a Niwot, CO regional office, with their routers (in the area north of Denver, CO). That address would be randomly assigned to some user connected to that office.
[The] originating IP of the email: 63.231.86.127 http://www.maxmind.com/app/locate_ip (to look up that IP, enter IP and the captcha number displayed) www.mail.com allows you to sign up for a free lawyer.com email address that was used to email you."

Even further,

"(I)f you go to mail.com [updated] then click "Not a member yet? Sign Up for a free account." Then click the red "Sign Up Now" button, then click the red "See all our domains" button, you'll get a pop-up of all the different domain names that site somehow has ownership over, which is quite a few. So you get @lawyer.com, @doctor.com, @engineer.com or tons of you, for the choice of your (pretended) professional expertise. . ."

At this point are we ROFL? No, we are ROF[howling with]L. I followed the steps above and the only thing I have to say is that while the domain names include "toothfairy.com", somehow they seem to have missed "fraud.com" or "Ijustmadearoyalassofmyself.com".

That is, maybe this doesn't have anything at all to do with our dear brother in Longmont, CO who might have been our mystery plaintiff in the Confidential Oath and whom has received more visits from the elders than the Society in Prince George in all the recent hooraw, but one does wonder. After all, Niwot, CO city center is 6.8 miles (or 14 minutes drive) from the Longmont, CO city center. http://maps.google.com/. The legal speak and gobbledygook of "To Whom It Might Concern " might resemble his of Jan. '06 to the elders alleging whatall and whatever of the Society of Prince George and the undersigned.

But be that as it may, unfortunately, contra Rom. 3:8, someoney - we know not who - did evil that good might come. At least from his perspective anyway. From ours, it clearly looks like an intent to defraud and intimidate by impersonating a lawyer in all this, rather than "gratuitously" make a "simple request" in light of " common sense, basic civility, and good judgment".

But if whoever it is, considers all this a defamation of his anonymous character, some of us among those who have received the anonymous advocate's bill of goods, i.e. "TWIMC", actually have family members who have passed a bar exam or two and have practiced law, or have a real lawyer on retainer. In other words, if our aggrieved party would care to contact us privately, we would be happy to forward their request for legal services to the real thing.

Even further in the larger context, we note that in January `06 the elder surrogates and proxies, including our brother from Colorado, were impersonating a court, if not usurping its powers in asking affidavits of those who had the audacity to ask what the public sins were that were to be confessed in the Public Day of Prayer and Fasting. Come June `06 we had the Position Paper on Sessional Authority which asserted the legitimacy of three officers to impersonate an extraordinary standing/permanent session, if not also a presbytery or synod. In Nov. `06 the same even went so far as to enforce ecclesiastical penalties by excommunicating people. If that were not enough, now in May `07 we seem to have somebody from that same camp impersonating a lawyer in an attempt to intimidate, if not inflict civil penalties on the same excommunicated brethren.

Yet the doctrine of tacit consent as presently held and practiced in the "RPNA(GM)," might have something to say about all this, no? Do the officers of "RPNA(GM)" countenance this kind of behavior in their church when it comes to their attention? (God forbid they knew of it before it went out, which would make their silence even more reprehensible than the original document itself.) Would or do they discipline anyone that stoops to this level of interaction, even with excommunicated brethren? Would they require repentance and retraction of any of this? We do wonder. Particularly in that the question begging Position Paper, the compromising Confidential Oath and the invalid Excommunication Notices have not been repented of. Neither have they been retracted and all this brother is basically doing in our opinion, is defending those documents and positions in the same slipshod, zealous and legally - whether ecclesiastically or civilly - underhanded fashion.

cordially yours,
in Christ,
Bob S.

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Walt Bre wrote:
>
> Bob,
> I have just returned from 2 weeks in Singapore/China and finishing my work in Houston before returning home tonight. I'm assuming that you are not referring to me below, but since you talk in multiple tongues I am not always able to follow your discussions or allegations. If you are referring to me, I would request you provide some facts that you have received from others to lead you to this conclusion. Have you received information from other people alleging that I have written the document below? During the past 2 months I have been buried in work and privately have been in discussions with a couple former members of our church, but before you go out leading a massive smear campaign against me (as was done in previous documents I've read on your website about past situations involving you and others in our church creating all these public conspiracies) you better make sure I wrote the document below before publically leading others to believe it is an alleged fact. . . .

#15810
From: "Deejay"
Date: Sun May 27, 2007 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Whom It May Concern righteous_rebel

You'd have thought they would have included the possibility of @genius.com I was going to sign up for one if they had, but all the ones they had on offer, were beneath me!! B-)

~Deejay

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_s*" wrote:
>
>
> "The originating IP of the email resolves to a Niwot, CO regional
> office, with their routers (in the area north of Denver, CO). That
> address would be randomly assigned to some user connected to that
> office.
> [The] originating IP of the email: 63.231.86.127
> http://www.maxmind.com/app/locate_ip (to look up that IP, enter IP and
> the captcha number displayed)
> www.mail.com allows you to sign up for a free lawyer.com email address
> that was used to email you."
>

#15828
From: Walt B
Date: Sun May 27, 2007 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Whom It May Concern

Bob,

I'm not going to get into another debate on
covenantedreformationclub's website over this legal
issue. Obviously your own research has shown you what
you wanted to know without alleging "humble.learner"
was not really "humbler Werner". Dance around this
all you want, but when I read your public message with
your opening statement, "it does not take a rocket
scientist" or something like that, and your subsequent
comments, I became very upset.

It is very good that your group has lawyers on
retainer already and some passing the bar, because
from my experience these events are not going away
anytime soon. Your website will continue to publish
private discussions between Pastor Price and former
members of our church, and I suspect you will continue
to give people your brilliant "publisher" commentary
as to what it really all means (at all times seeking
to destroy the credibility and names of the Elders).

In all of this, I can truly say that the past couple
months have been a real "eye opener" for me to read
your and others commentary about our Elders. From
what I can tell (especially with some of you) this has
been burning inside for a few years. Clearly, with
your leadership (and your current publishing company)
you are able to make a substantial impact to destroy
whatever credibility the Elders had before all these
events.

I can see the day where you, the Elders and our member
in Colorado are going to be in front of a civil
magistrate to see who has the best lawyers. It is
just a matter of time, in my opinion, and your family
lawyers or current retained lawyers are going to be
arguing who caused the actual damage, who did what
they could to destroy reputations publically and
whether or not there was ever a membership agreement
in place between the Elders, representing Christ's
church, and the members (explicit or implicit).

There is no doubt in my mind this is going to get
nasty (based upon what I've read so far on your views
of the Elders) and expensive for all parties involved.
In the end, I anticipate you will be riding the wave
in the media spotlight to "uncover" the "great
conspiracy" that you have allegedly discovered. There
is no doubt from your website this role suits you
well, and with a hand full of good trial lawyers you
will be at the top of your game, but before you drag
me into this situation you best have your facts
clearly laid out about my intentions.

Let me make them clear for you here. You can be
absolutely 100% sure that I will do everything in my
ability to protect my Elders and their names in this
controversy. I do not do this blindly or out of
vindictiveness toward you or any other former member,
but out of love I have for these men, their exhaustive
labors and my desire for seeing reformation in
Christ's church and state. I'll not sit silently by
while you, your lawyers and your followers seek to
desteoy these men no matter what you believe and teach
about them.

From all of the evidence I've read so far, there is
nothing yet that will change my position. You are
going to need to bring up some real supporting
evidence to prove your conspiracy before I will give
any weight to your plan to destroy our small
covenanter congregation. I've commited to my
membership and the fraud and conspiracy you allege
needs to be supported by a lot more facts than are
posted on your website, or what I've heard from
private discussions with some of our former church
members. All of these documents that you men
supposedly possess will need to go before trial
lawyers and they will need to defend their positions
that all this really existed.

This is my last email to you on this matter, and if
you continue to allege that "humble Werner" is behind
this legal issue, and seek to destroy my reputation on
this yahoo groups site, you should gather more
evidence than "it does not take a rocket scientist" in
what you have presented in your initial public
allegations. I've expressed my concerns privately
with some by email and some face-to-face over my
position, but you have never been included in these
communications. If you are getting information from
others, without my permission to release my position
(and thus drawing invalid legal conclusions), I will
be very disappointed. I know some of you have zero
interest in protecting private communications, and in
your minds all private communication is open for
public distribution and publication, but I firmly
reject this legal opinion.

Again, this is my last message on this topic, and I
would ask that you not post another message alleging
I'm involved in something untrue until you have your
facts straight and are ready to defend them as a
faithful Christian man. What you wrote below is no
apology toward me, but the typical spin I see from you
over and over again. This might be great for your
followers to get you cheers and support, but I think
it is childish and mickey mouse (as you say).

Be further advised this is a private communication to
you, and obviously those on this yahoo site will read
it, but it is not intended for further public
distribution without my (the author's) permission. My
lawyers advise me that private communication can
certainly be protected even when more than one person
is on the receiving end, and even if its contents are
able to be accessed via those who were not intended
the recipients (e.g., the public).

Whether it is you, or another journalist/publisher
reading my messages on this site, it is a privileged
confidential communication it noticed as such. Sure,
you can publish it without my permission, and put as
much spin/commentary as you want on your website to
seek to destroy my and others reputations, but I would
ask that you please not take this position.

"Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I
cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart
will not I suffer. Mine eyes shall be upon the
faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he
that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me. He
that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house:
he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight. I
will early destroy all the wicked of the land; that I
may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the
LORD" (Psalm 101:5-8).

For the cause of Christ,
Walt.

--- bob_s* wrote:

> Greetings Walter,
>
> 1. I said "humble Werner" not "humble learner".
>
> 2. That is not to say that you are not a possible
> person of
> interest/suspect in regard to the anonymous missive
> from our anonymous
> advocate. You have been very vocal in the past about
> what you consider
> to be your " confidential and private
> correspondence" on this
> public forum (as you mention below) so
> consequently the circumstantial
> evidence points in your direction. . .

________________________________________________________________________________\
____Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated
for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow


#15829
From: "gmw"
Date: Wed Jun 6, 2007 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Whom It May Concern raging_calvi...


[just wanted to point out that this is late in appearance because I
didn't notice it sitting in the approval box until just now -- gmw]

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Walt Bre
wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I'm not going to get into another debate on
> covenantedreformationclub's website over this legal
> issue.

#15832
From: Bob S.
Date: Wed Jun 6, 2007 9:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Whom It May Concern

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Walt Bre
wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I'm not going to get into another debate on
> covenantedreformationclub's website over this legal
> issue. Obviously your own research has shown you what
> you wanted to know without alleging "humble.learner"
> was not really "humbler Werner". . . . . .

Hey, Walt,
Can you spare us all the bad sportsmanship and give it up, please?

The reasons for that are:

1. I found out about where the phony lawyer message came from after you
denied having written it. My second post which yours replies to below
makes that clear. If you don't want to accept that, it is not because I
have given offence, but because you have taken offence.

2. That is not to say, because of your previous public statements and
your stated opinions about public/private forums repeated again below,
it is unreasonable to think you might have had something to do with it.
I was well within the boundaries of common sense and decency to
challenge you on it, which when you denied it, I was more than happy to
explicitly accept it.

3. There can be no real debate when we can't get our facts straight.
If anybody is accusing anybody of conspiracy as you repeatedly state
that I do of the elders, rather it is the elders who have accused the
Effort of being a conspiracy. I make no mention whatsoever of a
conspiracy on the part of the elders, whatever else I happen to disagree
with or think wrong of them.

4. If mentioning any or all of this upsets you, you should really try
being excommunicated sometime.

5. As for destroying the credibility of the elders, IMO rather their own
arguments and the behavior of their proxies and surrogates do quite well
on their own without my help thank you very much, advocate.for.law being
quite to the point. That doesn't mean it is unlawful to point out
further some of the gross contradictions and shortcomings in the
Position Paper, Confidential Oath and Excommunication Notices.

6. As for a membership agreement, that is not in question. That the
elders modified that agreement and implicitly added to it all the while
relying on tacit, implicit, uninformed, yea ignorant assent and consent
is the question. To then insist that the other party still adhere to the
original terms is not a legitimate, honorable and above board way to
conduct matters in Christ's church no matter what anybody says.

7. As a man of your word, when you say this will be your last email to
me about this on this public forum - just like your denial of being
behind "advocate.for.law" - I will again take you at your word
on it. Please don't go back on it. After all, Ps. 101, which you
quote below, says that he who telleth lies shall not tarry in the
Lord's sight.

8. Even further, also from Ps. 101, "whoso privily [privately]
slandereth his neighbor" does not refer to public forums such as
this, but rather telling lies about someone secretly and behind their
back. But that has not happened, whether we are talking about slander,
privily or publicly and to say so without backing it up or even trying
to, is slander.

Thank you very much.
Bob S.


--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Walt B
wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I'm not going to get into another debate on
> covenantedreformationclub's website over this legal
> issue. Obviously your own research has shown you what
> you wanted to know without alleging "humble.learner"
> was not really "humbler Werner". Dance around this
> all you want, but when I read your public message with
> your opening statement, "it does not take a rocket
> scientist" or something like that, and your subsequent
> comments, I became very upset. . . .
>

<>
Message #
Search:
Advanced

Start Topic
Add to My Yahoo! XML What's This?
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Guidelines - Help

Thursday, May 24, 2007

5/24/07 - 6/4/07, In Case You Missed It

The Fraudulent "To Whom It May Concern" Email

From: Cheryl G.

To: List
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:55 AM
Subject: In Case you missed it...

Dear Folks,

I received the following brave communication in my knox inbox recently. I would be interested in hearing if any others have received anything similar.

Cheryl G.

PS. It is news to me that excommunication is now a private matter.

----Original Message-----
From: advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
To: advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
[Bcc: Cheryl G. ; Bob S. ; ?]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:06 AM
Subject: Notice

May 14th, 2007
To Whom it may concern:

You have been identified as a person or organization that may be of interest in regards to the following matter under investigation. It has been brought to our attention by several private and aggrieved parties that the content of an Internet publication(s) that you either control, influence, or create or provide content for, allegedly contains that which is defamatory of specific persons and organizations expressly being named therein. You may have created or posted defamatory information, or facilitated its publication. These allegations pertain to the express use of names within this publication(s), and assert that the defamation is either of a direct nature (being derogatory predications or false information that is directly stated about such express names), or of an indirect nature (express names being implicated within a derogatory context), or by otherwise facilitating any such defamatory activity or content (allowing links to defamatory pages, failure to enforce conditions of use by moderators or owners, etc.). . . . [Go here to see the rest.]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob S
To: Cheryl G. ; List
Cc: Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it...

Greetings Cheryl et al,
For various odd reasons I hadn’t gotten around to replying to this yet, having received my very own version of Lawyers R Us Monday, May 14th. Late as it is though, your post bumped the rough draft to the top of the "to do" list.

Yes, I think it speaks for itself. Vague, undefined, impersonal if not anonymous, threatening, but quick to assert the contrary, full of allegations, bluffs and "simple requests" etc. A sad and sorry, as well as carnal and cowardly response to recent events in Rpna(gm) circles.

It is certainly encouraging to know that there are humble brethren out there, who have such a high esteem for and love of the truth that they are willing to become humble litigants for the same.

But let the anonymous and aggrieved parties come out from the shadows and state plainly what is defamatory – i.e. unfaithful to the truth – not what is unpleasant and embarassing. (For that matter, early on when the "Confidential Oath" was posted, a mailing address was inadvertently left in, which when apprised of, we were happy to remove from the RPV site. Since then, we have received no further objections of that nature, only shallow, specious and spurious disagreements to our objections in principle to the RPNA(GM) and our audacity in implementing the sunshine doctrine on the doctrinal dungheap. Yes, it does smell, but what else would you expect?)

It also appears that our mystery advocate makes some claim to common sense and reason. Yet essentially as you mention, our legal scholar completely fails to recognize that it is one thing to kick people out of a "relatively private" little club, and entirely another to excommunicate them from the visible public church of Christ at large as was done in the RPNA(GM). In that we do not yet live under the persecuting circumstances that prevail now in China or N. Korea, if not the religious society times in Scotland, a full and public discussion of the matter is not only possible, but also called for and entirely lawful. Ergo by good and necessary consequences the relevant and "relatively private" documents become public items regardless if anyone cares to publicize them or not. Retract the Public Excommunications, the Oath and Position Paper and one might be able to make a case for the invasion of privacy. But that hasn’t happened yet. (For that matter, who gave their explicit permission to be publicly excommunicated in the first place?) Those who think that they have free rein from Christ to do as they please in his church and then skate when it comes to a public discussion of it because it is all "relatively private", deserve to be cashiered from office in Christ’s church if they hold it and go to work at McDonalds as a cashier or a happy greeter at Walmart. If they do not already hold "office" they have categorically shown themselves incompetent and no candidates for it. Unfortunately our humble and honorable litigants fill the bill on either account having defamed their own character by their doctrine and actions and not my mention of it.

Yet not only does Scripture forbid going to law with believers 1 Cor. 6:1-8, ‘if you can’t prove the crime, you do the time’ is an adequate paraphrase of Deut. 19:19. While lawsuits of a frivolous, nuisance or harassing character are categorically forbidden in Scripture, they are not ruled out in this missive entitled "To Whom It May Concern." Still, as has been the problem for some time now, the Position Paper on Sessional Authority, the Confidential Oath and the Notices of Excommunication are the standing material defamations of the truths of Scripture, history and reason/logic in the ongoing discussion. In other words, it might behoove this physician - if not quack - to heal himself. More to the point, that the shyster would prosecute himself. We ought to obey God rather than man, particularly those who attempt to intimidate and silence any who ask questions or object to their otherwise unaccountable pronouncements and discipline rather than answer them in substance.

More could be said, I suppose, but that ought to be enough for now for this kind of pretentious and infuriating, as well as hilarious and pathetic, drivel.

cordially in Christ,
Bob S

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob S.
To: Cheryl G. ; List
Cc: Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Greetings again Cheryl and brethren, interested or otherwise,

Further developments in all this are verry interesting.
A little sleuth work by some charitable brethren turned up the following:

The originating IP of the email resolves to a Niwot, CO regional office, with their routers (in the area north of Denver, CO). That address would be randomly assigned to some user connected to that office.
[The] originating IP of the email: 63.231.86.127 http://www.maxmind.com/app/locate_ip (to look up that IP, enter IP and the captcha number displayed). www.mail.com allows you to sign up for a free lawyer.com email address that was used to email you.

Even further,

[G]o to mail.com [updated] then click "Not a member yet? Sign Up for a free account." Then click the red "Sign Up Now" button, then click the red "See all our domains" button, you'll get a pop-up of all the different domain names that site somehow has ownership over, which is quite a few. So you get @lawyer.com, @ doctor.com, @engineer.com or tons of you, for the choice of your (pretended) professional expertise . . . .

As mentioned on CovRefClub (#15808), while mail.com owns the rights to " toothfairy.com", some how "fraud.com" or " Ijustmadearoyalassofmyself.com" got left out of the mix.

That is too bad because Niwot, CO city center is 6.8 miles (or 14 minutes drive) from Longmont, CO city center. http://maps.google.com/. Does anybody know anybody from Longmont, CO? (Consult your RPNA(GM) membership list if in doubt.) Could they be the same party also responsible for the following fine print rider on any emails they actually do send under their real name? After all our advocate.for.law. repeatedly confused defamation of character with invasion of privacy in regard to the supposedly/"relatively private" information and documents which surrounds the recent unpleasantness in the RPNA(GM) to the defamation of his competence to the question. (That information would include any of the material surrounding the Position Paper, Confidential Oath and public Notices of Excommunication from the visible public church of Christ by the RPNA(GM) officers, as well as the documents named themselves.)

This communication is CONFIDENTIAL: this email (its email address, content, and/or attachment(s)) is intended for the recipient(s) only. The information contained in, or attached to, this email is not intended for distribution or relation to any others by any recipient(s) apart from the express permission of the originator. This encompasses any disclosure of the originator's email address to others (via inclusion on other lists, etc.). If you are not an original recipient and have otherwise received this communication by some other person (other than from the original sender) and/or by some other mechanism (hard copy, facsimile, verbal relation, etc.), please immediately reject it by refusing to hear it and/or by permanently deleting or destroying it, its content, and/or attachments without hearing or reading beyond this statement paragraph. Confidentiality as to this communication is null and void if its content and/or attachments are unlawful in themselves and thus unlawful to keep in confidence, or when lawfully required to be so revealed by a lawful and faithful civil magistrate or by a lawful and faithful ecclesiastical court. If so made known by originator's permission (per above) or by lawful requirement (per above), this paragraph is not to be deleted from the communication (as made known) without the express permission of the original sender, unless otherwise required by a lawful and faithful authority (per above). In your reading of this paragraph, or hearing this paragraph read, it is witnessed that you are aware of and understand this declaration of confidentiality so as to lawfully abide by its lawful terms before voluntarily proceeding to the substance of the communication, in its content and/or attachment(s). Otherwise, please refuse and/or permanently delete this communication and do not voluntarily elect to proceed so as to otherwise know its content and/or attachment(s).

As one brother asks, just how far can an equal bind you to something without your prior consent? But even further, would our brother from Colorado care to sign an affidavit that he is not responsible for this scandal orginating with the courageous post from the anonymous advocate.for.(un)law(fully harassing anybody we disagree with)?

As far as the doctrine of tacit consent goes, as currently propounded and practiced in the "RPNA(GM)", did the officers know anything about this scam before it was perpetrated? And now that they do know, will they do anything about it? We respectfully think not. Even though, we are talking about a Ninth Commandment issue, wherein we are to appear and stand "for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice". Again, did that happen in all of this?

Just asking, though as a disaffected, i.e. excommunicated (translation "invisible") brother the chances of a real reply, never mind repentance for and retraction of this, humanly speaking are next to none.

cordially in Christ
Bob S

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Cheryl G.
To: Bob S. ; List
Cc: Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Dear Bob and others,

Thank you to you and your assistants for this helpful piece of information. I would like to assure the "gentleman" (and I use that term very loosely) from Longmont, CO that if he doesn't knock it off and that right quickly, that I HAVE retained a lawyer and I am not afraid to use him if I receive any further harassment from him or any of the other loyal followers of the so-called elders of the RPNA. I have to deal with enough baloney in my life at the moment without these unchivalrous, cowardly, anonymous, hateful things being sent my way by those who practice hit and run tactics, post parables and then claim they are too busy to respond after they stir up a hornet's nest, and then send harassing anonymous emails because they don't have the gonads to sign their names. Nor do I have any respect for the so called ecclesiastical authorities in his sphere of influence who turn a blind eye to this, and who, by their tacit consent, show that they actually approve of and applaud these tactics.

When I survey the personal damage and the damage I see in the lives of many others who have been impacted by this whole mess, I am moved to a great indignation and righteous anger over the havoc they and their minions have caused. A whole generation of young people have been lost by these lords of misrule and many of them are hardened against the reformed faith because they have been stumbled. They have much to answer for. I could say more but I am restraining myself.

Cheryl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ben H.
To: Cheryl G.
Cc: Bob S. ; List; ; Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Cheryl and Bob,

Lest you think that, due to my silence, I endorse the letter you've received from the yet unnamed law advocate, I'm writing to confirm that there's at least one member of the RPNA(GM) who does not sanction this kind of action. Though I admit that, in the abstract, one may bring civil charges against a party who is publicly defaming one's character, I believe that going straight to law is not only unwise, it is also un-Christian. The following passage was brought to my attention by a friend:

Debate thy cause with thy neighbour [himself]; and discover not a secret to another: lest he that heareth [it] put thee to shame, and thine infamy turn not away. -- Proverbs 25:9,10

Even if you were publicly hosting content on your blogs that was offensive and possibly slanderous, I believe that in this situation, it would be best to contact you privately, in a non-legal capacity first to see if something could be worked out, rather than send an anonymous email requesting you to remove undisclosed content upon threat of legal action.

Needless to say, if it turns out that Brian is the one who authored the document, then I would disagree even more strongly as it is an outright lie for him to represent himself as a law advocate, no matter how much he may be able to write like one. That is, I don't endorse scare tactics, especially from those who can't deliver the goods.

In addition, I find it curious that a member of the RPNA(GM) would threaten you with legal action, especially in the present context, (though of course if it turns out that a member of the RPNA(GM) didn't originate the letter this concern is mooted). Presumably, any member of the RPNA(GM) would not uphold the lawfulness of whatever court at which the threatened trial was to take place, and if administered an oath to uphold the court prior to the trial, that member would be unable to do so for conscience's sake. So, it seems that they must admit that one can participate in a trial even when the authority of the court isn't explicitly owned (indeed can't be owned), or they must refrain from bringing any charges. But of course this would be problematic since many of the people recently excommunicated couldn't swear an oath to uphold the lawfulness of the court of the RPNA(GM), though they were certainly willing to defend themselves before that court. And what's worse in this situation is that instead of being required to defend themselves (as were the recently excommunicated), any attempt to bring legal action is a free and voluntary action by which one chooses to opt into that wicked, corrupt, tyrannical and Christ-usurping civil government under which we bear so heavy a burden. But like I said, this is all curious; as such, it requires further examination, and so I'm in no way committed to the above line of reasoning.

This of course doesn't endorse anything you've said that is false and of a defamatory nature on your blogs. But then again I've not read much of either of your blogs, so I'm not aware of any such claims on your parts. Nevertheless, since nobody's perfect, perhaps you could take this letter as a Shimei-like warning, and reconsider some of what you write publicly. As a people who are to 'turn the other cheek', 'be patient in tribulation', 'repay no man evil for evil', 'live peaceably with all men', 'provoke one another to good works', bear the burdens of the weak, 'bless the ones persecuting us, not curse', 'be filled with love, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness' etc., I'd encourage you to temper your comments about the RPNA(GM) with some charity. Perhaps these men are sincerely under some kind of delusion and deserve pity rather than open scorn and derision. I'm not saying this is the case, but were I in your shoes, such a position is certainly a charitable way to read them. But then again, whether that is the case also requires further examination. Either way, there may be truth lurking even in the most unlikely of places.

Bob and Cheryl, though we've never met face-to-face, I like you both for your virtues and I miss having you in our church. I didn't rejoice when you were excommunicated, and I'm not one to write you off, especially under the circumstances in which you were excommunicated. It grieves me that this recent turn of events will likely alienate you, most of the recently excommunicated, and many outside of our church even further. I do hope that what I've said goes some way to ameliorating your frustrations in the hopes of reconciliation.

Kind Regards,
Ben

PS -- I'd appreciate it if this email could stay as public as I've intended it, and not end up on someone's blog. Of course, should you fail to honor this request, I won't be bringing any legal action, though I would be disappointed as a brother in Christ.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John P
To: Ben H.
Cc: Cheryl G. ; Bob S. ; List; Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Greetings,

As a member of the RPNA(GM), I agree with much of what Ben said in his first paragraph. Anonymous letters threatening legal action, especially when they don't specify the exact faults of the parties threatened , seem to me a juvenile and overall bad way of dealing with one's problems. Furthermore, even as Christ was slandered and died as a criminal for the church, it seems to me that people ought to be willing to be slandered and persecuted rather than make the church look like a bunch of bullies (or worse). I have little doubt that there are several ways that the so-called 'Law Advocate' could have gone about his/her business without an anonymous legal threat. One such way would have been to just talk with the Cheryl and Bob, for instance, about the specific nature of the offense(s) taken and politely request that they be removed, or even that one's name be removed from the blogs. It seems to me that the chances were good that one or both of them would have honored such a request. There are other ways one could have done this, as well. The most unwise, however, seems to be the action taken by the 'Law Advocate'. (Is it just me, or is it just plain ridiculous to sign one's name the 'Law Advocate'? From now on, I shall refer to the 'Law Advocate' as 'LA' just so that I don't have to write that silly name.) After all, LA's actions both risk the image and reputation of the church, and they were too vague for Cheryl and Bob to take any reasonable steps to correct their blogs.

First, LA's actions risk the image and reputation of the church. What if, for instance, Cheryl and Bob really are slandering the RPNA(GM) and some brethren in the church, and a wicked judge rules in favor of the slanderers? How does the church look then? Did LA – who seems so intent on protecting his or her own image – consider this possibility? S/he seems quick to run to a court that – due to its secular perspective on things – may very well rule against the good. If that were to happen, then those that oppose the church will have a judge's ruling with which to discourage prospective members from joining the RPNA(GM). And all this to protect one's reputation? It seems too high a price to pay. The passage Ben quoted from Proverbs is to the point. The church risks being "put to shame," and our "infamy" from a loss in court may not "turn away" for a long, long time.

Second, LA's letter was too vague for Cheryl and Bob to take any reasonable steps to correct their blogs. After all, no specific instances of slander and misrepresentation were cited. Perhaps this kind of absurd warning (where specific instances of the alleged slander aren't cited) follows naturally from the absurdity of anonymous threats. After all, anonymity (I suspect) disappears the moment one names the person slandered!

Accordingly, while I am convinced that silly and even unwise decisions don't always qualify as sins (or at least don't need to be judged as sins), I still think it is important – as Ben did – to point out that I don't tacitly consent to the actions of LA. By not tacitly consenting to LA's actions, I mean that I believe there were better ways for him/her to go about responding to what s/he takes to be slander (whatever that may be!).

Finally, I also ask that this email not be posted on websites, or in any other way that makes it available to people other than those to whom it has been sent. I would really appreciate it if everyone honors this request. Thanks!

Regards,
John P.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Cheryl G.
To: John P ; Ben H.
Cc: Bob S. ; List; Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Dear Ben, John, Etc.,

Thank you for your replies. And thanks to others who responded to me privately. If anyone cares to examine my blog, what they will find is that the only correspondence that is posted there is what was addressed to me personally and to the rest of the Body, namely, my notice of excommunication, which is a public act, and my opinion of that act as well as my opinion of the excommunications of others. In the heat of the moment, I did post some other personal correspondence, again addressed to myself alone, but subsequently took it down within 24 hours of posting it. If the elders and whoever feel that they have been defamed or slandered by what is there, well by their own words they are condemned. When it was pointed out to me that I had indavertantly left in things like phone numbers and addresses, which things would impact the elders' families, I had those things removed. Otherwise, the elders should be able to stand by what they have done, or retract it.

I want to beg everyone's pardon for the tone of my emails. I am feeling somewhat provoked at times, and don't always react well as I ought. I just find the whole thing grievous, tiring. It irks me to no end that people are willing to stoop to using a club, but want to do so from behind a veil. This is like being assasinated by an unknown assailant.

You know what else I find sad, but not surprising? That again, it is left to the sheep to try and do damage control and mend fences. Not a peep from the elders. I also find it highly ironic that they would take the time to write up a paper about steps to repentance for those whom they excommunicated, but then fail to send it to them. It leaves me to ask who the real intended audience was for that paper? It doesn't appear to be the ex'd. How serious is their desire to restore us to fellowship, or is it a case of "Thank God the trouble makers are gone!"? I am reminded of the story of the Good Shepherd who left the 99 to find the one lost sheep and wonder what got lost in the translation when they apply it to their own duties and how they carry it out.

I better quit before I descend into sarcasm again.

Cheryl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob S.
To: Cheryl G. ; John P ; Ben H. ; advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
Cc: List; Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Monday, June 04, 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Dear Ben (and John),

While I can appreciate the spirit of the response of the ‘St. Louis Session of the RPNA(GM)’ to the revelation of our anonymous and phony advocate, some further comments are in order. (For starters, when does the RPNA(GM)’s GM meet? Better yet, has the GM ever met, if not what is a GM?) As in does anybody see a pattern here? Phony affidavits, phony analogies and parables, phony excommunications by phony courts and now phony email address lawyers? No, I am not alienated by the most recent from our legal beagle brother. (While he was inadvertently left out of previous mailings, I have rectified that for this one which includes the previous. And no, I haven’t got around to updating the website, but I certainly intend to.) But I am disappointed as a brother in Christ when someone says they haven’t read much of either blog in question and then go on to quote some biblical snippets that leave out Rom. 12:18: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." The point is, sometimes it isn’t possible to be at peace with some men, never mind all. Jeremiah 6:14 also comes to mind: "They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace." Exactly.

This amazing statement then follows:

I'd encourage you to temper your comments about the RPNA(GM) with some charity. Perhaps these men are sincerely under some kind of delusion and deserve pity rather than open scorn and derision. I'm not saying this is the case, but were I in your shoes, such a position is certainly a charitable way to read them.

Translation, again someone hasn’t read much of either of the blogs, but they are charitably recommending that I consider the parties responsible for the petitio principii of a Position Paper, the compromising Confidential Oath and the phony Public Notices of Excommunication as charitably deluded and deserving of pity, rather than open scorn and derision. The reply in one respect, is that it is a moot point. To a hostile audience, how much difference is there between derision and delusion and will not pity be seen as a patronizing and scornful, charity not withstanding?

That of course is not say that we have not seriously considered delusion a reasonable explanation for the current madness in our circles. God does gives people over to nonsense when they persist in it. (Even further, though we are no stranger to sarcasm, in our opinion a straightforward recitation of the facts in all this still leaves one open to the charge of derision and scorn by those who favor the powers that be in the former RPNA. Yet thirty four plus and counting have been excommunicated out of approximately ninety members.) Nevertheless, even if in charity one does view those responsible for the three items above as deluded, does charity also dictate that we are to let them go on in their delusion, as well those under their sway and influence? While it is agreed that those who flew the planes into the WTC were sincerely deluded and deserve pity, that does not mean that NORAD should stand down now (never mind that they essentially did on 9/11) and we should mothball all the antiaircraft guns and send the crews on a permanent sabbatical.

In other words, are we to take this as a more temperate request to pipe down compared to the blatantly sinful and wicked – as opposed to "silly and unwise" – effort of our pretentious advocate to fraudulently quash lawful public discussion and debate? I hope not. Neither do I intend to be quiet, because that is what the real issue is. Rather as Isaiah 58:1 says, one is to "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins."

After all, it is not that hard a thing to do. Narrowly considered, the delusion in all this at least begins with the misread of the quote from George Gillespie out of his Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies in the the Tattoo paper of 4/30/06. It is fundamental to the argument that tattoos are indifferent in the paper. Gillespie clearly states that there is moderate and immoderate mourning for the dead, i.e. lawful and unlawful. One is cutting one’s hair, beard or eyebrows and the other is cutting and making marks upon oneself. The Tattoo paper however combines the two and considers them indifferent as long as they are disassociated from pagan religious practices. Hence its silent compromise regarding the explosion of the pagan practice of tattooing in our day and tattoo parlors springing up like mushrooms in the springtime, all around us.

This practice of conflating and confusing the salient distinctions is even more evident and developed in the Position Paper on Sessional Authority. Nothing less that stupefying describes the first example in Q.1 where the officers of a congregation alone in an island, because they cannot ordinarily meet with other officers, can exercise the extraordinary powers usually reserved to a true greater presbytery when it comes to matters which only involve that congregation. To "reason" from this and claim that the officers of the RPNA(GM) who cannot [and do not even] ordinarily meet amongst themselves – never mind with other officers – may likewise exercise presbyterial power is extremely wishful thinking.

As previously noted, this is what is called the fallacy of the undistributed middle term and it is distributed equally among all four of the examples in Q.1. The appeal to Matt. 18:20 necessarily ignores what the text assumes, that the two or more officers are actually gathered together in one place in person. But that is precisely what the two or more officers of the extraordinary RPNA(GM) session ordinarily do not do, gather together in one place in person in order to constitute a court. Likewise the appeal to the Grand Debate and Acts 15. In both instances we are talking about courts in which there is a plurality of teaching elders, as well as representative ruling elders. In Q.2, just because an ordinary congregational church court may extraordinarily take up the power of excommunication, does not necessarily mean that an extraordinary congregational court may do likewise. But so it goes with the Position Paper. Deluded by its desires, it assumes what it needs to prove and considers it a done deal with self-excommunications to summarily follow.

Yet regardless of how we mince terms, the Paper, Oath and Excommunications are wrong. They are unreasonable, unscriptural, compromised and hasty. No amount of simply parroting the mantra and repeating the spiritual abracadabra that the extraordinary court of the RPNA(GM) has been ‘proven from Scripture, history and reason’ and since there were ‘no objections or questions in the four month time frame given,’ that nothing further of substance needs to be said to any questions or objections since, particularly those which come from brethren, who are invisible because they are excommunicated. For that matter they are already considered disrespectful enough for daring to speak up, without even considering certain principal parties deluded as per your questionable advice and recommendation above, however well meant.

Still as you say, "Either way, there may be truth lurking even in the most unlikely of places." Maybe even amongst the excommunicated and fly by night websites? I wouldn’t rule it out and no, I am not deluded. But even if I were, it would be preferred to the pride, hubris and well, you know what demonstrated in the Position Paper, Confidential Oath and Excommunication Notices.

Thank you for yours,
cordially in Christ,

Bob S.

PS.In reply to those who would say the elders are too overworked for ‘damage control’ and ‘mending fences,’which is why it gets left to the sheep, that was what the church restructuring was all about, wasn't it?

As for your statement that "Presumably, any member of the RPNA(GM) would not uphold the lawfulness of whatever court at which the threatened trial [by our fraudulent advocate] was to take place, and if administered an oath to uphold the court prior to the trial, that member would be unable to do so for conscience's sake (ul added)." Don’t worry about it, that is not how it works.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
To: Bob S.
Sent: Monday, June 04, 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

You have tried to email an account that is used for outgoing messages only.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob S.
To: Cheryl G. ; John P ; Ben H. ;
Cc: List, Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Monday, June 04, 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Res ipsa loquitur - The thing speaks for itself.
Poorly. Very poorly.