Posted by Lanny, et al on 1/8/2002, 12:38 am

Posted by Lanny on 12/17/2001, 2:39 am This afternoon I gathered with some old friends of Barbara's to fellowship and wish her a happy birthday. She would wish all of you God's best and her heart of pastoral love for all of us children in the faith has never changed. I had the priviledge of marrying her and Gus Lockhart and they have just celebrated their 50th month anniversary. Things are going well and she continues be be one unique and incredible lady. The fellowship was held at Dan Barnett's house somewhere in Mulkelteo (it was a rainy night and I wasn't sure where I was). Dan is working in Seattle now. It was great to see some that I haven't seen in over 10 years. I also saw Steve B. who posts here. (Hello, Steve! Glad to see you!) The time made me miss all of me old CC friends. I still marvel at the incredible bond that unites all of us. We need more reunions! Lanny ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 12/17/2001, 7:13 am , in reply to "Barbara's 70th birthday" Yes, it was very good to see you in person, also, Lanny. You and Judy have not changed a bit. It was nice to meet Gus for the first time also, as well as seeing lots of people I had not even thought of in well over 10 years. It turns out there are quite a few engineers and computer people among us. I talked with Carolyn's husband Brandon for awhile about computers, as well as Ken Biallis (sp?). Odd though, to hear about all the kids that Karla had in her first grade class that are now marrying and starting careers. Karla commented on how many of the Chapel kids are marrying other Chapel kids even though they were only seven or eight when it broke up. There was a special bond at the Chapel, and there were times last night when it seemed almost like old times. ---------- Lanny, does she read this board? Posted by Lee L. Tablero on 12/21/2001, 10:55 am , in reply to "Barbara's 70th birthday" I've always wondered if she did. I've always wondered if Don does too. But I think it's most likely that he does. He was always very sensitive about what people say about him, and people who are that way want to know everything that's being said about them, so I don't think he would be able to resist reading it. Yes, I think Don must have been reading it regularly ever since it began. Have Don or Barbara ever mentioned it to you? ---------- No Posted by Lanny on 12/21/2001, 7:40 pm , in reply to "Lanny, does she read this board?" Barbara is not reading this board. Don would not be interested either. Don has never read negative press and doesn't even type. Don has a narrow range of interests and this isn't one of them. I know Don pretty well. He isn't even curious to know what other people think or write about him. Lanny ---------- Are you sure he’s not even interested in it? Posted by Lee L. Tablero on 12/21/2001, 9:09 pm , in reply to "No" It’s the church he founded (or that Barbara founded and he feels like he did, anyway). It’s the people he taught and used to shepherd. Some of it is in favor of him, some of it is opposed to him. And remember how COA used to post on this board, arguing his cause all the time. Don’t you think he was even interested in how those arguments were going? If he doesn’t know how to type, couldn’t he have just coached some of his people on how to answer the posts? Some of them really sounded like his wording, even if they were only written by COA’ers roboticly parroting on the board his words and thoughts. It could have been under his coaching. I remember coming into his house one day in the late seventies just after an article had come out in the Highline Times about a court case. When we came in, he was sitting at the table and Barbara came out to talk to the fellow I was with, giving David a copy of the paper that had the article. I asked her, “Is it in our favor or against us?” “No,” she said. “It’s completely slanted.” Later one day Jack Hicks said to me about it (apparantly trying to tone down the way he was wording it), “Don was a little... irate... about that article.” Lanny, what do you mean, he never reads negative press? That was one case I personally heard and saw myself that he had read, and we know he read many others. And he doesn’t know typing? One time I remember hearing him saying from the pulpit, “How many of you took typing? I did. You have to sit there and memorize ‘A-S-D-F, J-K-L-semicolon.’ A-S-D-F, J-K-L-semicolon.” Don’t tell me he was just saying that to deceive the people into thinking he knew it when he didn’t, just to look more intelligent in front of everybody. But on the other hand, in view of all the other things he has done... (???) ...I guess maybe that’s possible. Lanny, I know you knew him well, but bear in mind that even with the people who knew him well, he was known to put on, from time to time, a few of his actor’s masks. I remember at the time of the split, some of the other elders were saying they had been SHOCKED at some of the things he had said and done in reaction to the situation. Whether intentionally or not, they revealed that even they, even after all that time, didn’t really know him as well as they had thought they had known him. Even though later on he didn’t want other people reading “negative” press about him or about Chapel, and though he would have been glad to set any example to accomplish that end, even telling you and the other elders that he didn’t read any of it himself, there was at least that one case that I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears of an article, some negative press, that he had read. Are you sure, Lanny, that this couldn’t be another one of those cases of him putting on one of the actor’s masks he used to put on in front of you as well as in front of everybody else? ---------- DB Posted by lanny on 12/26/2001, 2:10 am , in reply to "Are you sure he’s not even interested in it?" WE really have to flatter ourselves to think that. I can only go by what I saw and that was DB got tired of negative press just like many of us got tired of arguing with J-dubs and Mormons. There came a point where the novelty of our being in the press wore off. As far as some sounding like DB...Didn't Lorilie post here? She was DB's secratery or something. Probably she talked about it and he responded. Some of that made its way back here. It may have happened with others. I haven't heard any COA people here lately and I would guess they got tired of people disagreeing with them. I suspect they were here to convert us and eventually gave up. Trust me, DB isn't even curious as to what goes on here. He prays that we would see the light and come back into the fold. That is about the extent of it. You have to ask yourself, why would he read this? To answer that you have to make some demeaning assumptions about DB and I think those assumptions are way off the mark. When you have been through as much persecution as we have been through, there comes a point when what people say is no longer interesting. It is so repititious that after awhile it is boring. I don't doubt that some well meaning followers have encouraged him to perhaps even post here. I can almost hear what he would say. "Those people....closed minded....rebellious...confused ...won't listen to reason...just a waste of time...won't change...etc." Lanny ---------- COA people... were here [on this board] to convert us... gave up Posted by Jim on 1/1/2002, 11:29 pm , in reply to "DB" Here’s their exact wording: From a post by EricO on 6/10/2001, 6:37 pm: “I should have listened to the others from COA who posted in the past not to waste my time on this board. I'm sorry that I did'nt. THE OPINIONS OF THOSE WHO POST HERE ARE SET. This board is almost entirely anti-COA. Posting anything contrary to that here is just not ‘Politically Correct’.” [capitalization added] There you have it. First, all the rest of them had given up on it, then EricO came along a little later and decided to give it a shot, then the others at COA told him, “You’re wasting your time. Their opinions are set. They’re not going to change....” He used the term “politically correct” to describe our viewpoint of how things should be said on this board. This is the term used by left-wingers to state how everything printed or spoken publicly should not contradict any liberal or whacko viewpoints. He wanted to portray our viewpoints that way by inferring that this phrase was our usage, though I’ve never seen anybody here use it. “Speaking for myself the bible states ‘touch not mine anointed’, but this is routinely overlooked here to criticize COA and DB. Would you criticize your own church and Pastor the way you criticize ours?” Except at this point in his life, DB is not “anointed.” He is currently in a backslidden state. He then quoted—out of context—the following statement from Steve B.: “Spiritual connections” are either the will of God for the church (the claim made by COA), or they are not. If they are the will of God for the church, then all of us outside of COA are resisting God himself by refusing to participate in connections. Those of us who have criticized connections would be especially guilty. That is, when I read the Bible, I get the impression that God finds active opposition to Him to be a very big deal indeed. Steve then responded (6/10/2001, 8:20 pm) providing the paragraph that had followed in his original posting: “Just for the sake of accuracy and completeness.... My paragraph following the above quotation was as follows: On the other hand, if connections are not the will of God for the church, then COA is a bizarre, isolated group instead of a forerunner in ‘the move of God.’ ”