Hi Nathan. Seeing as you are in touch with Ole and others on the block, I'd like to ask you a small favor. I have prepared a list of questions for you that I'd like you to ask them. Please get back with us on what answers you get, OK? You can kind of be our middle-man. It'll be interesting to see what kind of answers you get. Thanks for your time, and here are my questions:


1) Do you believe that in a given situation that the ends justify the means? Is deception allowed in certain circumstances?

2) Can you think of an instance in which you were in the wrong, or in which somebody's criticism of your behavior was valid?

3) Obviously Trinity Foundation is a controversial group to some people. Please tell me in your own words why ex-members tend to be critical of your group, and what their main objections are?

4) How do you feel about former members of your group? Have you ever sat down to speak with a former member to find out why they left? If not, why not? Does your group impose restrictions on communicating with former members?

5) Do you think that there is anything valid about what Glenna Whitley (a respected, independent investigative reporter) has to say, or is she simply delusional? How do you account for her article?

Well, for one I am glad to hear from your mouth that it is not true. I think you are aware that Jackie Anon says that in her comments about this situation which you have certainly read. Aside from that, Pete was the one who sent that commentary to me.

You have a point about Ole though Cultaware and Yasmin. A person's words really only do only mean as much as their actions follow. In that I realize that unless I can really prove Ole has done good things for people, just repeating his words is not substantial. Admittedly you are saying that Ole is the polar opposite of his words. I cannot say you are wrong.

Brian, I won't talk to them for you. I have asked them several of questions you listed already.

Quote

Here is something I found supposed to have been written by Ole Anthony. You have to consider if this is something a sociopath or narcississt would write. It is really interesting in light of this current cult controversey.

www.singleness.org/dying.shtml

I think [i:3482359283]only[/i:3482359283] a sociopath or a narcissist would allow people to believe he had written this when he had not.

Quote
NathanA
Brian, I won't talk to them for you. I have asked them several of questions you listed already.

Why not? You seem to know them real well, so I'm sure they'd be quite candid in answering.

Or better yet, ask Pete to answer them for us. You're already his mouthpiece, so why not get him to post directly himself?

They're using you, Nathan. Just like they use everybody else that gets stuck in your orbit.

They're using you, Nathan. Just like they use everybody else that gets stuck in their orbit.

Quote

Well, for one I am glad to hear from your mouth that it is not true. I think you are aware that Jackie Anon says that in her comments about this situation which you have certainly read. Aside from that, Pete was the one who sent that commentary to me.

Though I am not surprised to find Pete playing these kinds of games, I find it to be pathetic. Certainly not very Christian of him—about as far as you could get from the spirit of “Dying to Self,” whoever the original author may be.

Quote

You have a point about Ole though Cultaware and Yasmin. A person's words really only do only mean as much as their actions follow. In that I realize that unless I can really prove Ole has done good things for people, just repeating his words is not substantial. Admittedly you are saying that Ole is the polar opposite of his words. I cannot say you are wrong.

I think you are setting up a bit of a straw man, Nathan. I don’t think anyone is saying that Ole has never done anything good—at least not me. He has done some good things, but he has failed—as has the rest of Trinity Foundation--to take responsibility for his mistakes.

BTW, I think Brian’s questions are good ones and you should consider posing them to Pete.

I don't know why Ole's name is attached to that piece "Dying to Self." I am now doubtful that he is the real author. I don't think it would be right for him to take credit for something he did not write though. I am not clear on what the story is there, I have heard him refer to it in Bible Studies before though.

I don't think that was a straw man, I think that is my admitting that words are not enough, no matter how good they are. That has been one of your main points to me, that I do not know this man's true character even though his words may seem wise. I have no interest in defending a man who is abusive, deceitful, and manipulative. Believe me, if Ole really is this monster you say he is, I will join you in exposing it. On the same token I want to discern what is just here, and not be idle if a man who has done good things is being attacked unfairly. The truth in this matter is difficult to see.

How can you say Trinity is using me, and then expect me to be your go-to man with your list of questions Brian? Looks to me like you are doing the same thing you blame Trinity for. They have answered me all those questions you wrote, and more without protest. (the only specific one I don't remember asking directly was the first one)

So what do you think of the idea of me posting Jackie Anon's comments here Doug with her permission? She is someone who has apparently known you as well as Trinity for some time.