The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
counselor47
()
Date: November 13, 2006 07:17AM
Quote
zeuszor
...What about the people who have left TFI, that no longer exist in Ole's mind? When I asked him about the book the first time, he said he didn't even remember Wendy Duncan. After I met her and asked him again, he remembered her then all right, and remembered her well, and had nothing nice to say. He basically called Doug a prostitute for marrying her. Ole can talk s**t and cuss with the best of 'em. Sorry if this is too graphic, Doug. [/b]
James 1:26 (RSV) If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is vain.
This is a good indicator of one of the serious problems at Trinity Foundation. They have taken James 1:26 and come up with an interpretation of it so that they take it to mean EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what it plainly means. Hence, the terrible lack of sanctification in how people express themselves there--especially Ole. As to me being some kind of a "prostitute" for marrying a woman I was (and still am) in love with after we had dated for seven years, I will let anyone who happens to read this draw their own conclusions. If I sold out in any way it was to Ole and Trinity Foundation in letting them talk me out of getting married to someone whom I should have married years before I finally did. This is discussed in detail in Wendy's book.
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: November 13, 2006 07:26AM
Quote
counselor47Quote
zeuszor
...What about the people who have left TFI, that no longer exist in Ole's mind? When I asked him about the book the first time, he said he didn't even remember Wendy Duncan. After I met her and asked him again, he remembered her then all right, and remembered her well, and had nothing nice to say. He basically called Doug a prostitute for marrying her. Ole can talk s**t and cuss with the best of 'em. Sorry if this is too graphic, Doug. [/b]
James 1:26 (RSV) If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is vain.
This is a good indicator of one of the serious problems at Trinity Foundation. They have taken James 1:26 and come up with an interpretation of it so that they take it to mean EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what it plainly means. Hence, the terrible lack of sanctification in how people express themselves there--especially Ole. As to me being some kind of a "prostitute" for marrying a woman I was (and still am) in love with after we had dated for seven years, I will let anyone who happens to read this draw their own conclusions. If I sold out in any way it was to Ole and Trinity Foundation in letting them talk me out of getting married to someone whom I should have married years before I finally did. This is discussed in detail in Wendy's book.
Doug, can you please elaborate on precisely [i:74c3a4c478]how[/i:74c3a4c478] James 1:26 has been twisted in TFI, and on a more correct interpretation as well?
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
seeking
()
Date: November 13, 2006 07:38AM
Counselor47, I agree. Calling you a prostitute for marrying a woman you love is the craziest thing I have ever heard.
Hey, whatever happened to NathanA. I miss him.
Hey, whatever happened to NathanA. I miss him.
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
counselor47
()
Date: November 13, 2006 12:19PM
Quote
zeuszorQuote
counselor47Quote
zeuszor
James 1:26 (RSV) If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is vain.
Doug, can you please elaborate on precisely [i:3b0a34a0be]how[/i:3b0a34a0be] James 1:26 has been twisted in TFI, and on a more correct interpretation as well?
They interpreted bridling your tongue to mean that you should "say what's there," a tortuous reading of this Scripture if there ever was one. I think it is safer when interpreting the Bible to let it simply speak for itself. I am not a Bible scholar (neither is Ole, but at least I do not pretend to be one), but it seems pretty clear to me that this verse is exhorting us to be careful in what we say. You have to go through some major contortions to convince yourself that it means the opposite of that--i.e. say whatever comes to you without thinking about it first.
It is interesting that it says if someone does not bridle his tongue then his religion is in vain. I have heard Ole say many times that he does not consider what he says, he just lets whatever is there come out. If that is true, then according to this verse his religion is in vain.
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: November 13, 2006 12:28PM
Quote
counselor47Quote
zeuszorQuote
counselor47Quote
zeuszor
James 1:26 (RSV) If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is vain.
Doug, can you please elaborate on precisely [i:047e85f201]how[/i:047e85f201] James 1:26 has been twisted in TFI, and on a more correct interpretation as well?
They interpreted bridling your tongue to mean that you should "say what's there," a tortuous reading of this Scripture if there ever was one. I think it is safer when interpreting the Bible to let it simply speak for itself. I am not a Bible scholar (neither is Ole, but at least I do not pretend to be one), but it seems pretty clear to me that this verse is exhorting us to be careful in what we say. You have to go through some major contortions to convince yourself that it means the opposite of that--i.e. say whatever comes to you without thinking about it first.
It is interesting that it says if someone does not bridle his tongue then his religion is in vain. I have heard Ole say many times that he does not consider what he says, he just lets whatever is there come out. If that is true, then according to this verse his religion is in vain.
Good point, sir.
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: November 13, 2006 02:11PM
Quote
seeking
Counselor47, I agree. Calling you a prostitute for marrying a woman you love is the craziest thing I have ever heard.
Hey, whatever happened to NathanA. I miss him.
In fairness, I said that that's what Ole [i:3f69a57e59]basically[/i:3f69a57e59] said, not what he [i:3f69a57e59]actually[/i:3f69a57e59] said. If memory serves, he said something like, in reference to Doug, "Well, sure it was easy for him to get married at the time. He was getting older and she was the one with the money!" with a snide tone and expression. In so many words, he was implying that Doug had prostituted himself. But he never used the word "prostitute" in my presence. This was said in the midst of a meeting between Ole, Frank Bono, and myself. We were originally meeting together over something unrelated and I brought up the subject of Doug and Wendy and the book. He remembered Wendy that day all right...how she never really understood the doctrine nor wanted to be with TFI in the first place, how she'd always whine about protecting peoples self esteem (I can hear now the way Ole said in a sinssongy voice [i:3f69a57e59]"self-esteeeem"[/i:3f69a57e59]) he said that the only reason that she was with TFI in the first place was because she was looking for a husband, and I got the impression that he was implying that Doug had found his sugar-Mama and so decided to leave, along with Wendy. Sorry if the content of this is too personal, guys. That ain't even the half of it, in terms of BS I've heard him spin. The first time I mentioned the name of Wendy Duncan to him he said he didn't even remember a Wendy Duncan. That is the 100%, God's honest truth. Then a little later I told him that I had read the book and did he remember a [i:3f69a57e59]Doug[/i:3f69a57e59] Duncan? Then he remembered all about Wendy!
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
counselor47
()
Date: November 16, 2006 11:20PM
Quote
zeuszor
We were originally meeting together over something unrelated and I brought up the subject of Doug and Wendy and the book. He remembered Wendy that day all right...how she never really understood the doctrine nor wanted to be with TFI in the first place, how she'd always whine about protecting peoples self esteem (I can hear now the way Ole said in a sinssongy voice [i:1d44ad1384]"self-esteeeem"[/i:1d44ad1384]) he said that the only reason that she was with TFI in the first place was because she was looking for a husband, and I got the impression that he was implying that Doug had found his sugar-Mama and so decided to leave, along with Wendy.
I have held off responding to this for a few days, and I have debated a little whether I should even dignify any of this with a response. It does not surprise me that this is Ole's spin on what happened, but anyone who reads my wife's book will see that what he is saying is simply false. Indeed, I would have to be pretty stupid to select a social worker for a "sugar-Mama." Wendy was not rich by any stretch of the imagination. Even now, with both of us working, we are barely middle-class. We certainly have not gotten rich off the book--I don't think we have quite broken even yet. No matter, we have had a chance to honestly tell our story, and that was the main thing we set out to do.
Again, though, this illustrates a point I made earlier. The big problem with Trinity/Ole is that they are not using this little dust-up as an opportunity to engage in genuine self-reflection, to examine what it is [i:1d44ad1384]they[/i:1d44ad1384] may have done that has contributed to the psychological damage and broken faith of so many people. As long as they can point fingers and make up bizarre accusations--as long as the problems are always someone else's fault--they do not have to take an honest look at themselves.
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: November 17, 2006 01:24AM
Hi counselor47. Long time, no see. Some of the questions from the notes I posted last weekend, will you kindly take a few moments to answer a bit please? I particularly want to see that quote from Cuneo's book. Has anybody found it? Under my present circumstances, it is impossible for me to obtain that book.
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
counselor47
()
Date: November 17, 2006 05:37AM
Quote
zeuszor
Next question: on page 162, Wendy describes she and Doug's disagreements about whether TFI met nine of the ten listed criteria, or all ten. Which one of the ten were you in disagreement over?
I did not feel at that time that Trinity Foundation met the requirement of being legalistic--though clearly they were authoritarian. I have since revised my view.
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
counselor47
()
Date: November 17, 2006 05:41AM
Quote
zeuszor
had a professor in college who was friends with Ole and would tell us stories.
Who was that?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.