Within their ranks, no, they will not talk about it. He apparently is telling them that the real sin is to let someone else's actions or opinions remove you from your perfect place of rest and peace in Christ. That we should forgive and pray for the Duncans and Glenna Whitley for their misguided sensationalism. It is finished. That is what he said to the assembled Ole-ites at their last Big Group.
We're off to see the wizard...isn't it ironic that in the November '91 Prime Time Live interview Ole referecnced the Wizard of Oz as an allegory for God supplying the needs of His faithful even though the Wizard was a charlatan. Go back and watch it. Now it's like after having been exposed for who he really is, he's now crying, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" The delicious irony. As a matter of fact, last Passover they did a skit called The Wizard of Is (Pete played the Cowardly Lion, by the way) and the merry band went out in search of the Great and Powerful Wizard of Is. As in, it IS finished. Seriously. Spooky, man, spooky.

Cultaware, I would give anything to meet you. Write me, write me, write me please! zeuszor@hotmail.com

zeuszor, if ever possible, I would be very interested in hearing your story, names and places changed to protect the innocent of course.

Quote

That we should forgive and pray for the Duncans and Glenna Whitley for their misguided sensationalism. [b:fe041989b0]It is finished. [/b:fe041989b0]That is what he said to the assembled Ole-ites at their last Big Group.

Did Ole say "It is finished"? Could you elaborate as that sounds almost fatalistic.

The translation for "it is finished" is don't talk or think about it (shut up and drink the cool-aid). It is a technique used to get the group to ignore whatever ole wants them to ignore.Of course when Jesus says it he is referring to God's plan of redemption. It is another example of how ole twists the scriptures in order to control the group members. "Dying to self" means basically the same thing and so does "pick up your cross". Now that I think about it many of the cliches used at TFI are used to shut down thought and discussion.Of course no one dares use one of these cliches on ole! Z I think we have already met, though you may not remember.

Write me, man. My address is on the board.

Justin Peters is a good man and an excellent preacher of the Word. He is the real deal.

www.justinpeters.org

I did not have a very long conversation with Ole. I asked him why you were saying he was abusive and that Trinity is a cult. All he said is that he didn't know why. He said he didn't remember your wife except that she tried to mix what he calls "psycho-babble" with the scriptures. He commended me for calling him and said that he has never told anyone they should believe him, but rather that they should search things out for themselves.

That is about what I remember of our conversation Doug. I may phone him again and question him about the Observer article. I can't claim to know what is true from a short phone call with Ole. I still support Trinity at this point, although I don't doubt that some things have gone wrong there in the past. That would be true of just about any church group though. I may well fail to see myself that i am not really being objective about this stuff, but I hope I question Trinity as much as I question you Doug.

I have several times decided to dump Ole's teaching, but what I have found in my own spiritual walk has consistently made me believe what Ole says is true. My own faith is not built on Ole's teaching, but it resonates with it. I disagree with a few things he says, and I have heard stories he himself has told that make him sound like he is abusive. (ie. he said a kid was pissing him off in a restaurant one time and he called him over and threatened to break his arm if he didn't shut up) You may have heard that story. I was somewhat disturbed by it. As you say Doug, I haven't lived with Ole long enough to see all the things that you probably have. I consider though that others have lived with him besides you, but do not feel the same way you do about him.

I don't put it past myself to be decieved. I have been decieved before and have suffered for it. I trust what Jesus said that he would give us the spirit of truth to guide us into all truth. I believe Jesus is the truth before I believe you or Ole. That I consider to be my anchor.

[i:8d6c92a9dc]I did not have a very long conversation with Ole. I asked him why you were saying he was abusive and that Trinity is a cult. All he said is that he didn't know why. [/i:8d6c92a9dc]

That is the essence of the problem. Ole is incapable of taking responsibility for his own mistakes. He has no insight into himself or how he impacts other people.

[i:8d6c92a9dc]He said he didn't remember your wife except that she tried to mix what he calls "psycho-babble" with the scriptures. [/i:8d6c92a9dc]

What a liar! My wife was dating his roommate (me) for five years and she was the business manager for [i:8d6c92a9dc]The Door[/i:8d6c92a9dc] for two years, during which time they had to discuss [i:8d6c92a9dc]Door[/i:8d6c92a9dc] business at least two or three times a month. And, if he doesn't remember her, how is it that he remembers her mixing psychobabble with the scriptures? That is just a fabrication.

[i:8d6c92a9dc]He commended me for calling him and said that he has never told anyone they should believe him, but rather that they should search things out for themselves.[/i:8d6c92a9dc]

Well, we have now searched things out for ourselves and seen that, at the core, Ole is a hypocrite.

[i:8d6c92a9dc]That is about what I remember of our conversation Doug. I may phone him again and question him about the Observer article. I can't claim to know what is true from a short phone call with Ole. I still support Trinity at this point, although I don't doubt that some things have gone wrong there in the past. That would be true of just about any church group though. [/i:8d6c92a9dc]

Sure, any group of fallible humans--including any church--is going to make mistakes. The path to healing and reconciliation, however, requires that you honestly examine yourself and take responsibility for your mistakes, and make some attempt to make amends to those whom you have injured. This is exactly what Ole and Trinity steadfastly refuse to do. Rather than taking an honest look at themselves for any ways that they may have been in the wrong, they have chosen to attack the messengers like Wendy and me who have pointed out that there are some problems there. Ole's unfounded statement that Wendy was mixing psychobabble with the scriptures while at the same time maintaining that he does not even remember her is a perfect example.

[i:8d6c92a9dc]I may well fail to see myself that i am not really being objective about this stuff, but I hope I question Trinity as much as I question you Doug.[/i:8d6c92a9dc]

I do, too.

[i:8d6c92a9dc]I have several times decided to dump Ole's teaching, but what I have found in my own spiritual walk has consistently made me believe what Ole says is true. My own faith is not built on Ole's teaching, but it resonates with it. I disagree with a few things he says, and I have heard stories he himself has told that make him sound like he is abusive. (ie. he said a kid was pissing him off in a restaurant one time and he called him over and threatened to break his arm if he didn't shut up) You may have heard that story. [/i:8d6c92a9dc]

I was there.

[i:8d6c92a9dc]I was somewhat disturbed by it. As you say Doug, I haven't lived with Ole long enough to see all the things that you probably have. I consider though that others have lived with him besides you, but do not feel the same way you do about him.[/i:8d6c92a9dc]

Who would that be? I know of one of his other former roommates who has, if anything, a more critical view of him than I do.

[i:8d6c92a9dc]I don't put it past myself to be decieved. I have been decieved before and have suffered for it. I trust what Jesus said that he would give us the spirit of truth to guide us into all truth. I believe Jesus is the truth before I believe you or Ole. That I consider to be my anchor.[/i:8d6c92a9dc]

If you have Jesus, then you do not need either me or Ole. Just find a healthy church and live out your commitment there.

Here is something published in response to the article that recently appeared in [i:544b035314]The Observer [/i:544b035314](Dallas) about Ole Anthony.

[b:544b035314]As published within [i:544b035314]The Observer [/i:544b035314]August 8, 2006[/b:544b035314]

It seems that ABC News refutes portions of the article.

ABC trounced Robert Tilton in his lawsuit against the network. That was years ago. Doesn’t mean we can’t relive it.

Paige Capossela, a spokeswoman for[i:544b035314] ABC News[/i:544b035314], sent us a lengthy response to Glenna Whitley’s August 3, 2006, cover story “The Cult of Ole”–an in-depth look at Ole Anthony and his Dallas-based Trinity Foundation. ABC takes issue with our reporting on the famous 1991 PrimeTime Live expose of Dallas televangelist Robert Tilton. [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] relied heavily on Ole Anthony for its investigation of Tilton; Anthony and other Trinity folks even went dumpster-diving for [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] to retrieve stuff discarded from Tilton’s many mass mailings to supporters.

Ms. Capossela–and hey, if you want a sharp, aggressive spokesperson in your corner, she’s a good one–also asked that we correct the “inaccurate and repudiated” statements in our story.

Well, that’s a loaded request if ever there was one. Our response, in summary: We stand by our story.

As [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] has pointed out to us again and again, it trounced Tilton in his lawsuit against them. ABC prevailed each and every time on the issue of libel in a case that was virtually impossible for Tilton to win because of his public-figure status.

We’ll say it again: [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] won. I repeat:[i:544b035314] ABC [/i:544b035314] WON.

Even so–and this was our point in “The Cult of Ole”–the court record suggests that [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] employed some ethically questionable practices in its investigation of Tilton. We’ll address some of those practices in a post later today.

But first, after the jump, [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] has its say. –Julie Lyons

The following is a letter sent to the [i:544b035314]Dallas Observer [/i:544b035314] from ABC News:
Following are excerpts from your story and our responses as to why we disagree.

But an examination of thousands of pages of court documents in lawsuits triggered by the [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] exposé shows numerous misrepresentations by Anthony and his cohorts at [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314], who employed deceptive journalistic techniques that ended up embarrassing Diane Sawyer. Tilton’s lawyers proved that the prayer requests discovered by Trinity could not have been found as claimed: Thus, the most memorable part of the Primetime Live story was bogus.

One of Tilton’s chief claims in his lawsuit was that what [i:544b035314]PrimeTime[/i:544b035314] had said in its broadcasts about the trashed prayer requests was false. Court after court flatly REJECTED this claim. In fact, the record demonstrated that thousands and thousands of prayer requests were found in trash receptacles, having never reached Tilton. (That the evidence log compiled by Mr. Anthony’s staff may have been faulty because material had been mixed together does not negate the proof that thousands of prayer requests sent to Mr. Tilton were thrown in the trash and never received or prayed over by him.) And, as the courts noted, Tilton acknowledged in a deposition that he did NOT personally receive or pray over all the actual prayer requests.

In short, the record refutes, and court after court rejected, the contention that this or any other portion of the PrimeTime broadcasts was “bogus.”
And few covered what would be revealed about Primetime Live in the next few years. Reams of documents released in discovery, raw [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] footage and depositions would show that producers had edited interviews out of context, distorted facts and omitted information favorable to Tilton.

With regard to the claim that “producers had edited interviews out of context,” we assume that you are referring to claims by Tilton that two particular passages in the broadcasts (one involving Mr. Moore and one involving Mr. Taylor ) were edited in a misleading fashion. Court after court flatly REJECTED these claims, finding that the editing did not alter the meaning of or distort these individuals’ statements. We have sent you the court opinions which exhaustively document the edits and demonstrate that they “did not materially change the meaning” of or knowingly misrepresent the individuals’ comments to [i:544b035314] ABC[/i:544b035314].

As to distorted facts, again, court after court flatly REJECTED Tilton’s claims that [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] had libeled him by distorting facts.

As to whether [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] “omitted information favorable to Tilton”–certainly, ABC did not include in its broadcasts every potential favorable statement about Mr. Tilton, just as your article does not include every potential favorable statement about Mr. Anthony or about [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314]. No court ever concluded that [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] had omitted information about Tilton in a way that made our broadcasts false or libelous.

Now a private investigator in Florida, Holloway credits Anthony for his new career. But after apprenticing under experienced PIs, Holloway realizes the Trinity garbologists got too lucky, finding discarded prayer requests where no Tilton mail had been processed for months, unearthing letters before their corresponding envelopes had reached the mail room and discovering mountains of Tilton trash but only a few pieces from other televangelists, though their mail was processed at the same place.
Had [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] used Anthony and Trinity as dupes, pawns to “discover” the trashed prayers? Or had Trinity fooled [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314]? That question was never answered.

For the record, [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] adamantly denies any suggestion that it “used” Anthony and Trinity as “dupes” in any fashion or, specifically, that any [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314] personnel planted prayer requests or any other material anywhere.

In fact, this question was answered–and flatly rejected–by court after court, which found absolutely no evidence to support the contention that the prayers had been planted by [i:544b035314]ABC[/i:544b035314], by [i:544b035314]Trinity[/i:544b035314], or by anybody else. Moreover, the prayer requests found by Mr. Anthony and his group were not the only evidence relied on by ABC in its broadcasts. As detailed in [i:544b035314]ABC’s [/i:544b035314] brief to the Tenth Circuit, which we have previously sent to you, more than 150,000 prayer requests were found in a recycling center in Tulsa, having never been sent to Tilton; his former housekeeper testified that he told her to throw away boxes filled with prayer requests without his having seen them; and Tilton admitted in a deposition that he did not personally pray over many prayer requests.

Also, we wanted to address the question regarding the edit of “I” to “we.” Following is the passage from Judge Burrage’s opinion dealing with the edit:

“Although Mr. Taylor used ‘I said’ instead of ‘we said’ in part of the interview when referring to becoming a revival preacher to get rich, he later used ‘we said’ when referring to that same topic. Defendants state that the edit change to ‘we said’ was for clarity reasons and did not alter the meaning of the statements in any way.

“…In regard to the ‘I/We’ change, the Court finds that such editing change does not establish actual malice. An edited or altered quotation is not sufficient to establish actual malice ‘unless the alteration results in a material change in the meaning conveyed in the statement’…In the instant case, the edited change to ‘we said’ did not materially change the meaning conveyed by Mr. Taylor. During the interview, Mr. Taylor, in response to Ms. Gordon’s question about joking with Plaintiff, did state: ‘We said if we didn’t, if, after we graduated that we had a hard time making a living, or if we weren’t making the kind of money that we wanted to, that what we should do, would be to grab an audience, become a revival preacher. And through that means we’d be able to be rich.’

“The meaning conveyed by Mr. Taylor in the interview was that he and Plaintiff used to joke about becoming revival preachers to get rich. The alteration of the ‘I’ to ‘we’ did not change the meaning which had been conveyed by Mr. Taylor. Although Plaintiff contends that Mr. Taylor was not referring to Plaintiff when using ‘we,’ the Court finds that no reasonable jury would find that Mr. Taylor did not include Plaintiff when referring to ‘we’ and no reasonable jury would find by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants acted with actual malice in making the edited change.”

Sincerely,

[i:544b035314]ABC News[/i:544b035314]