By Snoopy, via e:mail.
Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 6:36 pm:
Here's a collection of quotes I got from "Snoopy" today. He said I could use them.
Did you notice that Robert said they forced the municipal inspector to "play ball" because Merry Meadows was operating as a religious organization? Merry Meadows is owned by a family trust. How can privately owned assets be considered to be operating as a religious organization? Is his trust incorporated as a religious organization too? The whole thing stinks. It sounds like they're playing it one way for the building inspector and another for the IRS.
Robert is such a weasel! The proof is on the audio clip. He's trying every which way to skin the IRS and explore every loop-hole. There's not even a hint of that kind of attitude in the tax case. It was so simple to walk by faith. Under RAGM, it is, as Robert said, "sticky".
Anyway, on the subject of incorporation, I've wondered why the saints in the cult accept Robert's incorporation as a ministry to the corpus Christi and don't see that if they personally want to minister to the saints, they don't need to incorporate to do it. It's just a money thing. It has nothing to do with real ministry - edification.
If Robert is incorporated outside the body, I wonder what makes him think the body wouldn't reject him in much the same way the human body rejects a foreign object. Certainly the Head of the body would. And if he is incorporated inside the body, then he's right back to doing what denominations claim they've done.
It's obvious they didn't really consider every angle of what they were doing. They were walking by sight, not by faith.
BTW, it seems to me there must be enough evidence on that audio clip for a good attorney to prove fraud. But even if there isn't, it shows it is far removed from the simplicity in Christ.
Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 12:25 pm:
["Snoopy" says that I can post his e:mails if I wish.]
RE: Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 5:59 pm:
Alan,
Great posting. You made some excellent points. Your first paragraph was right on target. I love it! Those we respected in the church in the 60's bowed to no man. They would bow to God alone. And your observation that Robert and his followers have basically set themselves up as slaves to the IRS is very good. Now they'll have to take orders from the government and subordinate their "Biblical principals" to bureaucrats. They'll be regulated just like any other man-made organized religion. I hope some saints among them are diligent enough to analyze the situation and consider this possibility. Maybe this will be enough to awake and emancipate a few. Perhaps some of the observations you've posted on the board will make their way to any real men who have remained silent in the shadows of group.
If all you knew about brother Maurice was the tax case, you'd see that he was a dissident. There was a great interview of Nathan Sharansky in the Limbaugh Letter last month. He made an observation about politicians that I think applies perfectly to religionists like Robert Grove. He said, "There are politicians who are always interested in public opinion. They look at the polls and often change their behavior in accordance with the expectations of the public. They watch what is popular on the political scene and then accommodate themselves. The dissident is not driven by power. He is driven by the idea. And for this idea, he's ready to take risks. In a fear society, that would mean go to prison." Now let me paraphrase that to fit RAG, cult leader. "There are [paid preachers] who are always interested in [how to beat the system]. They look at the [IRS code] and often change their behavior in accordance with the expectations of the [government]. They watch what [works on their tax returns] and then accommodate [their business dealings]. The dissident [the principled preacher] is not driven by power. He is driven by the idea [by the truth]. And for [the truth], he's ready to take risks. In a fear society, that would mean [he might be expelled from sects and cults]."
Snoopy
**********
Greetings to all,
I browsed the board again today. I'm still left with this thought: If brothers Maurice Johnson, Wilbur Johnson, Clarence Morey, Ross (senior) and Dalford Todd had been presented by the IRS with the compromise RAGM accepted, I can almost hear brother Maurice say, "Not one hoof shall remain in the land."
In my last note titled "What RAGM, Inc. hath wrought" I showed that they have formed a denomination. Whether it be one member or many, it is a denomination. It is "the church which is RAGM's body" (incorporation). And their hypocrisy in it is obvious. They say they own no corporate property, but they have the means to own corporate property every bit as much as any other corporation or denomination. But the worst thing about RAGM, Inc. is its cult structure.
Snoopy
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:30 pm:I have shared by e:mail, the letters I got this past week from Robert Grove and Jack Langford. One thing that the group is very consistent in is to not discuss nor acknowledge the issues. You give them all the facts and they do not respond with anything factual. That's cowardly. All they can do is try to discredit you but they will NEVER address an issue head on nor discuss any correction that they could offer except for total submission. IT'S NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION! I've seen it in disciplinary men's meetings where they never get to the material point of complaint. They accuse you of pride [which is indefensible because we are ALL guilty of pride], project all kinds of characterization whereby they confuse you and they lose you in all the subterfuge they create, and they simply demand unquestioned conformity. They beat the guy down and once he submits, they never get to the issue and the poor guy walks away without a resolution or the feeling that there is any justice around here. They are very unsophisticated and incompetent in their unscriptural ways of dealing with people. --Alan Hemenway
-------------- Original message --------------
Dear Alan,
Both letters exhibit the same condescending tone Jack and Robert have always displayed. They quote lots of Scripture - they throw out verses that have no baring on the issue at hand; then they try to point the finger of accusation at you. Their defense amounts to statements equivalent to saying "Anyone with a brain would know..." or "Anyone who was there could tell you..." or "If you were spiritual you would realize...". They can't support their marking false doctrine with Scripture. Their divorce doctrine is contrary to instruction on the subject in Scripture. Their incorporation compromise does not stand up in light of the Truth. Jack and Robert are false prophets. Ignore them.
Snoopy
Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 3:39 pm:
"I do not believe that another person’s conduct, be they saved, unsaved or saved walking in the flesh gives me license to respond in the flesh.
Another interesting thought…….don’t you think?"
Dear saints,
The sentiment expressed above is probably well intentioned. Yet some reading comments like this are reminded of the prophet who was thrown into a mud pit because he spoke out against wicked leaders in Israel. Exodus 32 - 34 reveals Moses' anger over the creation of a false religion. It also reveals the LORD's anger. So who doesn't expect to see some angry words posted on a bulletin board dedicated to exposing cult abuse? The board is not a forum for negotiating with cult terrorists. Don't you think?
On more than one occasion, some of you heard brother Maurice Johnson denounce the the false teachings and practices of prominent denominational religious misleaders - J. Vernon Mcgee, M.R.DeHaan, Dr. Louis Talbot and others. It was not uncommon to hear adverse reaction from those who didn't understand his message. They would say, "I don't hear any love," or "He should not judge lest he be judged," or "Preachers that shout and scream like that are carnal." You can guess his response to such super-spiritual and lofty, religious rhetoric; he viewed it as mere sentimentality, expressed by those who don't think.
Our Savior was tested in all points like we are, yet without sin. Apparently whoever posted the statement above was never tested like Nancy's father or Jennie and Jody's father or many others who were expelled from fellowship with saints and family. Here's a word of advice for him: Dude, go back and silently and reverently read over what those battered sheep have posted. Their righteous indignation is justified. Don't you think?"
Saints remain enslaved by cult leaders because they don't THINK!
One of His Black Sheep"Snoopy"
Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 7:43 pm:[Snoopy asked me to add this.]
J. Vernon Magee, M.R. DeHaan and Louis Talbot didn't intentionally divide saints whereas RAG and company deliberately divide saints over mere disagreements. In all probability, brother Maurice would have had stronger words for false prophets who should know better than he did for those denominational teachers. Don't you think?
Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 2:58 pm:The following was written by Snoopy and is being posted with his permission:
Citizens of Iraq had a choice: Saddam or torture and execution. Cult members also have a choice: Go along with the leadership and their unsubstantiated markings and false doctrines or be abused and excommunicated. What I'd like the saints in the cult to see is that we don't have to agree on every issue to be one in Christ. I'd like them to see in us the fact that there is spiritual life outside their congregation . I'd like them to know that while we may not meet together in one camp on a regular basis, we are still one in Spirit and body. I'd like them to know we still maintain contact, but contact is not our primary focus - it's our Lord's focus. We're reaching out to saints everywhere. We're making contact and having an impact. I'd like them to know that we rightly divide (properly apply) the Word and support the spread of the gospel. I'd like them to know we once suffered as they suffer now under legalism and the severe leadership of overly ambitious men. I'd like to tell them what it's like to be free of that kind of oppression. I'd like them to know my anger and disgust for those who pretend to be ministers to the Lord's heritage while they serve their own bellies. I'd like them to know they'd be embraced, not just by us but by saints everywhere, and that the Head of the church alone can direct their paths. I'd like them to see discussions of genuine love and true modesty. I'd like them to realize they don't need a huge manual to explain the simple two-piece puzzle of sex. I'd like them to know they can discover the adventure of it with their own mate for themselves. I'd like them to see a clear Scripture-based discussion of divorce, incorporation and the genuine unity of all saints. And there's so much more I'd like them to see that we have seen.
Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 4:44 pm:A little message from "Snoopy"- slightly edited. I think all of us that have left the cult can agree with "Snoopy" on this one.
No doubt there is fear among the saints who have remained under RAG's influence - fear that if they leave, they will be scattered like they perceive we have been scattered. Yet they need to be assured that the good Shepherd has not lost a single one of His sheep. We "feel" more secure under His watchful care than we ever did under RAG. Personally, I am amazed to see, despite all the various perspectives and accounts of the various paths taken, a unity of thought. We may differ on some doctrinal points, but we are certainly more of one mind spiritually than we ever were in the "leadership" sect.