An open letter to ozarkbreeze

[ragpicker]

PS. There most definitely can be multiple versions of an event or situation without anyone being a liar. Your assertion otherwise shows a lack of understanding and wisdom on the matter.

When I've been involved first-hand, there's only one accurate version of events: the events I observed. Unless I'm a delusional schizophrenic, I guess.

Incidentally, I'm not the only person who agrees with my version of events. Other people also were there and experienced it all first-hand.

That seems kind of strange to insist that your understanding of events is the only one that is valid. Doesn't seem very wise and humble. But maybe I am misunderstanding you. That's why I am saying it "seems" a certain way. Perhaps you'd be willing to clarify if I am understanding your position correctly or not, and if incorrectly, to clarify it.

It also seems kind of strange to appeal to unspecified people for allegedly agreeing with you for validation of your view. It always gives me pause when I run into that.

However, when he and his defenders keep deciding to attack me, that makes it harder and harder for me to ignore him.

Other than this anonymous Ozark Breeze taking a potshot at you, who is still attacking you?

I do not feel it prudent to go public on MennoNet with that, but it's been an ongoing problem over the past year.

Vague insinuations, but refusing to give proof is a tactic that always gives me pause. There seems to be a lot of that with you. Any idea why it seems this way?

[Josh]

That seems kind of strange to insist that your understanding of events is the only one that is valid.

I'm talking about what I observed first-hand, with my own eyes and ears, over the space of a year.

Yes, I think my perceptions were valid and to be trusted.

It also seems kind of strange to appeal to unspecified people for allegedly agreeing with you for validation of your view. It always gives me pause when I run into that.

These "unspecified people" are members in good standing at my old church. You're welcome to go and figure out who they are. And, yes, I trusted them to help me make sure my own perceptions weren't false before I took action.

I do not have permission from them to plaster their names all over this forum. Nor have I plastered the names of a lot of other people I suspect as perpetrators or enablers. I've limited myself to people who put themselves in the public spotlight when they appear in the news, which, in this forum, has been limited to Steve Stutzman, Jeriah Mast, and various officials at CAM.

Vague insinuations, but refusing to give proof is a tactic that always gives me pause. There seems to be a lot of that with you. Any idea why it seems this way?

There seems to be a lot of knee-jerk defending of Stutzman with you, alongside a lot of knee-jerk attacking me for ever speaking out. Any idea why it seems this way?

[ragpicker]

There seems to be a lot of knee-jerk defending of Stutzman with you, alongside a lot of knee-jerk attacking me for ever speaking out. Any idea why it seems this way?

I notice you're throwing my terminology back at me. That's a classic manipulation tactic. I am not saying you're intending it that way at all, just mentioning that I noticed it.

In my communications with you and about Steve Stutzman over the last six months, can you please point out the specific ways I have:

1. Engaged in "knee-jerk defending of Stutzman"?

2. Engaged in "a lot of knee-jerk attacking [you] for ever speaking out"?

Thank you.

[Josh]

There seems to be a lot of knee-jerk defending of Stutzman with you, alongside a lot of knee-jerk attacking me for ever speaking out. Any idea why it seems this way?

I notice you're throwing my terminology back at me. That's a classic manipulation tactic. I am not saying you're intending it that way at all, just mentioning that I noticed it.

ragpicker,

It's obvious you have exactly one agenda, and that's to defend Steve Stutzman at all costs. I've had to deal with a rather large number of people who also seem to have the exact same agenda, and will do virtually anything to defend him regardless of how underhanded the tactics are.

In your defence, I haven't seen you do those things against me. No attempts to drag my ex-wife into this, no interfering with my church membership, no ringing up my job and trying to get me fired. (The latter did make for a very amusing conversation with my (now former) boss over some drinks when we were in Tel Aviv - mine non-alcoholic, of course.)

This entire conversation eventually boils down to my word against... I don't know whose. You weren't there. Stutzman wasn't there. I was. I became a Christian in Hartville, Ohio, and then went to church there for several years. And I ended up, first-hand, in the middle of seeing a very ugly, immoral, sinful situation that was entirely my business.

Eventually someone has to stand up and speak out. I've said little about Stutzman. What is worth noting is how the attacks against me just never stop, and probably never will.

I can only imagine the pure hell the actual victims must have been put through. Many of them are not doing well at all, and all I see is further efforts made to isolate them and ostracise them from their families and communities.

[ragpicker]

There seems to be a lot of knee-jerk defending of Stutzman with you, alongside a lot of knee-jerk attacking me for ever speaking out. Any idea why it seems this way?

I notice you're throwing my terminology back at me. That's a classic manipulation tactic. I am not saying you're intending it that way at all, just mentioning that I noticed it.

It's obvious you have exactly one agenda, and that's to defend Steve Stutzman at all costs.

I'm a lot more interested in truth, than in defending Steve Stutzman. Also, besides attacking him with false accusations, to defend him against true accusations would be one of the worst things I could do to him. To the best of my knowledge, I have never done either, and I want to be very careful to do neither. I spent quite a bit of time investigating allegations with an open mind, so it's kind of hard for me to sit here and be accused of what you just accused me of.

I've had to deal with a rather large number of people who also seem to have the exact same agenda, and will do virtually anything to defend him regardless of how underhanded the tactics are.

Underhanded tactics, no matter who is doing them, is ugly and unacceptable. I can say, to the best of my recollection, every single communication I ever heard or saw from Steve and his board was asking people to not respond with defense or otherwise.

In your defence, I haven't seen you do those things against me. No attempts to drag my ex-wife into this, no interfering with my church membership, no ringing up my job and trying to get me fired. (The latter did make for a very amusing conversation with my (now former) boss over some drinks when we were in Tel Aviv - mine non-alcoholic, of course.)

Just to clarify, it seems you accusing me of knee-jerk attacking you, but stating you've never seen me engage in underhanded tactics. Am I understanding your distinction correctly?

This entire conversation eventually boils down to my word against... I don't know whose. You weren't there. Stutzman wasn't there. I was. I became a Christian in Hartville, Ohio, and then went to church there for several years. And I ended up, first-hand, in the middle of seeing a very ugly, immoral, sinful situation that was entirely my business.

Such situations are hard. I've been there too, and it's no fun. I care how it felt to you.

Eventually someone has to stand up and speak out. I've said little about Stutzman. What is worth noting is how the attacks against me just never stop, and probably never will.

I can only imagine the pure hell the actual victims must have been put through. Many of them are not doing well at all, and all I see is further efforts made to isolate them and ostracise them from their families and communities.

When people are sexually violated, it gets really messy and few people seem to do well at helping victims and connected people navigate the messes it creates. The church of Jesus Christ has failed miserably.

There seems to be a lot of knee-jerk defending of Stutzman with you, alongside a lot of knee-jerk attacking me for ever speaking out. Any idea why it seems this way?

I notice you're throwing my terminology back at me. That's a classic manipulation tactic. I am not saying you're intending it that way at all, just mentioning that I noticed it.

In my communications with you and about Steve Stutzman over the last six months, can you please point out the specific ways I have:

1. Engaged in "knee-jerk defending of Stutzman"?

2. Engaged in "a lot of knee-jerk attacking [you] for ever speaking out"?

Thank you.

You made two very specific accusations against me. I responded with two specific requests for clarification. Would you mind answering them please? Thank you.

[Szdfan]

I’m hesitant to say something here because I don’t want to put more fuel on the fire, but after reflection, I do think I need to say something. I’m deeply concerned about abuse in churches and the dynamics I see happening in this thread and the other one are similar to what often happens when someone comes forward with allegations of abuse or misconduct by someone who is popular, well-loved or well-respected in a community.

What Josh describes from his own personal experience is classic spiritual abuse:

4. I was referred to Steve Stutzman for counselling, who told me I had an accusatory spirit, rebellious spirit, imagine things because I am from the world so I have a sick mind, and that I have no signs of being saved. I doubted my salvation for about a month because of this.

He has stated multiple times that this is his personal, first-hand experience:

I'm talking about what I observed first-hand, with my own eyes and ears, over the space of a year.

Yes, I think my perceptions were valid and to be trusted.

What I see in response to Josh are unfortunately often the typical responses kinds of responses when somebody comes forward.

While Josh has primarily talked about his own experience, there is also a chorus that has desperately attempted to discredit and dismiss him, even though nobody has presented any information that directly counters what he describes as his own experience.

In my experience, this type of chorus of defenders shows up whenever anybody makes allegations.

There’s the umbrage and personal attacks:

• How dare you slander this person who does so much good!
• How dare you slander this institution or organization!
• You must have an ulterior motive!
• You are lying!
• You are crazy!
• You have it out for them!
• You’re not being fair to them
• Innocent until proven guilty!

Then there’s the epistemological approach:

• What is truth?
• There are two sides to every story!
• You misunderstood what happened to you!
• You don’t know the full truth!
• You don’t know this inside information that demonstrates how wrong you are that I can’t tell you because it’s confidential!

I think there is a lot of good conversation going on right now, but it’s also not surprising that some of the people who most loudly declare that abuse is evil are also the first to dismiss survivors when they speak about their own experience. I’m not sure how to change that.

[Mrs.Nisly]

What I see in response to Josh are unfortunately often the typical responses kinds of responses when somebody comes forward.

While Josh has primarily talked about his own experience, there is also a chorus that has desperately attempted to discredit and dismiss him, even though nobody has presented any information that directly counters what he describes as his own experience.

In my experience, this type of chorus of defenders shows up whenever anybody makes allegations.

There’s the umbrage and personal attacks:

How dare you slander this person who does so much good!
How dare you slander this institution or organization!
You must have an ulterior motive!
You are lying!
You are crazy!
You have it out for them!
You’re not being fair to them
Innocent until proven guilty!


Then there’s the epistemological approach:

What is truth?
There are two sides to every story!
You misunderstood what happened to you!
You don’t know the full truth!
You don’t know this inside information that demonstrates how wrong you are that I can’t tell you because it’s confidential!


I think there is a lot of good conversation going on right now, but it’s also not surprising that some of the people who most loudly declare that abuse is evil are also the first to dismiss survivors when they speak about their own experience. I’m not sure how to change that.

What I hear you saying here, Szdfan, is that empirical truth is impossible to determine. Truth is entirely subject to a person's experience.
So based on your points above, it is simply impossible to think anything other, except to agree with a person, in this case Josh, because this is his truth.

Is this the case?

[Mrs.Nisly]

I think there is a lot of good conversation going on right now, but it’s also not surprising that some of the people who most loudly declare that abuse is evil are also the first to dismiss survivors when they speak about their own experience. I’m not sure how to change that.

Are you specifically referring to ragpicker here, Szdfan?

[Josh]

I think there is a lot of good conversation going on right now, but it’s also not surprising that some of the people who most loudly declare that abuse is evil are also the first to dismiss survivors when they speak about their own experience. I’m not sure how to change that.

What I hear you saying here, Szdfan, is that empirical truth is impossible to determine. Truth is entirely subject to a person's experience.
So based on your points above, it is simply impossible to think anything other, except to agree with a person, in this case Josh, because this is his truth.

Is this the case?[/quote]

What Szdfan was saying, to me, was that empirical truth is definitely possible to determine - but that a certain type of person tends to pop up in cases like this who challenges the idea that we can know the truth at all.

I do not want anyone to agree blindly with me. If someone really wants to know, I can share evidence with you, and other people involved (like Metzger) have done the same.

The problem here is that certain folks pop up saying "there are two sides to this story". A few weeks ago, quite a few people popped up here on MennoNet saying there are "two sides to the story" with Jeriah Mast, and that we needed to be quiet.

The simple fact is, being quiet hasn't worked. It's time to speak up boldly and honestly for truth, despite the naysayers.

[ragpicker]

Josh, you made two specific accusations. Twice I have asked for clarification. Is there a particular reason you're ignoring my requests for clarification?