Were you there and/or what are your thoughts?

[RAIDER]

I had been gone from HAC for several years when all of this came out.  I remember my pastor handing me a copy of the Biblical Evangelist where I read Sumner's article.

During that time, we met a good Christian brother who visited our church while on vacation who thought it his responsibility to send it to us a couple weeks later. 

Funny thing though,  during a Google search I did yesterday, "The Biblical  Evangelist" came up.  I hadn't heard of it in years.

Now today, I see it here. Is it a sign for something, I wonder?

It is a sign that you are still a Hacker after all these years!

 

[Walt]

Someone posted this link a couple of weeks ago.  It is a sermon preached by Jack Hyles in the late '80s.  It was during "the battle".  I had already graduated and was gone.  I remember listening to it on a cassette tape.  I listened to it again last week from this link.  Here are my questions - Were you there when this sermon was preached?  If so, what were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?  If you were not there, did you listen to the cassette?  What were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?

I'm ~20 minutes in...

He's mentioned Sumner, Nischik, and Godfrey once so far.

He has stated that he's the most pure man that ever lived (better than Jesus, I guess)
He's apparently comparing this "storm" to what the apostle Paul went through (eye roll)
He has done a lot of deflecting
He has stated that his enemies are attacking fundamentalism (he may have enemies that attack fundamentalism, but Sumner report was primarily 1) that Dr Hyles had an improper relationship with Jennie Nischik, and 2) That Dr Hyles was covering up rampant sin at FBCH, so Hyles' accusation is an attempt at misdirection).
He has stated that his enemies are trying to bring down FBCH, which isn't the case either

That's all so far.

 

[Walt]

Someone posted this link a couple of weeks ago.  It is a sermon preached by Jack Hyles in the late '80s.  It was during "the battle".  I had already graduated and was gone.  I remember listening to it on a cassette tape.  I listened to it again last week from this link.  Here are my questions - Were you there when this sermon was preached?  If so, what were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?  If you were not there, did you listen to the cassette?  What were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?

I'm ~20 minutes in...

He's mentioned Sumner, Nischik, and Godfrey once so far.

He has stated that he's the most pure man that ever lived (better than Jesus, I guess)
He's apparently comparing this "storm" to what the apostle Paul went through (eye roll)
He has done a lot of deflecting
He has stated that his enemies are attacking fundamentalism (he may have enemies that attack fundamentalism, but Sumner report was primarily 1) that Dr Hyles had an improper relationship with Jennie Nischik, and 2) That Dr Hyles was covering up rampant sin at FBCH, so Hyles' accusation is an attempt at misdirection).
He has stated that his enemies are trying to bring down FBCH, which isn't the case either

That's all so far.

So, now ~30 min in - it's clear he is attacking the messenger

He says that he "always and forever" will stand by his friends, but... he called Vic Nischik his friend; he called G. Godfrey his friend.  Seems like he only stands by people who don't question him.

He keeps saying he is not defending himself, but the people he loves, but he hasn't (so far) named anything against anyone.

He's been ranting about being turned into the fire marshal - he says that "the enemies" were just trying to cause trouble, and that their buildings were some of the safest, but he also said that they corrected all of the problems, which, to me, is admitting that they were NOT compliant with the code, and you'd think he would be grateful, if he really had people's safety at heart.

 

[Walt]

Someone posted this link a couple of weeks ago.  It is a sermon preached by Jack Hyles in the late '80s.  It was during "the battle".  I had already graduated and was gone.  I remember listening to it on a cassette tape.  I listened to it again last week from this link.  Here are my questions - Were you there when this sermon was preached?  If so, what were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?  If you were not there, did you listen to the cassette?  What were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?

I'm ~20 minutes in...

He's mentioned Sumner, Nischik, and Godfrey once so far.

He has stated that he's the most pure man that ever lived (better than Jesus, I guess)
He's apparently comparing this "storm" to what the apostle Paul went through (eye roll)
He has done a lot of deflecting
He has stated that his enemies are attacking fundamentalism (he may have enemies that attack fundamentalism, but Sumner report was primarily 1) that Dr Hyles had an improper relationship with Jennie Nischik, and 2) That Dr Hyles was covering up rampant sin at FBCH, so Hyles' accusation is an attempt at misdirection).
He has stated that his enemies are trying to bring down FBCH, which isn't the case either

That's all so far.

So, now ~30 min in - it's clear he is attacking the messenger

He says that he "always and forever" will stand by his friends, but... he called Vic Nischik his friend; he called G. Godfrey his friend.  Seems like he only stands by people who don't question him.

He keeps saying he is not defending himself, but the people he loves, but he hasn't (so far) named anything against anyone.

He's been ranting about being turned into the fire marshal - he says that "the enemies" were just trying to cause trouble, and that their buildings were some of the safest, but he also said that they corrected all of the problems, which, to me, is admitting that they were NOT compliant with the code, and you'd think he would be grateful, if he really had people's safety at heart.

So, I'm up to his 17 or 18 things he's going to do (he's just started).  Additional items since the last post:

I've read the Sumner article many times -- probably 4-5 and I didn't recall ANY attack on his sister. I went back and looked, and she is mentioned in one paragraph among a list of divorced people working at FBCH.  (Hardly an "attack".)

He mentioned churches canceling having Mrs Hyles speak, and how evil it was of Sumner; actually, it was due to Hyles' behaving as he did. There was not much of an "attack" on her.  If documentation came out as detailed as Mr Sumner's about me, I would expect churches to not have me or my wife speak until I had answered the charges... incidentally, I'm 2/3s of the way through the message, and he hasn't answered any of the charges.  He continues to call it an attack on his friends and family.

He talked about an "attack" on his children; I only remember Dave Hyles' sins being outed. He may love him, but calling it "not perfect" certainly does not excuse the perversion that DH committed.  JH isn't responsible for his son's sins, but JH enabled DH by his cover-ups.  It is well known that JH lied about and covered up for DH.  Telling the truth is only an attack in JH's mind.

He brings up Curtis Hutson in passing; this was never mentioned by Sumner; JH is attributed motives behind what's going on, something he used to preach against.

He mentioned Ray Moffit; again, this is from the same paragraph is the brief mention of Hyles' sister. It was merely a list of divorced people on staff there.  There was no attack of them.

He goes on about how fine and spiritual these people are, citing souls won.  First of all, God, not man should get the glory for souls saved.  The Bible tells us about one sowing, another watering, and a third seeing the increase.  Why do we give honor just to the one who saw the increase?  God should be honored.  There is, moreover, good reasons to question the numbers - many people "saved" in the HAC "manic" way showed no evidence at all of salvation.  But this topic has had much coverage here.

He claims Sumner has one source for everything.  Maybe.  Sumner claims that the evidence came from multiple sources. 

He mocked those who would ask about scholarship at HAC, claiming it was "under attack" - once again, it was the head of the college, Dr Hyles that was "attacked", not the college itself.  Asking about scholarship levels at any school is a perfectly valid question.  Perhaps their goal is to turn out clones of Hyles, and scholarship isn't that important... that's fine if they want, but don't pretend you have  knowledgeable people teaching in their fields.  Just because someone can "win" 20 souls a week does not mean that they are should be teaching in a school.

Now, on the the 17/18 things he's going to do...

 

[Walt]

Someone posted this link a couple of weeks ago.  It is a sermon preached by Jack Hyles in the late '80s.  It was during "the battle".  I had already graduated and was gone.  I remember listening to it on a cassette tape.  I listened to it again last week from this link.  Here are my questions - Were you there when this sermon was preached?  If so, what were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?  If you were not there, did you listen to the cassette?  What were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?

I'm ~20 minutes in...

He's mentioned Sumner, Nischik, and Godfrey once so far.

He has stated that he's the most pure man that ever lived (better than Jesus, I guess)
He's apparently comparing this "storm" to what the apostle Paul went through (eye roll)
He has done a lot of deflecting
He has stated that his enemies are attacking fundamentalism (he may have enemies that attack fundamentalism, but Sumner report was primarily 1) that Dr Hyles had an improper relationship with Jennie Nischik, and 2) That Dr Hyles was covering up rampant sin at FBCH, so Hyles' accusation is an attempt at misdirection).
He has stated that his enemies are trying to bring down FBCH, which isn't the case either

That's all so far.

So, now ~30 min in - it's clear he is attacking the messenger

He says that he "always and forever" will stand by his friends, but... he called Vic Nischik his friend; he called G. Godfrey his friend.  Seems like he only stands by people who don't question him.

He keeps saying he is not defending himself, but the people he loves, but he hasn't (so far) named anything against anyone.

He's been ranting about being turned into the fire marshal - he says that "the enemies" were just trying to cause trouble, and that their buildings were some of the safest, but he also said that they corrected all of the problems, which, to me, is admitting that they were NOT compliant with the code, and you'd think he would be grateful, if he really had people's safety at heart.

So, I'm up to his 17 or 18 things he's going to do (he's just started).  Additional items since the last post:

I've read the Sumner article many times -- probably 4-5 and I didn't recall ANY attack on his sister. I went back and looked, and she is mentioned in one paragraph among a list of divorced people working at FBCH.  (Hardly an "attack".)

He mentioned churches canceling having Mrs Hyles speak, and how evil it was of Sumner; actually, it was due to Hyles' behaving as he did. There was not much of an "attack" on her.  If documentation came out as detailed as Mr Sumner's about me, I would expect churches to not have me or my wife speak until I had answered the charges... incidentally, I'm 2/3s of the way through the message, and he hasn't answered any of the charges.  He continues to call it an attack on his friends and family.

He talked about an "attack" on his children; I only remember Dave Hyles' sins being outed. He may love him, but calling it "not perfect" certainly does not excuse the perversion that DH committed.  JH isn't responsible for his son's sins, but JH enabled DH by his cover-ups.  It is well known that JH lied about and covered up for DH.  Telling the truth is only an attack in JH's mind.

He brings up Curtis Hutson in passing; this was never mentioned by Sumner; JH is attributed motives behind what's going on, something he used to preach against.

He mentioned Ray Moffit; again, this is from the same paragraph is the brief mention of Hyles' sister. It was merely a list of divorced people on staff there.  There was no attack of them.

He goes on about how fine and spiritual these people are, citing souls won.  First of all, God, not man should get the glory for souls saved.  The Bible tells us about one sowing, another watering, and a third seeing the increase.  Why do we give honor just to the one who saw the increase?  God should be honored.  There is, moreover, good reasons to question the numbers - many people "saved" in the HAC "manic" way showed no evidence at all of salvation.  But this topic has had much coverage here.

He claims Sumner has one source for everything.  Maybe.  Sumner claims that the evidence came from multiple sources. 

He mocked those who would ask about scholarship at HAC, claiming it was "under attack" - once again, it was the head of the college, Dr Hyles that was "attacked", not the college itself.  Asking about scholarship levels at any school is a perfectly valid question.  Perhaps their goal is to turn out clones of Hyles, and scholarship isn't that important... that's fine if they want, but don't pretend you have  knowledgeable people teaching in their fields.  Just because someone can "win" 20 souls a week does not mean that they are should be teaching in a school.

Now, on the the 17/18 things he's going to do...

He claimed that he would defend "every" attack, but he did stop.

He claimed that he was preparing a letter to spread dirt about Nischik (I thought he was too spiritual to listen to gossip like this)

He said he had a right to be heard; no one has a right to be heard (but he has a right to speak his own opinion)

He was all over the Hammond Times, but the press also covered the Catholic scandals.

He was talking about calling names and how some criticized this as being un-Christian (it isn't)... but then he said "Who said JH was a better Christian than these people?" Well, Jack, you did.  Again and again you told us how close you were to God and on and on about your greatness.

I noted that he said he would campaign to get Mrs Hyles speaking engagements, but he was much more fulsome in his defense of JN.

As many others have noted, it is interesting that he never said he loved his wife.

He hinted at juicy scandals that he would print about the attackers, which seems like digging through the gutter.

From what others have analyzed, he should never have responded to Dr Sumner; it was his "defense" that was so poor and so full of smokescreen and misdirection that it convinced people more than anything Dr Sumner wrote.  He continued to mischaracterize everything as an attack upon his church and his family and he never answered the charges.

 

[Twisted]

Someone posted this link a couple of weeks ago.  It is a sermon preached by Jack Hyles in the late '80s.  It was during "the battle".  I had already graduated and was gone.  I remember listening to it on a cassette tape.  I listened to it again last week from this link.  Here are my questions - Were you there when this sermon was preached?  If so, what were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?  If you were not there, did you listen to the cassette?  What were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?

I'm ~20 minutes in...

He's mentioned Sumner, Nischik, and Godfrey once so far.

He has stated that he's the most pure man that ever lived (better than Jesus, I guess)
He's apparently comparing this "storm" to what the apostle Paul went through (eye roll)
He has done a lot of deflecting
He has stated that his enemies are attacking fundamentalism (he may have enemies that attack fundamentalism, but Sumner report was primarily 1) that Dr Hyles had an improper relationship with Jennie Nischik, and 2) That Dr Hyles was covering up rampant sin at FBCH, so Hyles' accusation is an attempt at misdirection).
He has stated that his enemies are trying to bring down FBCH, which isn't the case either

That's all so far.

So, now ~30 min in - it's clear he is attacking the messenger

He says that he "always and forever" will stand by his friends, but... he called Vic Nischik his friend; he called G. Godfrey his friend.  Seems like he only stands by people who don't question him.

He keeps saying he is not defending himself, but the people he loves, but he hasn't (so far) named anything against anyone.

He's been ranting about being turned into the fire marshal - he says that "the enemies" were just trying to cause trouble, and that their buildings were some of the safest, but he also said that they corrected all of the problems, which, to me, is admitting that they were NOT compliant with the code, and you'd think he would be grateful, if he really had people's safety at heart.

So, I'm up to his 17 or 18 things he's going to do (he's just started).  Additional items since the last post:

I've read the Sumner article many times -- probably 4-5 and I didn't recall ANY attack on his sister. I went back and looked, and she is mentioned in one paragraph among a list of divorced people working at FBCH.  (Hardly an "attack".)

He mentioned churches canceling having Mrs Hyles speak, and how evil it was of Sumner; actually, it was due to Hyles' behaving as he did. There was not much of an "attack" on her.  If documentation came out as detailed as Mr Sumner's about me, I would expect churches to not have me or my wife speak until I had answered the charges... incidentally, I'm 2/3s of the way through the message, and he hasn't answered any of the charges.  He continues to call it an attack on his friends and family.

He talked about an "attack" on his children; I only remember Dave Hyles' sins being outed. He may love him, but calling it "not perfect" certainly does not excuse the perversion that DH committed.  JH isn't responsible for his son's sins, but JH enabled DH by his cover-ups.  It is well known that JH lied about and covered up for DH.  Telling the truth is only an attack in JH's mind.

He brings up Curtis Hutson in passing; this was never mentioned by Sumner; JH is attributed motives behind what's going on, something he used to preach against.

He mentioned Ray Moffit; again, this is from the same paragraph is the brief mention of Hyles' sister. It was merely a list of divorced people on staff there.  There was no attack of them.

He goes on about how fine and spiritual these people are, citing souls won.  First of all, God, not man should get the glory for souls saved.  The Bible tells us about one sowing, another watering, and a third seeing the increase.  Why do we give honor just to the one who saw the increase?  God should be honored.  There is, moreover, good reasons to question the numbers - many people "saved" in the HAC "manic" way showed no evidence at all of salvation.  But this topic has had much coverage here.

He claims Sumner has one source for everything.  Maybe.  Sumner claims that the evidence came from multiple sources. 

He mocked those who would ask about scholarship at HAC, claiming it was "under attack" - once again, it was the head of the college, Dr Hyles that was "attacked", not the college itself.  Asking about scholarship levels at any school is a perfectly valid question.  Perhaps their goal is to turn out clones of Hyles, and scholarship isn't that important... that's fine if they want, but don't pretend you have  knowledgeable people teaching in their fields.  Just because someone can "win" 20 souls a week does not mean that they are should be teaching in a school.

Now, on the the 17/18 things he's going to do...

He claimed that he would defend "every" attack, but he did stop.

He claimed that he was preparing a letter to spread dirt about Nischik (I thought he was too spiritual to listen to gossip like this)

He said he had a right to be heard; no one has a right to be heard (but he has a right to speak his own opinion)

He was all over the Hammond Times, but the press also covered the Catholic scandals.

He was talking about calling names and how some criticized this as being un-Christian (it isn't)... but then he said "Who said JH was a better Christian than these people?" Well, Jack, you did.  Again and again you told us how close you were to God and on and on about your greatness.

I noted that he said he would campaign to get Mrs Hyles speaking engagements, but he was much more fulsome in his defense of JN.

As many others have noted, it is interesting that he never said he loved his wife.

He hinted at juicy scandals that he would print about the attackers, which seems like digging through the gutter.

From what others have analyzed, he should never have responded to Dr Sumner; it was his "defense" that was so poor and so full of smokescreen and misdirection that it convinced people more than anything Dr Sumner wrote.  He continued to mischaracterize everything as an attack upon his church and his family and he never answered the charges.

Thanks for the rehash of ancient news.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Someone posted this link a couple of weeks ago.  It is a sermon preached by Jack Hyles in the late '80s.  It was during "the battle".  I had already graduated and was gone.  I remember listening to it on a cassette tape.  I listened to it again last week from this link.  Here are my questions - Were you there when this sermon was preached?  If so, what were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?  If you were not there, did you listen to the cassette?  What were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?

I'm ~20 minutes in...

He's mentioned Sumner, Nischik, and Godfrey once so far.

He has stated that he's the most pure man that ever lived (better than Jesus, I guess)
He's apparently comparing this "storm" to what the apostle Paul went through (eye roll)
He has done a lot of deflecting
He has stated that his enemies are attacking fundamentalism (he may have enemies that attack fundamentalism, but Sumner report was primarily 1) that Dr Hyles had an improper relationship with Jennie Nischik, and 2) That Dr Hyles was covering up rampant sin at FBCH, so Hyles' accusation is an attempt at misdirection).
He has stated that his enemies are trying to bring down FBCH, which isn't the case either

That's all so far.

So, now ~30 min in - it's clear he is attacking the messenger

He says that he "always and forever" will stand by his friends, but... he called Vic Nischik his friend; he called G. Godfrey his friend.  Seems like he only stands by people who don't question him.

He keeps saying he is not defending himself, but the people he loves, but he hasn't (so far) named anything against anyone.

He's been ranting about being turned into the fire marshal - he says that "the enemies" were just trying to cause trouble, and that their buildings were some of the safest, but he also said that they corrected all of the problems, which, to me, is admitting that they were NOT compliant with the code, and you'd think he would be grateful, if he really had people's safety at heart.

So, I'm up to his 17 or 18 things he's going to do (he's just started).  Additional items since the last post:

I've read the Sumner article many times -- probably 4-5 and I didn't recall ANY attack on his sister. I went back and looked, and she is mentioned in one paragraph among a list of divorced people working at FBCH.  (Hardly an "attack".)

He mentioned churches canceling having Mrs Hyles speak, and how evil it was of Sumner; actually, it was due to Hyles' behaving as he did. There was not much of an "attack" on her.  If documentation came out as detailed as Mr Sumner's about me, I would expect churches to not have me or my wife speak until I had answered the charges... incidentally, I'm 2/3s of the way through the message, and he hasn't answered any of the charges.  He continues to call it an attack on his friends and family.

He talked about an "attack" on his children; I only remember Dave Hyles' sins being outed. He may love him, but calling it "not perfect" certainly does not excuse the perversion that DH committed.  JH isn't responsible for his son's sins, but JH enabled DH by his cover-ups.  It is well known that JH lied about and covered up for DH.  Telling the truth is only an attack in JH's mind.

He brings up Curtis Hutson in passing; this was never mentioned by Sumner; JH is attributed motives behind what's going on, something he used to preach against.

He mentioned Ray Moffit; again, this is from the same paragraph is the brief mention of Hyles' sister. It was merely a list of divorced people on staff there.  There was no attack of them.

He goes on about how fine and spiritual these people are, citing souls won.  First of all, God, not man should get the glory for souls saved.  The Bible tells us about one sowing, another watering, and a third seeing the increase.  Why do we give honor just to the one who saw the increase?  God should be honored.  There is, moreover, good reasons to question the numbers - many people "saved" in the HAC "manic" way showed no evidence at all of salvation.  But this topic has had much coverage here.

He claims Sumner has one source for everything.  Maybe.  Sumner claims that the evidence came from multiple sources. 

He mocked those who would ask about scholarship at HAC, claiming it was "under attack" - once again, it was the head of the college, Dr Hyles that was "attacked", not the college itself.  Asking about scholarship levels at any school is a perfectly valid question.  Perhaps their goal is to turn out clones of Hyles, and scholarship isn't that important... that's fine if they want, but don't pretend you have  knowledgeable people teaching in their fields.  Just because someone can "win" 20 souls a week does not mean that they are should be teaching in a school.

Now, on the the 17/18 things he's going to do...

He claimed that he would defend "every" attack, but he did stop.

He claimed that he was preparing a letter to spread dirt about Nischik (I thought he was too spiritual to listen to gossip like this)

He said he had a right to be heard; no one has a right to be heard (but he has a right to speak his own opinion)

He was all over the Hammond Times, but the press also covered the Catholic scandals.

He was talking about calling names and how some criticized this as being un-Christian (it isn't)... but then he said "Who said JH was a better Christian than these people?" Well, Jack, you did.  Again and again you told us how close you were to God and on and on about your greatness.

I noted that he said he would campaign to get Mrs Hyles speaking engagements, but he was much more fulsome in his defense of JN.

As many others have noted, it is interesting that he never said he loved his wife.

He hinted at juicy scandals that he would print about the attackers, which seems like digging through the gutter.

From what others have analyzed, he should never have responded to Dr Sumner; it was his "defense" that was so poor and so full of smokescreen and misdirection that it convinced people more than anything Dr Sumner wrote.  He continued to mischaracterize everything as an attack upon his church and his family and he never answered the charges.

Thanks for the rehash of ancient news.

You should have said this immediately after the OP was posted.
Walt did not post the OP...just participated in it.

 

[Twisted]

You should have said this immediately after the OP was posted.
Walt did not post the OP...just participated in it.

1.  That would have meant listening to a JH "sermon".  No thanks.

2.  Sometimes threads are like books.  I jump in at the end to find out what happens.

3.  I understand that the HAC forum is 90% a rehash of ancient news.  Some of it is fun, most needs to be forgotten.

 

[TidesofTruth]

And now let's move on to our next subject.  Were you there and/or what are your thoughts?

The Iran-Contra Affair

Ronald Reagan's efforts to eradicate Communism spanned the globe, but the insurgent Contras' cause in Nicaragua was particularly dear to him. Battling the Cuban-backed Sandinistas, the Contras were, according to Reagan, "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers." Under the so-called Reagan Doctrine, the CIA trained and assisted this and other anti-Communist insurgencies worldwide.

Oliver North
Corbis
Oliver NorthAssisting involved supplying financial support, a difficult task politically after the Democratic sweep of congressional elections in November 1982. First Democrats passed the Boland Amendment, which restricted CIA and Department of Defense operations in Nicaragua specifically; in 1984, a strengthened Boland Amendment made support almost impossible. A determined, unyielding Reagan told National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, "I want you to do whatever you have to do to help these people keep body and soul together."

What followed would alter the public's perception of the president dramatically. How "Iran" and "Contra" came to be said in the same breath was the result of complicated covert activities, all carried out, the players said, in the name of democracy.

In 1985, while Iran and Iraq were at war, Iran made a secret request to buy weapons from the United States. McFarlane sought Reagan's approval, in spite of the embargo against selling arms to Iran. McFarlane explained that the sale of arms would not only improve U.S. relations with Iran, but might in turn lead to improved relations with Lebanon, increasing U.S. influence in the troubled Middle East. Reagan was driven by a different obsession. He had become frustrated at his inability to secure the release of the seven American hostages being held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon. As president, Reagan felt that "he had the duty to bring those Americans home," and he convinced himself that he was not negotiating with terrorists. While shipping arms to Iran violated the embargo, dealing with terrorists violated Reagan's campaign promise never to do so. Reagan had always been admired for his honesty.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/

 

[16KJV11]

And now let's move on to our next subject.  Were you there and/or what are your thoughts?

The Iran-Contra Affair

Ronald Reagan's efforts to eradicate Communism spanned the globe, but the insurgent Contras' cause in Nicaragua was particularly dear to him. Battling the Cuban-backed Sandinistas, the Contras were, according to Reagan, "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers." Under the so-called Reagan Doctrine, the CIA trained and assisted this and other anti-Communist insurgencies worldwide.

Oliver North
Corbis
Oliver NorthAssisting involved supplying financial support, a difficult task politically after the Democratic sweep of congressional elections in November 1982. First Democrats passed the Boland Amendment, which restricted CIA and Department of Defense operations in Nicaragua specifically; in 1984, a strengthened Boland Amendment made support almost impossible. A determined, unyielding Reagan told National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, "I want you to do whatever you have to do to help these people keep body and soul together."

What followed would alter the public's perception of the president dramatically. How "Iran" and "Contra" came to be said in the same breath was the result of complicated covert activities, all carried out, the players said, in the name of democracy.

In 1985, while Iran and Iraq were at war, Iran made a secret request to buy weapons from the United States. McFarlane sought Reagan's approval, in spite of the embargo against selling arms to Iran. McFarlane explained that the sale of arms would not only improve U.S. relations with Iran, but might in turn lead to improved relations with Lebanon, increasing U.S. influence in the troubled Middle East. Reagan was driven by a different obsession. He had become frustrated at his inability to secure the release of the seven American hostages being held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon. As president, Reagan felt that "he had the duty to bring those Americans home," and he convinced himself that he was not negotiating with terrorists. While shipping arms to Iran violated the embargo, dealing with terrorists violated Reagan's campaign promise never to do so. Reagan had always been admired for his honesty.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/

So, what's your point?

 

[deertracks]

Just in case some don't realize this. HE IS DEAD. This was 25+ years ago

 

[Walt]

Someone posted this link a couple of weeks ago.  It is a sermon preached by Jack Hyles in the late '80s.  It was during "the battle".  I had already graduated and was gone.  I remember listening to it on a cassette tape.  I listened to it again last week from this link.  Here are my questions - Were you there when this sermon was preached?  If so, what were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?  If you were not there, did you listen to the cassette?  What were your thoughts at that time and your thoughts now?

I'm ~20 minutes in...

He's mentioned Sumner, Nischik, and Godfrey once so far.

He has stated that he's the most pure man that ever lived (better than Jesus, I guess)
He's apparently comparing this "storm" to what the apostle Paul went through (eye roll)
He has done a lot of deflecting
He has stated that his enemies are attacking fundamentalism (he may have enemies that attack fundamentalism, but Sumner report was primarily 1) that Dr Hyles had an improper relationship with Jennie Nischik, and 2) That Dr Hyles was covering up rampant sin at FBCH, so Hyles' accusation is an attempt at misdirection).
He has stated that his enemies are trying to bring down FBCH, which isn't the case either

That's all so far.

So, now ~30 min in - it's clear he is attacking the messenger

He says that he "always and forever" will stand by his friends, but... he called Vic Nischik his friend; he called G. Godfrey his friend.  Seems like he only stands by people who don't question him.

He keeps saying he is not defending himself, but the people he loves, but he hasn't (so far) named anything against anyone.

He's been ranting about being turned into the fire marshal - he says that "the enemies" were just trying to cause trouble, and that their buildings were some of the safest, but he also said that they corrected all of the problems, which, to me, is admitting that they were NOT compliant with the code, and you'd think he would be grateful, if he really had people's safety at heart.

So, I'm up to his 17 or 18 things he's going to do (he's just started).  Additional items since the last post:

I've read the Sumner article many times -- probably 4-5 and I didn't recall ANY attack on his sister. I went back and looked, and she is mentioned in one paragraph among a list of divorced people working at FBCH.  (Hardly an "attack".)

He mentioned churches canceling having Mrs Hyles speak, and how evil it was of Sumner; actually, it was due to Hyles' behaving as he did. There was not much of an "attack" on her.  If documentation came out as detailed as Mr Sumner's about me, I would expect churches to not have me or my wife speak until I had answered the charges... incidentally, I'm 2/3s of the way through the message, and he hasn't answered any of the charges.  He continues to call it an attack on his friends and family.

He talked about an "attack" on his children; I only remember Dave Hyles' sins being outed. He may love him, but calling it "not perfect" certainly does not excuse the perversion that DH committed.  JH isn't responsible for his son's sins, but JH enabled DH by his cover-ups.  It is well known that JH lied about and covered up for DH.  Telling the truth is only an attack in JH's mind.

He brings up Curtis Hutson in passing; this was never mentioned by Sumner; JH is attributed motives behind what's going on, something he used to preach against.

He mentioned Ray Moffit; again, this is from the same paragraph is the brief mention of Hyles' sister. It was merely a list of divorced people on staff there.  There was no attack of them.

He goes on about how fine and spiritual these people are, citing souls won.  First of all, God, not man should get the glory for souls saved.  The Bible tells us about one sowing, another watering, and a third seeing the increase.  Why do we give honor just to the one who saw the increase?  God should be honored.  There is, moreover, good reasons to question the numbers - many people "saved" in the HAC "manic" way showed no evidence at all of salvation.  But this topic has had much coverage here.

He claims Sumner has one source for everything.  Maybe.  Sumner claims that the evidence came from multiple sources. 

He mocked those who would ask about scholarship at HAC, claiming it was "under attack" - once again, it was the head of the college, Dr Hyles that was "attacked", not the college itself.  Asking about scholarship levels at any school is a perfectly valid question.  Perhaps their goal is to turn out clones of Hyles, and scholarship isn't that important... that's fine if they want, but don't pretend you have  knowledgeable people teaching in their fields.  Just because someone can "win" 20 souls a week does not mean that they are should be teaching in a school.

Now, on the the 17/18 things he's going to do...

He claimed that he would defend "every" attack, but he did stop.

He claimed that he was preparing a letter to spread dirt about Nischik (I thought he was too spiritual to listen to gossip like this)

He said he had a right to be heard; no one has a right to be heard (but he has a right to speak his own opinion)

He was all over the Hammond Times, but the press also covered the Catholic scandals.

He was talking about calling names and how some criticized this as being un-Christian (it isn't)... but then he said "Who said JH was a better Christian than these people?" Well, Jack, you did.  Again and again you told us how close you were to God and on and on about your greatness.

I noted that he said he would campaign to get Mrs Hyles speaking engagements, but he was much more fulsome in his defense of JN.

As many others have noted, it is interesting that he never said he loved his wife.

He hinted at juicy scandals that he would print about the attackers, which seems like digging through the gutter.

From what others have analyzed, he should never have responded to Dr Sumner; it was his "defense" that was so poor and so full of smokescreen and misdirection that it convinced people more than anything Dr Sumner wrote.  He continued to mischaracterize everything as an attack upon his church and his family and he never answered the charges.

Thanks for the rehash of ancient news.

It was an ancient message.

 

[Baptist City Holdout]

And now let's move on to our next subject.  Were you there and/or what are your thoughts?

The Iran-Contra Affair

Ronald Reagan's efforts to eradicate Communism spanned the globe, but the insurgent Contras' cause in Nicaragua was particularly dear to him. Battling the Cuban-backed Sandinistas, the Contras were, according to Reagan, "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers." Under the so-called Reagan Doctrine, the CIA trained and assisted this and other anti-Communist insurgencies worldwide.

Oliver North
Corbis
Oliver NorthAssisting involved supplying financial support, a difficult task politically after the Democratic sweep of congressional elections in November 1982. First Democrats passed the Boland Amendment, which restricted CIA and Department of Defense operations in Nicaragua specifically; in 1984, a strengthened Boland Amendment made support almost impossible. A determined, unyielding Reagan told National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, "I want you to do whatever you have to do to help these people keep body and soul together."

What followed would alter the public's perception of the president dramatically. How "Iran" and "Contra" came to be said in the same breath was the result of complicated covert activities, all carried out, the players said, in the name of democracy.

In 1985, while Iran and Iraq were at war, Iran made a secret request to buy weapons from the United States. McFarlane sought Reagan's approval, in spite of the embargo against selling arms to Iran. McFarlane explained that the sale of arms would not only improve U.S. relations with Iran, but might in turn lead to improved relations with Lebanon, increasing U.S. influence in the troubled Middle East. Reagan was driven by a different obsession. He had become frustrated at his inability to secure the release of the seven American hostages being held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon. As president, Reagan felt that "he had the duty to bring those Americans home," and he convinced himself that he was not negotiating with terrorists. While shipping arms to Iran violated the embargo, dealing with terrorists violated Reagan's campaign promise never to do so. Reagan had always been admired for his honesty.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/

Was finishing my masters when this was going on. I went out and got an Oliver North military haircut .

 

[Walt]

You should have said this immediately after the OP was posted.
Walt did not post the OP...just participated in it.

1.  That would have meant listening to a JH "sermon".  No thanks.

2.  Sometimes threads are like books.  I jump in at the end to find out what happens.

3.  I understand that the HAC forum is 90% a rehash of ancient news.  Some of it is fun, most needs to be forgotten.

I wasn't part of HAC or FBCH, but I was at a HAC-grad church when this broke; we weren't told anything about it  - if we found out from outside sources, it was dismissed as a pack of lies by jealous people trying to bring down Jack Hyles.

So... I found the message posted in the OP interesting to listen to.

Questions that I don't think anyone asked of people who characterized everything as a "pack of lies"...
- Was it a lie  that JN has a unlisted business phone paid for by JH?
- How often did he call her on it?
- Was it a lie that JH purchased new cars for JN to drive?
- Was is true that her cars were better quality than the cars he bought for others?

 

[Walt]

Just in case some don't realize this. HE IS DEAD. This was 25+ years ago

Yes, he died in Feb (?) 2001 -- but his influence lives on, especially in those who uncritically accept and practice what he practiced.

 

[TidesofTruth]

. . . and Ollie has a television program on Fox.

 

[RAIDER]

You should have said this immediately after the OP was posted.
Walt did not post the OP...just participated in it.

1.  That would have meant listening to a JH "sermon".  No thanks.

2.  Sometimes threads are like books.  I jump in at the end to find out what happens.

3.  I understand that the HAC forum is 90% a rehash of ancient news.  Some of it is fun, most needs to be forgotten.

I wasn't part of HAC or FBCH, but I was at a HAC-grad church when this broke; we weren't told anything about it  - if we found out from outside sources, it was dismissed as a pack of lies by jealous people trying to bring down Jack Hyles.

So... I found the message posted in the OP interesting to listen to.

Questions that I don't think anyone asked of people who characterized everything as a "pack of lies"...
- Was it a lie  that JN has a unlisted business phone paid for by JH?
- How often did he call her on it?
- Was it a lie that JH purchased new cars for JN to drive?
- Was is true that her cars were better quality than the cars he bought for others?

Walt, thanks for listening and giving your opinions.  That's what this thread is all about.

 

[RAIDER]

Just in case some don't realize this. HE IS DEAD. This was 25+ years ago

Just in case some don't realize this is the HAC FFF and the majority of us attended when JH was the pastor of FBCH.

 

[deertracks]

Just in case some don't realize this. HE IS DEAD. This was 25+ years ago

Just in case some don't realize this is the HAC FFF and the majority of us attended when JH was the pastor of FBCH.

Raider  I understand and was there when all this went down. I graduated in 1986 and was asst in a church until the pastors wife came and asked me if I thought her husband was gay and of course I was accumulating a list of reasons at the time why I thought he was gay and left and went back to FBC in 1989. I then ended up going somewhere else to church because I was sick and tired of the Sunday evening circle the wagon sermons eventually going back to where I had left and planting myself and have been their ever since. But....he is dead, Vic is dead, his influence is just about no more except in a few remaining grads who are still out there with their head in the sand. 

 

[RAIDER]

Just in case some don't realize this. HE IS DEAD. This was 25+ years ago

Just in case some don't realize this is the HAC FFF and the majority of us attended when JH was the pastor of FBCH.

Raider  I understand and was there when all this went down. I graduated in 1986 and was asst in a church until the pastors wife came and asked me if I thought her husband was gay and of course I was accumulating a list of reasons at the time why I thought he was gay and left and went back to FBC in 1989. I then ended up going somewhere else to church because I was sick and tired of the Sunday evening circle the wagon sermons eventually going back to where I had left and planting myself and have been their ever since. But....he is dead, Vic is dead, his influence is just about no more except in a few remaining grads who are still out there with their head in the sand.

I do understand where you are coming from.  We all had different experiences during our HAC days.  I look at the forum as a place to talk about the "old days" as well as the things going on now.  I happened to see that someone put this sermon on another thread.  It has been many years since I originally listened to it.  As you can see, there are some on the HAC FFF who had never listened to it.  It's interesting to the opinion of people now compared to the time period which it was preached.