User:Farson Quest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Farson Quest From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Your bias really shows through....too bad-sad really that as a Christian you have so much hatred in you towards a man of God who was a blessing to many MILLIONS over 25 years and most likely to you also....

Stop hiding, would Jesus want you to hide? How many years was Pastor Oostermann a blessing to you? And millions? Just a little stretching of the truth...perhaps.

According to the Sun Articles, that one person Mr. Oosterman, is the only one who has publicly acknowledged responsibility. The rest are too arrogant. Andrew B knew from the start. Of course he still supports the pedophile in the pulpit. The second event, (did not you and your few friends in the FIGHT claim there were three –was that true or a lie) I hear that Deacon Mc Niece knew early November, but kept his mouth shut until he needed to get people angry in February. He was taking "time off" as areal "leader" and could not be bothered to inform any one. These sad events proves one simple truth “Strike the Shepherd and the sheep scatter”.

 +  
 + Total effect: Another church closed. Hundreds of saints hurt. Another pastor and family destroyed. To God be the glory! Satan used you and others. Follow God’s Word in dealing with trouble in the church? That is optional. Or rather, who cares, let’s do it our (Satan’s) way. No wonder that more than 50% of pastors quit after a few years in ministry, and 60% of those who remain would like to. Why? Christians who serve Satan more than Jesus, like Peter when he rebuked Jesus. 

What part did you play in destroying a church and pastor? How were you involved? Looking back, how many Commands of Jesus did you and are you beaking?

We have reached the Tower of Oz and reunite with old friends....that works in a novel. But in the Universe of the ALMIGHTY and HOLY GOD, the only old friends who will be reunited are the ones who understand and practice Biblical repentence and forgiveness....

World Warcraft, the Tome of the Cabal, Farson Quest is into the Darkside!

• wow man, it's like you're possessed! Goodbye dude, I want nothing of it. (Farson Quest)

BL asks again: What part did you play in destroying a church and pastor? How were you involved? Looking back, how many Commands of Jesus did you and are you beaking? (BL)

You say "I want nothing of it" but I suspect you were very much a part of it. So ignore the questions and keep on hiding, until the Great Day when Jesus exposes all. God have mercy! (BL)

• I agree, but I haven't ignored your questions. I'm just not answering here (I answer them easily myself). I actually restored relationships long ago. To be honest, I think it is you who needs to look in the mirror and ask yourself all the same questions you're throwing at others (hey, there's a biblical principle!). I've never met a more hypocritical pastor... and I say that with no joy, it's saddening really. You condemn someone for a particular action in one breath and turn around and commit the very same offense yourself in the next breath... yet you can't see it. Reconciliation isn't going to happen over email or internet or letters... you'd think 4 years of letters and emails being misinterpreted and twisted would be proof enough... but it still continues. Too bad.(Farson Quest- hiding of course)

What part did you play in destroying a church and pastor? (asked and ignored)

You have ignored the questions. Too bad. Oosterman had thirty years of blessed ministry and is going on in ministry. My understanding (limited agreed) is he was always open to BIBLICAL reconciliation, and still is... So who are you? Mr. Farson? Are you saying you met Pastor Oosterman? You know him? He was a blessing to you? For how many years before you attacked him? You have issues- yah -pretend you do not - truly...I hope you deal with them in this life. (BL)

• Your questions are loaded anyway. You asked "what part did you play in destroying a church and a pastor?" If you were to ask most people at that church at the time, they might say I tried to be a peacemaker or that I tried my best to keep it together. Ask others like yourself, you'd probably say I was a chief architect and the most evil person on the face of the earth, short of Mr. Lawrence (spawn of satan) himself of course (sarcasm here). You see.. in the world of Mr. Oosterman (er I mean BL), if you disagree with him on ANYTHING, it means you're "attacking" him. And if you support his ministry while under question you are able to "see the truth", but if you (heaven forbid) come to the place where you can't support it anymore, then you're "deceived" and "a tool of the devil". It's classic spiritual abuse. It used to have an impact, now it's just sort of laughable in a underlying sad way. I'm really glad to see you're making an impact down in the DR and some worthy stuff going on (if what you're advertising is true).... good on you, and keep it up! But this Roy Gordon Lawrence and Westboro thing is your albatross, it's going to be on your tombstone as a terrible burden you've carried. You need to start asking yourself questions like "what part/role did I play in the destruction of a church" before you cast stones at others.

Open to reconciliation?, me too, always have been. :) In fact, I'm not sure much of anything is between us other than disagreement on whether you belong in the ministry of those churches or not... which is a moot point now because they've all rejected you now anyway. But if you want to put your word where your mouth is, I'll take you up on your offer... next time you're in Ottawa I'll meet with you in person with an area pastor or two and we can see if there is anything unresolved there... I'm not so sure there really is anymore though. Farson Quest

You sure have your own slant on things. FQ, I understand that Mr. Oosterman in 1993 took a declining church in a difficult area, with 45 or so people in an older building and led it to significant growth so that before the attacks and split it had around 100 members and 140 or so attending. That is really tough to do. Similar older churches all over Canada closed during that same period. I understand that he had people who were attacking him from his first year on and they never stopped, and he always responded graciously. I understand that after the split, when most pastors would have walked away, he turned down an invitation to pastor a church of 200 - call Kent Clark o verify. Instead he and Dorothy poured their hearts into rebuilding, and in just over a year had the church back up to 55 or so. You say “which is a moot point now because they've all rejected you (him) now anyway”. How twisted is that. When he did resign all but 45 of those 55 left in disgust at what was done to their pastor and his wife. So I guess they ahev not "all rejected you (him) now anyway"

Those few left of course could not keep the church going and closed it a year later, blaming Mr. Oosterman for what they did. Such wonderful Christian people. God will be the Judge and, well, it may not be pretty. No wonder the western world rejects Christ – they see what His people –so-called Christians – do to each other.

And since that first split many privately accepted Mr. Oosterman’s invitation to be reconciled, admitting they were blinded and lied to. Over half of those who were led out in that first rebellion have since left the GBC group they formed under Roy Lawrence. No wonder. Gathering sheep is most difficult, in particular in this day and age. Scattering them is easy. Just get up an attack on the pastor and the sheep are scattered. That is in the Bible some where…I think. So how do those people who attacked a successful pastor and destroyed a ministry sleep at night? The same way the people who burned saints at the stake slept. They convince themselves they have been out there doing God a favour! (BL)

• So what's your point here? Mr Oosterman wasn't likety split clean in all of the above situation... he himself helped bring about a lot of the turmoil... and he himself perpetuated it all along the way. I'm not saying it's 100% his fault, but he was at the center of it all and in my opinion owns one of the biggest shares of the pie in the mess that happened during split 1, and owns a big share of the pie in split 2. You can vilify Roy Lawrence all you want, I don't support what he did there either... and you can vilify some of the specific injustices individuals did to Mr. Oosterman along the way (I agree... a lot of specific injusticies).. and those were all wrong... but they didn't happen in a vaccuum! They wre a culmination of Mr. Oosterman's very actions against THEM or his insistance (to this very day) that he did nothing wrong at all other than not being harsher on people who were wrong. talk about rosy glasses and history revision. I love how your version of the history perfectly highlites Mr. Oosterman as the only true victim. He was a victim, but he also was a chief contributer to his abuse and often (like a terrorist) put his family in front of him as a human shield and then complained to the hills (like a terrorist) when his family got hurt by it. It's like terrorists hijacking a school and then when the school gets bombed and some children die (due to being human shields)... uproar is on the bomb droppers and not on the terrorist who put those poor children in harms way intentionally! There are multiple sides to every story.

BTW... when I said 'they all rejected him now anyway' I was referring to the standing church bodies... so yes that did deserve clarification as clearly i can't speak for individuals that I don't know whom may have come and gone over the years and may still support Mr. Oosterman. So that is acceptable to point that out, thanks :) BTW... notice how Mr. Oosterman is the only one perpetuating his side of the story on the internet?? Now don't count this little wikipedia thing as an example of the opposite, because this is a dialog, not a story-telling website. how insensed do you think Mr. Oosterman would be if a bunch of people put up their own websites with their sides of the stories?... the stories Mr. Oosterman doesn't agree with... he'd be pretty upset wouldn't he? He'd likely site how unbiblical that is to be so "attacking" and "vindictive"... yet when the shoe is on the other foot.. I guess it's okay for Mr. Oosterman to "attack" and be "vindicitive"... (seemingly... all in the name of being innocent victim). All I'm saying is... people in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks, that's all. (FQ)

Ahh, but facts are stubborn things. The fact is a ministry that was very blessed for 25 years was attacked and a man and his wife almost destroyed by the brutality. The fact is that almost EVERY pastor will be attacked and forced from at least one church, some of the braver men more often. Everything you say about and against Mr. Oosterman is plagiarized from attacks on other pastors before him. You and they are never original. The fact is the profession with the highest attrition rate today is the pastorate. The fact is over 50% will break down and leave pastoral ministry to find other ways of serving God. Mr. Oosterman is only unique in the viciousness of the attacks, and that some blinded fools, listening to a liar, were trying to replace him with a pedophile. A very mature Elder Norris publicly warned Mr. Oosterman 6 months before the attacks “With the kind of leadership you are giving on a National level against same-sex marriage, and against women as pastors, and with the growth this church is experiencing, Satan will seek to bring you down and destroy you. He must at least try”. Because Satan had some servants willing to do his work, he almost succeeded. Did you help, hiding Farson Quest? (BL)

• Oh why yes Mr. BL, I was the chief architect of course. I mean, clearly Mr. Oosterman did nothing wrong at all and this is all just and attack of Satan against his blessed ministry. Glad we agree on that (FQ)

I suspect Mr. Oosterman failed to obey this command: "Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

Did you ever read the covenant you and others agreed to? A wise and gracious covenant. If followed by those who made those false promises that night, his predictions made in that covenant would have remained unfulfilled. You seem like a thinking person. Read that covenant again. Considering he was on medication and had already had a complete nervous breakdown (diagnosed) and you will see the compassion that was still there for his people. Sadly, all that he predicted came true.

"If you accept this now, I urge you all, my supporters and detractors, to stop all attempts to build up or tear down. Resist the temptation to either attack or justify. We are all sinners saved by grace. If you choose to open fronts and draw the battle lines and attack, this evening you will find that Jesus will depart. Is it worth that to prove your point, what ever it is? I beg you as one who loves and cares for you, spare my wee little ones the carnage, the blood and guts of a terrible battle among saints."

So you will have to live with your part in all that, what ever it was. You seem to take it very easy. Lucky you. (maybe) Looking back, was it worth it to rip up that solemn agreement and destroy a church. Or perhaps God was protecting you all from Lawrence.(BL)

Why do you keep adding to Lawrence's page that he was directly involved in children's ministries as Sunday School Super? That is really a lie (or perhaps you can describe the classes of children he taught, their ages, what room they were in etc.) when people who were there know he was not doing that - he was in charge over all of the S.S. and he spent most of time teaching the adult class....and when not teaching he was present in the adult class. The SUper had to make sure all classes had teachers. He did not teach kids except the CHRISTIAN (so-called) SCHOOL. Like a good Christian, please stick to posting true statements. It even makes Jesus look better.(BL)

It's been an interesting dialog, so sure... let's respond: 1) the "covenant"

• First of all, I know BL=WO, but I will continue to work in the 3rd party, that's fine. For the record, I agree that what WO read that evening was very nice, and if followed -- would have been effective. It wouldn't have helped the Roy (RGL) situation which would have come to light anyway... but RGL is a semi-separate matter in some ways (depending on your viewpoint), so lets stay on your topic. So the deal is, at the beginning of this specially called meeting which had a few agenda items, WO asked permission to get up at the beginning of the meeting (and was granted) and read that statement being referred to as the "covenant". It was well worded, on it's own should be given merit really (in hindsight). I sort of feel WO was pressured into that position, but motives and pontifications aside... a nice letter... and entirely appropriate for the occasion. Trouble was... is WO read the letter, and then the business meeting ensured. Now, clearly a majority (STRONG majority) was in favor of granting a disability leave. But what happened is the business meeting started after WOs letter, and a lot of time passed (~an hour or more) with issues discussed/voted on such as returning to deacons board, etc. Exact timing of it all is not easily remembered, but my point is that WO read the letter, I'd say it was received well... but then meeting started as planned and agenda item 1 started... passage of time.. .then eventually we got to the point where a motion was finalized... motion to allow WO to go on disability leave to end of year.. and voted, and passed. Now... there is confusion clearly that WO thinks the motion was to abide by his "covenant" (sic) whereas others think the motion was simply "to grant WO a disability leave"... so keep that in mind that most disagree with whether the vote was for your letter (which included a disability leave plus a number of other items) or whether the motion was just for a disability leave. For arguments sake, let's just pretend WO's covenant was voted on (as it bears no difference really). WO was the first to break the covenant!!!! He wouldn't leave people alone the very next day... emailing individuals (and then getting upset when they responded.. saying "you're supposed to leave me alone!), and then emailing other invididuals (and getting upset when they responded), the church was at it's most SENSITIVE point... they NEEEDED separation from WO... but didn't have the reserve to just try vote him out them and felt a separation + disability was the right thing to do. But there was no separation... emails, emails, letters, showing up at church (ok, showing up to collect things is fine... no problem), but I mean showing up and picking up the phone and listening in on conversations... making his presence known... that sort of thing. WO didn't leave WBC alone... so point the finger all you want at people breaking the covenant and changing locks,etc... I agree things were mishandled (not as an excuse.. but things were so drastic because people were at wits end... so they reacted in "wits end" ways. Certainly WO should be cut from the same slack too... just trying to even out the emotional states here... don't vilify one side and not the other, or don't justify one side and not the other... two sides had every reason to act irrationally and two sides DID act irrationally. So this "covenant breaking" idea... which is open to interpretation, but to be honest... I liked the idea proposed in WOs letter... there is no point pretending only one side broke it (which is WOs position to this day)... WO broke it first really. It's like two kids fighting in the park, and they both agree "ok, truce!" and then one kids say "yea truce... and kicks sands" (which is what WO did figurative)... and of course the other kids responds by "hey... and kicks sand back" (which is what WBC did)... and then trying to say that only the retaliator is at fault... when in fact the 1st kid "broke" the covenant and yes... both were wrong... but don't say only 1 is at fault. And don't try to tell me WO didn't do anything wrong... i've read the spins.. I was there and saw it, saw the emails, etc... WO didn't "stay away."

An example of hypocrisy and why reconciliation isn't happening.. WO can't admit he did anything wrong other that "not dealing with things hard enough or biblically enough" proposterous!!

2) RGL page / Superintendent

• It's an example of how WO disconnects logic. RGL's past is known. He's not a threat when his past is known. He was a threat when his past was UNknown. And while largely UNknown... he held the position of SS Superintendent. Agreed, RGL led that role in an administrative way... but other past WBC SS supertindendants didn't-- and were directly involved with the children. Just like how some school principles are hands-on with the children, some are more hands-off. But you can't DENY the fact (read the job description) that it is a childrens ministry position. You condemn Roy for being in a position of "leadership" for teaching adults at GBC... but you are downplaying the position of leadership as SS Superintendant at WBC. They are both positions of leadership... how would a child know which leaders to trust or which not too? this isn't meant to be a strong argument here (it ain't worth it).. its just a subtle point to how logic is applied in one area but not another. RGL was most "dangerous" when his past was UNknown... he's far less dangerous now that his past is known. And quite frankly the leadership of WBC (WO included) are most to blame for not fully disclosing WHAT THEY HKNEW (read again: "what they knew" ... whatever understanding it was (yes we know WO and other didn't know the FULL GORY DETAILS.. but they knew "enough"... enought that PB expressed reservations with is kids, enough that DP expressed reservations and left the church (?? unknown... I'll have to as DP.. just a suspiscion). Point is... enough pile of "dog poo" was evident and it was covered. Sure we now try to complain that we didn't realize it was THIS MUCH dog poo.. but don't play a victim... WO and select others knew there was some dog poo... and even just a little stinks so let's not be all lilly white in the matter.

Ok, enough of this, another medium, another day... go ahead and put in your last word and lets move on (FQ)

The above is memory based - and why most courts reject that kind of testimony as unreliable. The meeting that night was taped and most of what you claim is very simply proven wrong by that tape. Memory is selective. That tape is not. It records all the viciousness

As for RL, if you think he is less a danger now you are simply crazy. You ignore that the church was informed he had committed sex crimes and had been in jail and they were encouraged to ask him about the details. NONE DID - including the self-rightious Farson Quest.

As for the days after Monday? One phone call was answered by automatic reflex, during the half hour when the pastor was picking up files and some books to read.

Too bad he was not employed by godless pagan Nortel. If he had served them well for 25 years, doubled his department,and then went on medication with dozens of severe side effects, then had a heart attack and nervous breakdown, they would still be looking after him,caring for him. But attack him, give him disability and then fire him, leave obscene and abusive messages on his phone for his kids to hear, harrass him in many other ways....no...leave that to you CHRISTIANS. That is more like your style. Mean while, we have the tapes, no missing min.like with Nixon. It is all there and proves most of your blatheras just that. Blather. (BL)