J.R. Klein

@nosoup4knowles He's exactly right as per the usual arrangement

Jeremy Boreing says the Christ is King controversy was like a "Las Vegas Eiffel Tower of Christian proclamations". It has the right shape (every Christian agrees that Christ is King), but the way it was being used by many was a grotesque replica of the Catholic creed.

@DPGBehler Praise God!

It was the privilege of my life to baptize my daughter this morning.

@realstewpeters No, it's most likely because Candace is an unhinged lunatic that had a serious crush on Charlie and Erika didn't want that in her life and that's her prerogative, you know why... BECAUSE SHE WAS HIS WIFE. Candance wasn't as much as she wished she was.

Candace and Charlie were buddies. They were like this 🤞. But Erika didn’t want Charlie being friends with Candace. Could that be because when someone is isolated, that’s one less obstacle in the way of publicly blowing their necks out?

@ReaperTreeSevin @MikeWingerii Get out, and get healthy. My wife and I had to go to counseling for 2 years because of it. But we are now at a healthy church and still in ministry. Healing can come, I'm sorry to hear about what you're going through

@JoshRKlein @MikeWingerii My wife and I are experiencing this exact thing and have had to distance ourselves from our local fellowship as a result. Its terrible.

For anyone that have watched @MikeWingerii's Gary Morgan video and watched the meeting interaction, I think those of us who have dealt with narcissistic spiritual abusers might recognize some things that a person who hasn't dealt with these types might not recognize. They might see Gary as a bad guy but Allen and Peter as guys with genuinely good hearts that are trying to do the right thing. But the whole thing is rotten to the core. This might be a bit long but - I want to break down some of the tactics happening in the video: 1. Spiritual and secret knowledge weaponized as an alibi: What do I mean by that? Some might look at the Zoom call and wonder how they can see all of the evidence and say something like, "We're just interpreting the claims differently." The point is not to convince Mike. They likely knew this was going to go public eventually, so what they are doing here is signaling their spiritual and emotional superiority. Notice that Peter does this often especially after Mike gets worked up. They remain even-keeled and dismissive and their tactic is this: Make sure Mike looks out of control in certain aspects and we look like we're under control and contrite. This is why they will say, "I could see how an objective person would see it the way you see it Mike." That's belitting Mike but it's also meant to belittle YOU the viewer. You just don't KNOW enough about Gary, the situation, and how God works. Sure, you might be objective but you're not enlightened to the true truth. Why would they admit that? Because the goal is to signal that there is a truth beyond the facts - it is spiritual gaslighting. Notice how Peter and Allen do not have answers for the questions. Peter shrugs when proven he lied multiple times, Allen obfuscates and transfers questions into an investigation of Mike (what would make YOU realize this is false? Also, here are some unverifiable stories of Gary's prophetic gift that prove he's telling the truth because I was there. Trust me.) This tactic isn't to resolve the situation with Mike or the accusers, they've already written them off. It's to rally the unwavering believers to their own cause by showing that Mike and others are just not open to the Spirit's leading here. In fact, THEY are the deceptive ones (classic DARVO) because of the fake Facebook account and other issues. I had this same thing happen in ministry when I brought up abuse in a family in the church. "Well, no one actually KNOWS our family so unless you talk to a member of our family you don't know the whole story. Also, he's bad because X,Y, Z." 2. False transparency: Multiple times you will find that Gary, Peter, and Allen will signal to their own transparency. "We're the ones that asked for a recording." "We really wanted to turn over our electronics." "Of course we would pay for a third party investigation." "I have screenshots of my e-mail being compromised and I wanted to get to the bottom of it." "I WANTED to meet with Nathaniel and Hayley and look, Nathaniel seems to by lying about his own convictions he even apologized! What about that? This is intended to make the observer start to question their own lying eyes. Maybe there IS more to the story but Gary, Peter and Allen just can't say. They're too upstanding of individuals and Nathaniel DID apologize and claims he did so because he felt forced? That sounds like something someone with an axe to grind would do doesn't it? Innuendo and impugning the character of the accuser. But they don't actually provide any of that transparency (notice Peter was annoyed that a previous meeting he was in WAS recorded). They have an answer for why all of those things didn't happen. "we really wanted them to but... but... but... mostly it's Nathaniel's fault. But we're sorry he felt attacked." Again, I have experienced this. I, too, was forced into a situation where I apologized before a church for doing something small in relation to the large abuse going on. I was the one that stood in front of the congregation and had to voice my apologies to keep my job and then that apology was used against me one year later. Sound familiar? 3. It's YOUR prerogative MIKE: Peter breaks this out multiple times. It's the same as saying, "You are just too emotional to listen to reason and the Spirit. I can't force you too." Again, a way of undermining the case without having to refute any evidence and with the ability to move the goal posts when evidence is presented because Mike (the one seeking justice) is unhinged (without saying that outright. Basically it's saying, "if you would step out of your echo chamber and listen you would see it our way." And again, it's not intended to convince Mike. It's intended to convince the observer. There's more than just this, but these are three HUGE tactics used very brazenly in this zoom call. It introduces fallacies, baits emotions, and invites emotional accusation and derailing into ancillary accusations which makes the conversation move all over the place instead of stay centralized on what's most important. Chris falls for this a few times in the call but I don't blame him. With people like this it's like trying to nail jello against the wall. And that's their goal. Hope this helps.

I watched the videos in that link... two things that jump out immediately. The necessity to praise the heart of a person before demonstrating their disqualifications. Larry seems to be a narcissist in the clinical sense of the word. When he was approached about apologizing he doesn't seek to do so he asks how he can get people to believe him. Allan notes that he does not yet understand the hurt he has caused. It's not that he doesn't understand it - it's that he doesn't believe it. Also, you don't sit down with a man like Larry and go through DARVO with him in an attempt to get him to reconcile and apologize. It doesn't work like that. Larry is looking for any hook of influence to turn things in his favor. Allan recognized Larry's behavior as disqualifying, that's good, but what he needed to do was recognize Larry's CHARACTER as disqualifying. I will have more later. Thank you for reaching out. If you'd like we can carry this on through e-mail or DM correspondence. My DMs are open.

@JoshRKlein @MikeWingerii Can you analyse The Findings into Larry Sebastian please? Once given to the victims they were covered up by the interim elders and I was even accused of disseminating. tovchurch.org/findings/

@MikeWingerii Yes, I did.

When people started saying it was ok to punch Nazi’s did you realize they were going to start punching (and shooting) people for talking while conservative? This was always the plan

@megbasham @BreeSolstad Also, Porn. The teacher-student, Step-dad stuff is transgressive seen as sexy. It's always been there but now it's mainstreamed.

Here’s my theory. This is all resulting from the extreme emotional immaturity of so many young women these days. Psychologically, they’re not any different from teenage girls themselves. So when they get put into these positions, they still want to be the queen bee and the cutest girl in the room. And the way to assert that dominance is to attract the boys in their schools that are attractive to the underage girls these women are trying to compete with. It’s sick, but this is my theory.

I’m calling for a complete ban on women under the age of 35 from teaching positions until we figure out what the heck is going on?

@ma1ybe I think the three words at the bottom "Thankfully, he survived" is something that can't ever be said of an aborted baby.

Hot take but we literally tried to warn you that this is what happens when abortion access isn’t accessible.

@nosoup4knowles Imagine saying another woman knows your dead husband more than you do. I want people to just sit in that for a second. If it is TRUE that Candace knew Charlie better than Erika what does that say about Candace and her marriage? What does it say about Charlie?

Alex Clark says it was well-known at TPUSA that Charlie didn't take Candace's calls. Remember when Graham Allen said Charlie got literal ulcers worrying what Candace might do to TPUSA one day?

@abbythelibb_ that looks delicious

Can't believe I'm being forced to eat a less than $28 lunch. I'm too good for this PRISON POISON.

@DPGBehler @BaptistBavinck absolute free will is a made up term to assert that LFW is simply randomness. It's an attempt to strawman the case to prove determinism. It's silly.

@BaptistBavinck I’ve never met anyone who believed in absolute free will, nor an agreed upon definition of what that would even mean.

Good stuff here:

@storyartaust @MikeWingerii I just saw this... I will see when I can carve out some time to do so.

@JoshRKlein @MikeWingerii The full meeting: vimeo.com/showcase/10802…

@MyCrowPeaNiece @ProjectConstitu Okay?

@JoshRKlein @ProjectConstitu Trump lies every single day

SHOCKING: Candace Asked Hunter Biden POINT BLANK—“Was the COKE found in the White House YOURS?” Candace asked him point blank: “The cocaine that was found at the White House. Was it yours?” Hunter Biden’s answer: “No. Not only was it not mine.” He went further: Has been completely sober since June 1, 2019 — verifiably drug-tested randomly by probation for over two years He wasn’t even at the White House when it was found The cocaine was discovered in a cubby at the visitors’ entrance, right outside the Situation Room Over the entire 4 years of the Biden presidency, Hunter says he only spent roughly 25–30 nights there FOLLOW @RealCandaceO, RT and Watch the full EPISODE below — it’s wild. ⚠️ My channel is under coordinated attack to bankrupt and silence this investigation into the Charlie Kirk assassination. If you believe in independent journalism and want the truth to keep coming, your support right now is everything. 💪 🔗 spot.fund/3b3k3sc

If Dogs Go to Heaven… Why Not My Child? The Question That Broke a Mother... youtu.be/4oAh5tEIvb4?si… via @YouTube

Do animals go to heaven? If that's the case then why not just embrace universalism? Check out @TSXpress and my response to a viewer's poignant question on the topic in this week's podcast:

AOC: This is what drinking water in Georgia looks like after Meta began data center construction in the community.

@latexsalesmen @MikeWingerii See, that's what you think because you are on the outside looking in. I actually think Gary is totally fine with Peter and thinks Peter is doing a great job.

@JoshRKlein @MikeWingerii The whole time I was laughing to myself that Gary was probably thinking “wow I picked the wrong guy (Peter) to have my back, he’s making it much worse”

@afamilyforjesus @MikeWingerii Gary explicitly denied it multiple times. I understand not being interested. We can't divide our attention to all matters.

@JoshRKlein @MikeWingerii I started watching then realized that I’ve never heard of this guy. The more I watched the less interested I was in this complete stranger. Did anyone ever admit to data mining? Did they ever deny it?