Mrs. Hyles and the kids

[RAIDER]

This thread is interesting.  OP states that there are different opinions in the immediate family as to what JH was like, or at least, they each have a different public testimony as to what home life was like. 

Next, people all pile on with which of the kids are correct and which is wrong and why the poster believes.......

Seems as though the same old argument is taking place.  Whatever paradigm one has, he tries to force the story to fit his view.  Typically, until you are willing to see the other viewpoint, you will never see clearly.  Clouded vision produces clouded judgment which cannot be trusted.

I agree with what you say.  You also have to realize that each individual forms their opinion on what they have both seen and heard.  They weigh these in the balance and make their decision.  As you suggested, to be fair one must realize the possibility on the other viewpoint.

I attended HAC in the early '80s.  Dave Hyles was the Youth Director as well as being a teacher at HAC. If you would have told me when I was a freshman or a senior that Dave Hyles was messing around with high school and college age girls, I would not have believed you.  I would have based that on what I had seen and heard.  That would have been the only criteria that I had.  I would have been wrong.

What you believe also has a lot to do with perspective.  If you loved and respected Dr. Hyles and never had any issues with FBCH or HAC it is difficult to believe Linda.  If you were not a fan of Dr. Hyles and you had issues with FBCH or HAC, you have no trouble believing Linda.

The problem with the whole situation is that there are good people who were close to the situation who have totally different stories.  That is why we are all so confused. 

 

[RAIDER]

Voyle Glover and Vic Nischik's books weren't enough? Linda's account isn't enough? George Godfrey wasn't credible? Face it. There is no "witness' that would have been credible enough to remove Jack Hyles from the pulpit of FBC. The time the deacons were even going to consider based on Vic Nischik's complaint during a deacon meeting, JH threatened to start a church across the street if they even brought removing him up for a vote. Had that happened, which church would have had the greater attendance? The JH worshipers were and are still solidly in the majority. That worship transferred to the JH channeler, Jack Schaap. He could say anything from the pulpit and no one said a word. He could be caught with pictures of his sexual relationship with a minor and be offered a six month sabbatical.

It is unrealistic to think the lack of a "credible witness" was the problem.

Evidently Nischik and Godfrey were not credible enough in the eyes of the FBCH majority.  Why?  I don't know.  What if it would have been Colsten and Moffit that came forward?  Would that have made a difference?

 

[myeyesareopen]

People are accusing Linda of having financial motives and of being a "kept" woman. In my opinion, Cindy has tremendous financial motives, and is a kept woman herself. Because she has kept the correct viewpoint in the eyes of IFB, she has never lacked for anything. As long as she keeps that viewpoint and stands by her man, there are plenty of sympathetic souls in her corner. I am sure even as we speak, she is being "kept". Larry Smith, when he spoke (scolded) lately on tithing mentioned that the first of everything from their house goes to Mrs. Schaap. Now, he will doubtless adjust that. Now the firsts will go to Linda Wilkerson, and the seconds will doubtless still go to Cindy Schaap. I'm sure pastors around the country are sending her money, as are sympathetic followers. She always needed assistants to clean her house, do her shopping, and arrange her schedule. I don't know what is on her schedule now, but she still has at least one faithful assistant who is I believe paid by the church to be her personal staff member. But she does not attend FBC.

It's always the little things, too, that are so telling. Having to sit behind her many a Wednesday night, I always thought it infuriating that she chatted with her grandchildren all during the service and fed the grands candy and then left the wrappers all over the floor. I can't bring myself to litter my church. She had no problem with it, regularly. It wasn't just a one-time accident. And talking through church? Well, all we ever heard was how much she and JS doted on the grands, so I guess that is forgivable if that is who she was chatting with...

I have heard from many about her tremendous insecurities and her nearly psychotic paranoia about any woman around her husband. Guess she wasn't so wrong about that, but she shredded many an unsuspecting woman that she deemed (incorrectly) to be a threat.

I will never forget a story JS told that chilled me to the bones. He spoke of when he and Cindy were just starting to be serious. He told her he had to know everything there was to know about her. She said she'd never revealed her innermost self to anyone before, he told her she had to. That was how it had to be between them. So he described taking her to the lake at the college, or something like that, spending hours with her and getting her to open up every aspect of her self to him. Her thoughts, her fears, her desires, her secrets: everything. He was really big on the fact we all have secret lives. He said they left there, forever bound by the fact they'd done this with each other. To me, it just sounded like pure psychological rape. Looking back, I feel sorry for her and for Jaclyn. Jaclynn was not allowed to have a door on her bedroom and had to do things like sign pieces of paper swearing, as a six year old girl, that she would adore her Daddy as much at 16 as she did at the age of 6.

Can you imagine being a woman in his life? In that respect I feel sorry for Cindy. Hopelessly manipulated, but when she in turn is such a warped person because of that, my sympathy ends. She should not be in a place of influence over anyone, ever again. If any misguided churches invite her to speak to their ladies, they are seriously mistaken. She has nothing to offer. Which finally makes sense to me. (as in, I always wondered why, when listening to one of the supposed greatest Christian women on the face of the earth, she seemed to have nothing to say of any significance)

 

[RAIDER]

People are accusing Linda of having financial motives and of being a "kept" woman. In my opinion, Cindy has tremendous financial motives, and is a kept woman herself. Because she has kept the correct viewpoint in the eyes of IFB, she has never lacked for anything. As long as she keeps that viewpoint and stands by her man, there are plenty of sympathetic souls in her corner. I am sure even as we speak, she is being "kept". Larry Smith, when he spoke (scolded) lately on tithing mentioned that the first of everything from their house goes to Mrs. Schaap. Now, he will doubtless adjust that. Now the firsts will go to Linda Wilkerson, and the seconds will doubtless still go to Cindy Schaap. I'm sure pastors around the country are sending her money, as are sympathetic followers. She always needed assistants to clean her house, do her shopping, and arrange her schedule. I don't know what is on her schedule now, but she still has at least one faithful assistant who is I believe paid by the church to be her personal staff member. But she does not attend FBC.

It's always the little things, too, that are so telling. Having to sit behind her many a Wednesday night, I always thought it infuriating that she chatted with her grandchildren all during the service and fed the grands candy and then left the wrappers all over the floor. I can't bring myself to litter my church. She had no problem with it, regularly. It wasn't just a one-time accident. And talking through church? Well, all we ever heard was how much she and JS doted on the grands, so I guess that is forgivable if that is who she was chatting with...

I have heard from many about her tremendous insecurities and her nearly psychotic paranoia about any woman around her husband. Guess she wasn't so wrong about that, but she shredded many an unsuspecting woman that she deemed (incorrectly) to be a threat.

I will never forget a story JS told that chilled me to the bones. He spoke of when he and Cindy were just starting to be serious. He told her he had to know everything there was to know about her. She said she'd never revealed her innermost self to anyone before, he told her she had to. That was how it had to be between them. So he described taking her to the lake at the college, or something like that, spending hours with her and getting her to open up every aspect of her self to him. Her thoughts, her fears, her desires, her secrets: everything. He was really big on the fact we all have secret lives. He said they left there, forever bound by the fact they'd done this with each other. To me, it just sounded like pure psychological rape. Looking back, I feel sorry for her and for Jaclyn. Jaclynn was not allowed to have a door on her bedroom and had to do things like sign pieces of paper swearing, as a six year old girl, that she would adore her Daddy as much at 16 as she did at the age of 6.

Can you imagine being a woman in his life? In that respect I feel sorry for Cindy. Hopelessly manipulated, but when she in turn is such a warped person because of that, my sympathy ends. She should not be in a place of influence over anyone, ever again. If any misguided churches invite her to speak to their ladies, they are seriously mistaken. She has nothing to offer. Which finally makes sense to me. (as in, I always wondered why, when listening to one of the supposed greatest Christian women on the face of the earth, she seemed to have nothing to say of any significance)

I appreciate your post.  It all has to do with perspective.  Because you sat behind her you saw things that "bugged" you.  You remember things that you have heard the bother you.  There are probably people that sat on pew behind you that think she is the greatest thing since peanutbutter.  They have seen and heard nothing but good about Cindy.  Which is the true Cindy?

 

[BALAAM]

People are accusing Linda of having financial motives and of being a "kept" woman. In my opinion, Cindy has tremendous financial motives, and is a kept woman herself. Because she has kept the correct viewpoint in the eyes of IFB, she has never lacked for anything. As long as she keeps that viewpoint and stands by her man, there are plenty of sympathetic souls in her corner. I am sure even as we speak, she is being "kept". Larry Smith, when he spoke (scolded) lately on tithing mentioned that the first of everything from their house goes to Mrs. Schaap. Now, he will doubtless adjust that. Now the firsts will go to Linda Wilkerson, and the seconds will doubtless still go to Cindy Schaap. I'm sure pastors around the country are sending her money, as are sympathetic followers. She always needed assistants to clean her house, do her shopping, and arrange her schedule. I don't know what is on her schedule now, but she still has at least one faithful assistant who is I believe paid by the church to be her personal staff member. But she does not attend FBC.

It's always the little things, too, that are so telling. Having to sit behind her many a Wednesday night, I always thought it infuriating that she chatted with her grandchildren all during the service and fed the grands candy and then left the wrappers all over the floor. I can't bring myself to litter my church. She had no problem with it, regularly. It wasn't just a one-time accident. And talking through church? Well, all we ever heard was how much she and JS doted on the grands, so I guess that is forgivable if that is who she was chatting with...

I have heard from many about her tremendous insecurities and her nearly psychotic paranoia about any woman around her husband. Guess she wasn't so wrong about that, but she shredded many an unsuspecting woman that she deemed (incorrectly) to be a threat.

I will never forget a story JS told that chilled me to the bones. He spoke of when he and Cindy were just starting to be serious. He told her he had to know everything there was to know about her. She said she'd never revealed her innermost self to anyone before, he told her she had to. That was how it had to be between them. So he described taking her to the lake at the college, or something like that, spending hours with her and getting her to open up every aspect of her self to him. Her thoughts, her fears, her desires, her secrets: everything. He was really big on the fact we all have secret lives. He said they left there, forever bound by the fact they'd done this with each other. To me, it just sounded like pure psychological rape. Looking back, I feel sorry for her and for Jaclyn. Jaclynn was not allowed to have a door on her bedroom and had to do things like sign pieces of paper swearing, as a six year old girl, that she would adore her Daddy as much at 16 as she did at the age of 6.

Can you imagine being a woman in his life? In that respect I feel sorry for Cindy. Hopelessly manipulated, but when she in turn is such a warped person because of that, my sympathy ends. She should not be in a place of influence over anyone, ever again. If any misguided churches invite her to speak to their ladies, they are seriously mistaken. She has nothing to offer. Which finally makes sense to me. (as in, I always wondered why, when listening to one of the supposed greatest Christian women on the face of the earth, she seemed to have nothing to say of any significance)

I know we are not supposed to give unsolicited advice but, oh well. You need to get out of that mess. I KNOW how hard it is if you have kids in school and are so entrenched in fbch but I left 9 months ago (before the js crap came out) and I can't tell you how I enjoy going to church again! I thought that feeling was gone forever. When you sit in fbch services and hang around the people who are just so happy and love everything you can't help but sit there and think, What is wrong with me? I have been there!

You don't know who I am and probably would not know me but you would definitely know who my relatives are. I went there for 25 years and was faithful and listened, actually listened to the sermons, and what was being taught. I was a died-in-the-wool-die-hard-independent-baptist-fundamentalist and to leave that was almost like moving to another country. I have deep roots in fbch and it is still extremely hard.

I started going to another church in the area that most folks at fbch would rather eat dirt than go to. I found out  that they have no idea what they are talking about!

Every week I just can't wait to go to church! No. I still don't like the contemporary music but I was taught that anyone who goes to a church with ccm is just a backslidden fundamentalist and all they do is sit around and talk about fbch and are against old fashioned christianity. Another lie!

 

[Pastor Marty]

Redeemed: Soooo, the fact that Bro. Hyles' mistress lived a block away and HER kids have testified about the living arrangement is not good enough information?

First, in the original forum ... Vic and I debated for 2 yrs on this issue. He admitted he had no - none - zero evidence to prove there was an affair. He quoted some obscure OT verse that as a husband if he had a suspicion of adultery it was up to HER to prove him wrong. Second, Vic posed for pictures laughing and joking with Dr Hyles AFTER he knew of the affair for "years" and gave Hyles his blessing for starting HAC. Third, Vic is delusional nutcase who lost the love of his wife. Vic's kids needed someone to blame sooooo - poof: blame it on Hyles.

Vic and I met many, many years ago.

I don't see Linda as a manipulator.  I see her as a truth teller who is trying to help the victims of clergy abuse, sexual abuse and emotional abuse.
Are you Linda or Vic?

I also believe other family members who don't have the courage that Linda has, nor the numerous therapy sessions, deal with things in their own way.  Dave apparently has a sexual addiction, so my guess is that is his way of dealing with things.  I can't begin to guess what goes on in Becky or Cindy's mind.

Conjecture.

I'm beginning to believe that it might be hard for Mrs. Hyles to tell all she knows, especially after these many years.  It's probably easier to not talk about it or think about it.  Of course, hiding from the truth is the way some people cope with things.

But she doesn't hide or refuse to talk about it. She still travels and speaks at IFB conferences.

You cannot dump it all on Jack. IF Hyles did the things he is accused of ... Beverly is JUST as guilty

 

[Pastor Marty]

Voyle Glover and Vic Nischik's books weren't enough? Linda's account isn't enough? George Godfrey wasn't credible? Face it. There is no "witness' that would have been credible enough to remove Jack Hyles from the pulpit of FBC. The time the deacons were even going to consider based on Vic Nischik's complaint during a deacon meeting, JH threatened to start a church across the street if they even brought removing him up for a vote. Had that happened, which church would have had the greater attendance? The JH worshipers were and are still solidly in the majority. That worship transferred to the JH channeler, Jack Schaap. He could say anything from the pulpit and no one said a word. He could be caught with pictures of his sexual relationship with a minor and be offered a six month sabbatical.

It is unrealistic to think the lack of a "credible witness" was the problem.

Maybe if Vic wasn't a delusional nutcase ... his "book" may have gained traction. He admitted there is no evidence to prove adultery. None. He claims (in his book) that Hyles sought Vic's permission to start HAC because Jack was "worried" if Vic went public over the affair but pledged his love and loyalty to the Preacher. In his book he alleged Hyles offered Beverly to Vic in celestial marriage like he had with Jennie. ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

Shall we continue????

 

[Norefund]

Evidently Nischik and Godfrey were not credible enough in the eyes of the FBCH majority.  Why?  I don't know.  What if it would have been Colsten and Moffit that came forward?  Would that have made a difference?

They would have lost their jobs, church provided homes and would be labelled as traitorous malcontents like everyone else. No, no difference.

Seriously, name someone that would have had enough credibility. I contend no such person exists.

 

[Torrent v.2]

Voyle Glover and Vic Nischik's books weren't enough? Linda's account isn't enough? George Godfrey wasn't credible? Face it. There is no "witness' that would have been credible enough to remove Jack Hyles from the pulpit of FBC. The time the deacons were even going to consider based on Vic Nischik's complaint during a deacon meeting, JH threatened to start a church across the street if they even brought removing him up for a vote. Had that happened, which church would have had the greater attendance? The JH worshipers were and are still solidly in the majority. That worship transferred to the JH channeler, Jack Schaap. He could say anything from the pulpit and no one said a word. He could be caught with pictures of his sexual relationship with a minor and be offered a six month sabbatical.

It is unrealistic to think the lack of a "credible witness" was the problem.

Maybe if Vic wasn't a delusional nutcase ... his "book" may have gained traction. He admitted there is no evidence to prove adultery. None. He claims (in his book) that Hyles sought Vic's permission to start HAC because Jack was "worried" if Vic went public over the affair but pledged his love and loyalty to the Preacher. In his book he alleged Hyles offered Beverly to Vic in celestial marriage like he had with Jennie. ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

Shall we continue????

Did someone fart, cause it stinks around here?

 

[BALAAM]

Voyle Glover and Vic Nischik's books weren't enough? Linda's account isn't enough? George Godfrey wasn't credible? Face it. There is no "witness' that would have been credible enough to remove Jack Hyles from the pulpit of FBC. The time the deacons were even going to consider based on Vic Nischik's complaint during a deacon meeting, JH threatened to start a church across the street if they even brought removing him up for a vote. Had that happened, which church would have had the greater attendance? The JH worshipers were and are still solidly in the majority. That worship transferred to the JH channeler, Jack Schaap. He could say anything from the pulpit and no one said a word. He could be caught with pictures of his sexual relationship with a minor and be offered a six month sabbatical.

It is unrealistic to think the lack of a "credible witness" was the problem.

Maybe if Vic wasn't a delusional nutcase ... his "book" may have gained traction. He admitted there is no evidence to prove adultery. None. He claims (in his book) that Hyles sought Vic's permission to start HAC because Jack was "worried" if Vic went public over the affair but pledged his love and loyalty to the Preacher. In his book he alleged Hyles offered Beverly to Vic in celestial marriage like he had with Jennie. ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

Shall we continue????

Okay Marty, and I guarantee you that if someone had told you two years ago that JS would write a nutty letter to a teenage girl telling her that God desires them to be eternal lovers you would look at it with the same kind of attitude. Ten years ago I would have thought the same thing about either jack or jack. This is just some wacko trying to take potshots at the mog. I hate to tell you, but I have seen too much and heard too much from people who were there at the time to disbelieve a lot of this stuff.

 

[Torrent v.2]

Voyle Glover and Vic Nischik's books weren't enough? Linda's account isn't enough? George Godfrey wasn't credible? Face it. There is no "witness' that would have been credible enough to remove Jack Hyles from the pulpit of FBC. The time the deacons were even going to consider based on Vic Nischik's complaint during a deacon meeting, JH threatened to start a church across the street if they even brought removing him up for a vote. Had that happened, which church would have had the greater attendance? The JH worshipers were and are still solidly in the majority. That worship transferred to the JH channeler, Jack Schaap. He could say anything from the pulpit and no one said a word. He could be caught with pictures of his sexual relationship with a minor and be offered a six month sabbatical.

It is unrealistic to think the lack of a "credible witness" was the problem.

Evidently Nischik and Godfrey were not credible enough in the eyes of the FBCH majority.  Why?  I don't know.  What if it would have been Colsten and Moffit that came forward?  Would that have made a difference?

They would have been villified and painted as nutcases by people like Pastor Marty.  makes no difference. They would support the mog right to the koolaid end.

 

[prophet]

Linda is called Moonbat, because of her lavishly embellished lying about the 'ownership of half of downtown'  and that Hyles owned all the properties of fbch, and etc.
She speaks like a manipulator.  She reverts to a childish view of the world in order to elicit sympathy from people, to lead them to donate to a cause...just like her daddy did.
Anishinabe

 

[qwerty]

I remember being around Linda at the funeral and events surrounding it....there is something not right with that lady.

or

 

[Sherryh]

prophet, my husband knew Linda better than I did.......you hit the target

 

[Norefund]

I remember being around Linda at the funeral and events surrounding it....there is something not right with that lady.

or

Perhaps you should rephrase that to "something wasn't right with that lady" as you are referring to an observation 13 years ago. I bet she would even agree with you.

 

[Norefund]

Just out of curiosity, can anyone document David, Cindy or Beverly (excluding Becky as she has been out of FBC for about 40 years) actually denying the JH-Jenny Nischik relationship?

 

[qwerty]

Just out of curiosity, can anyone document David, Cindy or Beverly (excluding Becky as she has been out of FBC for about 40 years) actually denying the JH-Jenny Nischik relationship?

Beverly documented it on a napkin from Boston chicken one time, but I think I accidentally used it to clean the haze of the inside of my car window.

 

[Bull City Justice]

This thread is interesting.  OP states that there are different opinions in the immediate family as to what JH was like, or at least, they each have a different public testimony as to what home life was like. 

Next, people all pile on with which of the kids are correct and which is wrong and why the poster believes.......

Seems as though the same old argument is taking place.  Whatever paradigm one has, he tries to force the story to fit his view.  Typically, until you are willing to see the other viewpoint, you will never see clearly.  Clouded vision produces clouded judgment which cannot be trusted.

With all due respect, this is what I find maddening.  We are not talking JUST about what "home life was like" for the Hyleses.  We are not talking about "viewpoints."  It's not like a discussion of whether the estate tax is good for the economy or whether a vegetarian diet will produce better overall health.  Either Hyles had inappropriate relationship(s) with women not his wife or he didn't.  Either he knew/hid Dave's stuff or he didn't.  "Viewpoints" are not relevant to those issues, facts are.

It seems Hyles tried to turn into more of a "view point" issue.  You're loyal to me or not.  You're 100% for me or not, etc.  Facts communicated by credible, courageous, humble, witnesses who can set aside an agenda and just speak what they know would be most helpful to this situation.  Viewpoints be derned ...

 

[prophet]

This thread is interesting.  OP states that there are different opinions in the immediate family as to what JH was like, or at least, they each have a different public testimony as to what home life was like. 

Next, people all pile on with which of the kids are correct and which is wrong and why the poster believes.......

Seems as though the same old argument is taking place.  Whatever paradigm one has, he tries to force the story to fit his view.  Typically, until you are willing to see the other viewpoint, you will never see clearly.  Clouded vision produces clouded judgment which cannot be trusted.

With all due respect, this is what I find maddening.  We are not talking JUST about what "home life was like" for the Hyleses.  We are not talking about "viewpoints."  It's not like a discussion of whether the estate tax is good for the economy or whether a vegetarian diet will produce better overall health.  Either Hyles had inappropriate relationship(s) with women not his wife or he didn't.  Either he knew/hid Dave's stuff or he didn't.  "Viewpoints" are not relevant to those issues, facts are.

It seems Hyles tried to turn into more of a "view point" issue.  You're loyal to me or not.  You're 100% for me or not, etc.  Facts communicated by credible, courageous, humble, witnesses who can set aside an agenda and just speak what they know would be most helpful to this situation.  Viewpoints be derned ...

To be fair, Hyles publicly denounced the 100% for Hyles nonsense.  He should have resigned, when the truth about Dave was revealed. The fact that anyone wanted to have him 'pastor their nation' when he couldn't raise godly kids will always puzzle me.  Still he traveled all the time, and the rabid loyalists grew more and more vapid.  All we had to do was 'send him into evangelism', and none of this would matter.

Anishinabe

 

[Bull City Justice]

This thread is interesting.  OP states that there are different opinions in the immediate family as to what JH was like, or at least, they each have a different public testimony as to what home life was like. 

Next, people all pile on with which of the kids are correct and which is wrong and why the poster believes.......

Seems as though the same old argument is taking place.  Whatever paradigm one has, he tries to force the story to fit his view.  Typically, until you are willing to see the other viewpoint, you will never see clearly.  Clouded vision produces clouded judgment which cannot be trusted.

With all due respect, this is what I find maddening.  We are not talking JUST about what "home life was like" for the Hyleses.  We are not talking about "viewpoints."  It's not like a discussion of whether the estate tax is good for the economy or whether a vegetarian diet will produce better overall health.  Either Hyles had inappropriate relationship(s) with women not his wife or he didn't.  Either he knew/hid Dave's stuff or he didn't.  "Viewpoints" are not relevant to those issues, facts are.

It seems Hyles tried to turn into more of a "view point" issue.  You're loyal to me or not.  You're 100% for me or not, etc.  Facts communicated by credible, courageous, humble, witnesses who can set aside an agenda and just speak what they know would be most helpful to this situation.  Viewpoints be derned ...

To be fair, Hyles publicly denounced the 100% for Hyles nonsense.  He should have resigned, when the truth about Dave was revealed. The fact that anyone wanted to have him 'pastor their nation' when he couldn't raise godly kids will always puzzle me.  Still he traveled all the time, and the rabid loyalists grew more and more vapid.  All we had to do was 'send him into evangelism', and none of this would matter.

Anishinabe

He allowed (at least, demanded perhaps) loyalty to him to be  the litmus test for being a true fundamentalist, speaking relationships, etc., etc. - is this not accurate?