"I want to make a statement about...me.."
(One of many to come over the next 21 years))
...now, if I became
deceived, I will never tell you what I'm going to tell you now...
(Prophecy fulfilled)
"I am telling
you, if I go off into strange ideas, misconduct, rebellion, you name it, don't follow me."
(Which I have. Which I will soon be accused of doing and you'll have to decide who is right, which will be me.)
"I want to tell you that
now, because if I start doing that I'm gonna try to get you to follow me!"
(And fully intend to do, hoping you will, and did)
" I'm gonna come to you and tell you it doesn't apply, it doesn't
mean me, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's OK to follow me because ABCD and XY and
Z"
(See...told ya)
." Do
you understand what I'm saying?"
(Hope not and evidently didn't)
"Listen to me now, when I tell you don't follow me if I go off into weird ideas, or if I get off into other things that are total absolutely
unscriptural conduct, because
if I do I'm gonna paint it
with a different face and try to get you to follow me."
(See..told ya)
" Do you understand what I'm saying brethren?"
(Hope not and evidently didn't)
" Please remember that,
because I promise you that if I become deceived, I'll forget it, and I'll want you to forget
it..."
(See...told ya)
"And I hope you'll remember it well enough to quote it right back to me..."
(Hope not and evidently didn't)
"But I'll tell you what, I'm not going anywhere."
(Well I am and obviously did, but it's OK to follow me because ABCD and XY and
Z)
David C Pack
December 12, 1998
While I know I have posted this remarkable quote several times along the way, it has always stood out to me as the defining insight into Dave Pack's own recognition of his grandiose and self serving perspectives on who he thinks he is and what he thinks he knows.
Dave is not who he thinks he is and knows virtually nothing about the Book he claims to have studied more than any man, except that which he has concocted in his head. It is the template for all that has followed and why, while even being so wrong so often, he still has followers.
In this one quote, Dave revealed his own understanding of how he does and would manipulate any congregation or work he found himself pastoring in or being over. Actually being over is the only way Dave knows how to be. He has never worked successfully for anyone. It is the one prophecy that Dave has ever made that has come 100% to pass as we are now able to look back over his many mistaken notions about himself and "the things which must shortly come to pass" which didn't and won't.
How wrong does a man have to be and how often before those who follow such foolishness wake up to what everyone but them seems to see? Why don't they see it? If they do see it, why do they stay?
How long can you sit in a Restored Church of God congregation listening, month after month and year after year ever backing up to start yet again another cycle of "soon" and "this time for sure" and more self serving that comes out of the mind of David C. Pack? How many times does one have to be 100% wrong before one stops wasting their precious resources and life time on yet another foolish shephard?
Why don't Restored Church of God members and ministry recognize yet another one man show going very badly and leaving a trail of tears in its wake?
And what about you Restored Church of God Pastors, Elders and Deacons? How much denial of reality can you convince yourselves of? Do you think as I did for a time watching the antics of the Armstrongs and then the Tkaches that "things will get better" and "Everything will be OK. This is God's Work"? You are postponing your own day of having to face the reality of Dave's fantasies.
I know what it feels like to watch your good intentions and hopeful ideals fall apart as time erodes credibility. I know that niggly feeling of perhaps having made a huge mistake in choosing a church or comfortable belief, which then overwhelms as foolishness unfolds.
I know how it feels to wonder how do I get out of this intact, still married, loved by my children retaining all my friends and survive. The fact is , you won't and most don't. The go along to get along won't work forever. I know you feel you have come too far to turn back now. I know you hope it will get somehow get better.
And it only gets worse.
In the above quote, now 21 years ago, Dave Pack has done EVERYTHING he said he would not do. He even outlined the formula for how he was going to do it. He did it because he feared (or knew) at the time of saying this, that this is exactly what he would do when push came to shove and it did. Dave Pack might not know God or Jesus, but Dave Pack knows Dave Pack.
Men like Dave Pack work for no one. Others work for them. They take no advice and see their views on everything as the correct ones. When they want to appear brilliant, they tell you a lot about "I" and "Me". When they fail, it's always going to be "We" and "You" and mostly you.
Ron Weinland pulled the same stunt during his own spectacularly foolish predictions a decade ago and blamed the people for not understanding that it was all "spiritual". Actually it was all Bullshit as is just about everything that comes out of Dave Pack's mouth with regard to all things theological.
He's also a lousy teacher on Creationism...
I simply recall Dave's quote with the hope that those who may not have ever heard it then can see it now and how it has played out over the past 21 years since Dave said...
"...But I'll tell you what. I'm not going anywhere." as he left Global to create his own house of theological cards.
That's pretty telling for a guy who claims to see himself spoken of in the scriptures and The Elijah to come.
32 comments:
Obviously, -- "Pack is on Crack"
What I don’t understand is this:
If Dave Pack knew what he was capable of and was probably going to do, enough that he warned his followers, why didn’t he shut himself down right then and there? I guess it was because of his own ego and self importance.
This implies that 21 years ago, Dave was already wrestling with his mental demons. Often such people tell their friends and/or publically announce their better intentions, as an aid in their mental battle.
Obviously Dave lost the battle.
This implies that 21 years ago, Dave was already wrestling with his mental demons. Often such people tell their friends and/or publically announce their better intentions, as an aid in their mental battle.
Obviously Dave lost the battle.
Way way back when I listened to Dave's sermons for their somniferous effect I remember him making statements like this. And Rod Meredith in a FOT sermon said when he started AC HWA said to his class (of a handful of students) that if he went off track they'd probably blindly follow him. Rod said he put up his hand and HWA said, "Rod, I know you wouldn't".
Time must be (relatively) short, and Satan must be very, very, very angry to send someone as nasty as Dave Pack against former WCG people.
Anonymous said...
What I don’t understand is this:
If Dave Pack knew what he was capable of and was probably going to do, enough that he warned his followers, why didn’t he shut himself down right then and there?"
In my experience and view, people make these kinds of comments because they know that, indeed, they have every intention of moving on and are conflicted enough to have this discussion openly with themselves. It momentarily relieves the stress of their inner world but also predicts future behaviors. When it finally comes to pass, they, and Dave has spent much time on this, go way out of their way to prove from scripture that there were callings and titles for them to do and take that they would not have known about back in the day when they felt vague inklings of inner craziness to come. This allows them to justify their actions as not remotely related to what they were talking about originally. Their new ideas aren't "strange" but rather God's truth and what God had in mind for him all along though he did not see it at first. Basically, Dave has conned himself and his delusions have grown out of this self deception.
Dave spent much time over the years justifying his titles, his amazing insights and specialness, including the meaning of his name relating to "Passover". This gives an aura of credibility, in his mind but is simply shades of Gerald Waterhouse, whose job was to "water the house" on behalf of Herbert with a Strong Arm. Garner Ted Armstrong, to Gerald Waterhouse was "God's ingatherer with a strong arm". Dave cut his teeth on this kind of nonsense. My name "Dennis" comes from "Dionysius, God of Wine and Revelery" For this reason alone, I simply cannot start my own church as God has obviously not blessed me with meaning. "Diehl" is a German form of "Dahl" meaning Valley so I am Dionysius, Valley God of Wine and Revelery" Can you see my problem? lol.
The "C" in David C Pack may be a real name. I have never heard what Dave's middle name is, but it would not surprise me if it was for effect as in Herbert "W" Armstrong or Joseph "W" Tkach. Those who are called and special above all must have the proper cadence of 3 in their name. I could be mistaken on this point.
This might be why our buddy in Wadsworth touts his middle initial:
http://www.davidpack.com/
shades of Gerald Waterhouse, whose job was to "water the house"
I don't expect that bit of eisegesis went over well with the Ephraimite members of WCG...
Ronco said...
This might be why our buddy in Wadsworth touts his middle initial:
http://www.davidpack.com/
Right! And we'd not want him mistaken for an entertainer. This is serious stuff!
Easily solved! DavidrestoredwatcherprophetapostleelijahtocomeJesusHChristandspokenofinthescripturesPack.con
Dave reminds me of a young man who attended services for about a year in the 1980s. He commented to me that there's a discernable anti thinking attitude in our congregation. Many ministers and members at the time believed this a virtue since it would guarantee that members believe the "right" doctrines. But like Esau and his bowl of soup, there's a long term downside to doing what 'works' in the near term.
One downside was Joe T and his followers gutting the church, and another is Dave Packman and similar robbing blind their followers.
This young didn't got baptised and stopped attending.
Dennis, I suggest you read "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur.
Mr. Diehl,
Where are all your detractors now after this "heart to heart" post that not only helps those who read it and heed it in the RCG, but those as well in the PCG and the CCOG and some of the others as well.
When the winds of change started to blow from the very mouth of Mr. Pack there were some that picked up on it immediately. New truth was a hard sell to some who viewed truth only in the context of holding on to it by following everything that HWA taught circa 1986.
When one man in the RCG walked up on the stage at the Feast with a sign that read "all things are all things" he was immediately treated as a malcontent and kicked out of the church.
When an old lady vociferously complained to the ministry about Mr. Pack teaching all this "new truth" which denied the viability of HWA as the Elijah who restored all things unto the church, she too believing all things meant all things was sent two ministers from headquarters by Mr. Pack himself to quiet her down and alleviate her fears.
When one man noticed the the inconceivability of Mr. Pack's narrative in his one crown jewel book and notified the ministry, which caused Mr. Pack to do an unannounced correction, this man received a "soft" mark. This entailed among other things being moved as far away from Mr. Pack as possible and surrounded by security when Mr. Pack came to his designated Feast site.
When one lady called me one day and asked what I thought of a did it happen or did it not happen scenario in the bible, I said I don't know. When she called me again and asked if I would read it I said I would. When she called again and asked what I thought, I said it is an easy conclusion, it did happen. She said well I have been counseling with the head quarter ministry and they said it didn't happen and that is official doctrine written in one of the RCGs books. She said I agree with you and am going to call and let them know. She was told she didn't understand what she was saying and that all of the headquarter ministry and Mr. Pack himself have established as doctrine that it didn't happen. She held her ground and pushed them on it and low and behold 9 months later they called her with an exasperated voice and said you are right.
Myself knowing just these four examples sat stunned and incredulous when the all pious one Mr. Pack himself declared with authority that there will never be a Mrs. Jones from Arkansas bring new truth unto the church because God only brings and establishes truth through an apostle.
Shortly after this statement Mr. Pack declared that he was Elijah that Prophet who is to restore "all things".
That is the mind that heads the RCG. This is the same mind who declared that "I haven't changed what Mr. Armstrong did one wit".
The Mrs. and Mr. Jones with the sane mind in the RCG gets marginalized or squashed while the great prophet Mr. Pack himself possesses the "all things means all things" and the "my words are truth" sign that no one who has ever walked the earth has possessed.
WATT said: “When one lady called me one day and asked what I thought of a did it happen or did it not happen scenario in the bible...I said it is an easy conclusion, it did happen. She said well I have been counseling with the head quarter ministry and they said it didn't happen and that is official doctrine written in one of the RCGs books. She said I agree with you and am going to call and let them know...She held her ground and pushed them on it and low and behold 9 months later they called her with an exasperated voice and said you are right.”
So may I ask what was this Bible incident?
David C. Pack. I think of him as "C-Pap". But that's flawed, because the C-Pap apparatus is supposed to prevent sleep apnea, ie snoring.
David C Pap's annoying noise is worse. It covers a wider spectrum which includes his absurd prophecies, authoritarian pronouncements, verbal abuse directed at his members, and subjects, and his edicts about common. I think the man needs to be muzzled like an ill tempered dog.
What s it with the David Pack name, anyway? One is annoying because of his arrogance and stupid prophecies, and the other because of his insipidly soft rock. Bad brand.
BB
Anonymous said...
Dennis, I suggest you read "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur.
Thanks! I will. I have read and studied the bigger picture of Christian and Bible origins for 20 years. This looks like a good study on it all as well.
"The Mrs. and Mr. Jones with the sane mind in the RCG"
Now that's a hoot. No one in RCG has, or has ever had a sane mind.
"Basically, Dave has conned himself and his delusions have grown out of this self deception."
I think if we replaced "Dave" with "Dennis" that this comment would be true in both cases!
Anon. 7:44 asked: So may I ask what was this Bible incident?
That you ask about it is good. That you didn't ask about what was the crown jewel of the most important chapter in the most important book by the most important man in the RCG that was taken apart by a Mr. Jones is understandable. The same inquisitive lady who called me about the did he or didn't incident called me another time after being moved to tears by the narrative and conclusion of this certain chapter in this one book of the RCG. The big problem was this call came some 2+ years after I had known what Mr. Jones found was inconceivable and the RCG refused to publicly announce to the membership. How do you deal with such a situation - when a zealous woman is so moved by a interpreted bible narrative to the point of tears and you know all of it was concocted on many false premises?
You would 7:44 truly want to know what both of these incidents are, for they both paint a deep picture of consequences from one extreme unto another extreme. Mr. Diehl is trying in this post from the heart to save the "crowns" of a people from consequences he is all too familiar with. Myself after just getting to see and "play" with the most adorable little grandkids that I haven't seen in 2 years and the fact that I have this great feline community that is relying on me to keep them safe from the ravening wolf (Coyote) that is killing everything in the "neighborhood", I am trying to save my life for them.
I have already revealed too much. I have seen an old lady that only sought the truth have two henchmen sent after her. I have known of another man who had the guts to walk up on the stage of the Feast of Tabernacles with a sign that only revealed a truth and then get humiliated and excommunicated. I have seen a zealous young lady get marginalized and put in her place for only desiring a truth. I have seen a man undeservedly get marked because he was able to critical think a narrative and see it was far from the truth. I have seen a well statured minister who was only trying to be helpful get absolutely humiliated and punitively rebuked. I have seen indescribable fear in the faces of the lay member when in the presence this man (DCP). I have also seen unearthly rage emanate from this very same man in person. I have heard this man speak that he and six of his fellows (men wondered at) will murder 2.5 million Israeli Jews and multiple billions of people with the edge of a sword or fire. He has proclaimed that he will be the swift witness.
He knows were I live at. I have learned in life that you don't fear the dog that is wandering about in the unfenced yard - you fear the dog that lives behind a gate and enclosed with four walls and especially that same dog who escapes those confines at one point in time.
Part Two follows:
7:44 asks part 2:
So I can't answer your question but will give you something that if you care to look into, will get you an understanding of the same theme you are desiring to know. Did you ever wonder why God choose a young shepherd boy to be the king of Israel? With all the valiant men available to choose from God chose a teenager who was consumed with protecting and saving lives. That he (David) chose to murder brought consequences which are recorded for all time. The Prophet Nathan got right to the point with the story of the suckling lamb.
You 7:44 will have to define for yourself who is the rich man and who is the poor man and who is the traveler and then what about the lamb?
You 7:44 figure that all out and you will have your answer because it is intricately related to "he did it" and you will then see the gravity in the RCG's decision to hide what should be at the forefront of the COG theology.
Mr. Diehl and many others see very clearly what the consequences are for those following a depraved man. This same man wants to keep hidden and blocked that which convicts him plainly. The official doctrine or narrative of the RCG is murder and betrayal by one man without impunity or consequence. And that doctrine would have at its source "who"?
3:28 said:
The Mrs. and Mr. Jones with the sane mind in the RCG"
Now that's a hoot. No one in RCG has, or has ever had a sane mind.
What is your definition of sane? 50% of the populace of the US think anyone who voted for and supports the "insane" President doesn't have a sane mind. The other 50% of the populace think it would be insane for anyone to potentially vote for and support a person who wants to extract 50 trillion dollars from their wallets.
I just watched the World Series and one commercial was played often. A group of young people in fear foregoing the safety and freedom of a running automobile to hide in a garage full of chainsaws where unbeknownst to them resides a man of twisted mind of movie fame.
Whether irrational decisions are made because of fear or that a person bought boat sail and anchor the ideology that was before them, irrationality doesn't always mean insanity.
Jesus Christ said that the Kingdom from John until Christ had suffered violence and the violent take it by force. That same Christ continues in the mind of his body who have and are suffering the same violence even this very day.
So 3:28, which would be the "sane" candidate to vote for in the 2020 election?
Gerald R. Flurry (PCG) and David C. Pack (RCG) both started off by claiming to be faithfully following the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong (WCG). GRF and DCP both did this to attract HWA's former followers. Then GRF and DCP both forgot about HWA and went on to praise and promote and elevate themselves and their own “new revelations.” HWA and his church appear to have been downright sensible and decent compared to perverts like GRF and DCP and their cults.
WATT, how did this evolve into elections? Apparently you followed HWA, then RCM, then DCP and it's taken you this long to wake up? Good for you but you might want to consider what the problem is that it took you so long to figure things out. And now you want to tell others what the truth is?
"That same Christ continues in the mind of his body who have and are suffering the same violence even this very day"
Or perhaps people suffer because of their own ignorance.
WATT said:
You 7:44 will have to define for yourself who is the rich man and who is the poor man and who is the traveler and then what about the lamb?
You 7:44 figure that all out and you will have your answer because it is intricately related to "he did it" and you will then see the gravity in the RCG's decision to hide what should be at the forefront of the COG theology.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always believed the rich man was King David; the poor man was Uriah the Hittite; and the lamb was Bathsheba. Honestly, Idk who the traveller is though. Googling just now there is a view that the characters in Nathan's parable actually don't represent anyone and that it was simply recounted to highlight David's sin.
I've always found interesting Gary North's astute observation regarding David's assertion of the fourfold nature of the punishment deserving the culprit: "And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity" (2 Sam 12:5-6).
In his book "Victim's Rights" North explains:
Restitution by the criminal to the victim is one way of restoring wholeness to the victim. It also reduces the likelihood of private attempts at vengeance. It is a way of dealing with guilt. In this sense, it is also a means of restoring wholeness to the criminal. Israel's history can legitimately be classified in terms of a series of incidents by which this three-fold relationship - restitution, repentance, and restoration - was illustrated in a covenantal, communal, and national way. Israel's deliverance from Babylon is a good example of this restorative process. It is also illustrated in the instance of David's adultery and murder of Uriah the Hittite. David repented (II Sam. 12:13); the child died (12:18), and so did three of his adult sons - Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah - thereby making four-fold restitution on a "four lives for one" basis. Four-fold restitution was the required payment for the slaughter of a lamb (Ex. 22:1). Nathan the prophet had used the analogy of the slaughtered ewe lamb in his confrontation with David (II Sam. 12:4). David recognized that the culprit was worthy of death (v. 5). David therefore could not escape making the four-fold restitution payment to God's sense of justice (adultery and murder are both capital crimes in the Bible); and David and Bathsheba were covenantally restored in their marriage, which God testified to publicly by the birth of Solomon (12:24), who became the lawful heir of David's throne (pp. 188-189).
It's sobering to think what with all the bloodshed throughout the world today what the true intergenerational consequences for our individual and national sins like adultery and murder (e.g. abortion, divorce and remarriage, unjust wars, cover ups, etc.) are if the natural consequences of such follow the punitive nature of multiple restitution according to the divine law.
What About The Truth said...
“I just watched the World Series and one commercial was played often. A group of young people in fear foregoing the safety and freedom of a running automobile to hide in a garage full of chainsaws where unbeknownst to them resides a man of twisted mind of movie fame.”
Lol! I saw that TV ad too! It’s a Geico commercial!👻🎃
8:31 said:
"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always believed the rich man was King David; the poor man was Uriah the Hittite; and the lamb was Bathsheba. Honestly, Idk who the traveller is though. Googling just now there is a view that the characters in Nathan's parable actually don't represent anyone and that it was simply recounted to highlight David's sin".
That would be exactly what the WCG taught me back in the day.
The encouragement to define for yourself who the four characters are in this story by the Prophet Nathan is relevant to the New Testament event of "did he" or "didn't he" that you desired to know of. It is also relevant to what is happening in this day and age in the RCG.
Obviously the names of the characters have to be transposed unto 30 A.D. just as they have to be transposed unto now in this day and age. So looking at the names just abstractly in II Sam. 12 gets you nowhere. By the way, if the lamb was Bathsheba in the story, (she didn't die) it just makes things confusing when trying to discern an abstract that most likely has a greater importance in a future parallel(s).
When I look at this story in II Sam. 12 I look for one thing or theme that predominates it all. And that would be: murder by betrayal with of course consequences. So now the mind has to ask, where in the New Testament do we have this example and where in this day and age do we have this example? Once you go down that line of thinking, now it is a matter of asking oneself, who are the names(s) of the characters that would fit and establish that there is indeed a parallel and not only that but another parallel as well, and then the greater understanding comes with the question; do I or others that I know fit into this whole scenario?
So back to defining who the characters are which you will see is of utmost importance to know because they define for us who are the guilty parties and who are the innocent parties. Mr. Diehl conveys this same subject in this post and relates the consequences for both of the parties, innocent or guilty.
Since you have the inquiring mind and should be defining Nathan's characters yourself and to save you fruitless Google searches, here are some hints for you: The lamb could be obvious and but could be defined by symbols. The poor man is intrinsically tied to the lamb in what was a long term relationship. The rich man is still one person but could very well be rich men, both control the treasuries. The traveller is intrinsically tied to the rich man and is very pervasive and influential.
Now go find what and why 17 of the most "inspired" men in the RCG couldn't see and when confronted with it, they stealth-fully buried it and marginalized all of those who even got close to understanding it.
8.31 PM
Interesting post, but it doesn't address why the rich man wanted the poor mans lamb, and why David likewise desired a married woman, despite his 300 strong harem.
9:53 AM
The motives for the rich man and David’s sinful actions weren’t the subject of my post. Suffice to say, imho, they were motivated by covetousness. They saw something that belonged to someone else and selfishly wanted it to satisfy their own desires. The rich man stole and killed the poor man’s lamb and fed it to the traveler despite having plenty sheep and cattle himself. David had sex with Uriah’s wife, who fell pregnant with his child, and conspired to have Uriah killed in battle even though he had plenty free pussy at his disposal. Covetousness was at the core of Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden. It was at the core of David’s sin. I guess it’s still at the core of every sinful heart today be they individual or nation.
Why does man covet?
Nck
8:31
Likeminds I see.
Nck
nck said: Why does man covet?
Nck I was hoping your mind would show up here, but I didn't expect it would be with 1 John 2:15-17. I most assuredly thought it would be with Shakespeare's Macbeth or one of the other great human portrayed tragedies.
Post a Comment