BRUNER wrote:

I am writing to this site to say that this woman who accused pastor Roger is wrong, Nothing ever happened. He cared for her as his own DAUGHTER for over 2 years and she turned on him because of the influence of the senior pastor of the church. This man's life was ruined (temporarily) and the church and the senior pastor continue to try to haunt pastor Roger and the people that love and support him and his wife... in fact over 80% of BBC left the congregation due to this absurd lie and allegation of abuse.
HE IS INNOCENT.!!!!

posted: January 23, 2006 EST  

BRUNER wrote:

in addition to my previous comment, I need to make it know that GOD is AWESOME and he takes care of his lambs. Pastor Roger is doing wonderful and he is a wonderful man and we have all MOVED ON from this tragic moment of deceit and lies..... you can check out heart-focus.org for more praise to the Lord Almighty

posted: January 23, 2006 EST  

Rahl wrote:

And did you pray to the awmighty jebus for that knowledge?

Can you prove that it nothing ever happened?

Can you even provide evidence for it?

That's what I thought. Unless you are actually Pastor Rogers penis, I think your opinion in this counts for less than nothing.

God is gay, and so are you.

posted: March 16, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

hey brunner

if rog is so innocent tell me what he is doing creating a myspace.com profile @ 12:05AM. Maybe he is looking for someone else to have as a DAUGHTER - to be very clear - when men sexually assualt their daughters it is then called incest!

posted: April 19, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

"... in fact over 80% of BBC left the congregation due to this absurd lie and allegation of abuse."

Actually it is NOT a fact that 80% left. I am still at BBC and that was a huge exaggeration.

posted: May 15, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

regarding Bruners comment that the victum "turned on him (stevens) because of the Senior Pastor". Mr. stevens confessed to many his sick actions. Including clear confessions to the Senior Pastor and the entire church board PERSONALLY. Mr. stevens later blamed others for his admissions as he lied to numerous people. He was held responsible by the Oregon State Judges decision.

posted: May 30, 2006 EST  

Pruner wrote:

Bruner: "I need to make it know that GOD is AWESOME and he takes care of his lambs."

Right, your GOD took care of Stacey and the senior pastor, obviously, Roger was betrayed by GOD and was a lamb led to the slaughter if he was innocent. So, did GOD abandon Roger in his time of need, or was Roger guilty?

Ah, lets see how imaginatively Bruner is going to explain the obvious contradiction. Perhaps, GOD is testing Roger, yeah that's it, well, in that case Bruner, its our job then to make sure he's properly led to the slaughter that his GOD prepared him for. I mean, no one should deny your GOD's obvious guidance in this manner. Therefore, burn the culprit to the stake, it was good a few hundred years ago with the bible, lets bring back the good ol' days, yeeaaaaaa!

posted: May 31, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Wow, if 80 percent of BBC left the church, then how in the world are they still making their bills?

I would have though Dutch Brothers would have bought them out by now. The parking lot looks packed, although I don't go there and never have. Either way, A church is like a piece of meat, you have to cut the fat away to get the best overall steak.

You, Bruner, are a large piece of grizzlied old fat. Are you sane?

Roger is as guilty as Pee Wee Herman in an adult movie theatre.

Peace.

posted: June 10, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

From Roger the Rapist's website:


Then join us in our mission...
Roger & Gwyn Stevens, CEO’s
Caring & Encouraging Others


Wonder how it feels to be CEO's of the Titanic?

posted: June 12, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

I always wondered about Roger. He was always looking at me, and he was always handsy as my youth pastor. This makes a lot of sense to me now. Interesting stuff.

posted: June 16, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

check out the latest front page article:
www.heraldandnews.com June 27, 2006

posted: June 27, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

I am sure his response will be "we took this girl in out of the goodness of their hearts...yadahyadahyah"

It must be someone elses fault, yahdayadahyadah...............

What a false and fake pastor, this is the kind of guy that gives all Christians a terrible name

posted: June 27, 2006 EST  

.:webmaster:. wrote:

Here's the straight link to the article: click here

posted: June 27, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

"I am writing to this site to say that this woman who accused pastor Roger is wrong..."

Revelation 21:8 "All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

1 Corinthians 7:1 "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

posted: June 27, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Whatever happened to the physical evidence they pulled from the carpets in places Pastor Roger used to minister?

How can he explain why there is Roger-sperm on the carpets of his office and guest rooms of his house?

posted: June 29, 2006 EST  

Bruner wrote:

Ya gotta love an anonymous letter writer. those are the chicken sh*&s of the world. If you are so knowledgeable then put your name to it. stand up for what you believe in.
ps. all the reports found him INNOCENT! God will provide judgement and punishment. until then all we can do is pray for those of you who can't see past your senior pastor's sphincter.

posted: June 30, 2006 EST  

Earl Hickey wrote:

To reply to the last post:

>>>>>Ya gotta love an anonymous letter writer. those are the chicken sh*&s of the world.


Chicken Shots? Chicken Shats? Chicken Shuts? Chicken Shets? What are you trying to say Bruner?


>>>>>>If you are so knowledgeable then put your name to it. stand up for what you believe in.

OK. My name is Earl. Earl Hickey.


>>>>>>ps. all the reports found him INNOCENT!


True, sorta. They couldn't PROVE he committed RAPE. But they did NOT find him innocent. Innocent men don't settle lawsuits. They fight for what is right.

>>>>>>>>>God will provide judgement and punishment. until then all we can do is pray for those of you who can't see past your senior pastor's sphincter.


Pastor Kevin? Or are you living in the past about the former senior pastor? Is that how you spell sphincter?

Good word, if this was the year 1685.

posted: June 30, 2006 EST  

Bruner wrote:

Dear "Earl"
God Bless Pastor Kevin, he is a wonderful man. Insurance companies (Brotherhood Insurance) refuse trials. Insurance companies settle trials against the wishes of the said accused. That is our justice system. True justice will prevail. What kind of person sues the very church that she attends? May God Bless your life and bring forth the truth in your words. As a believer in Jesus and his sacrifice, I will no longer linger on this site that so disqustingly abhors the Lord. I only wanted to stand up for the innocent back in January when I first found this site, which unfairly accused him. We know the truth and are willing to put our REAL name to what we believe in. God Bless you always and may you find peace in your anger and cruelness.

posted: July 01, 2006 EST  

Dwight Schrute wrote:

What kind of person sues the very church that she attends?



The kind of person who gets repeatedly molested by a pastor there.

posted: July 01, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

It sounds to me like a lot of people have a lot of different opinions on the matter, but really if these kind of accusations have been made against a pastor, the man should absolutely be scrutinized. He's too much in a position of power when he's serving in a pastoral capacity - it would be easy for a manipulative person such as a sexual predator to use the kind of trust the title "pastor" evokes, and the fact that he didn't insist on fighting the charges filed against him is fishy. Sure you can say it's the insurance agency's fault, but honestly, as an American, you can have your day in court. It sounds like if the insurance company was calling the shots, Mr. Stevens was unsure of a victory. And if that's the case, you have to wonder about his innocence.

posted: July 01, 2006 EST  

George wrote:

I have been monitoring the situation, and I agree. It's the American way. If you are innocent, you will be found innocent in our legal system. Even in Texas. God Bless America.

posted: July 01, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

"We know the truth and are willing to put our REAL name to what we believe in."

1 Corinthians 6:1 "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?"

Your truth, is based solely on what you and a select number of your congregation believe.

"God Bless you always and may you find peace in your anger and cruelness."

1 Corinthians 6:12 "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."

The devout religious per biblical scripture, are separatists, some more passive than others. Its the belief that a church should have its own authority to impose justice instead of the nation.

Those who turn to a nation's laws, are ridiculed and labeled as disloyal to the cause of the religion. The best justice is one in which an unbiased party makes judgement based on the case, taking into consideration the nation's laws, as they represent the "whole" of the nation, in which that "religious" group exists.

Separatists in any form, who take legal actions internally unto themselves, are the ones capable of producing the most cruel actions imaginable. Separatists are a power unto themselves, and some, have books written to give specific guidance to that cause.

posted: July 01, 2006 EST  

.:webmaster:. wrote:

"If you are innocent, you will be found innocent in our legal system."

Technically no one is ever found to be "innocent" in our legal system. People are found to be "guilty" or "not guilty." In other words, someone is accused of a criminal act. The trial determines whether that person committed that act or not. People are considered innocent until proven guilty, but the court does not have the option to declare them innocent, only "guilty" or "not guilty."

Sorry for the interruption. Back to our regularly scheduled program...

posted: July 02, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Bruner, how did you get the figure that 80 percent of the people have left BBC?


Just curious.

posted: July 04, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

June 5, 2006 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JUSTICE ACCOMPLISHED IN ABUSE CASE


(Klamath Falls, Oregon) - Barbara Jo Stacey has settled her lawsuit against Associate Pastor Roger Stevens and Bible Baptist Church (BBC) Ministries. In the lawsuit, Ms. Stacey, a student at the Oregon Institute of Technology, alleged that Mr. Stevens used his position as pastor and counselor to initiate inappropriate sexual relations with her, as she recovered from serious injuries suffered in a motor vehicle collision.

Ms. Stacey had become a member of the college group at BBC Ministries while Stevens was the pastor. In November 2000, Ms. Stacey was severely injured in a car crash. In May of the next year, Stevens invited her to stay in his home during her difficult recovery. According to Ms. Stacey's attorney, Derek Johnson of Johnson, Clifton, Larson and Schaller in Eugene Oregon, Mr. Stevens immediately began preying on Ms. Stacey under the guise of providing her spiritual and emotional counseling: "Barbara Jo was incredibly vulnerable, with head injuries and extensive orthopedic injuries. Roger Stevens took advantage of her vulnerability and used his position of trust for his own sexual gratification. It took a lot of courage for Barbara Jo to come forward. Ultimately, she felt his behavior needed to be uncovered, so that he could not victimize others."

Ms.Stacey’s injuries from the car accident that led to Stevens' victimizing her included: traumatic brain injury, right scalp and ear lacerations, a fractured pelvis, bilateral pneumothorax, fractured vertebrae, multiple broken ribs, a ruptured right kidney, and dislocation of her right hip. In a police investigation of the incidents, Roger Stevens had described Ms. Stacey of having a mental capacity of 2 to 3 out of 10 and a physical capacity of 1 out of 10. It was this severely injured woman upon whom Mr.Stevens preyed.

The lawsuit was filed on August 5, 2005 in Lane County. After extensive discussions between the parties, and a mediation presided over by retired judge Mitch Karaman, the parties reached a settlement. After the case was dismissed from the courts, Barbara Jo Stacey said: "I am glad to put this episode behind me. And if by standing up for justice I have prevented even one other vulnerable young woman from feeling the hurt that I did, it will all be worth it."

posted: July 04, 2006 EST  

Ken S wrote:

Bruner wrote, What kind of person sues the very church that she attends?




Well to answer that with another question, what kind of man sues the church he was fired from (for the sexual sins he admitted to members of the staff) for a few thousand dollars of back pay, saying he was owed vacation comp money, even though he led the klamath basin in vacation days.

Did he have his lawyers write up letters saying the church needed to pay or he would sue, yep. He sure did.

Glass houses Roger, glass houses.

posted: July 05, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

How much was the settlement? How much did the church pay, and how much did the ex-pastor pay?

posted: July 07, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Woman claims she was threatened with death
By CHRIS DOUCETTE, TORONTO SUN

A TORONTO pastor is behind bars facing allegations that he forced sex on a young woman and later threatened to kill her and the treasurer of his small church.

Frank Seeko Lawrence, 56, founder and current pastor of the Toronto Mount Zion Revival Church of the Apostles, was arrested at his home in the city Saturday afternoon.

"The main complainant is a lady that alleges (Lawrence) forced her to have sex with him," Det. Glenn Emond said yesterday of the sordid case, in which Lawrence is charged with one count of sexual assault and two of threatening death.

He said the 26-year-old woman claims she was befriended by the pastor in the spring of 2003 and that he allowed her to move into his home for a few months and then forced her to "perform sexual acts," which resulted in her getting pregnant.

posted: July 09, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Defrocked Pastor claims he’s innocent
By Frank Schall
Klamath Courier Managing Editor
KLAMATH FALLS -Defrocked pastor Roger Stevens has changed his mind again.
When allegations of sexual misconduct were lodged against him in 2004, he freely admitted, in a letter to the leaders of his church, BBC Ministries in Klamath Falls, that he had “crossed the line,” and that “my actions have brought reproach to my family, to the pastoral staff and leadership team and the community of believers.
“I became blinded and misguided in my intended purpose of affection; compassion; protection and love. This resulted in choices that left the person feeling wounded instead of loved.”
At the time Stevens had attained the rank of associate pastor after nearly two decades of service to the Klamath Falls church.
The 14 member Board of Deacons at the congregation first relieved him of his duties, then subsequently defrocked him and terminated him from membership in the church.
The vote was unanimous.
According to church records, Stevens was only held accountable for actions he had “personally acknowledged and admitted.”
The records contain a list of things Stevens admitted to, including giving massages, for well over a year, to a young girl staying at his home, some of them taking place in the privacy of the young lady’s bedroom with only the girl and Stevens present.
He admitted that the massages were “up to four times a week” for more than a year, and included fully massaging the buttocks area of the young lady.
Stevens changed his story when he was interviewed by Detective Monty Holloway of the Klamath County Sheriff’s Department.
According to investigative documents obtained from the county sheriff’s department, Stevens told police he had massaged the woman’s back only “four or five times,” and he denied ever telling the BBC board he had given the young lady massages four nights a week.
On May 25, 2004, Stevens admitted to the BBC Deacons that he had stayed alone in hotel rooms with the young woman, then changed his story again a few days later saying that in fact there was another young woman in the room on one occasion.
According to the BBC records, Stevens indicated he normally slept on a separate bed, but, “on one occasion did fall asleep on the same bed while watching TV with the girls.”
His story changed again when he was interviewed by police in August. telling investigator Holloway that the young lady was never in the same bed with him.
In another flip-flop, church records state that Stevens told medical staff, at appointments he accompanied her to, that he was her father, and therefore stayed in the exam room and saw her “body” disrobed. “The context indicated naked, full body view,” according to the document.
He told the board that this had occurred at least “200 times.”
Stevens then told the police investigator that he had indeed lied to physicians about being the woman’s father, but his accuser had never been completely disrobed.
During the month of June 2004, upon the recommendation of the BBC board, Stevens met with a Christian counselor, and again his story changed.
According to church documents the report of the counselor was discussed at a board meeting that included “all the deacons who had heard Roger’s (Stevens) confessions of May 27.”
The report included only what Stevens had disclosed during numerous sessions with the counselor and contained two recommendations.
“In the counselor’s report it became apparent that what Roger told the counselor and what Roger had confessed to the board were not the same....the conclusion of the board was that Roger now had a fourth problem, in that he had minimized the accounts of his previously clearly confessed sins and was now caught by the board in the sins of misrepresentation and lying.”
The first recommendation of counselor David Abraham recommended that Stevens, “be evaluated by a professional counselor whose expertise is with sexual offenders,” and that the young lady who had accused him of sexual misconduct “be evaluated by a professional counselor whose expertise is with sexual abuse victims.”
In his second recommendation Abraham expressed concern that a college-age girl was living at the Stevens home, and asked if the board had considered the safety of the young lady and the propriety of the living arrangement.
In Holloway’s investigative narrative, he notes that the report was “lengthy,” and its conclusion was that “Stevens probably used poor judgement in some areas but (Abraham’s) believed Stevens story to be truthful.”
Other allegations, including suspicion of misuse of church credit cards and funds, were not a part of the reason for his dismissal from his pastoral duties and church membership.
The Klamath Courier has learned that the investigation into the misuse of church funds is ongoing.
The BBC board dismissed Stevens for “cause” on August 26, 2004.
The criminal investigation was completed a few months later and Klamath County District Attorney Ed Caleb personally sent the young woman who had made the allegations against Stevens a letter in January 2005, stating in part that the legal conclusion of his office was criminal charges against Stevens could not be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt,” in a court of law.
Caleb offered the young woman the continued use of services at the county Victim’s Assistance Office, and stated that “our primary goal was to protect your right as a victim.”
Caleb also sought a second opinion from Deschutes County District Attorney Michael Dugan, and noted that his office had come to the same conclusion: the State could not prove “forcible compulsion,” as defined by State law.
Dugan wrote to Caleb that he had reviewed the evidence with his personal crimes team leader, Kandy Gies.
“Both Kandy and I hope that Ms. Stacey has retained a civil attorney and would encourage her to move forward along those lines,” wrote Dugan. “We believe that the episodes of abuse that she reported are horrible and hope that Mr. Stevens will be held accountable for those acts in a civil court.”
Caleb forwarded the young woman a copy of Dugan’s letter.
____________

The long nightmare that has haunted Barbara Jo Stacey for the past few years was supposed to be over.
She recently settled her lawsuit against Stevens and the church.
She had filed a civil suit last year, alleging Stevens used his position as pastor and counselor to initiate inappropriate sexual relations with her for over two years, as she was recovering from the near fatal injuries she had suffered in a traffic horrendous traffic accident in November of 2000.
Since that time she has endured seven surgeries, a cancer scare, and the scorn of former friends who now support Stevens and his new ministry at another church in Klamath Falls.
When the former Forest Service firefighter was first injured she had to take massive amounts of pain killing drugs as well as anti-depressant medication.
In addition to accusing Stevens of sexual abuse, Stacey contended he also helped himself to her prescription pain killers.
According to a press release from her Eugene attorney, Derek Johnson. Stevens invited the severely injured woman to stay in his home during her difficult recovery.
“Mr. Stevens immediately began preying on Ms. Stacey under the guise of providing her spiritual counseling. Barbara Jo was incredibly vulnerable, with head injuries and extensive orthopedic injuries.
“Roger Stevens took advantage of her vulnerability and used his position of trust for his own sexual gratification. It took a lot of courage for Barbara Jo to come forward. Ultimately, she felt his behavior needed to be uncovered, so that he could not victimize others.”
After the Herald and News printed a front page story in its June 27, issue, primarily a rewrite of the Johnson press release, Stevens is now claiming he is a victim, not a sexual predator.
Two days after printing the settlement story, the Herald and News printed a letter to the editor from Stevens, under the headline “Allegations untrue.”
In his letter Stevens claims to have passed a polygraph test and in the same sentence claims to have cooperated fully with the district attorney who “conducted an investigation.”
He also states that the district attorney found no evidence to support the claims made against him.
Stevens did take a lie detector test, but in an email from Caleb in December 2004 to now-former BBC Sr. Pastor, Dr. Ben Brown, the district attorney is quoted as saying, “....the results were in question because of the manner in which this test was administered.”
In a telephone interview with the Klamath Courier July 1, Stevens had “no comment” when asked about the lie detector test.
The Courier asked Stevens why he wrote the letter to the Herald, “They were off-base to even bring it up (the settlement)”, he said. “It’s old news, it happened two and a half months ago. It’s yellow journalism by the Herald and News, and you can quote me on that.
“I’m not making any more statements. I’m moving on.”
A recent internet search uncovered Stevens’ page on MySpace.com, a notorious website monitored by law enforcement agencies throughout the world to try to keep tabs on those who prey on unsuspecting youth.
His webpage notes that he is a 53-year old male from Klamath Falls and his zodiac sign is Tarus.
Although he is married, he lists his status as single.
____________

Barbara Jo Stacey is at home with friends in Klamath Falls, slowly recovering from her latest surgery that took place seven weeks ago.
She spends much of her day in a wheelchair, and hopes and prays that the nightmares of the past few years will finally go away.
“I’m very glad this is over,” she tearfully told the Courier. “ When I went into the settlement mediation I would have taken one dollar.”
After less than two hours of mediation a settlement was reached.
“ We could have haggled further,” she said, “but I didn’t want to give him one more minute of my life. I want him out of my life.
“Roger will never be able to hurt anyone in BBC ministries, ever again.”
Her good friend Alice Casebeer told the Courier, “Barbara Jo is not a victim. She’s a survivor.”
One of the allegations against Stevens in the police reports was that he allegedly told Stacey after sexually abusing her, “what happens in the dark, stays in the dark.”
Stacey hopes that the light will now take away the threat of darkness. “If by standing up for justice I have prevented even one other vulnerable young woman from feeling the hurt that I did, it will all be worth it.”
Notwithstanding his confessions to the BBC church at the outset of the allegations against him, Stevens has denied all charges.

posted: July 09, 2006 EST  

.:webmaster:. wrote:

Anonymous,

Please send articles like that to me instead of posting them as comments. Also, please include the link to the website where the story is already on the Internet.

Thanks.

posted: July 10, 2006 EST  

Ex BBC wrote:

ANONYMOUS SAID: Wow, if 80 percent of BBC left the church, then how in the world are they still making their bills? **

Response: Isn't Senior Pastor Carpathia selling off some of his car collection to do this, or taking out additional mortgages on his palatial home at the Running Y Ranch?

ANONYMOUS SAID: Roger is as guilty as Pee Wee Herman in an adult movie theatre. **

Response 2: Interesting comment regarding guilt. Tell us, does BBC still have a local convicted sex offender active in the music ministry?

posted: July 12, 2006 EST  

A realist wrote:

Once again with the attacks, totally glossing over the FACTS refarding this sick ex-pastor. You have documented records and police report and witness statements, and all anyone wants to do is attack the Sr. Pastor who took a 50 percent pay cut, and left the country to serve as a missionary. Ex-pastor Stevens also wanted to be a missionary, only now no one will support him. As for there being a former sex offender working at BBC, Christians believe in grace and redemption through admission of guilt, prayer and getting right with God, family and your church. Those are things still open to ex-pastor Stevens, if someday he gets the courage up to admit, confess and seek God's grace.
I doubt that will ever happen, but God works miracles.

posted: July 12, 2006 EST  

churchmember wrote:

I'm a little confused about the efforts of the pro-Roger side to demean and belittle current Pastor Brown [current as in still a pastor and not defrocked, regardless of the ministry he currently serves in](Brown, as called by some evidenced above: Carpathia, an interesting choice since, to a true Christian, accusations of being the anti-Christ should not be taken lightly...) Why on Earth would PB even want Roger to be fired? Where is the motive? And by saying such horrible things about him, you make yourselves hypocrites in your defense of the 'lies' said against Roger. You perpetuate rumors, such as his selling off cars and taking mortgages on his house, information that you should not and probably DO NOT have access to. I advise you to take a moment and examine your actions and the accusations that you make on others, consider the ramifications of ridiculous, rampant finger-pointing. Because although you may feel that your heart is in the right place, and that you are protecting your friend Roger Stevens from earthly pain, in the end you only work against the cause of his supposed innocence when you make such fools of yourselves as his supporters. Perhaps instead of shifting the blame for his downfall, you can help him pick up the pieces of his life and start anew, instead of calling a woman he victimized a liar, calling a pastor and friend of 20 years a liar, calling the deacons liars, calling Ed Caleb a liar. Maybe you could wake up and realize this situation has gotten away from you, and bring it back to center, and truly ask for God's guidance instead of pointlessly seeking vengeance for something that is over and done with and will not be changed. Besides, guilty or innocent, Roger is the only person who truly knows what his intentions were (other than BJ, who you clearly disrespect in a most unchristian manner) and he and he alone will face God with these things when the time comes. Will you be there with him then, insisting to God that he is innocent, even if the Big Man Himself is telling you it is not so?

posted: July 13, 2006 EST  

John C wrote:

In response to "a realist", it is clear from the writing style, use of capitals, lack of proofreading, and knowledge of the senior pastor's salary that this is the writing of Sr Pastor Ben Brown himself.

Ben, why don't you just sign your name?

John C
Former College Minister of BBC

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

Patrick Hagerty wrote:

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

Last time I checked in the United States a man was innocent until proven guilty. Too bad last week’s article and Ben Brown can’t take that into account. Since we base people’s innocence on facts, not allegations, let’s take the time to look at several.

FACT #1: Witnesses are important. Barbara Jo Stacey doesn’t have a single eye-witness to support anything she has ever claimed. I know; I’ve read the DA’s report. She makes many detailed allegations. But how are we supposed to know if they’re true. Without any witness, you have to take her at her word. Even the Bible says there has to be at least two witnesses. (see Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:16)

FACT #2: Witnesses are still important. Roger has many. He has made statements regarding the things that took place that directly contradict Barbara Jo Stacey’s claims. He has multiple eye-witnesses who can verify his truthfulness. First, we have his wife. No one from BBC ministries has ever personally contacted and asked her opinion on what happened in her home while Stacey lived there. She supports Roger 100%. Second, there are several young women Roger and Gwyn have cared for in recent years, and all of them have vouched for Roger’s innocence. None of them ever felt threatened by Roger’s behavior, not even the two who were previous victims of sex abuse before entering the Steven’s home. Third, my wife and I were both eye-witnesses to how the Steven’s family cared for Barbara Jo. At no time did we ever see Roger do anything of the perverted nature alleged. We were in their home frequently during this entire time, often times unannounced.

FACT #3: Barbara Jo Stacey suffered extreme physical, emotional and mental damage in the car accident she endured in 2000. It’s true. We frequented the Steven’s home while Barbara Jo was in their care. She was in so much pain that she would cringe and cry-out when you hugged her or brushed up against her. She spent a large portion of her time in a fetal position on their couch. Barbara Jo had suffered from a broken pelvis and had problems with her sciatic nerve.

FACT #4: A woman suffering from severe physical pain and a broken pelvis doesn’t have sexual intercourse at all, let alone frequently. It’s physically impossible for the things she claims to have done with Roger to have taken place do the extreme amounts of pain she readily admits she has endured.

FACT #5: Roger has never changed his story with me. I’ve been in contact with Roger from the very beginning. I have asked him very direct and relevant questions repeatedly. In that time, his story has remained consistent.

FACT #6: Roger Stevens has a history of caring for others, not taking advantage of them. For Roger to have done the things Barbara Jo claims, he would have to be one of the most selfish, abusive people on the face of the earth. Remember, she’s claiming Roger frequently sexually molested her while she was enduring intolerable, daily pain. For Roger to commit an act that heinous, he would have to have a prior record of perverted, sinister behavior. Roger’s not perfect, but I can honestly say that I have never seen Roger intentionally take advantage of someone in the eight years I’ve known him.

FACT #7: We have an effective DA in Klamath County who takes a hard line on sex offenders. If he thought there was enough evidence to support Barbara Jo’s claims then the case would have gone to court. Instead, they weren’t able to prove anything she alleged.

FACT #8: Roger Stevens took a polygraph test. The test asked very relevant, difficult questions. It verified Roger's side of the story.

FACT #9: The forensic report found no incriminating evidence against Roger. I know. I’ve seen it.

FACT #10: The counselor that Roger spent time with specialized in sex abuse. Ben Brown highly recommended this man publicly during a board meeting I attended. Here's an excerpt from the evalutaion he gave to Ben Brown and the board at BBC.

"...I want to commend the board for taking her allegations seriously...Please know that if I were to error in a direction, it would be in favor of the abused. I take very seriously the responsibility of not allowing sexual deviants to carry out their evil ways." He then went on to say later in the report, "In the 18 hours that I have spent talking with Roger, he has never contradicted himself. I have given him more than ample opportunity to do so. His story has remained consistent. Having been a counselor for over 18 years, I do have the experience to know how to let people maneuver themselves into a corner...If Roger is lying to me, he is the best that I have ever seen, and I do not believe that Roger has the capabilities to do that. Those who know him, know that he is just simple Roger. He lives and works from his heart. He does not have the ability to fabricate the story that he is telling. He has not spoken in a belittling way of others, even though others have spoken in a belittling way about him...I have told Roger that I think that some of what he did was very naive. I also believe that some of the things he has done were very unwise. I have even said that some of this was stupid. With that said, I do believe the following. (The next sentence appears in bold in the report) That none of Roger's actions were of a sinful or immoral nature.

FACT #11: Last week’s article in the Klamath Courier is simply the fulfillment of a personal threat Ben Brown gave Roger via email. I know. I’ve seen it.

Conclusion: What do these facts support? What conclusions can we draw? …. If the DA, a professional counselor, the police, a polygraph and a forensic report can’t find anything to support Barbara Jo’s claims, and there are no eye-witnesses to support her either, then Roger is innocent. To draw any other conclusion is simply not logical; it contradicts our legal system and God’s guidelines in the Bible.

So in view of these facts, can we all move on now. It’s been two years.

You can dismiss the facts listed above if you want, but if you claim to know Jesus Christ, you do have to agree with this. Jesus called us to love God and love each other (Mark 12:30-31). Continuing to drag this situation up doesn’t demonstrate love at all. It only shows hatred, vengeance and unforgiveness. I didn't even want to write this in the first place, but I'm tired of all the gossip from people who profess Christ.

Can we please get on with loving Jesus? It's a lot more fun, and it's acutally beneficial. And may God help each of us to learn how love each other and treat each other with the respect that Christians should demonstrate.

Patrick Hagerty

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

You know what I find ironic? Everyone who is currently sticking up for and sending their money to Roger has something in common. Every one of them has been tight with Roger and his wife for years.

No one from the general non-church going population of Klamath Falls is sticking up for Roger, no one on the school board Roger used to sit on is sticking up for him. No one who knew Roger from the other churches in town is sticking up for him.

The only people supporting Rog are those who he has spun his weave of lies on.

In Patrick's response, (and by the way, thanks for making some actual points, rather than saying simply ROGER IS INNOCENT!!!) It quotes the former counselor as saying if Roger is making this up, then he's the best liar I have ever come across.

Maybe he is. Maybe Roger is the best liar.

The things roger denied happening with BJ were the things done in private. But, every single one of BJ's claims that happened with a witness, Roger admitted to. He had to.

Being present in the Doctor's office tons and tons of times and representing himself as her FATHER? He had to admit to that, there were nurses and doctors who backed the story.

Sleeping on a SINGLE hotel room on trips? He had to admit to that, there was only one receipt and record for ONE room.

Why did BBC replace the carpets only in Roger's former office. Pastor Ben was long gone when that happened. Same for all the furniture in Roger's office. It was DESTROYED, deemed not even clean enough to be shipped to Goodwill or the Salvation Army.

Simply put, Roger needs a new title, maybe Dean of Fraud, or Master of Manipulation.

I admire you all for sticking up for him, it takes courage to stick up for what you believe in, but realize we ALL will know the truth someday. Our time on earth is very very short when you think about it. I have no problem saying clearly the evidence is solid, and Roger is guilty of being immoral, cheating on his wife, and lying and covering it up. Did he rape her? Maybe not. Did BJ even tell him no when he was pleasuring himself? Possibly she didn't. Roger may have thought BJ was into his rubbing and sexual massages.

So I agree with our District Attorney. Yes, things went on of a physical nature, but can a provable crime be prosecuted, probably not.

If Ed Caleb had been so sure there was no crime, then why did he forward the investigation to another county for a second opinion? Exactly. Because even he himself wasn't so sure.

I would identify myself but then I would lose a lot of people I view as friends, also my business would suffer financially, I can't do that, although I may change my mind later.

See you all in Heaven, and I accept your apologies in advance.

(That is sarcasm, but sarcasm is only funny when it's true)

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

Laurie C wrote:

In answer to what Anonymous wrote on 6/29/2006 at 10:12p.m. There was no seminal fluid found in his office according to the forensic lab report.

"One swab reportedly taken from the carpet in the church. Examination failed to reveal the presence of seminal fluid. Purple fibers reportedly removed from the carpet in the church. Examination failed to reveal the presence of seminal fluid"

As to the seminal fluid that was found on the floor in the bedroom of his house - excuse me, but it is his house that he shares with his wife. Miss Stacey's accusations have them on the bed, never on the floor.

And the so-called confession to the board was not spoken by Roger but read to them by Ben Brown while Roger was out of the room. A confession that Ben doctored up after Roger's intial confession to Ben and the other two men. Roger never knew his confession was doctored for two weeks after the board heard and read it. When Roger went back to pointly ask the other two men who heard his intial confession what they heard, they could not remember what he said they could barely remember the conversation. The several board members I talked to couldn't remember a verbal confession from Roger either. So it's Ben's word against Roger's

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

fact check wrote:

Just an observation:

"I will no longer linger on this site that so disqustingly abhors the Lord"

Wow Bruner. For feeling that way, you've certainly recommended this site to many of your friends.

As for Pat Hagerty's "facts", they are certainly an exercise in carefully selecting the bits and pieces of the story to support what you already believe and rejecting the parts of those 'facts' that you dislike. Besides, calling them facts does not make them so. However, I can easily respect Pat for standing by his friend - it's the strange unwarranted attacks on other people from the group that he associates himself with that bother me. Although I do agree with him on one thing - it has been two years. It is time for everyone to move on and for the hatefulness to stop.

P.S. Regardless of how all-powerful ex BBCers seem to think Pastor B, I do believe it's Daniel Webster who runs and publishes The Klamath Courier, not Ryan Brown or Ben Brown. Have you any problems with the article, you ought to address them to him.

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

fact checker wrote:

Just an observation:

"I will no longer linger on this site that so disqustingly abhors the Lord"

Wow Bruner. For feeling that way, you've certainly recommended this site to many of your friends.

As for Pat Hagerty's "facts", they are certainly an exercise in carefully selecting the bits and pieces of the story to support what you already believe and rejecting the parts of those 'facts' that you dislike. Besides, calling them facts does not make them so. However, I can easily respect Pat for standing by his friend - it's the strange unwarranted attacks on other people from the group that he associates himself with that bother me. Although I do agree with him on one thing - it has been two years. It is time for everyone to move on and for the hatefulness to stop.

P.S. Regardless of how all-powerful ex BBCers seem to think Pastor B, I do believe it's Daniel Webster who runs and publishes The Klamath Courier, not Ryan Brown or Ben Brown. Have you any problems with the article, you ought to address them to him.

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

John C wrote:

In response to "anonymous", why do you find it ironic that the people who are sticking by Roger are the one's who have known him the longest? They're the ones who know him the best. They're the ones in the best position to see through any lies and deception.

As for the notion that Roger is the "best liar", "dean of deception", or "master of manipulation", I think you also have to consider that possibility that Ben fits those descriptions instead. Is there any evidence from Ben's life outside of the Roger issue to corroborate such a conclusion?

John C
Ex BBC Pastoral Staff

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

DA's office wrote:

John C wrote: As for the notion that Roger is the "best liar", "dean of deception", or "master of manipulation", I think you also have to consider that possibility that Ben fits those descriptions instead. Is there any evidence from Ben's life outside of the Roger issue to corroborate such a conclusion?

John C
Ex BBC Pastoral Staff



I don't know? Is there? We would love to hear it. Did Pastor Ben break some laws or something? Let us know.

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

Laurie C wrote:

To add to John C. comment. Who has always been better at telling a story and even exaggerating to prove a point or make the story more interesting? Just listen to their sermon tapes.
Did you know most of these long time friends of Roger were Ben's long time friends too. It would be interesting to ask them why they chose to support Roger instead of Ben. I have know both for about 28 years and I support Roger 100%

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

Patrick Hagerty wrote:

Regarding my previous message about being innocent until proven guilty. The facts I relayed are facts. I have the documents and the eye-witness testimonies to support it.

If you'd like to talk with me, or address my message further, my phone number is in the book. Please call me instead of writing about what I've said. I'd be more than happy to talk.

This will be my last posting. May the Lord have mercy on all of us, and may He help us get on with loving Him.

Jesus is Lord,
Patrick Hagerty

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

churchmember wrote:

Once again, accusations on Ben Brown. I am truly curious as to why you people think that Ben Brown set out to destroy Roger Stevens with the aid of BJ and the entirety of the Church Deacons. You've accused him of doctoring documents, spreading lies, manipulating, deceiving, and even went so far as to call him the name of the fictional antichrist character in the Left Behind series (a sad moment in Roger supporter history). And yet, why? Why would he do any of those things? Why would he set out to remove and ruin Roger, who was his good friend for so many years? Why would he concoct false stories to have Roger removed? Why would he do any of these things? Pat Hagerty spoke of facts. Well, FACT: Ben Brown had NO motive to hurt Roger Stevens. Roger was a dear friend of his, and of many people who stood by the decision to have him removed. Roger was not hated by the Deacons Board. He was not hated by the majority of the church that voted not to have two Deacons forced onto the board in an effort to hurt the church and work on his behalf. He was not hated by any of the people who are shocked and saddened and disappointed in the actions he took that put his Pastoralship and morality into question. He is still not hated - pitied, yes, disappointing, yes, but all of the hatred is NOT coming from those who supported the removal of Roger Stevens for the very things he admitted to doing. It is coming from the people who support him and have decided that in their support of him it is prudent to point fingers and say terrible things about Ben Brown, Robin S, and the Deacon Board who served BBC at the time of the whole fiasco.

Calling Ben Brown a liar and a deceiver is unfair and is hateful. What has he done but follow through with the unanimous decision of the Deacon Board? Making a fuss over Robin S still being in the ministry is unfair and hateful (not to mention hypocritical of people who so loudly tout their 'Christian love'). He has completed the biblical process and earned the trust and love of a forgiving Church membership - may I add, a process offered to Roger who denied to take it in his own cowardice. Saying terrible things about the Board of Deacons is unfair and hateful. They are Godly men who were charged with a very difficult decision, one that they came to unanimously based on only things Roger freely admitted to and not on any of the other accusations leveled against him, no matter how much water other accusations held.

The best way for me to know who is on the side of right and who is on the side of wrong is to take a step back and observe the actions of people who support the church and the actions of people who support Roger. The people who support the church are healing and moving forward with a vibrant ministry and love in their hearts. The people who support Roger stew in their bitterness and attempt attacks on church members they deem vulnerable. I would far rather be counted among the former.

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

hey hagerty-
I too have a copy of Pastor Ben's letter to your friend and sexual predator the defrocked roger stevens. If you don't cut and paste Pastor Ben's letter it reads as if he is STILL trying to help the defrocked roger. Pastor Ben once again shows God's grace and mercy to an obvious sinner.

Roger,
I am aware of the text printed in the H & N yesterday.

Also, I realize based upon your constant pattern of denial that you might respond with a release that is not based upon the facts as related to me personally, the BBC Staff and the BBC Board. Therefore, be advised that if you choose to say ANYTHING that your admissions do not support I will then strongly consider releasing a statement including supporting documents from all sources including those of both D.A. investigations and the full and documented record of the Board.

With the settlement behind you now is the time to come clean and live a new and honest life in front of this community, your true friends and our Lord. If you do not take this opportunity I will be left only to believe that in some pathological manner you have come to believe your own deceptions as related to others during this shameful time of dishonor to my Lord and Savior and His reputation.

I have constantly stood for the required truth and justice based on your early and repeated admissions. My role as Pastor was then cast to protect the victim based upon your confessions and to hope to see you deal appropriately with your clearly confessed behaviors.

I still stand waiting for my former friend to reestablish an honest, respectful and accountable relationship with people who truly care for you enough to continue to ask you to stand responsible for what you disclosed to them. This includes so many including the entire Board of BBC who heard your admissions and have never broken ranks as they have carried your many admissions in seeming silence through this period of time. They have stood under the weight of what you told them while only releasing a sketch of those admissions to the congregation. Please do not place them in the position to be interviewed and feel the necessity to expose you further to the Klamath community and beyond. This would neither serve you, the ministries of BBC nor the reputation of our Lord, Jesus!

I still stand ready to talk with you in a respectful manner and see you find honest healing for all involved. BBC, and you and I had the reputation of caring for peoples and were incredibly effective about bringing truth, accountability and healing to the worst of situations. It hurts that this same kind of opportunity for healing has been rebuffed by the one who now needs it the most.

Love in Christ Jesus,

Ben

Dr. Ben Brown
Senior Pastor
INTERNATIONAL BAPTIST CHURCH OF SINGAPORE
81 Kings Road
Singapore 266358

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

Religious Failure wrote:

"The people who support the church are healing and moving forward with a vibrant ministry and love in their hearts."

Is Roger the product of said church? If so, its apparent something beyond Roger needs fixing. If Roger is not the product of said church, then what good is a church? Aren't churches supposed to produce religious representatives of the faith. If people can't be perfect, if appears the only fault here possible, is the "church", "religion", and ultimately the one who is held as the owner and operator of the universe, that churches' proclaimed "god".

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

Kevin Federline wrote:

How many of you "BBC members" have actually gone to Roger and asked him what happened? How many of you have actually gone to Roger or to Gwen and cared about them, especially Gwen, if her husband had so betrayed. How many of you have actually done anything else other than believe the almighty Ben Brown? what happened to the 2 deacons that went to Roger's house and asked for his forgiveness when he told them the truth, yet to turn around and deny him in front of the "Senior Pastor"?
You want the reasons as to Why Ben would have done this to Roger? the #1 reason: JEALOUSY Roger was the heart of the church, Ben was the business. You couldn't get a sincere greeting from Ben or a chance that he would even know your name, yet Roger would make you feel like you attneded that church your whole life. as for "80% of the church leaving....., that is probly fairly accurate. check the directories at First Presbyterian, New Horizons, EV Free and KCC, to see how many names you recognize. This is not about Ben vs. Roger. It is about Roger being innocent. INNOCENT!!! the 3 things he admitted to the board back in May of 2004 were NOT sexual in nature, they were not the wisest actions obviously, however to the words of Ben Brown on May 30, 2004 to his congregation, "Roger did not do anything to betray his marital vows" wouldn't Rape and oral sex be a betrayal?? or was it when Ben threatened to go to the DA when members of the church attempted to add additional board members for assisting with the task of delineating the truth?, oh then Ben makes his threats....
As for us Roger supporters... WE HAD MOVED ON, VERY MUCH SO, until June 27, 2006 when LO and behold Ben is back in town after FLEEING the country and his congregation as it sinks, and there is a front page article on behalf of those that can't let go...
Once Ben leaves town again, this will all go away.
I have been reading all these posts and I figured since NONE of the "Brownies" can leave their name or identity for fear of losing business and their friends BOO HOO. if you have faith in the truth, then IDENTIFY yourself!! I agree with Bruner when she says that you are chicken not to put your name so I guess maybe I won't leave my name either... or maybe I will......
peace out, Kevin Federline

posted: July 14, 2006 EST  

You made me laugh Bruner wrote:

Wow, Bruner is Kevin Federline.
Anytime you see the words all in caps, ROGER IS INNOCENT!!!, and don't forget the explamation points, it's Bruner.


Then she went all third or fourth person on us, commenting about herself, while she was pretending to be Kevin Federline.

She needs to join L. Cooper and spend some vacation time at the looney farm.

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

Marty Moose wrote:

Jimminy Crickets, see what religion can do to the mind, its amazing what happens when a persons' entire identity is stripped away because its so tied up in religion. I am not sure the person posting under Kevin knows their own identity, he he, ho ho, te he. Obviously, the "True Product" of christianity, when taken too seriously.

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Come on I followed the links for Kevin and it makes perfect sense he would be a friend of the defrocked roger. His myspace is full of half naked young women and fowl language. That is right up defrocked roger's alley. You realize to be a friend of defrocked roger you have to condone his actions.
AND - You can't give bruner that much credit for intelligence.

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

A real realist wrote:

Also, I realize based upon your constant pattern of denial that you might respond with a release that is not based upon the facts as related to me personally, the BBC Staff and the BBC Board. Therefore, be advised that if you choose to say ANYTHING that your admissions do not support I will then strongly consider releasing a statement including supporting documents from all sources including those of both D.A. investigations and the full and documented record of the Board.

Thank you for sharing this letter, Anonymous. For a guy that spent a lot of time bashing President Clinton in sermons, Pastor Carpathia acts just like him. This is the politics of personal destruction at its finest.

Please, release all your evidence. Since it wasn't sufficient to justify criminal prosecution, and we now won't have a public trial to bring it out, you do a real disservice by not sharing your smoking gun with the world.

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Roger didn't put naked ladies and fowl language on a myspace website. Prove it with a link.

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

John C wrote:

Someone asked if crimes had been committed. You decide for yourself. I quote BBC board minutes. Emphasis mine.

At the June 2001 board meeting, the budget committee presented to the board of deacons a plan to compensate Pastor Ben without directly affecting the current budget. The deacon board voted to compensate Pastor Ben through the use of the Senior Pastor's Housing Loan. Additional details would be necessary to process this decision. At the January 10th, 2002 board meeting, the deacons reviewed a one-page hand out with the details of this proposal. See board minutes for details. This plan was to be effective July 1, 2001.
It is the decision of this board to grant Pastor Ben Brown salary compensation without directly affecting the current budget. This will be done by reducing the principal on the Sr. Pastor's housing loan over a five year period.

[Table omitted]

A necessary aspect of this agreement is to aggressively replace lost revenue from the interest into the budget for the purpose of student scholarships. The revenue generated from this loan was equally divided between camp and student scholarships.

Sincerely,
signed Glen Vest, Chairman
signed Roger Stevens, Administrator


So Ben gets $70,000 of additional compensation without a church vote and outside of the budget. The board commits a felony by raiding an irrevocable trust. (Yes, trust according to documentation of original donor). The Triad School and the Camp lose interest income and future pastors lose a resource intended to help with housing. What leadership! Though Ben was forced to give the money back, he still thinks it was rightfully his to keep, so I doubt he'll ever come clean on the issue.

In other issues, let's not forget that BJ named the church as a defendant in her civil lawsuit. Surely the church assumed she would properly tithe on her settlement, so it sure seems like we have a conflict of interest.

Throw in a few lies, other unethical acts, some general ungraciousness, and it's easy to see why we don't think very highly of these people.

John

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

Common sense wrote:

So Roger Stevens signed off on this transaction in 2001, as did at least 12 other men?

Is Ben Brown that powerfull? He can change the minds of grown businessmen into giving/loaning him $70,000?

Maybe Ben Brown made Roger cheat on his marital vows too.

And if Ben Brown is so powerfull, then why didn't he get the DA's office in either of the counties that investigated Roger's alledged crimes to ring him up with charges?

BRSC, that stands for (Before Roger's Sex Crimes) No one has a problem with Robin Schwartz being a music minister. You all high fived him, played volleyball with him and ate meals together.

Same for this issue with the housing allowance. If Ben Brown somehow bent people's minds into giving him this money, why didn't anyone mention it until now, years later? And where are the criminal charges there?

If Ben Brown is this powerfull, then I want to elect him as Mayor of Klamath Falls. But why stop there, let's make him Governor.

And Bruner wrote bascially, Ben was the business end of the church, Roger was the People person.

That is true, someone had to keep up with all the credit card fraud and church finance abuses.

I would say it was a full time job just keeping up with Roger.

And if 80 percent of the church left, why hasn't one single paid member of the staff left?

Yes, some volunteers have been poisoned into leaving, but the staff is intact. Has one single paid Triad teacher left?

Didn't think so.

The Coopers were married by Roger, he led them to the Lord. So it's natural for them to defend.

Roger isn't completely a bad person, he just let power go to his head. He took advantage of a throw-away girl in his mind, a girl who had no real parents and no one to run and talk to.

If that girl (BJ) had a different last name, Hamlin or Schwartz or Hunter, Roger never would have done what he did.

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

churchmember wrote:

"In other issues, let's not forget that BJ named the church as a defendant in her civil lawsuit. Surely the church assumed she would properly tithe on her settlement, so it sure seems like we have a conflict of interest."

"Though Ben was forced to give the money back, he still thinks it was rightfully his to keep."

John C. is amazing. He is a mind reader.

"Throw in a few lies, other unethical acts, some general ungraciousness, and it's easy to see why we don't think very highly of these people."

Well, throw in accusations of sexual immorality, some victimization of a helpless girl, add a dash of irrational and pathetic blamethrowing, general two facedness, and you could understand why BBC is not terribly saddened about the people who left the church on Roger's behalf. In fact, it's a far happier place now.

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

common sense wrote:

Maybe Ben Brown made Roger cheat on his marital vows too.


I recall Brad Reed speaking to the congregation at BBC in May 2004 and clearly stating that Pastor Stevens did not break his marital vows. This statement was presumably made in accordance with the BBC Deacons' exhaustive investigation into the matter. So, CS, was Deacon Reed's statement in error?

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

John C wrote:

| So Roger Stevens signed off on this
| transaction in 2001, as did at least
| 12 other men?

Apparently so. Pretty amazing huh?

|
| Is Ben Brown that powerfull? He can
| change the minds of grown businessmen
| into giving/loaning him $70,000?

Yes, that powerful and manipulative.
Name one person in the last 20 years
that has confronted Ben on anything
substantial and not been threatened,
intimidated, or generally maligned.
Go ahead, name one. I got bunches
who have.

|
| Maybe Ben Brown made Roger cheat on
| his marital vows too.
|

I can see you're not taking the evidence
of embezzlement seriously.

| And if Ben Brown is so powerfull,
| then why didn't he get the DA's office
| in either of the counties that
| investigated Roger's alledged crimes
| to ring him up with charges?
|

He sure tried hard. Acted like he
was best buddies with Ed. Even claimed
to lead Ed to the Lord (another lie
but who's counting). I guess the
only conclusion is that Ed saw the
truth in spite of Ben.

| BRSC, that stands for (Before Roger's
| Sex Crimes) No one has a problem with
| Robin Schwartz being a music minister.
| You all high fived him, played
| volleyball with him and ate meals together.
|

I've got no problem with Robin being a
music minister in a church and being
restored to full fellowship in the body.
I do have a problem with a registered
sex offender have free access to a high
school campus, especially when the previous
offense was with a high school girl.
Public schools don't allow RSO on their
campuses. The reason no one had a problem
with it back then was because nobody knew
he was an RSO. I didn't, and I was on staff.


| Same for this issue with the housing
| allowance. If Ben Brown somehow bent
| people's minds into giving him this
| money, why didn't anyone mention it
| until now, years later? And where are
| the criminal charges there?
|

Because it generally wasn't known about
until about 2004 when Roger confessed
to Grant March (the original donor of
the money) that he failed to hold
Ben accountable to the intended use of
the funds. Since then it's been Grant's
issue. But make no mistake, Grant's
retired Federal Judge neighbor says he's
locked up people for less than what
happen here. Grant has shown a great deal
of mercy and patience to Ben. Since you
guys are so intent on being the sin police
maybe you should see if criminal charges
are appropriate.


| If Ben Brown is this powerfull, then
| I want to elect him as Mayor of
| Klamath Falls. But why stop there,
| let's make him Governor.
|

If you like power, go for it.

| And Bruner wrote bascially, Ben was
| the business end of the church, Roger
| was the People person.
|
| That is true, someone had to keep up
| with all the credit card fraud and
| church finance abuses.
|
| I would say it was a full time job
| just keeping up with Roger.
|

So you're all bent out of shape by
alleged credit card fraud by Roger
(for which you've provided no evidence)
yet when your guy makes off with 70k,
no big deal. I see how it is.

| And if 80 percent of the church left,
| why hasn't one single paid member of
| the staff left?
|

Ummm... because they need a job?
Because they're a blood relative
to someone who runs the place?
Why would anyone stick around if
they didn't have to?

But wait, paid staff has left.
Me, Deanna, Cindi, Steve.

| Yes, some volunteers have been poisoned
| into leaving, but the staff is intact.
| Has one single paid Triad teacher left?
|
| Didn't think so.

Trumble? Jessica? Ryan Dean?

| The Coopers were married by Roger,
| he led them to the Lord. So it's natural
| for them to defend.

Just for the record, he didn't lead us
to the Lord.

| John C. is amazing. He is a mind reader.
|

No - just ask my wife. Ben's
attitude is just obvious from the
way he has responded in personal
emails and from the difficulty
Grant had in getting the money back.


Bottom line - nobody there is interested
in truth. It's smear Roger's side
and hail BBC. That's why nobody
from BBC signs their name.


So, back to the 70k. Ben, you want
to come clean?


John

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

Sincerity without Prejudice wrote:

Here's a thought for all the Roger supporters and for all the Brownies to consider for a moment -

set aside all your anger and frustration

set aside all your personal views about what exactly happened, since we will never truly know that.

set aside all your personal prejudices about Roger, Ben, and other people in the church

Although I don't know that Roger Stevens victimized BJ, I don't know he didn't. The mere accusation being leveled against him ruins his pastoralship because he is no longer 'above reproach.' There is doubt. There is confusion. And as sad as it is if Roger is innocent that his life in that capacity is 'ruined' - he made the decision to take in a wounded woman in the first place. He 'risked it'. His sacrifice will be rewarded in Heaven should he be innocent. What happens here on Earth is up to him, and really, as a Christian, should not matter because he has full disclosure waiting for him in the hereafter. The church was right to remove him under the real risk that he may be a liar, a victimizer, and a pretender. Since he left the church it is my understanding that there have been some financial questions as well. It is best that he move on and stop dwelling, and his overreactions (aka the letter to the editor in the Herald & News after the press release was printed) have only made things worse for himself.

Innocent or not - Roger Stevens does not belong at BBC. At best, he would be a liability.

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

"Sincerely,
signed Glen Vest, Chairman
signed Roger Stevens, Administrator


So Ben gets $70,000 of additional compensation without a church vote and outside of the budget. The board commits a felony by raiding an irrevocable trust. (Yes, trust according to documentation of original donor). "

Roger Stevens committed a felony here. Hmm.

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

churchmember wrote:

I didn't realize you were paid by the church, John C. I thought you were a volunteer.

How did Ben 'make off' with 70,000? I believe there is documentation saying that Roger originally came up with the idea in the first place.

And really, calling Pastor Ben "Carpathia" is beyond pathetic.

The only reason that I don't leave my name here is that I'm not terribly secure in the knowledge that certain posters here are not mentally unbalanced. I will not make myself a personal target of people I don't trust to live within the realm of reality.

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

BBC Lover wrote:

Brad Reed did in fact read that EX-Pastor Roger did not break his maritial vows. This was before all of the facts came out...the board actuall tried to protect Roger until he decided to start lying.

I happily attend BBC Ministries. It is amazing now! All of the anger is gone and the church is doing amazing. We love our new senior pastor and we love our old senior pastor, who is currently serving the Lord in Singapore with everyone's blessing. He did not "flee" unless that means that you follow the Lord's will.

I'm positive that 80% of the church did not leave. Where do you get your facts from?

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

"Ex-Christian.net - encouraging ex Christians"

With the hate these comments radiate, you're all doing an excellent job for this site. I'm sure it thanks you.

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

Laurie C. wrote:

What difference does it make who signed it and who came up with the idea. Who benefited from it and who authorized it is the really question. Did Roger benefit? And who had to pay it back? The guys who signed it or proposed it?

Besides not knowing John was paid how many other "facts" do you have wrong, bbc lover?

Ben had all the facts from the beginnning. How do I know? Because he gave the full list of accusations to the counselor in late May 2004 and the couselor told me. Ben only brought out more of her accusations as he needed to make the case against Roger greater. Ben had to do this because his first plan did not work. He even made up a few extras, "four other women have come forth with accusations against Roger." But these women failed to materialize.

In the 30 years that I have known Roger he has not had one single accusation. That is until B.J. and Ben put thier heads together.

You remember B.J? - The girl who has now three lawsuites to her name. The girl who claimed she would have taken only a dollar at the lawsuit mediation yet people who were actually there said her lawyers said (speaking on her behalf) nothing less then six figures. The girl who made similar accusations against her former boyfirend. The girl that was so distraught over her aledged abuse that she setup a yahoo personal add. When I first met her she told me she was abused by her parents, that they made her milk about 100 cows by hand before she went to school in the morning. Pretty impossible huh? Almost like having sex with a broken pelvis.

P.s. Who said anything about hate? Can't you argue with someone without hating?

Laurie C

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

John C wrote:

| How did Ben 'make off' with 70,000?
| I believe there is documentation
| saying that Roger originally came
| up with the idea in the first place.
|

I don't know how he did it. I
wasn't here at the time. Ask
the board members what happened.
In any event, it's documented
that a $70,000 church asset was
"granted" to Ben free and clear
by the board. And apparently
nobody at BBC cares.

| And really, calling Pastor Ben
| "Carpathia" is beyond pathetic.
|

I've never called Ben "Carpathia".
I've signed my posts. And my
wife has signed hers. See, there
you people go again. Jumping to
conclusions like it's truth.




I'm happy to hear that so many
people are so satisfied with
their current BBC experience.
I wasn't at the meetings where
Roger made these so-called
confessions, so I have to look
at the integrity all of the
parties from whom I hear
second-hand information. When
BBC folk don't care that Ben
tried to embezzle 70k, that says
something. When people don't
care that Ben is looking at
individuals' tithing data and has
staff members believing tithing
is a Biblical requirement for
deacon, that says something.
Why should I believe people that
jump up and down over alleged
lies from Roger, but aren't
concerned about Ben's lies?

What am I to think when when the
accuser says she spewed semen all
over the office couch and the
State Crime Lab can't find any
semen, yet people believe her
anyway? And when BBC people flip
Roger the bird, or do an about-face
at the sight of Gwen, or give the
cold shoulder to any Roger
supporter, does that lend to
their credibility?

As for Roger, his story to me
hasn't changed a bit from the day
I got back in town in late May 2004.
I've never caught him in a lie.

So I take the data, draw a
conclusion, and if I find out in
The Day that I'm wrong about Roger,
then I've still shown love to him
and Ben will still have to explain
the 70k. If I'm right, then Ben
will have to explain everything
including the 70k.

So if everybody at BBC is all warm
and fuzzy, unified in the need to
smear Roger, then you can have it.
Roger will still be the same man
I've known for 14 years.

John

posted: July 15, 2006 EST  

BRUNER wrote:

yes it was I, Bruner who was Kevin Federline. I figured I would pay homage to Ryan Brown's personal my space account where he glorifies the man. I thought maybe if I was anonymous like all of those who are too aftraid to identify themselves because of their business being hurt or the fact that they maybe aren't 100% sure in what they believe in, then I would be taken more seriously. Obviously I was wrong and I regret not signing my name. As all are aware I have never before that post done anything anonymous, (just accused of it, right Ben?) Back in January when I first posted a comment on this site it was to let all know that the article was one sided and a lie and to defend Roger. I did not realize it would spiral out of control like this become so ugly that we Christians should truly not be partaking.
Like I said as Kevin, when Ben leaves town, his threats against me and others will leave too and we can all move on again. Those of us that have left the church are also happy, yet sad that we have lost friendships in those that are good people and who have refused to go to Roger to get the truth themselves.
I commend Pastor Kroeker for restoring the church and making it glorious and happy to be there. thank goodness they finally stopped putting names on their sign so it didn't change every week. I am also excited that they have recruited more members so that all the chairs they removed before are now being filled. Nothing is greater than people coming together to worship God.
Again I challenge all the anonymous writers to identify themselves as they have no merit when they aren't willing to stand for what they believe in.
and again, I apoligize for my poor attempt at humor with the Federline thing. I only hope that Ryan Brown can stop fantasizing about the life that KFed leads and realize what a beautiful and wonderful wife he has right here at home.
We only want the truth to be known and to stop the yellow journalism of an innocent man from being splashed all over the front pages of newspapers.
God Bless
Katie Bruner.

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

BBC Lover wrote:

John,
There is so much anger in your writing. Get over it!

In response to Ben's 70K missing. This seems to be the only thing you keep bringing up? You must be getting bored. I personally know Ben and have heard the truth (not the watered down version that you have so obviously heard). The money was a donation to the church and Ex-Pastor Roger decided to use it many years ago as a raise. All of the deacons signed and agreed to it, so why is Ben the only one being attacked for this decision? All of the deacon board members and Ex-Pastor Roger also agreed with this idea and put it into motion. And the money has already been paid back.
No one at BBC cares now because we understand that it was the boards decision to use the money, not just Ben's decision.
I'm sorry to hear that you have known Roger for 14 years, I have known him for longer and have always felt creeped out by his actions and now I know why.

Isn't it crazy that out of the 14 Deacon Board members that heard defrocked "Pastor Roger" confess, all stand together still? Isn't it wierd that not one of them have left the church and they all have the same story? That's because they ARE telling the truth. The deacon board has only held Mr. Stevens accountable for what he admitted to, and now we find up that he did more than he admitted. And you are still sticking up for one man who has been called on his words? Isn't it ironic?
It will be so sad when you recognize the truth. The truth is out, you have just been given the RAV (Roger approved version.) In Heaven, I hope you won't be so angry at him for telling you so many lies.

Now. We are on an ex-Christian web site. I do not want to "fuel" anyone to turn away from the Father, regardless of the sorts of things some defrocked pastors have done. I will no longer be logging on.
~ I would write my name but I have already been under attack myself and I choose to no longer be so

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Churchmember wrote:

Instances of calling Ben Brown "Carpathia" on this page alone by angry Roger followers:

"Senior Pastor Carpathia selling off some of his car collection to do this, or taking out additional mortgages on his palatial home at the Running Y Ranch?" Ex-BBC.

"For a guy that spent a lot of time bashing President Clinton in sermons, Pastor Carpathia acts just like him." Real Realist (sounding just like John C., regardless of his claiming to sign all of his messages)

So whether you yourself do it, John C., or your wife, the people you associate yourself with certainly seem to. And you know what they say about the company you keep. Birds of a feather, and all that jazz.

I am 100% sure of what I know to be true. I'm not 100% sure you people are not going to be calling me up or dropping by to confront me in the obnoxious manner you've been known to were I to sign my true name. I don't like talking to you in person - not because I fear you, but because you speak in illogical circles and I don't enjoy wasting my time.

And I have to address the "Roger was jealous of Ben" comment. First of all, as a motive, it's still pretty weak for ruining someone's life. Ben is a man of God, although clearly many people don't respect that here. But you seem to think people preferred Roger to Ben and this incited the Mighty Jealousy. This is ridiculous! Ben was already beloved in the community and in the church, and many people can thank him for helping them make their way to the Lord. Roger married couples? So did Ben. Roger counseled strugglers? So did Ben. They were both beloved. This argument is rather weak, and a tad crazy. Especially if it's all you've got.

Last thing, addressed to John C.: please tell me why, previously knowing what happened with Robyn, knowing the process he went through, knowing the things he freely confessed to the church on several occasions, why would his name being registered as a sex offender change your mind about him? You already knew exactly what had happened! I don't think it's true at all. I don't even think you didn't know he was registered before. I think you and your similar feathered friends were feeling angry, and spiteful, and wanted to do something to harm the church, and you decided that Robyn's friendship, especially since he was not coming out against Ben and for Roger, was disposable. I think you're using it. I think Roger used that ridiculous accusation about the 70 k toward Ben only to anger the March's, not because he felt "convicted by God" about it. I think it's interesting how instead of retreating into his "innocence" and trying to live his life in a Godly manner, Roger has been saying horrible things about other Christians and trying to strike out at them as well. I suppose a drowning man will try to drown his rescuers. Well tread water people. The tide will wash you out.

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Pastor Roger wrote:

Please stop fighting in my name.

Many people are still fighting violent wars in the name of Jesus. In the same way, I do not want this to happen with my name for the next 2000 years.

-Roger

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

did defrocked roger just compare himself to Jesus?

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Betty wrote:

I want to tell you all about my new ministry, it helps you to quit posting on this website.

It helps keep your mind pure, so you don't make sarcastic little comments and hurt other people.

So much fighting and arguing has been going on here. So many are hurt and no one is going to win. If you are on the ex-BBC side, then you have left, and aren't coming back. The Pro-BBC side is the same, happy to still be at the church they love.

Let's stop the mean comments.

Oh, just one more, it's too easy...

Sincerely,

Betty Humpter
CEO "What Happens in the Dark, Stays it he Dark Ministries"

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Patrick Hagerty wrote:

I can't believe Roger would compare himself to Jesus!

This will be my last posting. May the Lord have mercy on all of us, and may He help us get on with loving Him.

Jesus is Lord, NOT Roger

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

BRUNER wrote:

Roger is BETTER than Jesus because He is not dead like Jesus.
Roger can hold me in His loving arms, Jesus can not. Jesus was found guilty in his time. Roger was found NOT GUILTY. I HATE THE BROWNS.!!!

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Browniescout wrote:

Let me end this argument with some common sense:
“Brownies taste better than Rogies.”
Or how about:
”Brownies are sweeter than Rogies”
Now also take into account that you don’t taste Rogies, he tastes you (like BJ found out).
According to Daniel Webster’s paper, Roger takes prescription medication meant for BJ. Maybe the altered state of mind from the prescription medication helped Roger invent his many tales of innocence? You can hide marijuana in brownies too, I guess, which you need to consume to have Roger’s various lies make any sense.

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Benjamin Brown wrote:

Seriously, if Roger is so innocent why did he NEVER once enter the church to speak in his OWN defense? Not after the announcement was made. Not when the scheduled vote was taken to defrock him. NOT A SINGLE WORD WAS SPOKEN BY ROGER IN THE CHURCH! The church members deserved to hear both sides of the story. Instead Roger pleaded the fifth (an admission of guilt these days) and fled the scene of the crime! Roger was too COWARDLY to walk into the church himself and utter a single word. And don’t say that he was scared; you claim that 80% of the church left. Obviously a large percentage would be supportive of anything Roger would have to say and shout down the 20% who remained to support BBC (Ben Brown’s Church)

Many people screamed and shouted in Roger's defense (even during prayer), except Roger did not. Bad form on Roger and his team of supporters.

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Yo Churchmember - wrote:

"Senior Pastor Carpathia selling off some of his car collection to do this, or taking out additional mortgages on his palatial home at the Running Y Ranch?" Ex-BBC.

"For a guy that spent a lot of time bashing President Clinton in sermons, Pastor Carpathia acts just like him." Real Realist (sounding just like John C., regardless of his claiming to sign all of his messages)

For the record, Churchmember, neither John C nor his wife wrote these passages. I did - and I wrote them specifically to illustrate just how spiteful name-clling and unsubstantiated charges are. I also choose to remain anonymous, just like you, for many of the same reasons.

I admire the Lord's hand in all of this. By His actions, the only closure to this issue will come from faith. As OJ taught us, a not guilty verdict in a criminal trial (or, for that matter, the lack of an indictment) does not translate to immunity from civil liability. Had the civil suit actually gone to trial, the public referendum many have sought would finally have happened. Because the Lord moved the parties to settle the case, neither side will ever be able to prove its position to the other.

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Joseph Smith wrote:

It feels appropriate to have a conversation about a defrocked ex-pastor like Roger on an anti-Christian web-page. I would not want to sully a pro-Christian web-page with talk like this. It is amazing how many of Roger’s supporters show up here on a regular basis to lob accusations and not answer any questions that are raised. I guess they feel at home on an anti-Christian page. They abandoned the church and now put their faith in a false prophet.

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Patrick Hagerty wrote:

It's come to my attention that someone is posting things in my name on this garbage website. I have not posted any further comments on this sight since July 14th. In fact, at the time today's lie was posted I was leading worship at church. There's a few hundred witnesses.

Any further comments posted in my name are not me. They are lies posted by a liar. Roger has never posted anything and Bruner did not post the last comment either. There are witnesses for this too.

I would like to encourage those who remain on this sight to seek God for His forgiveness and start spending time with Him instead.

My offer still stands, that if you want to talk to me, you can call me on the phone.

The mystery poster needs to ask for forgivness from the God they are sinning against by lying.

Patrick Hagerty

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Oh! One more thing. I have some great products for anyone interested! Roger Steven has been along time supporter of these products and he says that they work best, especially in the dark!

http://www.mountainroseherbs.com/lotions/oils.php

Sincerely,

Betty Humpter
CEO "What Happens in the Dark, Stays it he Dark Ministries"

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Brave Little Toaster wrote:

Patrick Hagerty wrote on July 14: "Roger has never posted anything and Bruner did not post the last comment either."

Roger has never posted ANYTHING! It makes sense, but I would think that he would want to speak out in his OWN defense... oh wait he NEVER has. How brave of him.

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

How come there isn't anything updated on tje Heart-focus.org website in the past 10 months?

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

churchmember wrote:

Just a response to Yo Churchmember before I quit wasting my time on this site, sincerely asking questions that no one will answer and pointing out facts that go on ignored.

"I wrote them specifically to illustrate just how spiteful name-clling and unsubstantiated charges are" Interesting, because I don't believe much name calling regarding Roger goes on. Do you mean "defrocked"? Wasn't he? Our "side" that your friends and possibly yourself call "the brownies" has certainly never resorted to referring to Roger as a devil or demonic figure. Also, why does this even have to be a Roger v. Ben Brown issue? Roger was convicted by twelve deacons selected by vote by the church membership. Most likely men you yourself voted for, as most deacons were voted in unanimously. Regardless of your feelings concerning their decision, they heard things you will never hear, and they were selected by the membership. Respect is at least deserved. Ben Brown cast no votes in the case of Roger being removed from BBC. He certainly did not 'put his head together' with BJ's and come up with a way to get rid of Roger. These accusations are ridiculous, unfair, and unfounded. I have only posted on this site when the people who feel pro-Roger say something that needs to be refuted, especially concerning Pastor Ben. That's quite a few times I've been forced to post so that lies are not propagated through this site. Your anger is misguided if you aim it at Ben or BJ. It is not righteous indignation that leads to finger pointing. It's anger, desire for vengeance. Two emotions that Christians should abhor. Your group certainly does not turn the other cheek in any sense of the word. You are on a constant attack. Roger was offered the path to restoration, he originally accepted it. Later, it is my belief that when he realized the strength of his support, the complete disbelief his close friends held regarding his ability to commit any of these actions, he chose a darker path of blameshifting and truth stretching. The 70 k. story - funny how it didn't bother him until he felt betrayed by Ben. Funny how he came up with the idea, put it forth, got the board to sign it (committing a 'felony' according to John C.) and gave it to Ben and had no issue with it until his desire for vengeance rose. It is a very simple way to show what friends they were - they helped each other, loved each other, were good and kind friends to each other, until the moment that Ben was told by a terrified young woman that his dear friend had victimized her. Imagine his shock and sadness. Imagine yourself being told that one of your best friends is not who you thought they were. This was never a malevolent thing. It was a mire filled with sadness, disappointment, hope for the future and rehabilitation. They didn't boot Roger immediately. They wanted to help him. They wanted him to help himself. Instead, the people who formed up (certainly not 80% of the church, by the way) have encouraged him to lie and deceive and not face his actions or fix within himself something that went wrong. I do not believe that Roger is a thoroughly bad person. My experiences with him never left me feeling that he was a pervert or a danger. But even a good man in the face of temptation can sometimes fail the very people he loves, and the fear of that failure being found out will drive him to do terrible things. I pray for Roger, that he can overcome the situation in a way that he may keep his head held high and his conscience may be cleaned. I worry for him and for his family, and for his friends as well.

Very long story short, yo churchmember/real realist/ex-BBC: calling names is certainly not the smartest way to get across the point that one should not call names. Try to rise above the temptation to get personal, to let your temper rise and speak for you.

Good luck to all on this site, and may you move on and stop spreading lies... on websites, to friends, to family. May you realize how harmful this place really is, to yourself, to others, and to the cause of Christianity.

Go with God.

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Christa Crone wrote:

AMEN

posted: July 16, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Wow. Well said. You said what I wish I could have put into words.

posted: July 17, 2006 EST  

J. C. Samuelson wrote:

"May you realize how harmful this place really is...to the cause of Christianity."

I truly hope so.

You do realize this is an ex-Christian website, don't you?

posted: July 17, 2006 EST  

BBC member wrote:

Jeff, Families fight, friends argue, you get the picture.

Our church had a disagreement over a pastor's actions/or non actions, depending on which side you are on.

That doesn't change the fact that we all still believe in Christ Jesus and that He died for our sins.

Our time on earth is short. For some reason, when you googled the pastor's name, this was what popped up, so it became a forum for discussion.

We probably all have some forgiveness to pray for for our comments back and forth on here, but make no mistake, we all believe and I am sure, are hoping that you do someday come home to Jesus.

Christianity isn't bad, sometimes we are bad Christians. There is a difference.

May God bless you, He does LIVE.

posted: July 17, 2006 EST  

That "Ball" Guy wrote:

There isn't really any room for a "Bad Christian" at least according to scripture.

With certain sins such as backbiting, adultery, gossip, etc. . .if a christian has done these, then they're not a christian, according to Matthew 19:17 "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

posted: July 17, 2006 EST  

Ms. Grammar wrote:

Well, if you are going to post in someone else's name, at least have the courtesy of getting it right. Pastor Ben's name is Bennett, not Benjamin.

To all you folks who are posting but were not actually involved in this tragedy, quit talking and start walking.

posted: July 17, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

What happens in the dark, stays in the dark?

What is that? A line from a trashy slasher novel?

Sorry, just had to add my two cents.

Guilty or not, that line is funny.

posted: July 26, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

"What happens in the dark, stays in the dark?
What is that? A line from a trashy slasher novel?"

Any of us that know defrocked roger, knows the piece of trash he is so it makes perfect sense he would use a line that sounds like trash.

posted: July 26, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

“Roger will never be able to hurt anyone in BBC ministries, ever again.”

thank you, you are a brave woman!

posted: July 29, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Any of us that know defrocked roger, knows the piece of trash he is so it makes perfect sense he would use a line that sounds like trash.

You Brownies just can't give it up, can you?

posted: July 30, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

“Roger will never be able to hurt anyone in BBC ministries, ever again.”

posted: July 30, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

too bad Bennett Brown continues his reign of power and deceit, brainwashing and lies.......and all the way from Singapore where he fled when his church was suffering most

posted: July 31, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

"too bad Bennett Brown continues his reign of power and deceit, brainwashing and lies.......and all the way from Singapore where he fled when his church was suffering most"

Do you hear yourself? How Pathetic!

The FACTS remain the same:

“Roger will never be able to hurt anyone in BBC ministries, ever again.”

posted: July 31, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

If Ben Brown fled his church and ran to Singapore then I guess the following must be true as well.

1.) Osama Bin Laden is actually an actor paid by the government to stay quiet and send in tapes. These tapes are then used to fund the war in Iraq.

2.) Singapore is all part of Pastor Ben's evil plans. Soon, hundreds of his clones from Singapore will rush over here to take over Klamath Falls, and then the world, muhahahahaha.

3. Loaning Roger money is safer than crossing the street on the West Bank in the dead of night wearing lit up Christmas light bulbs all over your body.

4. If you dig deep beneath BBC Ministries, you will find the body of Mary, Jesus's mother.

5. Roger was a therapist. He was also anal about things around the office, making Pastor Roger an = Anal+Rapist, Anal-rapist.

posted: July 31, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

“Roger will never be able to hurt anyone in BBC ministries, ever again.”

Roger never hurt anyone to begin with. why would his wife still be with him. you are the sick people who continue to call Roger sick names and insults. Were you there? Or is this just the fantasy of a girl with BRAIN DAMAGE?

posted: July 31, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

"Attorney Ed Caleb personally sent the young woman who had made the allegations against Stevens a letter in January 2005, stating in part that the legal conclusion of his office was criminal charges against Stevens could not be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt,” in a court of law.
Caleb offered the young woman the continued use of services at the county Victim’s Assistance Office, and stated that “our primary goal was to protect your right as a victim.”
Caleb also sought a second opinion from Deschutes County District Attorney Michael Dugan, and noted that his office had come to the same conclusion: the State could not prove “forcible compulsion,” as defined by State law.
Dugan wrote to Caleb that he had reviewed the evidence with his personal crimes team leader, Kandy Gies.
“Both Kandy and I hope that Ms. Stacey has retained a civil attorney and would encourage her to move forward along those lines,” wrote Dugan. “We believe that the episodes of abuse that she reported are horrible and hope that Mr. Stevens will be held accountable for those acts in a civil court.”
Caleb forwarded the young woman a copy of Dugan’s letter. "

“Roger will never be able to hurt anyone in BBC ministries, ever again.”

posted: August 01, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Ruck Foger.


I am dyslexic, but you know what I mean.

posted: August 09, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

No thanks to the prior comment.

The rapist's house is for sale, YAHOOOOO!!!

Run you rapist, run far away, and take that helper wife of yours with you!!!

You both deserve each other -

Never will you hurt anyone at BBC again!!!

posted: August 13, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

The rapist's house is for sale, YAHOOOOO!!!

Run you rapist, run far away, and take that helper wife of yours with you!!!

You both deserve each other -

Never will you hurt anyone at BBC again!!!

More class from the Pastor Carpathia sycophants.

BBC = Ben Brown's Church

posted: August 18, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

...wrote Dugan. “We believe that the episodes of abuse that she reported are horrible and hope that Mr. Stevens will be held accountable for those acts in a civil court.”

NEVER WILL roger HURT ANYONE AT BBC MINISTRIES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted: August 18, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

...wrote Dugan. “We believe that the episodes of abuse that she reported are horrible and hope that Mr. Stevens will be held accountable for those acts in a civil court.”


Too bad for you Brownies that the victim decided to take the money and run, instead of taking her case to trial, eh?

posted: August 18, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you loosers avoid the facts?

Always trying to divert attention somewhere else besides the fact that he abused a disabled young woman.

Avoid the fact that those of you who support him were there and in fact hold some responsiblity for not stopping him.

I guess the TRUTH is too hard to admit.

One day God will not care what you have to say - Hope you like it HOT!

posted: August 18, 2006 EST  

boomSLANG wrote:

Fundanonymous # 1,826,398 said: "One day God will not care what you have to say - Hope you like it HOT!"

One day the human race will scoff at Chrisitanity like Christians scoff at every other religion - Hope you like long naps.

posted: August 18, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

How about 14 witnesses to roger's confession of his evil deeds?

"The 14 member Board of Deacons at the congregation first relieved him of his duties, then subsequently defrocked him and terminated him from membership in the church.
The vote was unanimous."

FACTS NOT FICTION haggerty

posted: August 19, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Lie detector test results!

Stevens did take a lie detector test, but in an email from Caleb in December 2004 to now-former BBC Sr. Pastor, Dr. Ben Brown, the district attorney is quoted as saying, “....the results were in question because of the manner in which this test was administered.”

FACTS NOT FICTION haggerty

posted: August 19, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you loosers avoid the facts?

If you're going to insult people, the least you can do is spell "loser" correctly.

posted: August 20, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

You LOSERS are still avoiding the FACTS no matter how you spell it, he abused a young woman and you don't care.


FACT - roger will NEVER hurt anyone at BBC Ministries EVER again

posted: August 20, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

You LOSERS are still avoiding the FACTS no matter how you spell it, he abused a young woman and you don't care.

Prove it - please post one shred of credible independent evidence, aside from Ben Brown's masterfully coerced "confession." The so-called "evidence" wasn't enough to get the legal system to indict Roger Stevens for a crime.

If you actually provide some real evidence that Roger Stevens is an abuser, you might just win over some of us. Put up or shut up.

posted: August 20, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

1. "The 14 member Board of Deacons at the congregation first relieved him of his duties, then subsequently defrocked him and terminated him from membership in the church.
The vote was unanimous."

2. "the State could not prove “forcible compulsion,” as defined by State law.
Dugan wrote to Caleb that he had reviewed the evidence with his personal crimes team leader, Kandy Gies.
“Both Kandy and I hope that Ms. Stacey has retained a civil attorney and would encourage her to move forward along those lines,” wrote Dugan. “We believe that the episodes of abuse that she reported are horrible and hope that Mr. Stevens will be held accountable for those acts in a civil court.”

The independent proof is there and now you are responsible for his victims!!!

I don't care if you are "won over" or not, BBC Ministries is a better place with you gone!!!

posted: August 20, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Haven't we been busy beavers on here.

I might as well comment.

In response to: "Ben Brown's masterfully coerced "confession."

Didn't something like 18 different people, both deacons and staff, hear Roger confess to many things that were at least innapropriate, if not criminal?


Pat's letter to the Klamath Courier said "Roger was being Roger" or something close to that, but basically accepted that Roger did some innapropriate things, although whether he did them out of love or lust is up for debate.

Pastor Ben had his heart broken over the way things went down. I spoke with Ben several weeks ago and he said he fully expected Roger to be restored by now and back at work, had things gone the way they were heading after his first tearfull confession during the initial meeting.

Pastor Ben would have left either way for Singapore, so basically, we would probably be arguing over whether Kevin should have been named pastor over Roger, as his admissions would have prevented him from being named Sr. pastor, although at least he would have still been a pastor.

Had Roger kept his same attitute that he had his first night, the night I heard him confess, there would not have been a criminal investigation and all that followed, his denials forced the victim to reveal more details, eventually letting loose with all she had kept hidden inside.

In a way, it was great that Roger changed his tune, that flip flop brought on what ended up happening, but please don't blame Ben Brown, Roger brought this upon himself. That is a fact.

posted: August 20, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Show some proof?

How about this, and answer honestly please.

IS OJ SIMPSON AN INNOCENT MAN? (In regards to his murdering his wife and her friend)


Um, well... oh...doh... shoot... I think... I umm...

See. O.J. is not LEGALLY guilty of that crime, but we can all agree he did it.

Roger is the same as OJ, only OJ is a murderer and Roger is a sex offender.


End of discussion. Dang I make sense. That has to hurt.

posted: August 20, 2006 EST  

Someone with sense wrote:

What's interesting is that BBC people don't hate Roger for what happened. We don't approve of what he confessed to, we don't appreciate being lied to and having him go behind our backs to demean our leadership, remove members who give large sums of money, and tell stories of the past to demonize those who he's decided to blame for his life gone awry... but "hatred" is not in our feelings about Roger. I've known him for years and I am saddened and disappointed. I am especially saddened and disappointed that he has somehow twisted things in such a way that the people who followed him out of the church overflow with hatred for Ben Brown. Clearly, to avoid blame and recriminations for his own base actions, he has pointed the finger elsewhere. But this hatred. This evil, black feeling, pointed like a gun at an innocent man's head. It's weird, and it's eerie, and it's a good reminder of why BBC is much MUCH better off having these people gone. I know Laurie C. and I know many people who have been hurt in the past by cruel things she said without thinking. I know John C. and I know what a pompous, cold man he is. Pat Hagerty is somewhat a surprise - except for the fact that he and Roger were so very close. Katie Bruner has certainly been guilty of calling Ben "Carpathia" (as some of you deny having done) and has also shown in her actions a hatefulness not only for Ben Brown, but a ruthlessness toward other members of BBC and fellow christians in her quest to somehow prove some point, to the point that the loss of her from BBC is as far from negative as is possible. So to Roger: we're sad that you went down this dark path. And to the rest of you: Good-bye and good riddance.

posted: August 27, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

"And to the rest of you: Good-bye and good riddance."

"and the FACT is - roger will NEVER hurt anyone at BBC Ministries EVER again"

AMEN!!!

posted: August 27, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

One whole month and no posts?

Sorry, I had to post something, my life wasn't complete without posting on here.

posted: October 09, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

You LOSERS are still avoiding the FACTS no matter how you spell it, he abused a young woman and you don't care.

Prove it - If you actually provide some real evidence that Roger Stevens is an abuser, you might just win over some of us. Put up or shut up.


My answer is, Have you even been around Roger when an attractive young woman was also in the room?

posted: October 31, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous: "My answer is, Have you even been around Roger when an attractive young woman was also in the room?"

Your answer is a question?

So, what does an abuser look like exactly? Give me the description, so that I can think back, and see if Roger fit the description. If you can't do that, then there is no reason for you to know if I have or haven't been in the presence of Roger. The only possible reason you would make the comment, is to figure out who I am, by associating me with specific people I have been around.

Kind of childish really, I suppose some people never really leave the middle/high school games behind.

posted: October 31, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

“What does an abuser look like?”

Well if you watch news show like Dateline, the TV news or read a newspaper the last few years you will see they look like all of us.

What you have to do is open your eyes to their public behavior and if that is suspect then use common sense to what is happening when no one is around. The list below is not disputed even by his colony of supporters.

Fact - roger and gwyn only took mistreated young women into their house of abuse.

Fact – gwyn gave a talk to the woman of her church about going through menopause and how she “hates sex”.

Fact - roger took this particular disabled young woman to many, many, many doctor appointments in and out of town without any other women to chaperone.

Fact - roger traveled out of town with her to her appointments concerning the horrific car accident, again without a woman chaperone.

Fact – roger stayed in motels with college young woman again without a chaperone.

Fact – roger changes this disabled woman’s name to BJ

Fact – roger refers to this woman as his daughter, when clearly she has a family up north. A pastor’s role should be to teach the person to live safely with her family structure and even restore that relationship, not take it over.

Fact - roger changes Jerrie Dee Harvey’s name to JD and now has given Jerrie Dee his last name (unofficially as far as public records are concerned)

Fact – roger refers to Jerrie Dee as his daughter when clearly she has family here in town.
A pastor’s role should be to teach the person to live safely with her family structure and even restore that relationship, not take it over.

These are just a few facts that quickly come to mind. Even this short list of facts should have caused many people to step up and stop the abuser.

Fact – If you watched these things happening and did nothing than you are his accomplice in this crime.

posted: October 31, 2006 EST  

New Yorker wrote:

Folks, I am new to this one. I’m here because we “lost” our blog on the troubles of our former pastor at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York City. It disappeared, at least as an intact story with postings. I was looking to see if the same happened to similar stories on this site and came upon this. (So, what happened to the Tom Tewell story, WEBMASTER? Is it a glitch or did lawyers get involved?)

Anyhow, it was interesting to see that other confused church members have used this atheistic site to dispute miserable facts with each other. Our Ex-Christian webmaster has provided a service where our “church culture” somehow fails us. I read through your troubles and am not sure where the truths lies. I can just say this: It IS true that pastors and high level staff members can lie and manipulate to undermine a colleague. And it IS true that church elders (or deacons, as you call them) stumble into a herd mentality where ethics and decency fall by the wayside. It IS true that people abandon someone in trouble, magnify their sins, and believe the worst. But, that said…your Pastor Roger does seem to have problems based on the undisputed facts. Major problems that may take eons of counseling to make him a suitable candidate for the pastoral ministry (but nothing is impossible with God). So, I would recommend that his friends stand by him, pray, and even seek justice for him, but, really, take into consideration that something is seriously wrong with this behavior.

Just my two cents. I’ll pray for you. Hope you will pray for us.

posted: November 04, 2006 EST  

Katie Bruner wrote:

Dear Mr. or Mrs. New Yorker.
I was one of the initial "commenters" on this website back when I didn't know what the website was. I had found it through googling my pastor's name and this was at the top of the list. It has since gotten disgusting in the way that the "BBC/anonymous" people have spoke about Pastor Roger. He is innocent and the reasons the "facts are not disputed" as you say is because, we, as Roger's supporters (who do not list ourselves as anonymous) stopped responding to this site. I am only on here since another article came out in our local paper which alleges that BBC hired a registered sex offender (who failed to register). therefore I was again checking this site since it is most used after an article surfaces in the paper. again Roger is innoncent of the disgusting things people have claimed on this site and I hope that if you return to read this that it will be your last time on this website. Most important is to praise Jesus. Love our God and be honest.

posted: November 05, 2006 EST  

TiredOfTheMudSlinging wrote:

Has anyone ask Jerrie Dee if she has or maybe still is being abused by Roger? If not, I guess that also is included as being part of abuse according to some. Why do we continue to be drawn here without taking action to actually picking up broken pieces and looking for healing of ourselves and each other? Instead we continue to stew here in this dumb website and coward statements. Most can't even include their identity (including myself) for fear of being exposed of our own doings and part.

posted: November 05, 2006 EST  

Anonymous wrote:

dear little katie

Just because you say rog is innocent doesn't make it fact.

FACT:

"the State could not prove “forcible compulsion,” as defined by State law. Bend, Oregon District Attorney, Mike Dugan wrote to Klamath Falls District Attorney Ed Caleb that he had reviewed the evidence with his personal crimes team leader, Kandy Gies. “Both Kandy and I hope that Ms. Stacey has retained a civil attorney and would encourage her to move forward along those lines,” wrote Dugan. “We believe that the episodes of abuse that she reported are horrible and hope that Mr. Stevens will be held accountable for those acts in a civil court.”


Let's see what does he say above?

“We believe that the episodes of abuse that she reported are horrible and hope that Mr. Stevens will be held accountable for those acts in a civil court.”

FACTS not Fiction

posted: November 05, 2006 EST  

Katie wrote:

yet another anonymous writer....
yes Caleb said "We believe that the episodes of abuse that she REPORTED",(claimed, alleged) are horrible... i.e. made up, fantasized about, pretended...

nothing was proven. FACT
Bless BJ's heart that she was coerced by others to make false accusations.
The poor child has brain damage from her wreck and in that she is a victim by those who have used her.
Did you go to Roger and ask him what the truth was? Did you go to Gwyn to comfort her in a traumatic time? If Rog was soooo guilty, where was the love for Gwyn shown? Where was the concern for Gwyn since she had a "lying husband"???? We were told by the senior pastor at the time to stay away from Roger, even tho the acts he "confessed to" did not "violate his marraige vows" FACT
I believe because I went straight to Roger. I asked him difficult questions. I listened to him.
I use my name and identity for I have nothing to hide. THAT is FACT not fiction. so whoever the condescending "dear little Katie is" you would be a lot more believable if you weren't anonymous
FACT

posted: November 05, 2006 EST  

Post a Comment | Create a Link | Post in the Forums | Permalink

Quickly catch up on comments posted to various articles on http://exchristian.net by clicking here. Keep track of comments on this topic with .