Fallen Angel or Failed Angle?

You may also like...

101 Responses

  1. Nonnie says:

    I watched the trailer and it is disturbing but compelling.

    I am wondering what the purpose of the film is.
    The trailer ends calling it a “Bible Story.” (that gives me hope)

    So I am hoping this film is going to be a story of God’s grace in a scoundrels life.
    A story of justification by faith alone in Christ alone….a son of the Father singing His praises at times and living in the mire of the pig pen at other times, hurting himself and others; but nevertheless, a son. A man crying out “Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.”

    Or is the film an attempt to just discredit a man and his music and mock Christianity?

    Or is it something else?

    I am hoping it is the first.

  2. Believe says:

    Michael, is it possible I was saved at age 10, when I was Baptized and sincerely professed Jesus as Lord and aknowledged and repented of my sins…but then later in life turned away from the Lord in serious sin…but then was crushed in repentance and turned back to the Lord…in my darkest hour?

    You’ve clarified that you believe in Perseverance of the Saints.

    Is that supported by 1 Cor 5?

    The man committed incest…a seriously heinous sin societally…and Paul says turn him over to satan…and appears to say that the man is still “saved”…I have been told by others that the man was now “unsaved” and would go to hell if he didn’t repent before dying…however, when I read the verse…it doesn’t appear to say that (to me).

    I read your other verses you posted the other day on this topic of Perseverance of the Saints…and they are compelling evidence that God is Faithful to complete the good work He began in us…and that nothing can separate us from the Love of God…no one can pluck out those who the Father has given the Son…once we are His.

    But then when I discuss these issues with others, they point to the “blotting out of the names” in the Book of Life in Revelation…and that Backsliding is referenced in Scripture… Jeremiah 2:19 (and many other verses)…and not only referenced…that the Principle in many verses suggests we can turn away and lose our Justification.

    These perspectives, which I am articulating in a very brief and imperfect communication…are a consolidation of information from Theologians…with even more Theological Pedigree than you or Rolph. (Which is more evidence, IMO, of why there is so little Theological agreement).

    The context and perspective they come from is that we can “lose” our Salvation…and to be on guard…continually…lest we fall away (fall away meaning, lose our Justification).

  3. B
    Yours are good questions. I want to say “yes” he will be in heaven because we can “know we have eternal life” but know too, that a simple declaration of Jesus with out transformation is no salvation. So I am troubled. I want to say ” Only God knows” but that would deny the 1 John passage but if I say no how can I judge”

    Very disturbing to me

  4. Believe says:

    Just an aside:

    1 Cor 6 seems to be support for the rationale to set up Christian Binding Arbitration for disputes within the Church.

    Scriptural support, IMO, for CC to set up a structure to better deal with abuses within the Movement…”Judges” from within the Movement to make just binding decisions regarding issues that arise and can’t be resolved at the local level.

    Look at the very difficult time Chuck Smith had over the CSN lawsuit in Civil Court.

    Had a written agreement been in place to commit to Christian Binding Arbitration as part of the original deal…Chuck may have had a more just outcome in that situation.

  5. Bob says:

    Believe:

    Great stuff and the emphasis isn’t on judging whether or not another is saved , but on thy self.

    Steve’s comment tends to point out how most of us see these things, and ask the question, “was Larry Norman really saved? My answer is always, “I don’t know, but where do I stand before God?”

    Spending voyeuristic time examining Larry Norman’s past can only do one thing, bring shame to one’s self. I think Michael has the correct heart here, who am I before a mighty powerful creator God?

    Maybe my name doesn’t even have a blank spot in the big book?

  6. Believe says:

    Steve H…yes, it is disturbing to me as well.

    I (at my much much lower Theological level) have wrestled with these things since being introduced to these issues at Master’s College some 15 years ago.

  7. Michael says:

    Believe,

    I let clear passages inform my standing on specific doctrines.

    Jesus stated unequivocally that He loses none that the Father gives Him.

    That’s good enough for me.

  8. Believe says:

    Bob, that’s the “realism” for me, now…in terms of…I read Norman’s example and it makes me look inward and affirms my anger at my own sin. I don’t want to lose my assurance…like I have in the past. It’s a terrible thing to believe you are dying…and that you are going to hell.

    In the past, however, I’d read an example like Normans and look at examples of other spiritual leaders in my life…and then intellectually acknowledge the Perseverance of the Saints argument…or the Eternal Security argument…and think…what’s the use? I can sin all I want and I’m still saved. Then, add many years and a lot of sin…and pretty soon I wondered if God even existed.

    However, I was then absolutely crushed by God after a long time in sin…it was overwhelming…”irresistible”…it was either “give in” or game-over.

    I don’t know with certainty how my experiences resolve Theologically…but, I do know that God is. That Jesus Christ is who He says He is. That Jesus lived on this earth as God and Man…that He died…that He rose again. That everyone who Believes and repents and is baptized for the remission of sins will be saved.

    After that, I have a basic understanding of many of the doctrines and Theologies…but I wouldn’t bet the farm for certain on any of them (though I lean toward Lordship Salvation…and a Calminian position of balance in Scripture…and that we can’t resolve certain Theological issues…similar to Chuck Smith’s position).

    I do find myself seeing gaping holes in Jacobus Arminius’s position regarding Free Will and Depravity. But, that’s today from recent reading.

  9. Lutheran says:

    Michael,

    Thanks for the post.

    Is there anything new vis-a-vis the Australian son and their trying to get justice from this situation?

  10. Believe says:

    Michael, yes you did. And they are crystal clear to me as well.

    Others have explanations for them that fit within their Theological Box.

  11. Michael says:

    Lutheran,

    Not really.

    This is one place I do fault the Normans…do the DNA test and get it over with.

  12. Erunner says:

    I went to Fleming’s site that seems to debunk the film quite well. There is documentation for everything I read and so it would seem there will be an ongoing “I’m right and he’s wrong” argument into the foreseeable future.

    It would appear Randy Stonehill has some explaining to do……

    I’m off to listen to some bubblegum music. No dirty laundry there! 🙂

  13. Michael says:

    “and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.”
    (Revelation 13:8 ESV)
    “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.”
    (Revelation 17:8 ESV)
    “And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
    (Revelation 20:15 ESV)

    Note when the names were put in the book…the same time you were chosen.

    Ҧ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
    even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world,”
    (Ephesians 1:3–4 ESV)

  14. Erunner says:

    Don’t forget E-Fest!! 🙂 This will probably be the best place to advertise. :mrgreen:

  15. Believe says:

    From the video:

    “You’re the guy that led me to the Lord….how could you do this?”

    I’m in tears. That hits way too close to home for me.

  16. Believe says:

    …more evidence for Moving Forward and not Moving On…Moving On is impossible. The pain and heartbreak will never go away.

  17. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I think that the new Kitty Kelley book coming out on Oprah, will keep this Larry Norman stuff in the background.

  18. Lutheran says:

    Believe,

    You’re right. Totally moving on is not possible.

    But it’s not healthy to look at it as “all or nothing.”

    The fact is, as time goes on, you’ll find there can be a distance between you and what occurred in the past. It doesn’t have to dictate your current actions and moving forward.

    At some point at some level you have to make peace with what happened. That doesn’t mean ignoring it or not having feelings about it.

    It’s making space for it and still moving forward.

    Hope that makes sense…

  19. Believe says:

    Michael, please give me a Theological explanation for these verses:

    Revelation 3:5

    Revelation 13:8

    Revelation 17:8

    Exodus 32:33

    Psalm 69:28

  20. Believe says:

    oops, in my now emotional state I posted verses you’ve addressed. Need to regroup and discuss later.

  21. Believe says:

    It does Lute, thank you.

  22. Michael says:

    Believe,

    I don’t think this one is particularly difficult.

    The elect are chosen before the foundation of the world and their names are not blotted out of the book.

    Here’s one for you to research…how would an OT Jew have understood those passages in Exodus and the Psalms?

  23. Believe says:

    Thanks, Michael…I’ll check out the Exodus and Psalms reference…in the context of OT Jewish tradition.

  24. bishopdave says:

    Again, I learn what I wish I didn’t know from PP. A.W. Tozer wasn’t much of a husband; Ray Boltz, Jennifer Knapp, Larry & Lonnie. So Stonehill too seems to lack marital faithfulness. I feel so good about not having bought a Christian album /cd/download in 4 years. Think I’ll just keep listening to the local talent at our church. At least I’m familiar with their walks and struggles. Is Don Francisco still walking with the Lord and being faithful to his family? Anybody know?

    Our student minister wears a shirt that says,”I love my wife.” She and he sang yesterday in the service and their chemistry is beautiful.

  25. Michael says:

    bishopdave,

    Stonehill just announced he’s divorcing his current wife…

    Sorry…

  26. Believe says:

    Bishopdave, hate to say this, but you’re in for some bigger and bigger let-downs.

    Not to be cynical or callous, but your student minister has a good chance of falling in his life also.

  27. Josh Hamrick says:

    The movie is definitely intriguing, and having had limited dealings with Norman in the mid-1990’s, I can attest he was one weird cat. Still, something is very mean about the tone of this film. Seems to be digging for dirt rather than truth. I’m sure some of the claims are true, but some have already been easily refuted. With so little attention to accuracy, it puts the whole thing in question.

  28. Pardon the Interruption says:

    “Our student minister wears a shirt that says,’I love my wife.’ She and he sang yesterday in the service and their chemistry is beautiful.”

    Seen that act before…

    I give ’em three more years. Sorry.

  29. Lutheran says:

    My, we seem to have some cynics on here today.

    I usually am, too…

    Maybe it’s like Ray Romano says — if you don’t expect much from people, when something bad happens, you’re not destroyed…

  30. Another Voice says:

    And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.” Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. 1 Ptr 4:8-11
    ————————————————————————————————–
    A friendly reminder in light of a couple recent ‘prophecies’ above.

  31. Believe says:

    Sorry Lute…had another experience recently that reminded me not to let my guard down.

  32. Nick says:

    “Is Don Francisco still walking with the Lord and being faithful to his family? Anybody know?”

    Do you mean his first wife? Or the wife he stole from Terry Talbot, some fifteen years ago? (Now there’s a CCM scandal that hasn’t hit the blogosphere yet…)

  33. Erunner says:

    Well you won’t find any scallywags at E-Fest!! 🙂

  34. Believe says:

    AV…I must have a gift…like a magnet.

    I’m not going to go on a rant and get “bitter” though…learning that lesson.

    Let me just say that by God’s grace, we have the capacity for good…however, we are attached to the flesh and have a great capacity for evil…as pastors and as lay-people.

    If it weren’t for grace, heaven would be empty…a great man who appears to have a pretty good take on things told me that recently. 🙂

  35. Believe says:

    E…you’ll find one…one repentant and forgiven Believing one… 🙂

  36. Nonnie says:

    Erunner, just because I am not attending the Efest, you didn’t have to mention that no scallywags were attending. Now you’ve hurt my feelings. 🙂

  37. Erunner says:

    So I can mark Believe as attending if we go with the 5th!

    Sorry about your feelings Nonnie but there will be no marshwiggles either!

    As you can see I have no pride when it comes to cheaply advertising for E-Fest. Once David Di Sabatino posts I’m sure all of those who signed up will be passing through here.

    Hey David!! I say you’re a fraud! Give me a free copy of the DVD and I may change my mind!! What do you have to say about THAT!! :mrgreen:

  38. dd says:

    Hey folks…

    I certainly don’t mind tough questions, and appreciate seeking after truth.

    But I watched my film last night and very few of the “criticisms” brought by this fellow are actually raised in the film. Nowhere do I claim that Larry’s actions broke up Randy’s marriage…and yet, they go on at length.

    All of us are indeed broken, but one of the necessary realities of faith is admitting the brokenness. And both Larry during his life…and this website that is put up to defame…seem to deflect any responsibility from Larry. (I say defame not so much for myself…I am not crazy about it…but if you are going to dish it out…you know. But for Randy and Pam’s sake…sheesh.)

    This is a tough and difficult story, and unless you have seen the movie, you should really suspend your judgment.

    Here is the FAQ site explaining what the reasoning was behind the movie…

    http://fallenangeldoc.com/faq.html

    Too…some of you made comments that the site seems to “debunk” the movie. Larry Norman was a guy that would do just about anything than admit fault. And that would include doctoring documents, many of which you are seeing on this site. I will leave it at that.

    And if you do not believe me…ask Dave or Oden what they think about that comment.

    Sincerely,

    dd

  39. Nonnie says:

    Erunner: Who said anything about marshwiggles?
    I was referring to Scallywags! 😉

  40. Nonnie says:

    To DD:
    Please see my comment number 1.
    Could you tell me what your purpose was for making this film?
    I am looking for the best in your motives.

  41. Erunner says:

    David, Based on what was on the other site it does appear Flemming has done his homework and documents it quite well. If Larry was doctoring documents then we are left with two camps with very different views. That makes it quite difficult to try and figure out the truth for the typical lay person. You and Flemming pretty much accuse each other of the same thing… defamation. Give yourself a break and use Evie as your next project!

  42. deadmanwalking says:

    I sure hope no one here had problems with marshwiggles because Puddleglum is my favorite character because he reminds me of myself.

  43. Isaiah56:1 says:

    I love Puddleglum!

  44. Erunner says:

    So much for my sneaking a puddleglum reference by these folks!! 🙂

    Nonnie, Things get tough and I just change the subject! Are you aware of any scallywags who intend on attending?? 🙂 Hope things with your mother went well today.

  45. dd says:

    Hey Nonnie….

    Documentary filmmakers do true stories because they are compelling. If you watch any documentary, there is usually someone showing something controversial or interesting or whatever.

    Unfortunately, in the church, people think this is “gossip” no matter what you do.

    So, how does one tell the truth about something or someone without being labeled a “gossipmonger.” That is the trick.

    If you look at my work…I have done a previous film to this one called Frisbee…I am modelling my work on the biblical writers, some of whom took their lives in their hands when they told their stories. I can’t imagine the writer who told the story about King David and Bathsheba had to put up with the same sort of thing, and yet, we are thankful to that person for doing what they did.

    Because I endeavor to tell meatier stories, there are people who get ticked off. It comes with the territory.

    Erunner…unlike this other person…and I have no idea who he is…he seems to have been doing his homework after the fact (emailing some of the people in the film furiously after the fact only last week asking questions that he already had answers for)… I am relying on testimony.

    The people who are standing in this film together to document this stuff are all people who are longtime standing workers in the Christian field. Their testimony has always been that not only was Larry doing this stuff, but that he would go to extreme lengths to cover his tracks.

    So, yes, I am not quite sure what to make of “secret files”…but one thing is for sure, you should take into account that these other folks have stood and said that there is something terribly wrong here. The people who are mad and behind this website are not those that were even involved in the period that I am speaking about. They weren’t there. None of them were witnesses to this period. For them to say that we got it all wrong…what does that suggest about all the people who were there and say it is true, that they are involved in some sort of conspiracy?

    This is a tough story…much more pernicious than you would ever wish to believe. I am saddened by it. I am not sure why they could not simply admit that Larry had faults. But that, as I show int he movie, is exactly the problem.

    Hope that helps.

    Sincerely,

    dd

    p.s. Michael…there are things about that birth certificate that make it suspect.

  46. Michael says:

    ” Nowhere do I claim that Larry’s actions broke up Randy’s marriage”

    Yet that accusation has raged on the internet boards and every reviewer brings it up.

    Was that cut from the film?

  47. Believe says:

    dd…got the subject matter for your next film…Shiloh.

    Or, CC Pastors Gone Wild (literally in my case) 🙂

    …though, any denom or non-denom denom is filled with sinful men…including me.

    We’ll all get to watch the “movie” of our lives at Judgment.

  48. London says:

    Hey dd

  49. Believe says:

    dd…I look forward to watching the documentary.

    People in ministry can cover their tracks better than politicians…and the “gossip” card is always played out.

    Tell the stories as accurately as you can. Let the chips fall where they may.

  50. Believe says:

    “I am not sure why they could not simply admit that Larry had faults.”

    Because we make men “idols” in the church…and it shakes our Faith when we discover that men are depraved…even the biggest of the big…even those out front leading the charge.

    We can’t admit they have such propensity for evil…because it screws up our formula / our ideal.

    I was reminded recently that anyone is capable of grotesque sin…doesn’t matter who they are.

  51. Michael says:

    dd,

    The other issue right now is that after reviewing the other site and seeing his personal choices of late, Stonehill has zero credibility in my eyes.

    How will that affect the film, if at all?

  52. dd says:

    Michael,

    As best as I can tell…they are reacting to a note that the OC Weekly made that stated something to the effect that Larry derailed the marriage.

    That simply wasn’t the case…and neither was it part of my movie. Not ever.

    They are complaining about something that simply isn’t my fault. Too, neither is the movie misleading. Randy Stonehill is IN THE MOVIE saying that his marriage came apart of its own accord. It has always said that.

    That is part of the problem here. They are complaining about stuff that never was in the movie. That is why I am really not bothered by this page. It makes no sense to me at all. Too…if you do any due diligence on this Michael…you are going to hear stuff that will tip you to what is going on here. But I’ll leave that up to you.

    I watched it last night after a long time of just leaving it…and I thought that what they were saying was simply intended to mislead and slur.

    Again… I stand behind the fact that all of these people are testifying out loud and on film. And what you are reading is snippets of secret files that nobody in the film has had time (or the stomach) to digest.

    Like I said, I don’t mind getting hacked. But Randy and even Pam doesn’t deserve this. i wish they had simply turned their guns on me. I don’t care for myself.

    Shiloh? Interesting story…lots of interesting stories in the Jesus movement.

    Hey London.

    …the rest…

    I still don’t like Calvinism…just thought I’d make that clear…LOL.

    ciao,

    dd

  53. Michael says:

    dd,

    When do the DVD’s ship?

  54. Nonnie says:

    DD,
    I am listening to you and sincerely looking for the best. You said “If you look at my work…I have done a previous film to this one called Frisbee…I am modelling my work on the biblical writers, some of whom took their lives in their hands when they told their stories. I can’t imagine the writer who told the story about King David and Bathsheba had to put up with the same sort of thing, and yet, we are thankful to that person for doing what they did”

    When I read about David and his sin, I also read about a man after God’s heart, a man who saw how he had fallen short and fell upon the grace of God’s mercy and forgiveness. The writer, inspired by God, had a reason for placing this in the Scriptures. What was the purpose of YOUR film?

    Please believe me that I don’t ask with a “snarky” attitude, but sincerely wanting to know why you would tell this story that (by what you have written above) seems so un-redemptive. (is that even a word?)
    I really appreciate your coming here and having this dialogue with us. Thank you!

  55. deadmanwalking says:

    Please Not Shiloh – The house ministries — they all had an entrance but no exit. They believed that leaving Shiloh was the same thing as leaving the Lord — They had a plan for getting you off the streets and into a commune, but they had no exit plan to help you back into society. People learned how to be good Commune Christians. Just as long as they stayed in a commune they walked with God, but as soon as they left they would backslide, and the stories were told over and over again about the horrible things that happed to people who left,. It was like the Hotel California in Oregon. I remember that I really didn’t believe half the stories, but the first time I moved out of the communes I was actually scared that I would backslide and get killed in some horrible way — strange days indeed – but please don’t make a move about the house ministries.. Oh the stories that were told – the great deeds of the mighty men of Shiloh. Those Filbert picking and pumpkin kicking flesh denying heroes of the faith, and those poor souls who left who the earth opened and the were swallowed up — Just kidding — Kind of kidding . well I’m not kidding at all.

  56. dd says:

    Good for you, Nonnie…don’t let me off easy.

    I appreciate your candor and honesty.

    Larry was an influence to me. Huge. Along with a lot of other people he really shaped my thinking in a critical juncture when I was very young, about 14 to my early 20s.

    But he also was a wonky guy…and I could see that. And I am of the opinion that somewhere along the line we have forgotten that peering in to the lives of people is one of the ways that God teaches us. We pore over the lives of saints of old, both in the Bible and outside…but we also take from historical figures. Take any figure from the past and you are going to find stuff in their lives that is weirdified or way out of line. How they respond to those actions, that is the point of the whole endeavor. And the biblical writers use those stories to tell us something about the ongoing dialogue between God and man.

    For me, Frisbee was a guy after God’s own heart because, despite his sins, he repented and was deeply shamed and grieved by his sin. If you watch the film, you will see this because I think it is true.

    Larry is an entirely different story. He was used of God as well, … but somewhere along the line he got caught up in a snare of pride and stubborn unrepentance. His story is a caution to anyone going down that road. I think there was someone on here who suggested that. One of the best compliments I get about the Larry story is that people see themselves in it.

    There are those that slur…say that I am simply out to make a buck or get fame or to hurt people…but that isn’t my heart. I put too much care into the storytelling…and you can see the redemption in action. Larry was forgiven by those he hurt most. The sad part is that he simply couldn’t accept the grace he was being offered…and continually maintained that he did nothing wrong. That site that Michael is referring to says the same thing…that Larry did nothing wrong…that there are secret files proving it….Here, look…

    It is ridiculous. Why not just admit it? Therein the lesson lies…pride is a dangerous thing, and here is a story telling that.

    So, like the biblical writers, I reveal the heart of God within a story that nobody else would ever venture to tell. And like Larry, I am willing to suffer the slings and arrows of people’s misunderstanding because I think God has put this on my heart. UNlike Larry, I will admit when I make mistakes. And I am sure that my big mouth has caused some of this backlash. Ah well, live and learn.

    Hope that helps.

    dd

  57. deadmanwalking says:

    Oh I forgot to mention the Sisters of Shiloh who all had the right to remain silent..

  58. Nonnie says:

    DD, Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my question.

    I really appreciate what you have written. Like you, I too was greatly affected by Larry’s music and it grieves me to see and hear some of these things about his life. However, if you made a movie of my life, I guess, if I am honest, there would be details that would “grieve’ others. How thankful I am that we can fall upon the grace of Christ and not on our works of righteousness.

    Again, thank you for replying to my question in such a forthright and gracious manner.

  59. deadmanwalking says:

    Then there was Ed Joys orchards. Old Ed took about 20 of us on a long flat trailer behind his tractor way out to the middle of his orchards, and of course we were witnessing to Ed about how he needed to get save and all, well when he dropped us off, he pointed out all the different apple trees, and told us we could eat all we wanted of any of the apple in his orchard, except, then he pointed to one tree that was kind of off by itself and said Except for that one tree, please don’t touch that one, it is an experimental tree that we just grafted last year so leave that one tree alone, then he got on his tractor and left 20 Christians staring at the One Tree. There was no discussion or debate, we just asked how many do you think we can pick without him noticing. So we decided on two, and cut them in really thin slices. That was the best fruit I ever had in my life.. and I have a feeling that Old Ed was off in the distance laughing his head off watching us.

  60. Erunner says:

    In 1975 a good friend of mine showed up at my apartment. He was like all of us and into the usual stuff of that era. I hadn’t seen him for some time and when I went out to greet him I exclaimed JC! It’s _____.

    He responded by saying, “that’s right Allan, that’s why I’m here, Jesus Christ. He came in and went on and on about how he had been in Oregon working the land and serving the Lord. It was a very awkward time as this was a huge change in him.

    I heard from him again the night after I received Christ and he was looking to go partying. I explained what had happened and that was that. I think I saw him once more when I gave him a ride somewhere.

    From what I gather he was at a place similar to Shiloh?? Looking back it seemed once he was back “in the world” he lacked the tools/wisdom to not become a part of it once more.

  61. dd says:

    Nonnie…

    Thought of this afterward…

    There was a child in Australia that came to me when he knew that I was doing this story.

    Nobody had ever stuck up for him or his mom. In fact, because he would tell people that he was the son of this famous Christian, he was ostracized and told to just be quiet.

    He asked me to include him and his story, and I did so because to me it is the essence of Jesus leaving behind the 99 to take care of the one.

    That kid deserved better than he got from the Christian community where he was from and he deserves better from Larry’s family and friends, whom are behind that scurrilous website that denies, denies, denies.

    So…there were definitely moments that I thought…why bother? But after I met that kid, this was a no-brainer. You stick up for the powerless, the downtrodden….those that have no voice.

    ciao,

    dd

  62. Believe says:

    “So…there were definitely moments that I thought…why bother? But after I met that kid, this was a no-brainer. You stick up for the powerless, the downtrodden….those that have no voice.”

    dd…good for you. Praying God uses your films for His glory.

    That’s what I like about the PP also…the “least of these” need an advocate and a voice.

  63. Erunner says:

    You think it’s such a sad thing, when you see a fallen king,

    Then you find out they’re only princes to begin with,

    And everybody has to choose, whether they’ll win or lose,

    Follow God or sing the blues, who they’re going to sin with,

    What a mess this world is in, I wonder who began it,

    Don’t ask me, I’m only visiting this planet.

    I discovered Larry early on in my Christian walk along with Keith Green. Their music impacted me differently. Keith’s music challenged me to walk closely with God and I reflected on it often. I found myself reading the lyrics to his songs over and over. To this day his music moves me deeply.

    Larry let me know I could be human while still loving the Lord. He was the long haired “hippie” type that sang about Jesus and that spoke to me as a young man coming out of that world. People that liked Larry really LIKED Larry. He represented my generation and his talent was unmistakable. I was one of those who didn’t care for “funeral marches” and Larry’s music was what I gravitated towards.

    Being a part of this blog for four plus years has allowed me to not be so stunned whenever people stumble in their walks to varying degrees. I along with many here have been hurt by other believers to varying degrees. I think we have learned to forgive and to not be rocked when one of our “heroes” is shown to be human.

    It seems a bit ironic that the above lyrics proved to be prophetic. I’ll still listen to his music and hope to learn a few lessons about how vulnerable all of us are.

  64. Josh Hamrick says:

    David, a little of my background so that you know I’m not a crazed Larry fan – I had never heard of Larry Norman until my brief dealings with him in the mid-90’s. I listened to some of his music during this time, and didn’t particularly enjoy it. For whatever he meant in California in the 1960’s, in North Carolina in 1996, he was basically irrelevant. My honest opinion of the man himself was that he was completely delusional, yet we tried our best to honor his wishes, finished our dealings with him, and knew we’d never do it again.

    Now, I haven’t seen this movie, so i can only go off what I’ve read on the web, alot of which comes personally from you. It is clear that you have a bias in your presentation of this story. As a documentary nut, I realize that everyone is biased in some way or the other, but the most powerful docs I have seen do more to hide the filmmaker’s agenda, and allow the audience to discover the truth for themselves. When I see such a heavy hand pushing me towards a particular conclusion, I become suspicious. I also know that you had extended conflicts with Larry, and I wonder why you are so vengeful towards him.

    In conclusion, I will watch the film, probably will enjoy it, but doubt I’ll believe much of it.

  65. Erunner says:

    DD, Something I am curious about is the use of Larry’s music on the Frisbee DVD. If I recall you were going to use his music but then Larry was able to prevent that.

    I watched the video and thought it was excellent. I didn’t realize it was really a story of both Larry and Randy but for me it was. I’m not sure how this movie could have been slanted unless you got everyone who disliked Larry to come on and just let them say whatever came to mind.

    Instead those who appeared seemed very genuine in their recollections and for the most part were able to show the forgiveness they extended to Larry. Randy seemed as genuine as a person could be and I’m sorry I commented about him before seeing this.

    What happened with the Horrendous Disc project makes no sense to me and I don’t follow Larry’s thinking at all in keeping it off the market for three years.

    Somebody at the end said that Larry’s music was and still is excellent and manages to speak to people to this day. Evidently his life didn’t match the message. Randy went out of his way to state that we could all learn from Larry’s life in that God can use any of us in a way that didn’t slam Larry. It seemed clear from the testimony of so many that Larry had a troubled life

    One of the highlights of the Frisbee DVD was the extras. Shame on you for not having any for this DVD!

  66. Nick says:

    I saw the movie just this past week. I gotta say the film brought back my memories of my first experience of listening to Larry Norman, and Stonehill, and DA, and Mark Heard. These are all great musicians.

    But then I discovered the “Failed Angle” page, and, well, I think it made your very good documentary into a documentary that is exposed to being as one-sided as it is. Sorry.

    I’m not writing as somebody who thinks Larry Norman is perfect. I _get_ that our musician idols of our youth are not perfect, and sometimes royally screwed up. I’ve been long past that since I read Cornerstone magazine’s expose on Mike Warnke some 17 years ago. I have no dog in this fight.

    But it must be stated, even before I discovered the “Failed Angle” site, I fretted that if I were to watch a documentary to get to the bottom of a lightning rod figure, only to conclude from the doc that the person was an enigma, then the documentary is a failure. Not only does your doc fail in this regard, but there were moments that I _knew_, deep down, that there _must_ be another side to the story, and you either were unable to get access to it, or deliberately chose to obfuscate all the facts, so as to paint a portrait of Larry Norman that did not fit your narrative.

    Even reading your comments on this board–you are absolutely correct in saying that there is no contradiction between what is revealed in the doc, and what is revealed on the “Failed Angle” site. Which goes to show that Randy Stonehill is probably the worst manipulator of all the artists spoken… and I *like* Uncle Rand!! If the site’s claims about Stonehill are accurate, and they seem to have the hand-written correspondance to back these assertions up, then Stonehill’s outed as a huge hypocrite, all while promoting a film that points to Norman as the hypocrite, and Stonehill the victim. (No wonder he expressed far greater sorrow and disdain over his music royalties being owned by Norman–which is still a standard in this business–and not as much for the loss of his first marriage! Were those crocodile tears?)

    It utterly breaks me to have written what I have just done. But if that site has credible documents to back up its claims (which are easily viewed thru PDF and JPG files), then it not only paints your entire Larry Norman documentary as suspect to unfair bias, but also your Lonnie Frisbee doc as well. It would have been far, far, better to abandon your “narrative”, and try to show both sides of the issues raised by Norman’s past actions. If you are against the normal practices of music ownership rights that Solid Rock records held over Randy Stonehill’s then-catalog, how much more should you be against the normal practices of slanted documentary-filmmaking, E!-True Hollywood Story style.

  67. Seneschal says:

    What you are seeing ladies and gentlemen, is classic Di Sabatino-speak:

    “I certainly don’t mind tough questions, and appreciate seeking after truth.”

    Why then, David, are you censoring your Fallen Angel Facebook site and immediately deleting any tough questions or comments that raise serious questions about you and your film? Obscuring the truth is not the same as “seeking after it.” There are many people giving testimony about the way you are censoring them. Everyone can see it at:

    http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Failed-Angle/114494451912560?ref=ts

    David Di Sabatino also said this here at Phoenix Preacher:

    “…some of you made comments that the site seems to “debunk” the movie. Larry Norman was a guy that would do just about anything than admit fault. And that would include doctoring documents, many of which you are seeing on this site. I will leave it at that.”

    The documents are all 100% real, mister. Which ones are you claiming are doctored, David? The ones that don’t support your ridiculous theories? Tell us which document you think is doctored. NOW! You’ve made the accusation, now fill us in.

    For everyone else here, David Di Sabatino comes across as a soft spoken, honest man when in forums such as this. But check out the way he behaves when someone disagrees with him. His page at the Failed Angle website speaks volumes about the true David Di Sabatino. Check out his “Wahhhhh….get lost” conversation in particular:

    http://www.failedangle.com/site/sabbo/sabbo.html

    Looking forward to hearing your reply David 😉

  68. Tim says:

    I’ve got no comment on the movie (which I haven’t seen), nor the website (which I have seen). I do, however, feel compelled to speak up on behalf of Randy Stonehill.

    Upon hearing of it on Facebook a few weeks ago, my bride & I were both grieved to learn of Randy’s divorce. I don’t know the details of it, and frankly I don’t think I need to know, as it’s none of my business.

    That said, we were blessed to have Randy come out & minister here back in January. I’ve met quite a few Christian “bigwigs” in the past, and I was impressed by Randy’s desire simply to minister to God’s people. Here we were, some little no-name town in East Texas…we didn’t have any budget to offer him & not even the prospects of a huge concert venue. Yet Randy just wanted to be a good steward of his time & minister to the folks who were here. He played his heart out on a Sunday evening for less than 30 people (it was Super Bowl Sunday…it was *bad* timing). Yet at the end of the night, he was still offering to come back out if we ever needed something. That says a lot about his character, in my book.

    I’m continuing to pray for him & his family.

  69. Believe says:

    Tim…thanks for sharing that.

    That example tells me all I need to know about Randy Stonehill.

  70. Nick says:

    To Tim and Believe, in regards to “Uncle Rand”…

    A very positive, personal experience does not automatically nullify the past actions that have yet been accounted for.

    And if you think this is in regards to his *current* divorce, you are mistaken. This is in regards to him (or dd) casually leaving out specific information in his talking head interviews for the doc, which would provide a far more balanced view over their relationship in the 70s.

    He may have mellowed, he may have personally repented, he may have matured… but that’s no excuse for deliberate obfusication, while participating in character assasination.

  71. Nick says:

    ETA: Just go to the “Failed Angle” site and read the synopsis on Uncle Rand, along with the jpgs/pdfs of the actual correspondance between him and LN. It is devastating.

  72. Michael says:

    Nick,

    I found it compelling to say the least…

  73. Believe says:

    Reading “Failed Angle”…from the perspective of someone with a front row seat to a real-life “Fallen Angel” and seeing well beneath the surface of “ministry” and “leaders”…I can see why dd is both vehemently challenged and misunderstood.

    “Part of Larry’s dysfunction was that in order to hide some of his bad behavior, he would threaten and bully anyone who was threatening or questioning his created reality.”

    So true.

    “He was deathly afraid of the truth coming to the surface. His closest friends say this fear was worse to him than the threat of hell itself.”

    So true.

    “For years I’d watch him throw the first punch then run into the corner, put ashes on his face and claim the other guy started it.”

    So true.

    These guys like Norman are master manipulators. They are failed men attached to the flesh…yet somehow God uses them.

    You think Norman’s story is “bad”? There’s much worse…and all in the name of “service to God”…

    Is dd perfect? Not a chance. He’s got a message in his documentaries…and a view. That doesn’t discredit his work…it’s what a documentary in our day is…it’s a rhetorical exercise…a social commentary…it has a rhetorical thesis…a body of testimony and examples to support the thesis…and a conclusion.

    Don’t strain the gnat and swallow the camel.

    A wise man will find the Objective Truth…within the Subjective Interpretation.

  74. Believe says:

    Nick said, “A very positive, personal experience does not automatically nullify the past actions that have yet been accounted for.”

    I agree with that statement Nick.

    It does show me that Randy Stonehill…at the time he served at Tim’s church…had a right heart for ministry and wasn’t in it for the fame or money…which is evidence of a changed heart.

    Could Stonehill currently be in sin? You bet. I pray he responds to the conviction of the Holy Spirit if he is in sin…and that he reconsiders his divorce if it is his choosing and his sin and his to do something about.

    Has Stonehill sinned a bunch in his life? I’m sure he has.

    BUT…there is something REAL in that example Tim shared. Something Eternal.

    There are “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing” and then there are Redeemed Men who choose to sin (like King David).

    To be clear…from the info I have…if I were judge…my discernment assuming Tim’s example is true and Stonehill wasn’t faking it…Stonehill is a David.

    If the examples of Larry Norman are true…Norman was a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.

    And here’s the really ironic kicker…God used (and uses) them both…somehow…to spread the Gospel and for His glory.

  75. Nick says:

    “A wise man will find the Objective Truth…within the Subjective Interpretation.” Not in this case, and here’s why: the movie hints that there’s another side, but it never shows that hand (whether the filmmaker or interviewee was culpable or not). The movie would actually be _stronger_ if it divulged Stonehill’s trespasses from the 70s, regardless of consequences. It would demonstrate that the lure to temptation can affect both the Larry Normans AND the Randy Stonehills (and whomever else), and that nobody is above sin. And how sin sometimes begets more sin. And how that falling out between the two was not a one-sided thing.

  76. Nick says:

    Two comments from your last post, Believe…

    “Nick said, “A very positive, personal experience does not automatically nullify the past actions that have yet been accounted for.”

    I agree with that statement Nick.”

    — and —

    “There are “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing” and then there are Redeemed Men who choose to sin (like King David).

    To be clear…from the info I have…if I were judge…my discernment assuming Tim’s example is true and Stonehill wasn’t faking it…Stonehill is a David.”

    This is a contradiction.

    I’m not saying Stonehill was faking it at Tim’s church. But Stonehill definitely WAS faking it when he left out specific elements of his testimony on the screen, or dd definitely edited out Stonehill’s comments, but Stonehill left out continual elements of this testimony at the public Q&As, next to dd.

    All because it didn’t fit dd’s “narrative.” And _that_ is what I find disheartening.

  77. Seneschal says:

    Let’s try and replace Larry Norman’s name with David Di Sabatino’s for a moment:

    “Part of David’s dysfunction was that in order to hide some of his bad behavior, he would threaten and bully anyone who was threatening or questioning his created reality.”

    Pam Norman says that David left her threatening messages when she questioned his film. David sent Kristin at Solid Rock a threatening email. It sure sounds like this statement by Di Sabatino is a projection of his own behavior.

    “He was deathly afraid of the truth coming to the surface. His closest friends say this fear was worse to him than the threat of hell itself.”

    This is why Di Sabatino is deleting comments from his Facebook page. Don’t believe me? Try and leave a comment that asks a hard question and then add the URL of the Failed Angle website. David won’t allow it to be posted because he doesn’t want the truth to come to the surface. Please try it. You’ll be surprised at the censorship Di Sabatino practices.

    “For years I’d watch him throw the first punch then run into the corner, put ashes on his face and claim the other guy started it.”

    Kinda like Di Sabatino making the claim that some of the documentation at the Failed Angle website is fake, and then when he is asked for an example he runs into a corner of silence and then tries to snow everybody by saying that everyone in favor of Larry Norman is a master manipulator.

    David projects quite often. Just look at the things he says and then see how they apply to himself as well.

  78. Believe says:

    Nick it’s not a contradiction…it’s your misunderstanding of my communication.

    dd’s Rhetorical Thesis…if I’m interpreting it correctly…is that Norman is a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing…yet God used him regardless.

    And, that Stonehill is a believer attached to the flesh…a King David type…having sinned mightily in his life…past and probably present.

    dd’s is entitled to his “narrative’…it’s a Rhetorical social commentary in a genre called Documentary Film. Its nature is to make a claim, support it and draw a conclusion for the viewer.

    dd is the “discerner” if you will…and is passing judgment on the whole Norman/Stonehill situation.

    You are misunderstanding, IMO, what a “documentary”…the type that dd does…really is.

    If you want a “fair trial”…take it into a court room and cross-examine all of the “witnesses” and draw your conclusions. dd has done this in his own mind…and his expression of what he’s discerned is his documentary (a Subjective Interpretation of “facts”…”events”…and “testimony”…We’ll get to see all of this in its Objective form at true Judgment.

    Until then, God allows men to rise and fall…and people to comment on their example…and somehow He uses it all for His glory.

    Does dd know for certain that Norman was a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing and that Stonehill is a King David type believer? No, he has his “belief”…but Knowledge is where “belief” and “truth” intersect. We won’t have that Knowledge for certain until Judgment.

    That is my assumption…and that, I believe, is dd’s assumption…and the overall commentary appears to be that God uses fallen men…even those who are Wolves…and those who are sinful believers.

    To me, it has the potential to be a Redemptive message…as does Frisbee.

  79. Josh Hamrick says:

    Too much ugliness for me, from both sides. I’ll see the movie then decide.

  80. Nick says:

    To paraphrase Josh’s comment, “Too much ugliness for me, from both sides. I’ll see only only one side, then decide. And I’ll be sure to contribute to that one-side’s bank account”

  81. Believe says:

    Nick…no such thing as bad Publicity ….eh? 🙂

  82. Nick says:

    Believe,

    What the “Failed Angle” site alleges is that dd knows a whole lot more, and is not being fully honest. The “And God still used him” is a cop-out, an insult to all parties involved.

    All the while Randy Stonehill can continue performing for church venues, best as he can, so long as the sordid subject matter is never broached. (And why should it? A CCM artist’s private life can contain derivations of all the deadly sins, and we may never know it).

    Think about it. If you allow DD’s analysis to take root, that Norman was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, then he very well BETTER have ALL the facts displayed, and not play by the rules of a Michael Moore documentary. We’re talking about a human being–created in the image of God–for crying out loud. Think about that long and hard before passing judgment as to one is a “David” or “Wolf.”

  83. Believe says:

    It’s a Rhetorical exercise…take it as such.

    And, those challenging it and questioning it can and should…and are entitled to their opinions and conclusions…right or wrong…again, won’t know for sure until Judgment.

    dd’s “Frisbee” was Emmy nominated…and “where God guides, He provides…” 🙂

    (that was just in fun CC pastors…don’t be angry with me 🙂 )

  84. Nick says:

    It’s not a rhetorical exercise. Excluding pertinent information knowingly is bearing false witness. With the goal for the evangelical public to eat this up.

  85. Believe says:

    “Excluding pertinent information knowingly is bearing false witness.”

    So, Nick, if someone intentionally excludes pertinent information regarding a situation…would you call that lying by omission as well as bearing false witness?

    If so, what is your view if a sitting pastor were doing this? A priest? The Pope? Should he be removed from ministry? Should church discipline be exercised if confronted and unrepentant?

  86. Lutheran says:

    One thing that hit me when reading some of the documentation on Allen Flemming’s web site…

    Did anyone ever think that when that suitcase struck Larry on the airline flight that subsequently, he may have suffered from some type of cognitive disturbance? It’s quite
    common for a blow like that to affect one’s brain functioning and in a major way.

    Just wondering…

  87. Believe says:

    Nick said, ““And God still used him” is a cop-out, an insult to all parties involved.”

    Nick, I sure could have used you in previous discussions on the PP regarding other situations.

    I’ve heard that rationale so many times regarding another situation (the “And God still used him”…)

    Trying hard to “move forward…” baby steps….

  88. Nick says:

    Well, the only reason you brought up the Pope is because you’ve visited my website, to which I hope you enjoyed your stay. I’m also very willing to debate the current “rhetorical” situation… provided the charges stick. Would you believe that there are hundreds of Catholics who have analyzed the MSM and found (gasp!) erroneous reporting, in spades? Perhaps that’s why I’m sensitive about making sure there’s a full, balanced portrait in regards to Larry’s life.

    As to “And God still used him.”. This is a cop-out when calling a guy a wolf, and the person can’t defend himself.

    Does this help?

  89. Believe says:

    Nick,

    dd’s documentary is a Rhetorical exercise (and very well might contain half-truths, lies, omissions, you name it)…it is not “Canon” ala the Council of Trent…but even Canon is built on “consensus” and is a Rhetorical exercise based on man’s interpretation and judgment of what was and wasn’t “Inspired” by the Holy Spirit.

    dd is a filmmaker. He has a world-view…and on a micro-level…a view of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill and that whole situation. If he’s “bearing false witness”…then extend him the same grace, forgiveness, mercy and benefit of the doubt you want extended to Larry Norman and the Pope (assuming you’re OK with Catholic Priests sexually abusing kids…and the apparent cover-ups, minimizing and stonewalling).

    If you want to get upset about something…you’ve got major problems within the RCC to deal with…rather than worrying about what dd says (or doesn’t say) about Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill. dd is not a pastor or church leader or denomination or non-denomination denomination or the Pope himself. He’s a filmmaker and a sinner and a pew-sitter just like you and me.

    The “and God still uses him”…as if that should excuse bad behavior (especially at the Church Leader level)…that sure is a cop-out…isn’t it? I have no defense for that one…and have heard it many times as a defense in my situation…except that somehow God uses even total jerks to spread the Gospel and allows them to seemingly “get away with it” for a long time. I don’t like it, but that appears to be reality.

  90. pineapple head says:

    God never condones the actions of jerks, but in his sovereignty He can use them. Perhaps it’s more accurate, He uses the truth they communicate even as they fail miserably as humans.

    Paul was slandered by people who claimed he was no longer any use to God, but Paul rejoiced in the fact that the Gospel, even under false pretenses was being preached.

    But, once a person is identified as injuring the sheep in the midst of their ministry, they must be reined in. To knowingly allow someone to hurt people just because they do some good is wrong.

  91. Nick says:

    Now _you’re_ the one bearing false witness, Believer.

    I do not support pedophilia, and it’s inane and irresponsible to state otherwise. The debate is that the Pope, far from obscuring justice, actually helped accelerate justice for the victims. Because of him, measures were put into place that caused such instances to drop substantially in the lat eight years. It’s the single largest drop of such cases amongst all public and religious groups, save Jewish Rabbis.

    In every situation where a charge came across his desk, he pushed for prosecution of the pedophilia priests. Every time. And Pope Benedict is largely responsible for this.

    I am grateful for the media in 2002, for highlighting a serious problem that insulted the victims. Actions were taken and priests were laicized. If I am more skeptical about this round of negative stories, it’s because nothing has stuck–the MSM has not been able to refute their corrections, mistranslations, musunderstandings of church doctrine and internal structure, and deliberate obfuscations on their part.

    Don’t take my word for it. Read about it on the Catholic blogosphere–look at both sides. You will be committing the same sin as dd if you do not.

  92. Believe says:

    Nick…I used the words “assuming” and “apparent” to hedge for exampling purposes. I don’t know you and now that you’ve clearly stated you’re not OK with pedophilia…I take your word for it.

    Regarding the RCC and the scandals…I’m sure there are two sides to the stories…probably several sides.

    There will be much written, discussed, blogged, printed, litigated and possibly documentaries made on those issues…and we’ll all chime in with our opinions and “beliefs” on the matters….and somewhere will lie the Objective Truth.

    I agree in principle that it is best to get all sides…before drawing any conclusions…assuming the other sides are willing to dialogue. I concede that point.

    It is also a cop-out to excuse bad behavior in the name of God…just because “God uses them”…I concede that point also.

    Still hold that dd is a documentary filmmaker and his movies are Rhetorical exercises…and should be viewed as such.

  93. Nick says:

    I accept your concessions, and I trust you are serving God best you can.

    But it is dicey to come out w a documentary of this nature, without making every effort to do so by providing as much balance as possible.

    And while you may be comfortable with the possibility that such omissions seriously flaw the entirity of the venture (without detracting from the Bible “story”), others will take away that there is no other side to explore. And that is bearing false witness… (after all, the DVD box didn’t say fiction, and real names/testimonies are used).

  94. Erunner says:

    In watching the documentary I thought a pretty clear story had been presented. There were members of the group “People” who commented on Larry’s antics and his being asked to leave the group. A decision one of the original members seemed to later regret. Evidently Larry told a story that in no way resembled what the band members shared.

    A big theme was the relationship between Larry and Randy. Different people shared about Larry’s inappropriate behavior with her when Randy was away. I’m not sure why they would lie about that or what they had to gain by lying.

    Many others spoke about Larry in an unflattering way who were a big part of his life along the way. Again, I don’t know what they stood to gain by lying.

    Randy was the most believable to me. I have been fooled before but Randy appeared very genuine as he spoke about Larry’s “son” in Australia. At the end he and many others had some nice things to say about Larry.

    Since I am no insider and am also a bigger fan of Larry than I was/am of Randy I have nothing at stake in all of this.

    I was bugged by the term “A Bible story” at the beginning of the film but as I think about it I’m more inclined to agree with it. Stories in Scripture are God breathed and infallible. This film is certainly not.

    I’m sure stuff was left out. David made this film and controlled what did and did not appear. He can address those issues. I thought this was much better done than the film on Lonnie Frisbee. I don’t see the arguments regarding this ending any time soon and I’m open to being wrong. Won’t be the first time!

  95. Graham says:

    Nick, I pretty much agree with all your points as in post No.66. The Documentary has a very one sided feel to it, and as such is fundamentally flawed. I posted a few comments on the Facebook pages, recommending that everybody who has an interest in the truth of the matter should read the documents on Failed Angle, especially the 11 page letter from LN to RS. My comments were pretty neutral IMO, concluding that the underlying message here is that man is flawed, and that the heart of man is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things; and that this applies to all. My comments were all deleted within minutes of being posted!

    I cannot agree with the arguements above that this is a rhetorical exercise. The condemning of a man as a “wolf” and a charlatan deserves much more than rhetoric. To omit comments and evidence that counters your “agenda” is heinously irresponsible in this context.

    I sincerely hope that soon the “full truth” will emerge as these half truths and lies of omission leave an UNHOLY mess.

  96. Nat says:

    Fallen Angel makes claims. Failed Angle refutes those claims with documentary evidence. Fallen Angel’s maker says that those documents are doctored. This cracks me up. It’s almost as funny as the claim that Fallen Angel is an impartial record of the truth!

    Come on – if the documents are doctored – prove it.

    “Larry doctored the documents” – fail. 0/10

  97. Graham says:

    I am not convinced that Failed Angle as it stands now actually thoroughly refutes anything. But it shines a bright light on the bias and half truths, and the disingenuous comments of certain participants!

    Anyone know when a site update will be done on Failed Angle?

    I wish the DNA test for Daniel could be done asap just to bring that episode towards closure.

  98. pineapple head says:

    Could it be as simple as this…

    Early on, both Larry and Randy were talented, yet somewhat immature young men who made a lot of relational mistakes

    In the course of time, Larry started a record company with good intentions, but wasn’t much of a business man, and as a result left a lot of people hurt and angry with him

    Randy, perhaps more than others, couldn’t get over the pain and did and said things that only added fuel to the fire

    Larry, in his own way, dealt with all of this by sort of ignoring his injurious actions, choosing rather to love and forgive his brothers…and he expected the same in return.

    Bottom line, I’m guessing that Larry really hurt some people. Some haven’t gotten over it.

  99. pineapple head says:

    One thing is for sure: thanks to our sin nature, relationships can be quite complicated! Unraveling a conflict isn’t easy…there are layers of injury, immaturity, passive-aggresive activity, action and reaction. Some people knock down boundaries, others don’t know how to put boundaries in place.

    We can think that we are innocent of creating a mess, but almost always we have a hand in things one way or another.

    Sometimes we actually are an innocent party, but we finally get tempted to take the low road. And we feel justified because of the pain incurred at the hand of our enemy.

  100. Debra says:

    The Norman camp has RESPONDED for their dead brother, son, father & friend, who is unable to respond for himself, as he is now with Jesus. They have stopped miles short of accusation ( which by the way, they have truckloads of evidence to back up , if they wanted to go down that road) & released only material enough to refute the ACCUSATIONS in the peice named ‘Fallen Angel’. They waited a considerable amount of time to do so , and as it says to do in The Word, prayed for their enemies. But when Larry’s 80 yr old’s mothers personal address ( physical as in where she lives) was released & she & her grandson Michael were receiving hate mail, Allen Flemming ‘s sense of righteous anger & Godly justice & protection for the innocent was kicked into gear. As I read Failed Angle ,I experience many emotions ,and am impressed by the measured , intelligent and compassionate response. But I am really impressed & softened by Allen’s concern for Daniel Robinson. Another innocent in this mix.

    Fallen Angel has been panned by professional non-christian gossip folks with ‘we’ve been in this business a long time & we know what we’re looking at …we small a rat’ … Ok so even people who didn’t know Larry, still don’t know Jesus and weren’t blessed by Larry’s music are amazed at this piece of film. Not in a good way , clearly.

    So imagine how folks, who did know him, were blessed by his music & do know Jesus feel. Yeah…cranky.

    So to me, Failed Angle is much needed light.

    I am a servant, and so was he. I serve the Creator, not the accuser.

  101. Joe Taylor says:

    Larry and Pam and I were good friends. Sarah was my girlfriend before she married Randy. I did art for Larry including the cover art for In Another Land. The documentary was disturbing. I’d like to get the whole story.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.