Unanswered Questions – Part I
I have had numerous Byskal sympathizers ask for evidence that what I have been reporting is correct. What I thought I would offer is the complete list of the questions that were put to Edward Byskal by the elders of the Cloverdale Bibleway Church in their letter of September 12, 2009. As far as I understand, these questions were never answered by him. His failure to answer them caused a mass exodus from the church.
Here is the question to my readers: If your pastor was asked these questions and refused to answer them, would you still attend your church? If your answer is “yes”, then there is a membership card awaiting you at the Cloverdale Bibleway
I have tried to contact Edward Byskal through the church website but am yet to receive a response. If he wants to formally answer these questions, I would be happy to post them unabridged on this blog, provided that they did not contain the names of anyone other then Edward Byskal.
Here are the first 5 questions, with many more to follow in the coming days. These are not my questions but those put to Edward Byskal by the church elders. I have included the footnotes from the letter which provided doctrinal support for the positions that the elders took in the letter. I am not necessarily in agreement with all of the doctrinal issues being raised but am presenting them for sake of completeness. They are generally quotations of William Branham or biblical passages.
The names of all of the people referred to in the letter have been removed as have other items that might compromise their identity. These have been replaced with descriptive terms in square brackets.
From the church elders to Edward Byskal:
1. Why were [the minor child]’s parents never told of the inappropriate conduct between [your daughter] and [the minor child], (a minor in 1990) when you first became aware of the situation? The pastor does not have primary responsibility for children1; they are the responsibility of the parents. Furthermore, restitution or resolution for sexual misconduct with a minor under parental headship involves parents2. The relationship would have been brought to an end immediately if the parents had been informed. The parents were betrayed and their trust violated and the high priest of the home was dishonoured.
2. Why did you not inform [your daughter]’s husband when the relationship was first discovered3?
3. Why do you deny that you met with [the minor child] in 1990? You have stated to several of us that you had no knowledge that any sexual contact had taken place between [your daughter] and [the minor child] in 1990. However, based on the testimony of the witnesses it appears that you are either not telling the truth or have confused the meetings in 1990 and 1996 in your mind. The contact that took place between them prior to your meeting with them was clearly adulterous. The appearance is also created that you did not inform the parents or the husband in 1990 because you were aware that your daughter’s actions were, by the standards of the world and the law of the land, criminal in nature.
4. Why was the issue of “penetration” so important to you when any sexual contact is clearly adulterous in nature4?
5. Why did you make no attempt, and took absolutely no precautions, to keep [the minor child] and your daughter apart? You were aware that your daughter continued to [provide services] for [the minor child] but you did nothing to ensure that the improper relationship between your daughter and a minor was discontinued even though you stated that you continued to be unhappy with the relationship between [your daughter] and [the minor child] as it related to [their spending time] together.
Some might perceive that you did not deal with the issue because you knew that [the minor child] was a minor (and the possible criminal charges to your daughter could result).
1 The children are supposed to know discipline, they should get it at home. But even if it’s mine, my kids get in here at anytime, they get disorderly, I don’t want you to draw one string; Sarah, Rebekah, Joseph, Billy, or whoever it might be. You tell me, I’ll see to it.
If they are members of this church, then you should take two or three with you and call that parent into a private meeting, into one of the offices. I don’t care who it is, if it’s me, if it’s Brother Neville, if it’s Billy Paul and his little boy, if it’s Brother Collins and one of his children, or any of the rest of you. We are… We love one another, but we’re duty bound to God and this Word. If it’s Doc, no matter who it is, we’re to call one another in and be honest with one another. How can God ever deal with us, if we’re not honest with one another? How we going to be honest with Him? CHURCH.ORDER 63-1226
2 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. Deuteronomy 22:28 – 29
3 A woman come not long ago, and she said, “Oh, I’ve confessed all that.” She was nervous, and had a breakdown, and said, “I confessed all that to God.” I said, “You have to confess it to your husband. It wasn’t God that you committed adultery against; it was your husband.” That’s right. QUESTIONS.AND.ANSWERS 59-0628E
4 …no man should ever kiss a woman till he’s married to her. That’s male and female glands crossing. Let it be wherever it may be; it’s wrong. It’s potentially a sex act. When male and female glands touch, it’s a sex act…But look at it today, all these movies and things, and one big conglomeration of kissing and hugging. And it’s absolutely almost public adultery everywhere, and the people so blind they don’t see it. That’s right. Everything’s in a Sodom condition, Sodomite everywhere, as the Bible said. THE PRESENCE OF GOD UNRECOGNIZED 64-0618 (emphasis added)