All we are saying is give Sibby a chance.

It’s been noted over the last day or so that Mssr. Heidelberger over at Madville Times seems to be at war with the SD Blogosphere’s current oldest resident Steve Sibson. Why? Because I’m sure Sibby makes him mad.

But what he’s allowing in Sibby’s place makes even less sense.

Yes, Sibby has annoyed the dickens out of me from time to time.  But recently, there seems to be a change of heart on Sibby’s part.

Does he believe the same things he’s always believed? Sure. And that’s ok.  What’s changed is that we seem to have someone a little more willing to listen to what others have to say, and to allow them to say it.  Sibby’s comment section under his website is not subject to pre-approval anymore, and after some crude comments were left there by another party,  I offered a few of my own experiences with this same person.

And I had this reply from Steve:


I have done a lot of stupid things myself. I am trying real hard to stay on policy and not make things personal. That is why I choose not to name names…yet.

All I am saying right now is Cory is blocking the wrong blogger.

Thanks for dropping by.

Posted by: Steve Sibson

Read that here.  And he’s right.

Part of this conversation involves Madville Times‘ resident liberal Cory Heidelberger blocking out Steve.  In fact, according to Sibby, Cory blocks him from even viewing his website.  But at the same time allowing crude language, profanity, misogyny, and rabid anti-Catholic hate speech on the part of another, who writes his own blog with all those things, as well as the glorification of drug use.

So…. in your face conservatism is bad, but making crude jokes about women and anti-catholic hate speech is ok?  Maybe to Cory it is; but when I used to allow Mr. Kurtz free license to comment here, it went from ok comments to ones I wont allow, and there comes a point when all a person is putting up is sex acts, profanity and hate speech in my comment section that it’s not worth the effort to filter otherwise.

Above we have a statement from Sibby which clearly notes that he’s not trying to make things personal, and I’m going to take that at face value, as well as his actions. At least I can trust Steve is interested in policy, he’s saying he’s trying to not make things personal,  and he’s not just trying to shock people with comments about oral sex.

In other words, Sibby is welcome here, as he should be elsewhere.

Is Cory is blocking the wrong blogger? Yes, I’d agree with Steve. I’d even go so far to say it’s ok to disagree, and I’d personally note that there’s no reason to block him.

To paraphrase John Lennon: All we are saying is give Sibby a chance.

72 Replies to “All we are saying is give Sibby a chance.”

  1. Anonymous

    Sibby basically called Cory’s wife a heathen (witch, new age theologist, NWO conspirator; its tough to tell with Steve), for being a member of the ELCA. As a member of the ELCA myself, I take offense to hearing that I am worshiping a mix of Marx and Satan (according to Sibby). Just as you take offense to LK making the unnecessary molestation jokes about the problems the Catholic Church has encountered. While LK is certainly an a-hole, so is Steve. I would hope you would ban someone from your blog if they spouted off and called your special needs child names, all while masking it is some weird tin-foil covered world view. Let LK and Steve rot in their own little corners of the outhouse known as the SD Blogosphere.

    1. katzy

      He posts as IP or eye pea (pee) or LK, probably among others, and is the most hateful, irrelevant, idiotic poster I’ve encountered on my time on blogs. He must be a very unhappy person, but it’s too bad that he feels he must expound his unhappiness to others. Consider yourself lucky if you don’t know him.

  2. Drew Dennert

    Thanks for this post, it’s great to see the GOP making an attempt to mend relationships and work together again.

  3. Steve Sibson

    Before I respond to the first comment, I want to thank Pat for stopping by my web site today and for sharing with his readers his experience.

    Now in regard to the first comment, first of all Cory gave me the boot before I wrote that post. He basically said my research was not welcome and go put it up on my own web site, so I did.

    Second, the research I presented was mainly from a Dr. Peter Jones (any relation to Troy?) that was meant as a warning to Erin. This is what I said in a comment that was in response to what Julie Gross said in reaction to my post:

    “I really don’t want to get into a personal attack toward Cory or Erin. But the truth needs to be told. Even though Cory has blocked me at Madville, I will allow him and Erin to start a conversation on the research I have presented on this thread. I hope the two, plus the many others who have been deceived, gain from it.”

    In the book of Proverbs we have something to the effect that man sharpens man as metal sharpens metal. If there are issues that don’t seem correct on my thread regarding pagan monism infiltrating American Christianity (and not just the ECLA), then leave a comment and let us have a discussion about it.

    Yes, I catch a lot of grieve for talking about issues that we are just not suppose to talk about. My question is why? Who made up those rules? I say we are closed minded if we don’t at least take a serious look and see.

    I have not been doing much blogging over the last couple of years as I have been busy taking some religion classes at DWU here in Mitchell and have been reading many books. I also look at the end notes and purchase some of the books referenced. I don’t take anything at face value. Now I want to share some of the stuff I found. Go ahead and disagree with it, but at least give a solid reason why you do. That was what I expected out of Cory and he seldom could do it.

  4. Anonymous

    Thank you Mr Powers, glad to see you do the right thing by the Sibbymeister. He is a good egg, even though he does give a pound when a dash will do.

  5. Anonymous

    Thanks for your comments Pat. I visit Madville Times once in a great while to see what Cory is ranting about, but I would never consider posting on his liberal blog. Sibby has more patience than I do and I’m not surprised that Cory blocked him while continuing to let LK spew his hateful rants. Typical liberal atheistic intolerance!

  6. LK

    I’ve been commenting as LK for a few years. I blog at The Displaced Plainsman. Kurtz uses lower case and most people notice the difference between my upper case and his lower case. A few people here haven’t. To avoid confusion, I’ll start commenting here as Kal Lis as I have at Madville.

  7. caheidelberger

    Clarification 1 to Anon 6:31: “LK” is not “larry kurtz”. “LK” now posts as “Kal Lis”. He blogs as the Displaced Plainsman. He is a fair, thoughtful individual.

    Clarification 2: the proper abbreviation for “Monsieur” is “M.”

    Clarification 3: With old DWC erased, I can’t pin down the exact text, but I seem to recall Mr. Powers responding rather negatively to Mr. Sibson’s insults toward Mrs. Powers. Not that I take my moral cues from Mr. Powers, but I get the distinct impression that Mr. Powers is defending the wrong blogger for the wrong reasons. Neither we nor our wives should be the focus of our discussions of the future of our state.

    Cory – I believe Steve is trying to be a better person, so I’ll give him that chance, and welcome him with open arms.

    If Mr. Kurtz decides to go back to behaving how he used to two years ago, he might be welcome to post again. Until he cares to act like a gentleman, forget it. As the father of a daughter, I’m kind of surprised that you endorse his brand of crudeness, profanity and misogyny. Haven’t we moved past calling congresswomen MILF’s and questioning their fidelity because of political affiliation?

    With regards to your last admonition, let me know when you practice what you preach. -P

      1. PP at the SDWC Post author

        All I know is that it was in the spam filter. Where Larry’s trash belongs.

  8. Steve Sibson

    Cory, what I mean by disappointing is that my intent was to be an asset to your blog. I thought that we had plenty of things to agree on, all we had to do was work up the correct solution. You must have seen the solution to be counter to your worldview, so you struck out at me. Or was it some of your cohorts who saw the threat?

  9. Steve Sibson

    “Neither we nor our wives should be the focus of our discussions of the future of our state.”

    So Cory, why did you use your wife and daughter as pawns to call Representative Jon Hansen a misogynist?

    Sorry you decided to keep digging the hole.

  10. Steve Sibson

    “Neither we nor our wives should be the focus of our discussions of the future of our state.”

    Wait a second. Cory did you really say that. Seems like the misogynist label belongs on you.

  11. Steve Hickey

    So we give Sibby another chance even though he has yet to reciprocate such graces to anyone else. My last interaction with him was zero policy and all personal. Forgive me if I am not quick to embrace the suddenly softer Sibby. How he went after Erin Heidelberger was unjustified and unacceptable, and it was only last week. I’ll wait to see more fruit of genuine change. Maybe he should take a class there at Dakota Wesleyan on how to be more winsome.

    1. Anonymous

      The only reason I can see that he is being given another “chance” is that both Steve and Pat are both able to feed their Need to castigate and humiliate all those who disagree with them; all enemies real or imagined.

      1. Steve Hickey

        Sibby, who appointed you arbiter of all that is true? I didn’t read Dr Jones analysis because I could care less what he thinks. You dumping extended citations from your University of Google studies effectively ends dialog. If you want to win me, talk to me — don’t label me or others. You have formed and then broadcast sweeping false conclusions about many things and many people and it’s a real turnoff . Here’s a tip: review your interactions with people online and make a list of a dozen conversation stoppers you regularly employ. Presently you are oblivious to the fact that certain references effectually stop your ability to communicate with others. One is the New World Order. You can believe in that and never reference it directly and keep a conversation going.

        1. Steve Sibson

          Yes Mr. Hickey, Cory tried that line of argument on me too as he tried to get me to stop exposing my research. Sad that it was in regard to threads where the conversation numbered over 100 comments.

          Don’t blame me when you don’t want to deal with the content so you instead resort to personal attacks.

    2. Steve Sibson

      “Maybe he should take a class there at Dakota Wesleyan on how to be more winsome.”

      I refuse to sell my soul and ignore truth in order to become more popular in this world, or what you call “winsome”.

      1. Steve Hickey

        By winsome I mean you win people over to your way of thinking. There are basic manners, social skills, graces and courtesies which can be employed all without compromising on your convictions. Without those you get blocked from blogs and marginalize yourself from being able to contribute anything meaningful to the conversation. Lobbing labels, insults and long shot judgments at people backed by “Internet research” wins no one over to your point of view. Telling yourself you are a defender of truth while spewing falsehoods about others has put distance between us.

        1. Steve Sibson

          “Telling yourself you are a defender of truth while spewing falsehoods about others has put distance between us.”

          Look who is judging who here Mr. Hickey. I don’t need to marginalize myself when you are there to do it for me. I made the effort to win you over on the scorecard issue a couple of years ago, and people told me how you used it to stab me in the back during a public meeting. Once burned, twice shy.

          So have you decided to accept the feminist and homosexual movement into the Body of Christ in order to be winsome? Those are the components of the ELCA that I was exposing as false teachings that have infiltrated the Body of Christ in America. Why are you painting me as the bad guy?

          1. Steve Hickey

            The victim card comes out. The scorecard guy feels burned that someone he arbitrarily rated defended himself. I have no recollection of ever mentioning you in a public meeting. They have things to take for your paranoia. My positions on the issues you mention haven’t shifted and that’s what I’m talking about– you insinuate and insinuate, never using the measure you use on others on yourself. And your insinuations are ludicrous— there probably isn’t another elected official in SD more vocal on the marriage issue than me and you insinuate I’m in kahoots with the socially liberal wing of the ELCA? Hard to have a dialog with you. Why can’t you see that? There are other venues where I talk openly about church stuff. You too should learn there is a time and place to say all you think.

            1. Steve Sibson

              “insinuate I’m in kahoots with the socially liberal wing of the ELCA”

              Never said that. You are making up falsehoods to personally attack me while I am trying to have a discussion regarding the theological bases to policy issues. As Pat posted on this thread, I am trying very hard to stay away from that kind of stuff and I am not about to be tempted into it by you.

              Second, I do not believe various people, who I love and trust, saying the same thing are all just making stuff up. Your denial holds no water with me. Sad when legislators refuse to be held accountable for their votes.

            2. Winsome or not

              Didn’t Representative Hickey pull the “victim card” with his own voting record, that was reported out in the report cards?

              Then he used it in the election post card to point out he is not really a supporter of the Republican party platform so much as he is an independent?

                1. Steve Sibson

                  So Mr. Hickey, you now have to admit that the scorecards truly did reflect the SDGOP policy positions. Or you have to admit to being a tricky politician.

                  1. Steve Hickey

                    No Sibby. They reflect your interpretation of how the platform relates to various bills. Some bills pit republican platform tenets against each other. If we vote one way we are somehow against personal property rights however if we vote the other way we are weak on the Second Amendment?! Both are platform tenets. I get it that you can’t see it.

                    This session we had a pro-life bill than saved the state lots of money but looked the other way on illegal immigration. I can’t wait to see how you rate us on that bill this year.

                    This year limited-govt, Tea Party Republicans voted for another unfunded layer of government bureaucracy to save cage fighters from themselves. I proposed we ban it altogether and take a stand on violence in society. That’s certainly a family values Republican Party Platform suggestion, or no?? What is the SDGOP platform position on the cage fighting bill and amendments?

                    Maybe somebody reading this can see why the majority of elected officials in the state reject your scorecards. They are subjective and therefore misleading to the public and a disservice to legislators. But we’ve been over this ad nauseam and I’m wasting my time.

                    1. Winsome or not

                      But yet you crow about getting a perfect scorecard by the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce on Crony-capitolism bills that grow government and raise taxes?

                      Have you even read the SDGOP platform? Do you even know what it means to be a Republican?

                    2. Steve Hickey

                      Know what it means to be a Republican? Good grief, get a grip on yourself. Better yet, come out of the world of anonymous sniping and run for office yourself and show us all what a real Republican looks like.

                      My tweet today on the recent Chamber ranking had this smirk 😉 at the end of it and I included a comment about some bad votes. Apparently you missed that.

                      Moreover, I’ve been known to vote against banks, big hospitals, big events centers and denounce corporate personhood. But according to you I’m a crony capitalist??!

  12. Winsome or not

    Steve Sibson is a humble, kind, sincere, and honest man with a huge heart of gold. I will take that over the herd of dishonest winsome RINO politicians in Pierre, anyday.

  13. mhs

    So, Mr Corey exercises his constitutional right to permit who and what he wants on his privately-maintained site. Mr. Sibby gets all fluffed up and demands access to it. What’s next, is Mr. Sibby going to file a civil rights suit demanding access? Get big government involved to protect his rights? Let’s demand Eric Holder get involved. What fun!

    1. Steve Sibson

      mhs, good point. Can a business man refuse to serve someone just because they are Christian?

      Would you stand on your lawn and tell all those who walk by that Representative Jon Hansen is a misogynist who is a danger to wives and daughters?

      1. anonymous

        Sibby, if you insulted my wife the way you insulted Cory’s wife, I’d make sure you wouldn’t get within a block of my yard. In fact, you don’t even have to throw a personal insult my way first — you would not be welcome at my home.

  14. Anooner

    Who was it that said “your friends who are crazy 80% of the time, are crazy 80% of the time.”

    Heidelberger is under no obligation to provide Sibson a forum for his ranting. Sibs has to go out and try and hijack sites with readers because he doesn’t generate interest on his own. People grow tired of lengthy, attenuated, cut-and-paste jobs from the fringes that always end with him claiming he just showed you the truth.

    If I lament one thing about Pat erasing his prior content, is that several years ago I immortalized Sibs forever in limmerick form, those works may now be lost to the literary world forever. Pat don’t censor or suppress art, give us back those limmericks. I know you have em.

  15. Steve Sibson

    “Sibs has to go out and try and hijack sites with readers because he doesn’t generate interest on his own.”

    Another false and personal attack. Cory is upset by my attempts to defend those he personally attacked. Such as Representative Jon Hansen who Cory said was a danger to his wife and daughter. He attacked those who are concerned about Agenda 21. He constantly attacks Christians with a conspiracy theory that we all want to set up a theocracy. All issues that require a significant amount of content to support my positions with.

    And by going through the process I became dismayed by the Democrats at Madville saying they are right and the other side is wrong. And then come over here to read about how the GOP is right and the other side is wrong. Both sides can’t be right, but can both sides be wrong? I don’t care if the latter conclusion makes me unpopular. I am not picking a side to just have friends.

    1. Steve Sibson

      And based on the process I just described, do you all really think you are going to solve anything? Or is all of this political fighting just a distraction so most don’t know what is really going on.

  16. Troy Jones Post author


    I am not related to Dr. Peter Jones. Peter Jones has some interesting commentary with regard to the implications of the Gnostic heresy creeping into the theology of some religions and/or worldview of people. But, at the same time, I would not give him extra-ordinary credence. A quick read of some of his other commentary contains false accusation with regard to Catholic Teaching that a simple read of the Catechism of the Catholic Church would dispel.

    Based on his faulty/shoddy analysis on matters I have a working level of knowledge (Catholicism), I would not give him much credibility with regard to his analysis of other religions or worldviews.

    While I presume Sibby’s resolve to engage in personal attacks is sincere, the transformation is not complete. His less than positive relationship of Cory Heidelberger is not a secret. But, questioning his wife’s aspiration to become a Lutheran minister as “goddess Erin” or presuming her theology is Gnostic or a “reincarnation” ancient pagan ways is its own form of personal attack. I’m not Lutheran for what I believe are good reasons and not in agreement with some of its changing Doctrine. But, I do not think its ministers are aspiring “gods or goddesses.”

    Furthermore, it is ludicrous for Sibby to project onto Steve Hickey acceptance of the feminist and homosexual movement because Hickey disagrees with the above attack on Cory’s wife. Unlike his attack on Cory’s wife, Sibby’s attack on Hickey is false with regard Hickey’s view on these matters.

    Also, I do not doubt Sibby is personally a “humble, kind, sincere, and honest man.” I hold the same position of Steve Hickey. But, Sibby also has a great deal of confidence his research and worldview is wholly correct. Unfortunately, the heavy reliance on Peter Jones does not inspire confidence. Ironically, Sibby’s confidence that he has special insight is to some degree gnostic because it asserts certain people have a mystical or otherwise superior insight into Wisdom. Another aspect of gnosticism is the concept that the Fall was so complete that man is now inherently bad (vs. retaining the “made good” in the beginning but seriously stained).

    In the end, if Sibby wants good open dialogue, the conversation can not include dismissal of those with whom he disagrees with the attitude displayed above by “winsome or not” by referring to them as a “herd of dishonest winsome RINO politicians” or bringing in one’s spouse and vocational aspirations.

    Debate and discussion has two substantial purposes.

    1) Explanation. I want to understand the perspective and merits of contrary views that I hold. And, I would like people to undertand my views. We might never agree but we are less likely to presume another’s motives are sinister. Even if we agree to disagree, that in and of itself is a positive. And, if properly planted, the explanation may become a seed for future conversion.

    2) Conversion: After open and respectful discussion, I might realize errors in my views or convince the other person of their views. But, if the conversation always presumes and assumes the other person is ignorant or has sinister motives and I am always right, there is absolutely no opportunity of conversion (on either side). Instead the conversation just becomes personal attacks.

    There is a maxim: Worry about what you can control, not what you can’t. I can control the presentation of my views. I can’t control whether another person considers them correct views. And, failure to convince isn’t a personal attack. Maybe my views are wrong, maybe I poorly presented them and maybe the other person isn’t ready to hear the truth.

    Sibby might have views I currently disagree with that I may come to agree in time. But, if his views are communicated where the dominant message is I am insincere or have sinister motives, there will be no seed germination- not because the seeds were thrown on rocky ground but they were thrown covered in a poison.

    Maybe his views on the Governor’s economic development plan are correct. But, if all I hear is I am a “crony capitalist,” a “RINO” or desiring the “New World Order” (which is false), I will not hear his arguments. Too much poison.

    If a person reacts to my non-agreement with their views and they question my motives or intelligence, they are also presuming they are:

    1) Unquestionably right.
    2) They presented their views perfectly.

    Such an attitude is arrogant and condescending and certainly not humble. Hickey’s call to be winsome is the opposite. And, I believe it makes the other person open to the explanation and potential conversion.

    1. Troy Jones Post author

      The following sentence (“Unlike his attack on Cory’s wife, Sibby’s attack on Hickey is false with regard Hickey’s view on these matters.”) is less precise than it should have been. I meant to say the following:

      “Unlike his attack on Cory’s wife FOR WHICH HE PROVIDES NO EVIDENCE, Sibby’s attack on Hickey is CLEARLY false with regard Hickey’s view on these matters WITH JUST CURSORY RESEARCH.

      1. Steve Sibson

        Troy, I have plenty of research on Mr. Hickey including a couple of books he wrote and things he has posted on various web sites. I have chosen not to present any of it here. I would be glad to share some of it with you in person some time if you are interested.

        1. Steve Hickey

          Go ahead Sibby, go meet with people and speak ill of me and spread a bad report about me based on your laughable internet “research” and what you think I believe. You are clueless about what you are talking about and you haven’t changed a bit. If you say you want to follow the Bible, how does the Bible direct you to confront what you judge to be my errors? By spreading misinformation? By talking about me before you talk to me?? You’ve never talked to me. The Bible speaks against those who sow discord and “pass judgment on disputable matters.” You should make an appointment with me and express your concerns to my face and see what I have to say about them before you offer to share your Google studies with whoever will listen. You tell us below that you’ve read the Bible four times?? Wow. That’s impressive. I’ve always thought those with a little bit of info are the most dangerous. If I were to treat you as you treat me I’d make sure I tell everyone who will listen that you have an extensive new age and Jehovah’s Witness background. I don’t do that because that isn’t fair to who you are and I’d appreciate the same courtesy when you Google your key buzz words that set off your silly triggers about me. You need to focus on yourself and quit straining gnats while swallowing camels. I predict you are banned here again shortly.

          1. Steve Sibson

            “You’ve never talked to me. ”

            That is false, and when I have I got the same response you just issued now. Sorry that I am not at the level of an apostle and not worthy of your respect.

            “I predict you are banned here again shortly.”

            Thanks for your well wishes.

            1. Steve Hickey

              You’ve never talked to me about these issues. We’ve only shared niceties face to face at various meetings. I’ve never spoken to you on the phone. You’ve only attacked me online with your “research” and I welcome you to call my office and make an appointment to show me what you have and hear what I have to say. My office number is 357-8136 and ask for Sheryl – tell her I said yes to an appointment with you. Back and forth with me online like this is not talking to me. I don’t like to turd up political blogs with Bible stuff and so don’t engage your smears. It’s a sin for you to talk about me without first talking to me.

              1. Steve Sibson

                I hit your facebook wall about the NAR event down in Texas, and you told be to stop reading the Doctrine Police that are out on the internet. Then I tried talking to you about the scorecard, and we have already covered how well that went. I brought up Dominion Theology on Cory’s web site and you decided to pipe in with the same disrespectful approach that you used today.
                Not sure why I have to talk to you at this point in time in order to show people the books you wrote. But I will.

                1. Anonymous

                  “Not sure why I have to talk to you at this point in time in order to show people the books you wrote. But I will.”

                  Really? Are you 10 years old? You have nothing better to do with your time? Oh wait, you were going to try and not personally attack people. Oh well …

            1. Steve Hickey

              Yep – I agree. It’s hard to be winsome when I’m mad at him. It’s hard to stay on policy when he’s relentless with the personal smears and labels. I should listen to the zillion people who tell me to ignore him.

    2. Steve Sibson

      “Based on his faulty/shoddy analysis on matters I have a working level of knowledge (Catholicism), I would not give him much credibility with regard to his analysis of other religions or worldviews.”

      Troy, Nobody is perfect and faulty can be found in all of our work. But to discredit all of his work with your own faulty/shoddy review so that your worldview is safe is unfortunate. Again, I need specifics so that I can make my own determination if you are right or if Dr. Jones is right.

    3. Steve Sibson

      “Maybe his views on the Governor’s economic development plan are correct. But, if all I hear is I am a “crony capitalist,” a “RINO” or desiring the “New World Order” (which is false), I will not hear his arguments. Too much poison. ”

      Troy, because of your past work in that area, and my strong position that is also well research, perhaps your reaction today is a little biased. I do apologize if my work becomes upsetting. Instead of saying that those working in the system are corrupt, I would hope one can say that those who are in favor of economic development through government are setting up a system where corruption can flourish without making judgments on individuals. Same goes for the ECLA members. I am not making judgment on individual members, instead I am warning them to be on the look for problems. Dr. Jones made similar statements if you look harder.

    4. Anonymous

      ‘Also, I do not doubt Sibby is personally a “humble, kind, sincere, and honest man.” ‘

      If you lived in Mitchell, you would change your mind.

  17. Sodak no. 1

    When the Sibmeister is posting you can always count on a lot of comments… At least with this thread the subject isn’t being hijacked by Sibby .. It is Sibby.. Welcome back to the War Collage Sibs..

  18. Steve Sibson

    Troy, I give you credit for at least looking at Dr. Jones work. I suggest you take a harder look. His basis on certain individuals within Catholicism, not all in that faith, is heavily footnoted with sources that were on the inside.

    Clearly you and others have reacted in a way that attacks the messenger you simply was trying to prevent Christians from being deceived by certain actors working within various Christian denominations. All I can do is warn, it is up to each of you to take the warning seriously or pass it off as just one of my rants.

    I have read the Bible three times in the last three years and I am currently about one-fourth of the way through the fourth time. I used that as my standard while researching. I have not come to a final conclusion regarding Dr. Jones work, but I need more specifics from you if you want your opinion to have credibility. And I mean that with all due respect.

    And PS, Anooner is probably really upset with you for putting up such a long rant. (grin)

  19. Troy Jones Post author


    1) I do not discount all of his research. I read through his blog and found much of his writings well reasoned. In general, much of his commentary regarding gnosticism is reasoned (yet sometimes inconsistent). At the same time, even where elements of gnosticism exists, to accuse them of being intentionally deceptive presumes almost a gnostic wisdom I too reject.

    2) I read through a number of articles by Dr. Jones. He puts “Catholic” in front of a number of people, describes their views as if they correspond to Catholic Teaching. I really got out a chuckle out of his statement Jesuits were viscerally opposed to the Gospel since their beginning. That is just plain stupid or ignorant. Or his assertion Catholic contemplative prayer is a form of Hindu or Buddhist centering prayer. Centering prayer is illicit in the Church. Finally, He puts “Catholic” in front of a number of people, describes their views as if they correspond to Catholic Teaching when just referring to the Catechism he would know these views are expressly opposed to Catholic Teaching (maybe this is unintentional but it does belie a lack of attention to detail/vigor for accuracy. If this is the depth of his “research,” it is rational to be especially critical of his other research.

    3) I am not attacking the messenger or necessarily your message. But, I am attacking the fact you used as a vehicle for your message an unprovoked attack on an aspiring Lutheran minister. You say you aren’t passing judgment on “individual members” but refer to Erin Heidelberger as an aspiring “goddess” and mostly because of who she is married to. No matter the differences in theology you might have with her, consider you both confess Jesus Christ as Lord, you and her are probably closer theologically than she and her husband.

    4) If you are going to impugn Hickey and claim he holds positions contrary to his public positions (as pastor and elected representative) you have a moral obligation to provide the evidence. Defense of another’s integrity and motive (ala Ms. Heidelberger) is not a defense of their views or theology. And, to retaliate because of this defense by projecting views contrary to their public position is calumny. You don’t increase your credibility by falsely accusing another person.

    5) Just because you read the Bible annually doesn’t mean you may not be reading and interpreting it wrongly. I know a person who has read it annually for 40 years and would find aspects of your theology “un-Biblical.” Does his 40:3 superior reading of the Bible trump you?

    6) Steve, you can’t help yourself can you? Your economic development work is “upsetting.” Sheesh, get real. You presume your reseach on economic development programs is unbiased, universally applicable, and correct and that my different opinion is biased based on my past work history instead of possibly giving consideration my direct experience might have insight your research misses. You want me to listen to you yet you respond to my view with accusation of bias and infer sinister motives.

    7) Your statement that economic development programs “can become system where corruption can flourish” is correct. But so can having a police force, a tax collection agency, a department of transportation, a national defense, a court system and a city parks department. So can a church, company, and Bible study become a place of corruption. There is nothing in our society that is immune from corruption. But the reality something can become corrupt doesn’t mean it will. Nor does it mean we shouldn’t have a police force or a national defense, etc. Everything depends on the morality of those who are involved. I worked 6 years in GOED. I would put the integrity of our office against any institution. I know Pat Costello and would defend his integrity against anyone. I aspire to the personal integrity of the Governor.

    You want to debate the efficacy or appropriateness of economic development programs (in general or specific programs), I’ll have that discussion. In fact, I have views where I believe some programs are inefficient, ineffective, excessively expensive relative to benefits, or an unwarranted distortion to the marketplace. But, your message is economic development programs are inherently corrupt. I reject what you say because nothing in my experience was corrupt. NOTHING. Your assertion is flatly false, rash judgment and calumnous.

    1. Steve Sibson

      Thanks for the details Troy. I will be on guard based on your input. The part of his research that I found interesting, and used on my post, was how feminism deconstructed Biblical Christianity and how the homosexual movement is reconstructing a monist worldview to fill the void. What do you think about that analysis?

      And I did put a question mark on the goddess part. I consider it an important question. The Bible does not approve of female pastors, the class at DWU glorified a feminist who rewrote the Bible from a male gender to a female gender, and I say it is really sad that we can’t discuss this issue without being accused of being a woman hater. And when I counter those accusations at Madville, I get turned into some bad guy…as we see Hickey doing today on this thread. I want to thank you for having a conversation where respect is maintained. That is not the case with the converation I am having with Mr. Hickey. I am disappointed that you want to side with his approach. It doesn’t seem to fit yours.

      I will talk with you about the economic development issue some other time. I don’t want to get long winded and upset Anooner (grin).

      Have a good weekend.

    2. Steve Sibson

      “You say you aren’t passing judgment on “individual members” but refer to Erin Heidelberger as an aspiring “goddess” and mostly because of who she is married to. No matter the differences in theology you might have with her, consider you both confess Jesus Christ as Lord, you and her are probably closer theologically than she and her husband. ”

      I might get into trouble here, but this needs some analysis Troy. First off, a female pastor and Cory’s feminist political position fits like a glove. I still believe in the patriarchal Biblical worldview. A female pastor aspiring to be a goddess is not that big of a stretch. Both are violations of Biblical scripture.

      Second, Cory used his wife as a victim to call Representative Jon Hansen a woman hater. And Erin came on this web site, and announced she was the blame for Cory leaving the state. They are working together.

      If you go to my web site and read the post that has everyone in an up roar, I do make an argument that Cory using his “Christian wife” to justify his political positions is a deceptive tactic if we understand that Erin’s theology is based on pagan monism and not Biblical Christianity (please understand that she may be deceived and sincerely believes the opposite). Let me remind everyone that the pro-abortion movement used the ECLA to put a Christian face on abortion during the 2006 abortion ban debate. And now I see, several years later, that same tactic is being used in regard to the homosexual issue that Pat Powers believes will be a political issue in the near future here in South Dakota.

      My argument is that neither Cory nor Erin are following Biblical Christianity (and Erin may not yet believe this). Now I am willing to entertain a discussion that says I am wrong. I have invited Erin and Cory to make that argument. That offer still stands. I do not hate Cory or Erin. I am disappointed in Cory. But I sincerely believe that the analysis I presented is foundational to what is going on politically here in South Dakota. It is a policy discussion point, and not intended to be a personal attack on Cory or Erin.

      1. Anonymous

        While someone may be able to discuss your claptrap in a rational way with you steve, I suspect Cory or Erin will not take you up on it. Your invitation is the biblical equivilant of saying “Cory, Erin, prove to me when exactly you stopped beating your children.”

  20. Troy Jones Post author


    Quite the conspiracy you have figured out. Radical New World Order guy finds a simple easy to decieve gal, knocks her up to give appearance of traditional family convinces her she can become a goddess in order to promote paganism, monism and homosexuality. Another possible explanation is they are husband and wife but that doesn’t work. Radical New World Order guys don’t believe in marriage. Your deductive ability is Holmesian.

    1. Kal Lis


      You raise a good point with Holmes. I think Steve should read more Holmes novels along with Edgar Allan Poe’s Dupin stories, especially “The Purloined Letter.” If he did, he would find that most mysteries work on a simple principle

      “If the appearance of a case suggests apparent unsolvability because of complex and contradictory evidence, the ease with which the solution may be uncovered is in direct ration to its apparent image. In other words, the true solution may be disarmingly simple.”

      We all see through the glass darkly and error. Those errors have consequences and those consequences compound. It doesn’t take the Illuminati to mess up the world.

      1. Steve Sibson

        Kal, I have never been much into novels. Some have been effective in producing societal change for the liberals…Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Looking Backward, Progress and Poverty, and there are others that don’t come to mind right now.

    2. Steve Sibson

      “Another possible explanation is they are husband and wife but that doesn’t work.”

      Sure it does Troy. Cory’s political positions are anti-Christian, but he married what should be looked at as Christian symbolism working to restore ancient pagan religious beliefs that have been scattered through out the world after the Tower of Babel. They must re-unite (ecumenism) and form the spiritual basis to a political system which has been called by daddy Bush while addressing the nation, as the “New World Order”. (Go Agenda 21!)

      Have you read the Book of Revelation lately? Which two hooked up to create the New World Order? Is it conspiracy, or rather Biblical prophecy?

  21. Ah HA

    Hickey was right…Sibby’s personality and charm torpedo his arguments before others logic. You win sibby, you just made me question the necessity of free speech.

    1. Steve Sibson

      According to Bible prophecy, there will be a great apostasy from Christ’s church. This apostasy – the apostasy – will occur before the rapture, the tribulation, and the rise of Antichrist, and will involve a departing from the faith by those who call themselves Christians. Regarding the second coming of Christ, Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” The Greek word apostasia is used here for the “falling away.” It is from this word that we derive the English word “apostasy.” Apostasy is defined as “a defection from the truth,” or “a departing from that which was given at first.”

      In spite of its phenomenal growth, Christianity has had apostate tendencies throughout history. But Paul speaks of a particularly significant departure from sound doctrine. This apostasy will be the climax of all previous apostate tendencies, and will be worldwide in scope. Paul continues his description of this apostasy in 1 Timothy 4:1-2, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.”

      As the consciences of men become seared, and their hearts hardened to the truth, they will clamor towards doctrines that sound nice, but do not have the ring of truth. These doctrines are “doctrines of devils,” that entice the human nature with teachings that deny the true gospel of Christ Jesus. In 2 Timothy 4:3-4 Paul says, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (NIV)

      Are we in such an apostasy now? Sadly, it seems evident that we are. Sound biblical teaching is slowly being usurped by doctrines that place inclusiveness above truth. Mainline protestant denominations are not only denying that homosexuality is a sexual sin, many also ordain gay clergy and perform homosexual marriages.

  22. Julie Gross (NE)

    Cory H:

    “Neither we nor our wives should be the focus of our discussions of the future of our state.”

    As a general proposition, I agree.

    However, when Cory blogged that his wife and daughter are not safe around Representative Hansen (because of some policy that Rep. Hansen supported), Cory’s wife and daughter become fair game. One cannot use your wife and daughter as blogging props, and then demand or expect that others not use them as props.

    I did mention Cory’s wife in an effort to expose Cory’s hypocrisy on Christianity and his bigotry towards Christianity. In that case, his wife was incidental.

  23. Troy Jones Post author

    The ultimate irony in all this:

    This thread started in reference to a dialogue Steve started that criticized the Heidelberger’s in context of condemning gnosticism.

    He ends it with a dialogue that references the rapture which has its roots in and contains elements of gnosticism.

    “A circle is the reflection of eternity. It has no beginning and it has no end – and if you put several circles over each other, then you get a spiral. (Maynard Keenan)

    1. Steve Sibson

      Biblical references to the rapture:

      Matthew 24:30-36
      “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

      Matthew 24:40-41
      Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. (NIV)
      John 14:1-3
      Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. (NIV)
      Acts 1:9-11
      After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
      They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” (NIV)
      1 Corinthians 15:51-52
      Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. (NIV)
      1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
      For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (NIV)

    2. Steve Sibson

      Troy, I spent the weekend researching some of the points you made regarding Dr. Peter Jones analysis of Catholicism. I am reading a book he used written by an orthodox Catholic. You should be seeing my response up at my web site sometime this week. Basically the analysis is not anti-Catholic, but instead exposing a movement that has chosen to infiltrate the church in order to destroy it’s foundational doctrine. In other words, the work is about exposing an anti-Catholic movement.