Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Greeny World Domination 045
GwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwD
T h e G R E E N Y w o r l d D o m i n a t i o n T a s k F o r c e
Presents:
"Bob Larson Parts 7 & 8"
GwD, Incorporated is dedicated to the exposing of false prophets. We have found
one such "prophet" in Bob Larson of Bob Larson: Live and formerly of Talk-Back
with Bob Larson. A supposed Christian radio evangelist, Bob Larson is actually
only motivated by financial gain. These 14 articles by Kenneth L. Smith prove
this. From this point on, GwD is anti-Bob Larson.
PART 7
Twenty Questions: Ken Smith Talks Back
Over the last few months, I've told you quite a bit about the inner workings
of Bob Larson Ministries. And as more and more readers have inquired as to what
we do, why we do it, and how we go about it (and, more to the point, associates
have asked that I do it), time has come to answer the more commonly-asked
questions publicly.
How did you get involved in the Bob Larson mess?
Quite by accident ... or divine intervention, as my colleagues have at times
insisted. It began innocuously enough: I had recently moved back to Colorado to
attend law school -- and in a letter to Christian attorney and talk-show host
John Stewart, I casually mentioned that I missed his show. John and I had
corresponded for three or four years on a variety of topics ranging from
apologetics to national politics, and had become friendly adversaries, so it
wasn't anything out of the ordinary.
In the course of the discussion, I observed that Denver's Christian
programming was an intellectual wasteland, featuring the ever-erudite (sarcasm
oozing from my laser printer) Bob Larson. In his response, John compared Larson
to Bakker and his ilk, backing it up with pertinent excerpts from Larson's 1991
divorce file.
My curiosity piqued, I went over to the Jefferson County courthouse in the
hope of learning more. But the divorce files were sealed, and that suggested
that there probably was more to the story than met the eye. And where there's
smoke, there's usually fire....
How did you satisfy yourself that the documents were authentic?
By the book. Domestic public documents under seal are regarded as self-
authenticating [Fed.R.Evid. 902(1)]; a copy may be substituted for an original,
if the latter is unobtainable [Fed.R.Evid. 1004(2)]. As far as I was concerned,
the documents John sent me were as good as a signed affidavit. The fact that
the documents came from John gave me additional comfort, inasmuch as he is a
practicing attorney, and the California Supreme Court takes an understandably
dim view toward attorneys falsifying court documents. And it didn't help Bob's
case that he cut me off the air when I asked about them ... and sic'd his
attorney on me the very next morning.
What happened after he cut you off the air?
Not a lot, to be perfectly honest. I wrote Larson, indicating that I intended
to use the documents in question in a book. I got a nasty little letter from
his attorney in return, threatening me with litigation if I reprinted material
from the documents at issue. And that was pretty much the end of it ... until
Lori called.
In June, 1992, on a Saturday night at about 11:00 PM, I got a call from an
anonymous woman. "Is this Ken Smith?" she inquired. I answered yes -- and
after what seemed to be an interminably long pause, she let the cat out of the
bag: "You're not going to believe this: I wrote Dead Air." (As all who are
familiar with the Larson story now know, that woman was Lori Boespflug, a BLM
vice-president and corporate officer.)
I didn't know what to say. Frankly, outside of what I was able to glean from
the court documents in connection with Larson's divorce, I didn't know squat.
But I bluffed my way along the best I could.
Why did you get involved?
Before Lori contacted me, my only aim was to document an allegation I made in
my first book, The Curse of Thomas: how the media ministers made their
million$$$. Any Bakker proteg would have done, but court documents have the
kind of persuasiveness that an abstract philosophical discussion tends to lack.
Bob's just happened to be available.
I was shocked by Lori's story; I promised to do what little I could to see
that it was told. I checked out her claims to the extent that I could, and
contacted some of my old pen-pals in the apologetic community for advice. They
put me in touch with Fred Wheeler, who in turn referred me to Joe Maxwell of
Christianity Today.
Assuming that CT would be able to handle it from there, I gave Maxwell what we
had. But when it became obvious that they weren't going to move on the story, I
even offered to write it. And when it became clear that leaders in the
Christian community wanted one of their own to tell this tale, I gave it to Jay
Grelen, and attempted to bow out. Gracefully. Yet, in hiring a private
investigator to uncover black mail fodder, Bob Larson made it self-evident that
he wasn't going to let me.
As might have been expected, I stayed on the story in an attempt to counter
Larson's malicious efforts to brand me as a criminal. Now, I have come to
realize that the Bob Larson story is worth a book, and I am the most qualified
man in the world to write it. But I don't know how the story will end....
My Christian colleagues have gotten involved out of purely altruistic motives,
insofar as they recognize the fact that covetous charlatans like Bob Larson
visit untold embarrassment upon the Church. As Fred Wheeler explained it to me,
a Christian is like 'the watchman on the wall' in Ezekiel 33. If he rouses his
brethren, he is blameless, but, if he sits and does nothing while the enemy
passes, the blood of the entire community is on his hands. He would then, in
his opinion, be as guilty as Bob Larson.
Our informants are Christians who believe that what Larson is doing is
terribly wrong. They know what a mean, vindictive, and little man Bob has
become, and they don't like the thought of having their lives and reputations
ground into dust. They also know that Larson has not been able to intimidate
us. So, we have become their voice.
How do you get your information?
Since it is a foregone conclusion that Bob Larson will read this, I am not at
liberty to reveal any of our trade secrets. Suffice it to say that we have a
multitude of sources -- Larson friends, employees, business associates, and the
like -- who continually feed us information. When we need to know something,
we find out about it; frankly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to
put Bob under surveillance.
One reason we have been so successful in building our 'intelligence network'
is that our informants know that we go to extreme lengths to protect them. We'd
sit on our information rather than expose them to Bob's vindictive reprisals.
As such, word gets around that we can be trusted. On balance, that policy has
been wise, but it does make our task a lot more complicated.
We don't solicit informants simply because we don't want them to be construed
as our agents. Likewise, if there is even a question as to whether a given
activity would violate the law, we invariably refrain from engaging in it. For
example, an associate has obtained a fairly substantial donor list; we decided
against a direct mailing to Larson supporters because wholesale use of the list
might be interpreted as a violation of trade secret laws.
We have stayed on the straight-and-narrow as a matter of choice; in addition,
we'd like to believe it enhances our credibility. Besides, Bob is so inept that
we haven't had to think about cheating.
How do you ensure the information you have is accurate?
We have two general rules of thumb: (1) if we could get it admitted into
evidence in a court of law, it is 'fair game' for reporting purposes, and, (2)
when in doubt, we leave it out. We do our level best to err on the side of
caution; major mistakes could seriously undermine our credibility.
A representative example of our approach toward reporting Larson's often
questionable activities is the case of his purportedly intimate relationship
with former Compassion Connection director Margo Hamilton. In previous
articles, I have studiously avoided any mention of this, despite the fact that I
had for some time been aware that it was quite likely that the two had indulged
in extramarital relations. However, once it was reported by Jay Grelen in World
magazine that Ms. Hamilton's new husband had signed a confidentiality agreement
-- where about the only confidential information he could realistically have had
access to was that Bob was one of Margo's former lovers -- the evidence was
sufficiently compelling to justify reporting such a charge.
As a practical matter, direct evidence of Larson's dalliances would not be
forthcoming. Even if Margo did come forward and confirm allegations regarding
sexual improprieties, Larson could always resort to Bill Clinton's copyrighted
"Liar, liar, pants on fire!" defense.
There has never been a shortage of sordid rumors regarding the evil exploits
of Bobby E. Larson. Clearly, by far the most scandalous one came from Horizon
Broadcasting Co. owner Garyl Gibson -- who reported to a colleague that Larson
was involved in pedophilia, and had a fetish for pornography. Gibson -- at one
time a client of former Larson attorney William T. Abbott -- has been a reliable
source1 of information in the past, so we can't dismiss his report out of hand.
Still, it should also go without saying that we're not about to make allegations
of such gravity without having the equivalent of the proverbial smoking gun.
When you start accusing people of criminal acts, you'd better be sure of your
facts.
What is Bob Larson's response to your articles?
As has been confirmed by a number of Internet readers, the official response
from BLM is that I have somehow doctored court documents, in order to make it
appear as if Bob is raping and looting his ministry. Of course, as is the case
with the decided majority of Larson's lies, this one is capable of quick and
easy refutation.
As I've said publicly, I didn't get my copy of the divorce transcripts from
the Jefferson County District Court. In fact, I couldn't have ... the files had
been sealed. Besides, Larson personally authenticated the documents by
alleging that John Stewart had "trafficked in my divorce proceedings
transcripts."2 It goes without saying that if Stewart had provided me with
bogus information, Larson would have called him on it. Moreover, Ministry
general counsel Chris Johnson authenticated Bob's income figures before I even
became a meaningful player in this affair.3
Knowing as I did when I obtained them that the documents at issue were in the
hands of at least three other parties (Westword, Christianity Today, and the
individual who provided them to me), to do as Larson alleges would be the height
of folly. And Bob doesn't take me for a fool. He knows better.
The unofficial response is a little more difficult to confirm, but I'm willing
to bet that, if you mentioned my name in an unguarded moment, Bob will unleash
a stream of invective capable of making Howard Stern blush. Suffice it to say
that I'm not on his Xmas card list....
As avid Talk-Back listeners have undoubtedly noticed, Larson's public response
is to reach for his "panic button." This is unquestionably deliberate: Larson
doesn't want people asking obvious questions, like "If these charges are totally
fabricated, then why did you with draw your Ministry's application to the ECFA
(Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability)?" It is a matter of record
that Larson did apply; they raised questions (based primarily upon our
material), and he withdrew the application. Clearly his is an admission by
conduct: it's not like Bob suddenly changed his mind as to the benefits of NRB
membership -- which he has enjoyed for some 20 years.
When Bob Larson loses his temper, he sounds scary. Do you ever worry that he
might retaliate against you?
In fact, I do. As such, we have taken steps which should discourage Bob from
taking matters into his own hands. For instance, copies of sensitive
information are distributed to every associate, and the bulk of our originals
are kept in others' hands. Hence, even if per chance Bobby decided to play with
fire, we wouldn't miss a beat.
There is something to be said for clean living. My list of enemies is
exceedingly short, and if anything untoward was to happen to me or my family,
the appropriate law enforcement agencies would be all over Larson like a cheap
suit.
What can you tell us about you and your associates?
My Christian associates have impeccable credentials. For instance, John
Stewart, as well as being an attorney, talk-show host and Christian Research
Institute alum, played a pivotal role in exposing Jim Bakker. Self-effacing to
a fault, Fred Wheeler has asked that I not recount his accomplishments -- but I
can tell you that he was one of the original staff members of the Dallas branch
of Watchman Fellowship.
As for myself, I am a law student at the University of Denver, and a former
Big-6 C.P.A. with a master's degree in taxation. Unlike the Christian
colleagues I can publicly acknowledge, I'm new to this kind of endeavor --
although my experience in litigation support work has, in a sense, trained me
for it.
How is your organization structured?
Our operation is strictly ad hoc: no one takes orders, no one gives them. We
share information and ideas, and on occasion coordinate our efforts. We agree
that anything we do has to be strictly legal. But outside of those parameters,
everyone is free to do what they wish.
We don't solicit donations. In fact, we won't even take them. The money for
expenses comes out of our own pockets. [In the interest of full disclosure, it
is a fact that, on occasion, people have given me token amounts to offset
copying and mailing costs ($50 in total), but the related mailings cost me
several times that.]
We will openly share the fruits of our research with anyone -- from the Sons
and Daughters of America to the LDS Church, from American Atheists to the
Christian Research Institute, and from Cornerstone to the Washington Post.
However, we will not disseminate sensitive personal information (e.g., an
unlisted telephone number) that does not have any bearing on Bob Larson's
fitness to function as a minister.
On his January 29, 1993 show, Larson implicated you in arson threats, threats
against his family, and computer theft. How do you respond?
Bob has thrown as much mud at as many people as he could manage, in hopes that
a bit of it might stick. It may be that he truly believes that everyone is just
as sleazy and unprincipled as he is, but I honestly doubt that he has reached
that level of paranoia quite yet. A look at the police report prepared in
connection with the alleged arson threat is instructive. The reporting officer
classified it as misdemeanor harassment -- and the 'threat' itself has the
flavor of a high-school prank:
"Inside the gray or white envelope was a photograph featuring
two masked subjects. The words, 'This Bud's for you Sh**head!
Happy Halloween! P.S. Love your house $441,000', appear on the
photograph. Also featured in the photograph is Bob Larson's
home. One subject appears to be holding a flaming bottle of
beer...."4
Larson implicated fully half of his former executive staff in this juvenile
plot ... and, of course, he fingered me as the alleged ring-leader. He referred
to John Stewart in the police report, and added the Passentinos -- for good
measure -- in the January 29th show.
Two observations are worth making here. First, if this is what Bob construes
as a serious arson threat, you have to wonder about some of the death threats
he allegedly receives. Second, it is peculiar that he would finger former
employees -- who, collectively, know enough to destroy his ministry -- while
ignoring the various satanic covens and skinhead groups that he claims pose a
credible threat to his life and limb. Lori Boespflug observed that behind the
scenes, Larson laughed off what were reported on the air as serious threats, for
what should be obvious reasons.
Larson has also charged that you are trying to destroy his ministry. How do you
respond?
We will not deny that the Ministry is his ministry -- its' ultimate purpose is
to minister to the extravagant financial needs of Bob Larson. The kids are just
an alibi.
It is a matter of record that we have given Larson a full and fair opportunity
-- behind the scenes -- to make amends for the transgressions we allege have
been committed. We followed Matthew 18:15-17 to the extent possible: We
couldn't take it to his denominational leadership because he wouldn't reveal the
outfit which ordained him, and we couldn't take it to his pastor because he
doesn't, to the best of our knowledge, even attend church. We did, however,
take it to board members, EFICOM, and key radio station owners. I spoke with
him personally (in an accidental meeting). Others have tried, to no avail.
When those behind-the-scenes efforts failed, we acted as the Scriptures
command: We took our case to the people ("Those [elders] who sin are to be
rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning" -- 1 Tim. 5:20). And
while that action is likely to have the effect of destroying Bob Larson
Ministries, that doesn't mean we have to be happy about it.
Although our efforts over past months have been an unqualified success, the
outcome of this campaign is not what we have hoped for. If we had had our
druthers, Bob Larson would have recanted his malicious statements, repented of
his sins, and reimbursed those he has injured in his rampages. If he had done
so at the appropriate time, he would have received our unequivocal support --
and he could have gone about the 'business' of ministry for which Talk-Back is
uniquely qualified. If his ministry does in fact go under, and he ends up
wearing prison grey, he has only himself to blame. But knowing Bob, he will
somehow find a way to lay it on someone else.
Larson has further described you as an "avowed atheist." Are you?
In a word, no. The American Heritage Dictionary defines an atheist as "one
who denies the existence of God," and an avowal as "an admission or
acknowledgement." And I have never made such an admission -- in fact, I don't
even reach the question. As I see it, the question of God's existence becomes
relevant if and only if He actively intervenes in our lives. If you decide that
there is no credible evidence of divine intervention, the question itself
becomes nothing more than a matter for intellectual curiosity. On the other
hand, if you find that divine intervention is an undeniable fact, God's
existence is by implication proven. Under this analysis, you never get to
atheism -- by definition.
The simple and unfortunate fact is that, while many Christians are able to
tolerate Mormons, Muslims, and Moonies, they harbor an almost visceral hatred
toward atheists. They become a palette for Christian doubts and fears. A cold
reminder of their insecurities. Larson has played this prejudice like a violin
-- he knew that if he could paint me as an atheist, his audience would tune me
out almost instantly.
My present philosophical position can best be described as a variant of Deism.
While I have no difficulty with the notion of an omnipotent and omniscient God,
the concept that God is afflicted with the sin of jealousy is totally
incomprehensible to me. After all, if you know that you're all-powerful, you
wouldn't have much of a need to be jealous of anything.
Bob Larson has further accused you of wanting to destroy him because he somehow
represented Christianity in your eyes. Comments?
After crossing swords with men of the caliber of John Stewart, Gary Habermas,
and CRI's research staff, literary jousts with Larson would have been little
more than comic relief. His theology is unsophisticated, almost crude; his
command of the language, no better. If Bob Larson is what Christianity 'is all
about', then most of my Christian friends will turn in their resignations.
Immediately.
I did have the occasion to listen to Talk-Back when I lived in the L.A. basin,
where I quickly came to the conclusion that Larson was a less-than-worthy
opponent. A garden-variety street preacher ... with an attitude. There's no
sense in going into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
You don't like Bob Larson very much, don't you?
As a practical matter, it isn't easy to like a man who consciously,
deliberately, and intentionally tries to injure you and your family. A man who
rapes and sodomizes your reputation on continent-wide radio broadcasts. A
minister who hires private investigators in an effort to discover intimate
information suitable for blackmail. Suffice it to say that he isn't on my Xmas
card list....
On the other hand, it is hard to dislike a man who may, in fact, be suffering
from mental illness. The running joke around the office is that Bob is 'MPD'
(afflicted with multiple personality disorder), and others have obliquely
confirmed that. For example, long-time Larson friend Ed Decker related a tale
where one minute, Bob and former wife Kathy were acting like lovebirds and the
next, he was reading her the riot act. Similar instances of erratic and
capricious behavior have been reported by Larson's staffers; Lori Boespflug
recounted a litany of bizarre idiosyncrasies. It's strictly one layman's
opinion, but I don't think Bob has both of his oars in the water....
And from what I understand, Jim Bakker was the same way.
What, if anything, has surprised you?
First and foremost, we have been dismayed as to the extent to which Christian
media moguls have disregarded their Scriptures in order to preserve their own
pocketbooks. "The truth shall set you free," but don't expect to read about it
in Christianity Today. Verily, verily, I say unto you, "There is honor among
thieves."
It is truly astounding as to how many times Larson would have been stopped in
his tracks -- had only one Christian leader taken a stand. Yet, in every
instance, that individual put his pocketbook before the truth. That is why I
say that the Larson story is bigger than PTL: I can indict everyone from the
largest publisher of religious materials in the world to Christendom's flagship
publication, and from individual Christian radio station owners to some of
America's most prominent ministries. There is enough blame -- and plenty of
shame -- to go around.
Just last week, I was informed by a Christian talk-show host that I could not
be invited onto his program as a scheduled guest. It seems that the station
also carries Larson, and the general manager "didn't want to offend him." Let's
put this into perspective: Can you imagine what Rush Limbaugh would say if that
station was the NBC network, and the person they didn't want to offend was Bill
Clinton?
We were also taken aback by the sheer vindictiveness with which Bob Larson has
countered our efforts. One of my associates exposed Troy Snowdon -- who was
eventually convicted under the Mann Act (for those who have led sheltered lives,
that has to do with transporting women across state lines for the purposes of
prostitution) -- and even that sorry excuse for a 'man of the cloth' never
attempted to stoop as low as Larson has. I expected to be vilified as one of
Satan's henchmen, but his bizarre allegations of criminal behavior went beyond
the pale of common sense. Bob Larson must harbor a contempt for the Christian
intellect that even Maddy O'Hair couldn't muster in her glory days.
In general, we have been astonished by the staggering ineptitude of Larson's
defensive campaign. Bob has had literally a score of opportunities to leave us
in the dust, and not only has he blown them, his antics have only served to make
matters worse. For example, in sophisticated circles, Larson's abrupt
withdrawal of his ECFA application was seen as a tacit admission of guilt; at
that point, smelling scandal in the air, Thomas Nelson bailed on him. And I
find it difficult to imagine that he couldn't have cut a deal with Brandt
Gustavson....
Bob's Achilles heel has always been his obsession with winning. It is not
enough, in his mind, that he should succeed; his opponent must fail utterly. If
he had possessed a more mature mindset, we wouldn't have happened across his
trail, much less be nipping at his heels.
If Bob hadn't divorced his wife of 23 years, he would still be on the Salem
stations. If he hadn't shamelessly exploited a young woman who came to his
ministry for help, we wouldn't have obtained his divorce transcripts. If he
hadn't tried to exact every last penny from the marital estate in his divorce,
the damaging admissions he made in the divorce proceedings never would have made
it into print. And if he had reached fair and equitable settlements with Muriel
Olson and Lori Boespflug at appropriate times, he would have been on his way to
his real goal: making $50 million. From day one, Bob Larson has been his own
worst enemy.
Bob is still on the air. What have you accomplished?
As a leader of one of America's premier 'cult-watch' ministries put it, "the
wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do turn." If we had any illusions that
this was going to be some kind of six-day war, the only people we would have
been fooling would have been ourselves.
When you reflect upon what has happened in the last year or so, the damage we
have inflicted has been substantial. One year ago, Bob was one of publishing
giant Thomas Nelson's premier authors; today, even tiny Huntington House has
become skittish. Bob's career as an author has been all but destroyed, and his
once-sterling professional reputation has been tarnished beyond repair. Bob can
no longer claim the moral high ground, insofar as everyone from the LDS Church
to the gay rights movement has been briefed on his weaknesses. After all, if he
can't live up to moral and ethical standards enunciated in Scripture, how can he
justify berating others for their transgressions?`
At this point, it's all downhill. Despite a serious lack of media power, we
have gotten the word out. Prominent Christian leaders are starting to publicly
express outrage, and the number of ports Bob can run to during this storm is
dwindling rapidly. During recent months, Bob has started to look more and more
like a general whose armies are being routed. He's gone deep into his playbook,
and nothing seems to work. He's becoming shorter and more abrasive with
critical callers; his dwindling donor base can only dig so deep. And the
biggest waves are yet to come.
Where do you go from here?
Personally, I fully intend to ride off into the sunset. There are a few loose
ends to be tied up, but I'm basically winding down my end of the operation.
We've done the hard work, and it appears as if the Christian media finally is
getting ready to mop the story up.
There is little doubt in my mind that Fred will ride again; that is his
calling, and his burden. And there is a lot left to do. But the Evangelical
community has spoken clearly: They don't want me involved in their lives, in
their churches, in their dirty laundry. And perhaps, that is as it should be.
Are there any more articles planned?
That depends upon whether I have time to write them, and whether my audience
has any interest in reading them. It's not like I'm running out of material....
If you had it to do all over again -- would you?
I have to preface this answer by stating that I didn't exactly come looking
for this job; the pay is lousy, and the benefits, even worse. And if Bob hadn't
insisted upon making me his scapegoat, I would have melted into the background
16 months ago. But that simply was not to be.
I feel like the fellow who stops at the scene of an accident, pulls a man out
of his burning car ... and ends up getting sued. If I knew what I know now, I
think that I would have tried harder to figure out some way not to get involved.
The personal cost has been staggering; the personal satisfaction, minimal.
At times, I can understand how Abraham must have felt while walking the
streets of Sodom and Gomorrah. Just ten righteous men.... It is all the more
ironic that some of the people who refused to talk to me and otherwise treated
me as a third-class citizen can have the audacity to proclaim to me how Jesus
has changed their lives. But just when I am ready to write off evangelical
Christianity as a giant tax-exempt Amway distributorship, someone surprises me.
Christianity is in crisis ... but it is not beyond hope.
_____________________________________________________________________
ENDNOTES
1 For example, Gibson revealed Lori Boespflug's 'involvement' in Dead
Air to Fred Wheeler long before she talked to me. How Gibson got his
information is not exactly clear, but the information he has provided
has -- in the instances where we have been able to confirm it -- been
entirely accurate.
While we have furnished this lead to Christian journalists, we've
not investigated these allegations, and accordingly expressed no
opinion as to their validity.
2 Bob Larson, Letter (to John Stewart), 10 Feb. 1993, p. 1.
3 Michael Roberts, "The Evil that Men Do," Westword, May 27-Jun. 2,
1992, p. 12.
4 Offense report (misdemeanor harassment), Lakewood (CO) Police Dept.
(Officer Ponczek, reporting), Case Report #92-105772, 3 Nov. 1992, p.
2. (The entire report was in capital letters; I added punctuation and
capitalization as appropriate.)
PART 8
From: 21922SM@msu.edu (Scott.Mikusko)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Bob Larson: The $64,000 Question
Date: 13 Feb 1994 15:05:50 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Bob Larson: The $64,000 Question
In early 1993, Bob Larson Ministries suffered financial turbulence as a result
of the negative publicity generated by articles in World and Cornerstone
magazines. But in 1994, BLM has gone into a 'Tilton tailspin'. Revenues have
fallen steadily since September, and there is no end in sight. Like Tilton
(and, convicted felon Troy Snowdon) before him, Larson has been doing all he can
to project an image that everything is under control. However, reports from
inside the walls of his third-floor fortress strongly suggest otherwise.
In recent months, Larson has been forced to cut back on everything -- except,
in all likelihood, his bloated compensation package. Five BLM employees left at
or around the end of the year, but only one has been replaced, and a hiring
freeze is said to be in effect. While staffers have been run ragged to make up
for those losses, plans were announced in January to cut as much as an
additional 25% of the Ministry's staff.
With the Grim Reaper peering over one shoulder -- and Larson, looking over the
other -- staff morale reportedly is nonexistent. Paranoia has become the order
of the day, as Bob frantically searches for the leaks in his badly-listing ship.
The information flow has become so constricted that employees are having
difficulty doing their jobs. The Ministry has lost its sense of mission ... and
a sense of direction.
Reports are that the staff has been stretched so thin that, for his recent
trip to the National Religious Broadcasters' (NRB) convention in Washington
D.C., Larson coaxed former sidekick Bonnie Bell out of retirement. Not that Bob
had to twist her arm very hard; she has had only one radio gig since leaving the
Ministry -- and was fired after four days.1
And there's one question on everyone's mind: How bad is it?
Moonwalker:
Last week was a good one for Bob Larson employees -- their fearless leader was
out of the office for most of it. But when he got back on Wednesday, he almost
managed to make up for his absence. Our sources tell us that, after what
appeared to have been a less-than-successful NRB convention, Bob came back to
the office loaded for bear.
The Larson scandal has long been common knowledge within the Christian
broadcasting fraternity, but determining how it has affected his standing has
been somewhat problematic. However, Bob's acidic introduction of Satanic artist
and journalist Tim Butler gives us an indication that all definitely is not
well:
"[T]he reason I came to be aware of Mr. Butler is that he is
also a journalist doing an article about me for the official
publication of the Church of Satan, and requested an interview.
These days, I don't talk to anybody from the press, especially
if they say, 'Christian' press <pause, strained laughter>, but
I will talk to Satanists....2"
Bob Larson -- that consummate press hound -- has suddenly performed a Michael
Jackson. He's canceled his Dangerous ... uh, I mean, "Save Our Kids from
Satanism" tour, a consistent money-maker for years. He will answer the call of
the Church of Satan's house-organ, the Black Flame, but whenever a Christian
reporter comes knocking, he evidently tells him to "just beat it!" And while Bob
did his level best to make that remark in jest, his voice betrayed resignation.
He has, by and large, lost the battle to cabin in the news of his misdeeds --
and it sounds as if the NRB convention hammered that point home.
Bob has finally made the "A" list: those preachers who have distinguished
themselves by their avaricious antics. For instance, in Personal Freedom
Outreach's Quarterly Journal, cult-busters Kurt Goedelman and Richard Fisher put
Bob in an interesting kettle of fish:
"Spencer's book comes to the defense of men such as Benny
Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Bob Larson, Robert Tilton and Mike
Warnke while impugning the research of ministries such as Per-
sonal Freedom Outreach, Christian Research Institute and Cor-
nerstone magazine."3
"It is difficult to fathom why [Jim Spencer, in Heresy Hunt-
ers] spends time trying to exonerate men such as Kenneth Cope-
land, Robert Tilton, Mike Warnke and Bob Larson."4
As it was with Jim Bakker, it seems as if everyone is getting into the act.
The erstwhile Robert Tilton Fan Club Newsletter (now Snake Oil: Your Guide to
Kooky Kontemporary Kristian Kulture), came out with a delicious interview with
Satanist Boyd Rice, entitled "My Dinner with Bob Larson." Therein, Rice relates
one of Larson's numerous brushes with death:
"BOYD: Ironically, his life was saved that night. Because he
came over with, um, what's the guy's name? The son of the guy
who publishes Penthouse.
SO: Guccionne? [sic]
BOYD: Yeah, Bob Guccionne, Jr. came over to dinner as well.
I've got these shelves of all this weird stuff in my kitchen,
and there's a gun on one of them. And just before they came
over I took the bullets out of the gun, just in case. And as
they were leaving, Bob Guccionne, Jr. picked up the gun, poin-
ted it into Larson's stomach, and pulled the trigger. If I had
not taken those bullets out an hour before, Bob Larson would
have been dead in my kitchen."5
I wasn't invited to the party, but my sources were at least able to confirm
that Larson did invite himself over for dinner, and Bob Guccione, Jr. was
staying at his house at the time.
Snake Oil's "Brother Randall" has a world-class sense of humor, and he does
his homework. For example, he ran a picture of the cover of one of Larson's
albums, "Peace Within My Soul." Seeing a younger Bob -- with hair! -- is a real
shock; he looks a lot like Opie with side burns. Nature abhors a vacuum, and
Bob Tilton is off the air....
The Larson files ought to keep pundits in one-liners for the better part of
1994. Still, there is a poignant slant to this sordid story. From all I have
been able to gather, Bob Larson is a tortured soul -- a man whose achievements
are overshadowed by a pervasive inadequacy. And nowhere is that more evident
than in this love letter, which Lori Boespflug claims Bob gave to her in early
1991:
"A PERSONAL, ORIGINAL MESSAGE FROM SOMEONE WHO, IN SPITE OF HIS
EXTENSIVE PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS, AT TIMES FEELS AS THOUGH HE
CAN'T QUITE MEASURE UP THE ACHIEVEMENTS HE WANTS MOST IN LIFE,
AND AT TIMES FEELS THE ONE PERSON WHO MATTERS MOST SEEMS MORE
PRONE TO ACCENTUATE THE NEGATIVE THEN NURTURE THE POSITIVE:
REFLECTIONS ON A TEMPESTUOUS RELATIONSHIP
The deepest roots grow against resistance,
The strongest bonds are forged from conflict,
The greatest friendships are produced by honesty,
The most secure feelings stem from forthrightness,
And the deepest love abides in hearts tested by adversity.
WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, THIS IS HOW I REALLY FEEL.
THANK YOU FOR BEING THE BEST FRIEND I'VE EVER HAD!
THE ABOVE POEM COMPOSED IN GRATITUDE TO MY BEST FRIEND, 2/27/91"6
The poem was unsigned, but the evidence that Larson was infatuated with
Boespflug -- a rather attractive lady, by the way -- is substantial. He
showered her with gifts, obtained the loan on her Grand Am, and other staffers
reported7 that he had been courting her. Assuming that it is authentic, it
offers us a furtive look into Larson's 'dark night of the soul'. It is only one
piece in a composite of a man who is obsessed with his failures ... and
constantly needs to be reminded that he IS somebody.
It is said that whom gods would destroy, they first make mad....
The 'New Math'....
Long-time Larson listeners have told me that, if things aren't bad, they
invariably are worse. As such, it is easy to tune out the cries of impending
doom. But this time, he may be telling the truth.
Larson often reveals more in what he doesn't say as in what he does -- his
claim that he has had to cancel sixteen stations has a glimmer of truth to it.
Still, what Bob calls a cancellation letter is typically a ploy for
renegotiating his contracts. It is little more than a polite threat: If you
don't reduce your price, we'll take our business elsewhere. For the most part,
the stations make concessions, or in some instances, accept capped
revenue-sharing arrangements. It is rare for Bob to abandon a market, and then,
he does so only as a last resort. But station managers don't know that ... and
neither do most of his listeners.
The situation in Salt Lake City is an excellent example. It serves
as a sort of loss leader: Even though Utahans don't support it, Larson
more than makes it up in other markets, where people see it as a mis-
sionary outreach. He has played that perception to the hilt, period-
ically mounting campaigns to "Save Salt Lake." He wants to keep that
market, but it appears that the local U.S. Bankruptcy Court has a few
ideas of their own.
An informant advises me that the Court is trying to arrange a sale
of the station to another religious broadcaster. When the sale goes
through, all of the existing contracts will be null and void, and Bob
will almost certainly lose that affiliate. And while it is difficult
to predict the future, odds are that the loss will be attributed to a
lack of listener support.
Under normal circumstances, the threat of losing an affiliate could be taken
lightly. However, as donations plummet, and he is forced to dip into reserves,
Larson is in less of a position to haggle. And on the other side of the table,
the station managers read World and Cornerstone, too -- they are less liable to
bet on Talk-Back's comeback. As such, more stations will be inclined to reject
Larson's overtures.
In terms of profit margin -- aside from Dallas-Ft. Worth, which is a special
case -- Bob Larson Ministries' most profitable markets are 'second-tier' cities
like Columbus, Denver, and Seattle. The cost of air time is far more reasonable
than that in a New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago, and the out-of-pocket cost per
listener reached is lower. Smaller cities (e.g., Anchorage, Wichita, and
Salinas) are almost as lucrative, but they don't offer the same profit
potential.
Problem is, Larson's premier markets are large enough to support a commercial
Christian music station. His Denver affiliate, KLTT, went to an all-music
format in November; Detroit's WLQV is rumored to follow suit in March.8 Bob
pays well -- and on time -- and at one time, that made Talk-Back a fairly hot
commodity. Today, given Bob's other well-known liabilities, his 'star' has lost
much of its luster. And as Christian radio station owners adjust to the
realities of the marketplace, he sees the handwriting on the wall.
This was the impetus behind Bob's call to 'revive Christian radio': Successful
and well-respected ministries like Focus on the Family and the Christian
Research Institute will survive this industry shakeout, but Larson's antics have
earned him a place on the endangered species list. With a rapidly-declining
donor base, he can't compete with his brethren, and with Ministry morale being
nothing short of disastrous, just keeping the BLM ship afloat is a formidable
task.
Bob will leave the air when Bob is good and ready, and not a moment sooner.
Even by conservative estimates, Bob still has a $2.5 million war chest. Even if
most of his donations dried up tomorrow, he could last the year without serious
difficulty; eliminating less-profitable stations and renegotiating existing
contracts stretches his reserves even further. He could even (God forbid!) take
a pay cut -- cashing in his split-dollar life insurance policy would enable him
to pay his airtime bill in Denver for more than a year. Money is not an object.
If he leaves the mike, it will likely be as a result of the accumulated
pressure. Potentially, Bob has as much to fear from the IRS as the Christian
press, and if anyone on his senior staff goes to either one, it would be the
beginning of the end. Senior Vice-President Angelo Diasparra may be the biggest
risk -- he's a tough (and from what I'm told, when he's not playing the heavy,
rather likeable) old bird, and Bob won't be able to intimidate him. And like
Garyl Gibson did with respect to Troy Snowdon, he might decide that it is better
to get out while the getting is good. Even Laura, his young bride, is a
possible security risk.
A variety of Larson confidants have reported that Bob has a vicious temper,
and is prone to be verbally abusive. Lori Boespflug told me that he could get
so out of control that she was "afraid to leave him alone" with any of her three
girls. Furthermore, my BLM sources have also reported that the initial year of
Bob and Laura's marriage was a particularly rocky one. Laura's parents are
divorced, and let us not forget that both of them are working on their second
spouse. And Bob can't help but bring his stresses home with him. If there was
ever a prescription for marital trouble, that is about as close as it gets.
Simply coming to work in the morning must be a formidable challenge for Bob.
From the boardroom to the mail room, he reportedly suspects everyone of being a
possible mole. Every caller is a potential land mine. The next P.R. blow could
come from anywhere from 60 Minutes to Christianity Today, and when he expects
his opponents to strike, they just sit back and laugh. For a 'control freak'
like him, that has to be intolerable.
But let us not cry for Bob. When it comes to getting money out of "his"
Ministry, Larson rivals L. Ron Hubbard for sheer ingenuity, and you can rest
assured that he'll do everything in his power to ensure that his escape from
public life is a profitable one. For instance, while the Ministry has cut back
on frills like Compassion Connection and the Hope Line, it continues to lavish
compensation on Bob. BLM's alleged financial difficulties didn't stop it from
buying a $200,000 split-dollar life insurance policy for his benefit:
As part of the president's employment agreement, the Ministry
purchased a split dollar life insurance policy for the presi-
dent's benefit. The Ministry pays the annual premium, of which
$1,470 constitutes compensation to the president in accordance
with Internal Revenue Service regulations. In the event of
termination of the plan, the Ministry would receive the lesser
of the policy cash surrender value, or the accumulated non-
compensation premium payments (split) and the president would
receive the excess of accumulated retirement benefits over the
policy cash surrender value, if any. In the event of premature
death of the president, the Ministry would receive an amount
equal to the accumulated premium payments and the president's
named beneficiary would receive the balance of the death bene-
fit proceeds. For the year ended December 31, 1992, the Minis
try paid $52,719 in total premiums. As of December 31, 1992,
included in other assets on the balance sheet is the cash sur-
render value of the policy which is $27,564.9
The key to understanding a split-dollar life insurance policy is in who
benefits. The Ministry puts up the cash -- and takes the risk -- but gets only
a guaranteed rate of return. However, if the insurance company's investments
are profitable, and the value of said policy at termination exceeds its' cash
surrender value (as it generally does), the surplus goes to the executive.
Let's put this into perspective. The Ministry used over $52,000 of
sacrificially-given funds in 1992 to give Bob Larson a $200,000 split dollar
life insurance policy. BLM could have bought $200,000 in term life insurance
for less than $1,500, and used the remainder to 'save' stations. But, what the
heck, it is Bob Larson's ministry....
And The 'New Bob'....
Before Tuesday, Bob Larson seemed as if he was on a fairly uneventful ride
toward oblivion. He skillfully steered his shows away from anything that might
permit a discussion of his financial and personal woes, hoping perhaps to 'ride
out the storm'. And this was not unexpected: Bob can be quite a cool customer
when he wants to be, and not drawing attention to himself was certainly a viable
strategy. Things were quiet ... almost too quiet.
And then, it happened.
The surreal (and, from a tactical perspective, long-overdue) sequel to his
classic "Bob on the Block," Tuesday's show "Bob Bares All" was another
remarkable tour de force from The Mighty Larson Art Players. No one seriously
expected that Bob would give straight answers to his listeners' legitimate
questions, but then again, no one expected that he would become completely
unglued. He didn't just jump off the deep end ... he tried a triple somersault
with a half-twist. Whenever Bob does anything, he does it in style.
It didn't take long for the Internet articles to come up in conversation. The
second caller, a fellow from Vancouver, popped the question -- and Bob
sidestepped it like a Bill Clinton wannabe:
CHRIS: "I just wanted to talk with you about this, there's a
large file of information on -- about you, or..." <BL inter
rupts>.
BL: "A large file? Oh, there's all kinds of files of informa-
tion on me. Goodness knows, you can get it on computer bulle-
tin boards, you can write people <Chris tried to interrupt, but
BL drowned him out> -- write people who publish their addresses
and they will send you more information about me than I know
about myself. It's all there -- it's there for the taking, it's
there for the asking, and no, you can't give the address over
the air. I do have some scruples."
CHRIS: "I don't want to. I just wanted to ask you a question
about it, actually."
BL: "I don't know ... what do you want to ask me about it?"
CHRIS: Well, it's pretty -- pretty damaging. I'm just wonder-
ing about this Evangelical Council for Financial Responsibility
[sic]. Is it true you guys withdrew from that?"
BL: "Yeah. I suggest that you write them and you ask them who
serves on their standards committee, how they are chosen, what
they are paid, and ask for a biographical profile of the people
who judge the other people and see how fast you get that infor-
mation. And from vividly vivacious Vancouver, goodbye."10
The NRB's Pat Mahoney told me in a telephone interview that it was her
understanding that the allegedly private information Bob was complaining about
would be given out to anyone who asked.11 After all, NRB potentates' salaries
are matters of public record, and a man with legitimate credentials has no
reason to hide them.12
NRB president E. Brandt Gustavson declined to comment with respect to the
Larson scandal -- but an unofficial source inside the NRB suggested that there
is a reason for his silence. It was reported that, when Larson withdrew BLM's
ECFA application, he warned Gustavson that if he ever breathed anything to the
press about why BLM withdrew its application, he would sue. Assuming the
veracity of that report, and given Larson's well-earned reputation for using
lawsuits as offensive weapons, such a threat could not have been taken lightly.
No one was safe from Bob's wrath on Tuesday -- even self-confessed Bob-backers
were waylaid by his staccato blasts. Consider this call, from Jim in Anchorage:
JIM: "I've always wanted to know, I know that people talk to
you about money and what-not--"
BL: "Yeah, why do they always want to do that, Jim? Why do
they always pick on me? Why doesn't -- I want to know -- why
doesn't anybody ever call up Charles Standley or Chuck Colson
or Jim Dobson and say to them, 'Please could you publish your
financial IRS return and let us know all of your sources of
income, how you got it, and where it came from? Why doesn't
anybody ever ask them?'"13
I wasn't the first person to report on Bob Larson's financial condition, but I
should be qualified to respond. To be blunt, Larson is a relative nobody --
almost a cult figure. No one in the Evangelical community would permit me to
write this story, and few in the secular world have even a vague notion as to
who he is. That's why I offered the story to Jay Grelen in the first place, and
satisfied myself with working the fruits of the investigation into two of my
books. If, as Larson has publicly insinuated, I was out to destroy
Christianity, or at least, a prominent Christian leader, I would have gone after
someone significant, like Jim Dobson.
It is not -- nor, will it ever be -- my role to be the watchdog for the
Evangelical community. As such, I haven't really made it a practice to rummage
through every evangelist's bank account. Based on my dealings with them, I am
fairly satisfied that Focus on the Family is a class act. And, on the other
side of the fence, it's tough to pick on Howard Stern -- he is perfectly honest
about what he is doing, and he hasn't parked his snout at the federal trough.
But, since Bob has thrown down his gauntlet, I decided to make a quick inquiry
into Watergate alum Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship ministry.
Prison Fellowship is run the way you would expect a ministry to be run -- they
almost seem to invite scrutiny. Colson doesn't have any outside sources of
income: all his honoraria and royalties are given to his ministry. Indeed, he
was recently awarded the Templeton Prize ($1,000,000) and he had the check made
out to Prison Fellowship.14 And, just in case anyone is sufficiently curious to
inquire further, Prison Fellowship's taxpayer ID is 62-0988294, their mailing
address is P.O. Box 17500, Washington DC, 20041, and the applicable IRS form is
4506-A.
Or That Same Old Song and Dance?
In the Bob Larson Theater of the Absurd, the outer limits of credulity are
tested daily. Like Mike Warnke, Larson is a master at using gross exaggeration
to drive home his points. It's not intellectually honest, but as former
Christian talk-show host John Stewart put it to me, talk radio isn't exactly
brain surgery. Ergo, it works.
On the February 8 show, in a desperate ploy to win back the 'hearts and minds'
of the legions of listeners persuaded by his critics, Larson tried his hand at
not-too-subtle satire:
"It's absolutely amazing to me that people -- the things that
people think about me -- I mean, I don't believe it. A while
back, we got a phone call, and somebody said, 'You know, I'd
like to know about Bob's Arabian horse farm <sound effect: team
of horses whinnying>. I mean, is it really true that Bob has
an Arabian horse farm?' No, it's not really true.
And then, we get these people who say, 'I know what Bob's
doing with his money -- he's driving a Mercedes.' Absolutely.
Or maybe, a Lamborghini <sound effect: race car>.
I mean, it's-- you would not believe some of the things that
people come up with. So, I mean-- I mean, what are they going
to accuse me of next? Are they going to accuse me of having my
own private baseball franchise? ...
Oh, and then, there was the one about my LearJet <sound
effect: jet taking off>. I mean, I don't know where people get
this stuff."15
And during the second hour, Bob continued to hammer on that theme:
"I'll tell you what gets to me: This is the stupid garbage --
yes, it's stupid garbage -- stupid garbage people believe. I
get this stuff printed about me, written about me, said about
me ... and I read this stuff. I mean, I wasn't joking about
the Arabian horse farm. We actually got a phone call, and
somebody said I, uh, ... that was before they said I owned five
houses-- <stammering>. I wish I did own an Arabian horse farm.
I'd love to own an Arabian horse farm. I don't own an Arabian
horse farm -- or five houses."16
As with other common examples of 'Larson logic', it doesn't bear up well under
close examination. Distilled to essentials, Bob is arguing that, because
uninformed individuals are allegedly spreading outlandish rumors, the
carefully-tempered and well-documented reports in the Christian press should
likewise be disregarded. To the best of my knowledge, no one in the media has
accused Bob of owning a LearJet, a stable of Arabian horses, a top-of-the-line
Mercedes, or broadcasting from the side of his indoor swimming pool. However,
there is one of these arguably absurd allegations which may have some basis in
fact: the claim that Bob owns five houses.
I haven't reported on this aspect of the Larson story on grounds of relevance,
but since Bob has made such a federal case of it, the subject has become
germane.
Jay Grelen and Doug LeBlanc started this ball rolling in the first World
article, "This Is Me, This Is Real," by writing that "Larson's papers in the
divorce case also report that: ... When they divorced, the Larsons owned five
pieces of real estate, including two in the Rocky Mountains, worth $539,200."17
And since Bob signed the papers in question under penalty of perjury, their
report was presumptively accurate.
Grelen and LeBlanc didn't present Larson's financial information as adroitly
as they could have; it's easy to see how five pieces of real estate can be
translated into five houses. Still, one of the parcels was a vacant lot --
albeit, a valuable one -- scheduled to be sold as a result of the divorce. A
second one was nothing more than a cabin, and a third was ex-wife Kathy's
townhouse. The family home was sold. The only significant piece of real estate
he got from the divorce was the ski condo. With everything that Grelen and
LeBlanc had an opportunity to have reported on, the division of the marital
estate was a questionable choice.
Yet, once his divorce was final, and the success of Dead Air buoyed his
confidence, Bob got back into the Colorado real estate market in a big way. And
to the best of our knowledge, he now owns the following properties:
Bob Larson's Parade of Homes18
Property Purchase Date
Description Price Evidenced by Ck'd
--------------------------------------------------------------------
28XXX Meadowlark Dr., $440,000 Deed (reception # 2/93
Golden, CO 91112013)
13XXXW. Ohio Ave., 79,900 Deed (reception # 2/93
Lakewood, CO 92089695)
Hearthstone Mountainhomes 199,000 Deed (reception # 2/93
at Aspenridge Condos, illegible on
Unit 2, Building 1, copy; bought
Summit County, CO 9 Dec. 1987)
Winterland condo(s?) 32,50019 Bob's affidavit N/A
We also have an unconfirmed report that Bob owns a townhouse in the
greater Phoenix area. If that report is true, and he hasn't sold any
of the aforementioned properties, then he owns five houses. Granted,
it might look bad, but there is no evidence to suggest that he leaves
his second, third and even fourth homes vacant when he is not around.
For instance, there are all sorts of reasons for him to own the house
his parents live in, and resort-area condos are easily rented. Thus,
in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter one whit whether Bob
owns three, four or even more houses; what ought to matter is whether
he improperly used sacrificially-given funds to pay for them.
_______________________________
[What I find more remarkable is that a man who insists that he constantly
receives serious death threats, and is forced to travel under assumed names,
should take so precious little care to protect himself from the rogues' gallery
of assorted crazies who purportedly threaten him. All Bob would have had to
have done is set up some out-of-state partnership to buy the property, hold his
partnership interest in an innocuously-named trust, and tell those few staffers
who need to know his whereabouts that he is only renting his house. The casual
yahoo from Columbus shouldn't have any hope of finding him, and all but the most
persistent and well-financed reporter would have difficulty following the trail.
But Bob has done everything short of taking out an ad in the Black Flame --
anyone who wanted to find him could do so in five minutes, tops. Either he
doesn't take the alleged death threats seriously, or he is incredibly stupid.]
_______________________________
It is written that 'the wages of sin are death' -- and it is beginning to look
as if Bob Larson Ministries is gradually slipping into a coma. A good show --
one that would have drawn $12-15,000 in pledges only three years ago --
reportedly pulls in around $3-5,000. And, like the proverbial three-year-old
that blames the family cat for knocking over the cookie jar, Bob is looking
desperately for a scapegoat. Bob is rather creative in that respect -- he may
be the only radio minister in history to blame a drop in Canadian donations on
the election of a U.S. president -- but the fact remains that if the cookie jar
is broken, all the excuses in the world won't fix it.
Was Bob's bizarre outburst of February 8 merely another in a seemingly endless
repertoire of mindless theatrics, or was it a harbinger of troubles to come? I
don't suppose that we'll ever know. But what Bob said to his listeners, his
critics will openly second: He doesn't need luck; he needs prayer -- and
repentance.
_____________________________________________________________________
ENDNOTES
1Ministry sources informed us of Bonnie's unfortunate situation; Fred
Wheeler confirmed with the radio station in question that she was no
longer employed there.
2 Bob Larson, "Talk-Back With Bob Larson," Radio broadcast, 2 Feb.
1994 (tape on file).
3M. Kurt Goedelman and G. Richard Fisher, "Charged with Character
Assassination: PFO Responds to Heresy Hunters by James R. Spencer,"
Personal Freedom Outreach Quarterly Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan.-
Mar. 1994, p. 5. (The Quarterly Journal can be downloaded from the
JPUSA bbs [(312) 878-6030], or you can obtain a copy by writing PFO,
P.O. Box 26062, St. Louis, MO 63136.)
4Ibid., p. 12.
5"My Dinner with Bob Larson" [interview with Boyd Rice], Snake Oil,
Issue #2 (no date), p. 5. ("Brother Randall" has been actively doing
research on Larson, and, as is my standard practice, I'm loading him
for bear.
It's tough to pin these guys down theologically, but they appear to
limit their criticisms to the Word-Faith crowd: Jim Bakker, Dr. Gene
Scott, Paul Crouch, and David Koresh are representative 'targets' of
their inoffensive barbs. You can obtain a copy by writing Snake Oil,
6102 E. Mockingbird #374, Dallas, TX 75214. The cover price is $2,
and the good Brother insists upon cash. For those interested in the
other Bob, he has compiled a piece titled "The Beast of Robert Til
ton" [check for $6.66 payable to D. Rose; same address].)
6Unsigned, "Reflections on a Tempestuous Relationship," 27 Feb. 1991,
p. 1.
7E.g., Anonymous, Letter (to Edward Atsinger, President of Salem Com-
munications), 1991. (The authenticity of the letter was confirmed by
former Salem employee, attorney, and Christian talk-show host John
Stewart.)
8Courtesy of our Detroit correspondent, who doubtless will be going
off-line with LQV; his presence will be missed.
9Bob Larson Ministries, 1992 Consolidated Financial Statements
(obtained from Bob Larson Ministries, 25 August 1992, balance sheet
reprinted in summary form in K. Smith, "The Cowering Inferno," also
on file with Internet), p. 10.
10Bob Larson, "Talk-Back With Bob Larson," Radio broadcast, 8 Feb.
1994 (tape on file).
11Patricia Mahoney, Telephone interview, 9 Feb. 1994.
12Cf., Mt. 5:14-16.
13Bob Larson, "Talk-Back With Bob Larson," Radio broadcast, 8 Feb.
1993 (tape on file).
14Lee Vaughn (Prison Fellowship Development Dept.), Telephone inter
view, 9 Feb. 1994. (As I recall, I'd first heard the part about the
Templeton Prize on an interview he did on William F. Buckley's Fir-
ing Line.)
15Bob Larson, "Talk-Back With Bob Larson," Radio broadcast, 8 Feb.
1993 (tape on file).
16Ibid., ibid.
17Jay Grelen and Doug LeBlanc, "This Is Me, This Is Real," World,
Vol. 7, No. 32, 23 Jan. 1993, pp. 7-8.
18Copies of deeds on file. Since the property description for the first two
parcels double as street and mailing addresses, I have deleted the last
three digits in the description. This strikes what I submit is a reasonable
balance in shielding the Larsons from unwanted communication but providing
enough information so those who wanted to check my work may do so.
19"Affidavit with Respect to the Financial Affairs of Bobby E. Lar
son," Larson v. Larson, No. 91 DR 226 (Jefferson County (Colo.) Dist.
Ct., filed 18 July 1991, at 7. (The divorce file itself was sealed by
order of the Court on 13 Feb. 1992.)
_____________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Bob Larson - who's stupid?
Date: 14 Feb 1994 09:32:45 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
After thinking about one of last week's "Talk-Back" shows, it struck me odd that
Bob's response to a questioning caller was rather ironic.
Bob lambasted a caller who inquired about Larson's royalties from his purported
books. The caller asked if Bob gave his book pro
fits to his Ministry, and Bob
said he wasn't stupid enough to do that.
Well, I guess Bob would consider Billy Graham, Josh McDowell, and other
Christian minister/writers as being stupid in donating their royalties to their
respective ministries.
After all, Bob needs all the income he can get, because I suppose the six figure
salary/compensation package just doesn't quite make him feel secure...
What shall be Bob's Valentine's Day gift to himself this year? Last year around
this time, Bob wrote himself a $50,000 bonus check out of the Ministry funds.
Diamonds may be a girl's best friend, but for Bob, just give him the cash...
Just in case John Hicks might be reading this post, send me some e-mail! I tried
to send you copies of the articles and such, but your address didn't work! I
think it was a uunet address, and my account doesn't like them for some reason.
I got a copy of "Snake Oil: A Kontemporary Guide to Kooky Kristian Kulture" last
week. What a scream! They had a great article on Larson. Does anyone know how to
get a subscription, or where it's based from? Ken loved it as well (read the
current article, The $64,000 Question).
More Bob-News as it rolls in.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scott T. Mikusko I have made but one prayer to God,
Michigan State University a short one:
21922sm@msu.edu "Oh Lord, make my enemies look
smikusko@nyx.cs.du.edu ridiculous,"
And God granted it. --- Voltaire
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________
Copyright 1994 Kenneth L. Smith. All rights reserved; reproduction
permitted for non-commercial uses only. Please direct your questions
to the author at P.O. Box 280305, Lakewood, CO 80228.
-----------------------------<GwD Command Centers>------------------------------
Chaos (806)###-#### | PCI (806)794-1438
GridPoint Durant (405)920-1347 | The Sprawl (806)797-0820
Federation Slayers' (806)885-2954 | Tacoland (215)750-0392
The Snake's Den (806)793-3779 | The Lagoon (203)638-3712
The Siege Perilous (806)762-0948 | Altered Reality (203)925-8349
Brazen's Hell (301)776-8259 | Cell Block 4 (806)612-8694
Pirate's Cove (806)795-4926 | Static Line (806)747-0802
PCI (806)794-1438 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ftp =-= etext.archive.umich.edu /pub/Zines/Greeny
ftp.fc.net /pub/deadkat/misc/GWD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/---------------\
Published by GwD, Inc. in September 1995 :FIGHT THE POWER:
GREENY world Domination Task Force copyright (c) 1993 by Lobo : GwD :
\---------------/
GwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwD45
