Tuesday, November 2, 2010

There She Goes Again

Stacy McDonald is at it again...

If I may be very human for a moment, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry...or vomit. I know one thing for certain: it makes me very angry. 

I see desperation all over it. I see a person having made total sacrifice of the heart, soul, and mind to a lifestyle and it's agenda, feeling that agenda being threatened and exposed as extremely flawed, and lashing out - dishonestly - against the perceived threat. I believe Stacy has been far less than genuine in her interactions with me, so I don't expect anything less when it comes to issues of her defending her true god - the patriarchal/quiverfull lifestyle. She's declared war...not just on Hillary, but on ALL quivering daughters.

Nice work, Stacy.

Agenda and conviction aren't the same thing. A conviction is a firmly held belief, but not a belief held so firmly that it isn't fluid to truth as it's revealed. When you think of conviction, think of the early church. An agenda is a plan or course formed exclusively for reaching a specific, unchanging goal. It has no regard for the revelation of truth, as the goal is the priority. When you think of agenda, think of shrewd and crafty politicians like Hillary Clinton, who want what they want and it's what they want and nothing's gonna knock them off course of getting what they want. New truth revealed? Just tweak the story and maintain the agenda, and find some way to diminish the source of the truth. Play dirty if you have to.

I'll give you three one guess where I believe this new blog of Stacy's falls in that scenario.

Now...to the blog itself...

It should be titled "The Passive/Aggressive Response to Quivering Daughters". I'm having trouble getting past the scriptural sub-header. 2nd Peter 3:17-18

You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Given the verses that preceed it, it's something of a proof-text - a favorite tactic of patriocentrics and dominionists. Immediately preceeding it is this in verses 14-16...

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 

Wow. Unstable people twisting the scriptures. Right idea and the better description of her blog.

I'm trying to figure out if she's calling Hillary "wicked". Her choice of scripture would seem to suggest as much. Boy, would that ever render her first few paragraphs a heaping helping of flaming hypocrisy, so surely she's not suggesting Hillary's wicked, right? I mean, it's not likely that, in her haste, she did a bible search for "steadfast" since "Steadfast Daughters" is the crux of the title, this popped up, and she didn't weigh the remainder of the verse to see if it fit the agenda, too, right?

Imagine if I started a new Contemporary Christian band, found a "biblical" name for it, and created a website header and scriptural sub-header that looked like this...

Jawbone of an Ass
"And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men." ~Judges 15:16

Or, imagine if I were an atheist and wanted to start an atheism blog, yet still went for the scriptural sub-header thing. I could do that, too...

God Isn't Real (Living in a God-free World)
"There is no God." ~Psalm 53:1

(See what I did there?)

Yikes. And we haven't even moved beyond the sub-header, people.

I believe Stacy is being utterly disingenuous in her first several paragraphs, painting a picture of herself as sympathetic, attempting to set the book up as emotionally manipulative by feigning it's influence on her. Stacy hated the very idea of this book, had likely drawn her conclusions about it before it was ever completed, much less before she actually read it, saw it as a threat, and most likely was planning to fight and resist it and whatever influence it may have long before it's release. Let's be real here; you don't start a new blog, a blog full of legalistic and narrow interpreting contributors, talk about the "error of the wicked" in the sub-header, and then commend the women whose work is the target of the blog for having a "passion for God".

I find that disingenuous and reprehensible.

I'm also fascinated by the fixation on theology, as if theology is the answer to everything. You don't fix hearts that have been damaged, scarred, and in some cases corrupted, with theology. I've also come to understand that when Stacy, and those like her, speak of theology, they're speaking of proof-texts and presuppositions which form a patriocentric culture and way of life in which role-playing and a human authority structure are the true gods worshipped. It's a theology where Jesus isn't even really necessary. I don't see how apostasy is the answer to spiritual issues in Christian lives.

She describes Hillary as a "confused young woman". Hmmm. Like any other firmly grounded person, I don't think Hillary makes any claims to have everything figured out... but confused? Really? Not a particularly honest way to describe her, and if Stacy were to choose the route of honesty she'd say "confused - because she doesn't believe like me - young woman".

Stacy's comment that Hillary's writing evoked emotions "I had not experienced, at least to the same degree, since before I became a Christian over 20 years ago" is also a subtle jab, not to mention a feigned one, at Hillary's spiritual life and state. It's an attempt to set up the haze that spiritual abuse created in Hillary as a girl and young adult as being the result of her mean ole deceitful emotions and her sinful, rebellious heart. Common tricks of cultic groups. Subtle, manipulative forms of mind control and coercive persuasion. Deception and diversion. Same kind of stuff that Jim Jones excelled at. Stacy then tries to bolster the notion by pointing out how she, personally, wasn't raised in a protestant Christian home, and thus, she could relate to Hillary's emotions. In other words, it's un-Christian to feel what Hillary, and other QDs like her, feel and have felt. Very Deceitful.

Stacy then goes into the "show me the blood" mode of defense, a common defense of abusers. Stacy attempts to subtly manipulate her readers into concluding that Hillary's problem was her own sinful, rebellious heart, that she wasn't truly abused because there was no physical or sexual violence, and essentially slaps everyone who has ever suffered from emotional and spiritual abuse in the face, discarding their claims as menial. She does all of this without ever actually outright saying as much. Well played, Stacy. Manipulate much?

Stacy goes on to downplay the issue of spiritual abuse (which, for the record, Stace, is the result of the abusive, apostate system of religion you're immersed in and promote) even more, referring to it as "common conflict and parenting weakness". I heard the same tripe from the dominionist circle of people surrounding my former future in-laws. Lots of crapola about "emotional stretching". Oh, so that's what you call it when dear old dad uses threats of suicide to manipulate his children, and then the next morning is "leading" family worship in all of his patriarchal glory. Dang. If only I'd have known it was just emotional stretching, common conflict, and parenting weakness. Parenting weakness, hmmm. Does that apply to threatening to estrange a grown daughter if she doesn't cede to mom and dad's choices for her life? Or is that common conflict? What about a lifetime of indoctrination which resembles the rituals of Islam, right down to the like it and accept it or else application? Common conflict or parenting weakness?

From Stacy...

It is likely that a child who has experienced true familial horrors would be happy to be in a home where he is loved, nurtured, protected, and taught the Scriptures, even if he felt his “feelings and individuality” weren’t always “respected” or that he didn’t have enough one-on-one time with Mom and Dad.

A common response to abuse from the practitioners and defenders of the system that causes it. Recast the abuse as misinterpreted love, nurturing, protection, and scriptural teaching. Nice touch. Lots of heart for the wounded.

I'll be writing some more about this in the days ahead, addressing the remainder of Stacy's "review" of Quivering Daughters, and making some further comparisons of the beliefs that Stacy peddles to the Jim Jones/Jonestown dynamic.

My own thoughts on Quivering Daughters can be found here. In that article from a couple of months back, I spoke a bit to the opposition that was arising to the book...

The less than glowing reviews and depictions of this book have all come with their own solution..."IF" these stories of abuse are real (because, miraculously, these folk have never witnessed any such thing), and not just the product of rebellious hearts, QDs should take their issues before proper church authority. So, they suggest fixing authority gone amuck with more authority. For those offering this course of action as the solution, what would be the result of this process in the churches YOU preside over? I don't really think I need to say more, because, upon pondering that question, it's difficult enough for me to keep a straight face.

And, I still can't keep a straight face when I think about it.

It's a crying shame when you reach the point with certain people that you always expect the worst from them, and they never disappoint your expectation.


  1. Good grief. It's literally the same kind of spin rhetoric I've been hearing all month in Chicago campaign ads.

    Somebody ought to set up the Spiritual Abusers' equivalent of PassiveAgressiveNotes.com.

    I'm actually kind of disappointed she didn't get to my chapter, as I'd be fascinated to hear her objections to the idea that Jesus loves people-- a doctrine that's conspicuously missing from her review, for some reason.

  2. What is that quote on Hillary's blog?

    Was it:

    "It is a grave disservice to the heart, soul, body and spirit of a woman when she is given the subtle message that the truth of her own pain is not as important as the reputation of the ones who inflict it."

    And the disservice goes on and on.

    Shame on you Stacey McDonald for trivializing the pain of the mis-shepherd lambs of God from the patriarchy/quiverfull camp.

    The Bible says that it is better for a millstone to be tied around the neck of a person and cast into the sea than to offend one of these little ones.

    Well, the 'little ones', the little lambs that your agenda is destroying, they are growing up.
    And still, you go on with your little-girl-destroying agenda, calling bitter waters sweet and shaming those who don't want to drink those poisoned waters any more.
    Quivering daughters are spitting out the poison, the kool-aid, and still you refuse to see what you and your camp has done. Still you drink your own poison which blinds you to the Truth.

  3. Her next post will probably be..."Oh yeah...ummm...Jesus and stuff, too."

  4. That made me sick to my stomach. Did Stacy McDonald create a whole new blog just to combat Hillary?

    It almost makes me want to laugh. I would, but if I open my mouth I might puke.

  5. Okay, now that I got that anger out of my system... :)

    Here again we see exactly what Hillary wrote about in her book: When you are afraid: control. Stacy is afraid that freedom, that truth, might lead some women into false self-pity.

    So. Control.

  6. It's a system of belief built not on freedom but on control, much like Communism.

    Stacy fears losing that control. Without it, there's no critical mass of sustainable belief.

    Like I've said before, remove the authority structure, and they have no Jesus. It IS their Jesus.

  7. It IS built on control. It's so frustrating - I have no idea how to fight it or if it's even worth it. It's encroaching on my friends here on the seminary campus - really starting to take root. I actually saw this post right before I was going to write a blog about that very subject. :)

    This whole ant-quivering-daughters blog is proof though that Jesus' message of grace is getting through to people. :) So part of me wants to throw a party! Who's with me??

  8. Oh, I want to see the "Jesus and Stuff" post very badly! Specifically--

    Does Jesus love feminists?

    Does Jesus love egalitarians?

    Does Jesus love people who study the Bible seriously and conclude that patriarchy is a misinterpretation?

    Does Jesus love people who say that the patriarchy movement is abusive?

    Does Jesus love dads who want their daughters to grow up to have careers outside of the home?

    Does Jesus love rebels?

    Also observe the fear-based reasoning process: "It's remotely possible that some person somewhere might hypothetically decide to (GASP) disobey their parents because they might theoretically find some passage in this book to be somewhat vague-- therefore, let's throw out the bathwater and all the babies in the whole family! And never let anyone bathe again!"

  9. Oh, I'm with you Rachel.

    Your are right. Stacy and friends are getting desperate. It's showing, squeezing through the cracks of their whitewashed defenses.

    Party on!

  10. Party! I'm gonna go home and put on Milano full blast.

  11. Also observe the fear-based reasoning process: "It's remotely possible that some person somewhere might hypothetically decide to (GASP) disobey their parents because they might theoretically find some passage in this book to be somewhat vague-- therefore, let's throw out the bathwater and all the babies in the whole family! And never let anyone bathe again!"

    I've decided, after hearing the baby/bathwater thing so many times in the recent past from the patrio crowd, that if I ever have children, my babies are taking showers;)

    Rachel...My new CCM band is accepting bookings. We can probably work the party if everyone can get past our name;) But, hey, it's biblical.

  12. As long as the name isn't "Baby Lou and the Bathwater Six"...

    (Actually, that would be a pretty sweet name for a Blues combo.)

    It's tremendously ironic that the structure of Stacy's review is pretty much nothing but throwing out babies. "I think there is something to be learned... still, I cannot recommend it." Can't QFs follow their own cliche?

  13. Wow, she really is off the edge.

    She forgets that this book is written for "Quivering Daughters" and not "Quivering Parents." Sure, it would be great if a parent would pick up this book and start re-evaluating how they're raising their kids, but that's not what Hillary intended with her book.

    As a daughter that grew up in patriarchy, I truly found a lot of healing through Hillary's book and have passed it on to my dad, full of highlighting, so that he can see better what I deal with all these years later.

    Stacy McDonald needs to realize that spiritual and emotional abuse IS opression and it is REAL. Domestic abuse and violence is not the only sort of oppression or abuse out there. Any shrink could tell her that if she'd listen. The real shame and insult to those of us that have lived through true spiritual, verbal, emotional abuse comes from Stacy, among others, by trying to diminish what we've been through. So many of us have scars to this day and to act like we haven't lived through oppression simply because some of us haven't been raped or bear physical scars is shameful.

    Perhaps if she really dug deep into her own children's psyche, she might find that there are real ramifications for not feeling like an individual or not having thoughts and opinions respected. Again, this book isn't written for the parents, but the children that have been abused and need true healing.

    She's still on her schpiel about patriarchy and patriocentric. Whether is father-rule or father-centered, they both take God out of the equation. BOTH of those are father centered, whether she wants to admit it or not.

    Of course she can't recommend this book to Hillary's intended audience. It goes against her agenda and the agenda of those that run in the same circle she does. Can you imagine if her daughters and those of her friends got a hold of this book? The freedom that these daughters would reclaim would cause the whole system of patriarchy to crumble and where would that leave the parents? The leaders would have no one left to lead because they will have shed their shackles. She seriously did not get the whole point of the book. That by dealing with our past hurts, we can find healing and freedom. But then again, this book goes against her agenda, so I'm not surprised that she can neither understand the vision behind the book or recommend it.

    Saying that things must be dealt with by the church makes me want to vomit. These girls CAN'T go to their churches to have these things dealt with. The church CONDONES the abuse. Is Stacy McDonald really THAT blind???

    Her statement about rebellious husbands and fathers not practicing biblical patriarchy is equally vomitous. Yes, they are practicing patriarchy, and it's certainly NOT biblical. She talks as if the church will take action against fathers, husbands and men that voilate their "authority" but that's a pipe dream in the patriarchal world.

    Surprise, Stacy, abusive men are still abusive in any kind of home. But where authority is given solely to a man with no accountability, it's more likely to thrive there. And another surprise, God is already using Hillary's amazing talents bring glory to Himself and truly edify the Body of Christ. I'm living proof of that.

    Stacy McDonald's review shouldn't even be looked at seriously by ANYONE. And thanks to her, those that read her drivel, the people that really NEED to read this book, most likely won't. Way to go, Stacy. Way to perpetuate the abuse.

  14. Okay, I gotta know - what's the name of your band Lewis? :)

  15. Rachel...It's in the article. Brief mention about proof-texting and skewed use of scripture.

  16. I read it.

    No offense, but she sounds like a whiner. Something she tends to use as a trait towards others.

    She does love that word 'subjective' doesn't she? I had to giggle when she said she had to reread parts 2-3 times to figure something out, and yet most don't take away the 'subjective' part when reading it..lol!

    Sorry I don't buy that. I think she grasps it, but doesn't want to admit it. There is a specific group of people that this book targets, and the reasons are quite clear. Its silly to apply 'subjective' in that manner when you realize that. No offense, but makes her look ignorant. I doubt she wished to come off that way.

    Hillary to me has always been open minded, an encourager, full of grace with a healthy dash of humility.

    Its to bad she didn't take more of that from her book.

  17. I'd ask Stacy if she would be truly happy in a marriage relationship where her “feelings and individuality” weren’t always “respected” but apparently she is because she's lied to herself enough times that she believes it. And it does no sense in asking her that because she won't answer anyway. Whatever happened to these people always being "ready to answer, in season and out of season."

  18. OOoooohhhhhhhhh.... *slaps forehead* :P

  19. I'd like to book "Jawbone of an Ass" for our 15th anniversary in 2012, when we review our vows. I think it would look really cool on the invites in script lettering.

  20. Excellent observations, Lewis. I was lucky enough to read her entire post before she made it private. I love that she thinks she can rip someone else up in a blog post, but the minute someone calls HER out on it, she has to hide it so you can't disagree with her. Bull.

  21. WOW! I can't believe she did that?

    If you are going to put it out there? Be strong enough in your opinion to leave it there. That to me shows cowardness. You don't get 'amen', and you shut it down?

    Okay then. We were to efficient in the definitions, and not selective enough?

    I don't get that at all.

  22. Wow......she made her blog private? Well, that says a lot. Not only will not post or answer comments that disagree with her, but now you can only read her blog IF you agree with her.


    If she's so secure in her agenda, she would have nothing to hide.

    Very telling.

  23. Wow. She really did make it private. Did any of you comment/attempt to comment on her blog? I did... :P

    Party on! :)

  24. weeelll...If the Stacy McDonald y'all peeps are discussing is the one I saw the profile pic for on 'Passionate Housewives'...according my old cult she's part of Babylon...and most-likely hell-bound: I saw earnings (gasp) lipstick (shaking head) and most likely mascara (fainted on floor).
    What I think is amazing is that these people trying to 'straighten' human behavior through works, morals, values, ect. think they are the standard-bearer of all things pure...my very dear Ms. McDonald, hie thee to the Dade City cult nunnery (not really a nunnery) and see that there be one who out Herods your Herod! She wouldst say thou art an earing-wearing, make-up festooned wretch crawling straight to the nether world... not the epic of womanhood thou thinkest! Get thee to Dade City, go!

    Wow...didn't mean to tangent like that...my point is: yeah, they think they are the crusaders of holiness but there are more mad, mad north by northwest-ers Christians out there who would see the Stacy peep as leading people astray cuz she's wearing make-up and earings.

  25. Re-reading my post...I just didn't get across my point...now since brevity is the soul of wit,
    And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
    I will be brief: (what is with me tonight?!?!)
    Stacy, you're trying to change the world through holy, dedicated, model women. Well, there are churches out there who's standard of 'holiness' is so much higher than yours it would make your head swim, girl. These churches haven't changed the world...the fruit of their labors have been devestation and despair. You can't change the world, babe. Your name tag isn't Jesus.

  26. BTW...if any of you follow Shari's blog...(Miss Oblivious) her sister-in-law passed on today.

  27. Just in case anyone was wondering - the Steadfast daughters blog is back - but new and revised with a slightly "gentler" and more appealing approach. :P

  28. Yep...Changed it, but based on her comment there, she's being no more honest now than before. She just took her own "bitterness and discontent" and tried to make it look more warm and fuzzy.

    She most certainly does view Hillary as an enemy and Hillary's ministry as a threat to the commandments of men on which her own faith/lifestyle is founded. Otherwise, her tactics would be just a bit more above-board, AND, she wouldn't have had to change the tone of her page.

  29. ....it looks like I missed quite the firestorm! Anybody have a saved copy of the entire post on Steadfast Daughters?

    It is so hard to read things like this. I am still working through emotional and spiritual fall-out from a childhood spent growing up with patriocentricity [even though my parents don't and never have openly espoused it].
    It is still possible [and happens every few weeks] for me to go back to almost believing patriocentricity, and that is when Stacy McDonald and the Botkin sisters can do their worst. It is HORRIBLE: they echo the things I hear....I am rebellious...I only hate patriocentricity because of my own sin....my own personal interests are selfish [oh goodness, the times I've heard THAT one]....I am deceived....

    Yeah, I am deceived. All too easily.

  30. You're under GRACE, Bethany...so please hang on to that.

  31. I don't care what she edited. She makes me angry enough to cry. I can't believe how cruel and heartless she is. And posting that letter from Hillary's sister? She should be ASHAMED to call herself anything relating to Christ.

    I have never felt so hurt by anyone's comments except my own parents.
    Thank you, Stacy for making vivid memories of parental abuse so real again. You are good at it!

  32. Ahh...I see that the blog went private perhaps because it was "under construction".

    Keep stitching up that veil, Stace.

  33. DoaHF...It's interesting that she told you "I pray for your healing."

    Since Stacy has an issue with such loosely (in her estimation) defined terms as patriarchy/patriocentricity, I think she should come clean about just what she means by "healing".

    I suspect that her idea of "healing" for you would be for you to find yourself back under the authority of your father as he practices what she considers biblical patriarchy and not the supposed imposter patriarchy. Anything less of you would seem to be a breach of God's will according to her doctrine, would it not?

    Since nothing scripturally commands or requires any such thing of you as a grown woman...this would seem to render her blog's purpose of being a "biblical" response to Quivering Daughters considerably less than genuine or accurate.

    The blog's response is cultural. HER culture. The neo-conservative, patriocentric culture. There's nothing biblical about it.

  34. Wow......the whole purpose of her blog is to call out Hillary and her book? She may try to deny that but her entire welcome post makes it completely clear that's what she's doing. Talk about bitterness and discontent! Stop lying to others AND yourself, Stacy.

    Stacy really has no idea what it is to truly be a Quivering Daughter. Calling us lazy, selfish, sinful and rebellious is just as abusive as what our parents did to us in the patriarchal lifestyle. For her, it all goes back to, "The system doesn't fail. YOU fail the system."

    I continue to shake my head at this woman. Shame on her.

  35. It always works that way: ostracize, isolate, discredit the ones who have been failed by the system. You wrapped it all up in one catch-phrase, Erika. I will be quoting that for a long time.

    "The system doesn't fail. YOU fail the system."


  36. At least Stacy is finally admitting that the word "patriocentricity" is a real word with a real definition. Its only taken 4 years....so amused by this.

  37. Judging from the comments that have been allowed on her blog so far, she may be in for more than she bargained for......

  38. Darcy - I just noticed that she closed comments again. She's definitely in for more than she bargained for.

    So many of us that have been abused through this lifestyle are no longer willing to be quiet or shut down. Enough is enough!

  39. It seems that only the main page's comments are closed...I definitely just submitted a comment on one of the other pages. But it's 'awaiting moderation' so who knows.

  40. I am particularly troubled at Stacy's use of Hillary's sister's letter as a weapon.

    I'm not sure where Rebekah falls in the birth order in their family, but if she is much younger than Hillary she would likely have no idea what Hillary went through with their parents.

    For instance, my parents were extremely strict with my oldest three sisters, refusing to let them watch cartoons or listen to "worldly" music, but by the time my younger siblings and I (I'm the 6th of 12) were older, my parents had mellowed and we were allowed to watch and listen to pretty much anything. If my older siblings wrote a book describing the strictness of their upbringing based on that, I would have no frame of reference to relate to them with.

    Also, I can remember seeing my older siblings argue and fight with my parents, and as a child I would think "Why don't they just listen to Mom and Dad and then everyone would be happy?" I had no idea why they didn't just obey, because I was a child and had no clue.

    I'm saddened and disappointed that Rebekah would allow such an derisive letter to be posted as a weapon against her own sister.

  41. Bean - Yes, I totally agree with you. My sister and I are the oldest of 4 and being girls AND the oldest, we got the brunt of insanity from the patriarchal lifestyle. To the point that we were ordered by my parents to cut off all contact with the young men that we were "courting" and who my parents approved of at first.

    My youngest brother years later complained that he had a 1 am curfew. My sister and I never had a curfew because we weren't allowed out of the house without someone to keep us accountable and it certainly wasn't going to be at 1 am!

    My brothers had it very differently than my sister and I did and can't relate to what we went through. Their upbringing wasn't "as bad" as ours and their memories are far happier than those of my sister and I.

    I know that Hillary is the oldest of 11 children and just like my sister and I, she bore the brunt of the QF/P lifestyle.

  42. Oh, and I should mention that my sister and I were 20 & 21 (adult women) when my parents ordered us to cut off all contact with the guys (they are brothers). This was all because my dad didn't like the church they were going to.

  43. Erika, I have some idea of what you went through. During my "courtship" with my husband, we were both put through an emotional/spiritual meat grinder.. in a way, I was the 'eldest' one, because I was the first of my sisters who attempted to submit to the idea of parent-guided courtship. It was a disaster of epic proportions.

    We (my husband and I) weren't allowed to be honest, because we were supposed to "guard our hearts" and not "defraud our future spouse", so we weren't able to say we had feelings for each other, even though we clearly did. We were "just friends," (I had that pounded into my skull every day) and nothing more until Daddy and Mommy said we could be more.

    Eventually the craziness got to be too much and I rebelled. My parents wouldn't allow me to meet his family (for over a year and a half since we started courting) (their reasoning was, you don't HAVE to meet the parents of your "friends", so why should I meet his parents), so I started going to his parent's house without my parent's permission.

    I can remember having an argument with my Mom, and my little sister looked me in the face and said "Why don't you just obey?" She did not understand that I was just trying to LIVE.

    There was nothing overtly evil or wrong with what I was trying to do. I just wanted to spend time with the man I was in love with! Yet I was being told I was rebellious and sinful for wanting that! I was supposed to want to be with my family all the time, all day every day, and anything less than that was sinful and rebellious. And I was made to feel SO guilty for desiring something good.

    It was whole boatloads of crazy.

    Looking back, I would not choose to go through what we went through again... but, at the time, I KNEW Ty truly loved me because of what he was willing to put up with in order to see me.

    Like Lewis, I have nothing good to say about courtship. My own experience with it was nothing good, only bad, and even the "good" examples I've seen IRL are full of hurt and pain for those involved. I would never recommend it for ANYONE.

  44. I can't believe the blog - well, maybe I can - but what a slap in the face it is for anyone who suffered abuse that was not necessarily physical/sexual. Also rather put out about the publishing of the sister's letter...I don't know what might have gone down between Hillary and Rebekah but it is very sad that it was posted or even written to Stacy at all.

  45. Looks like she moved it.


  46. This is Stacey's reply to my question of why did she need to dedicate a whole blog to 'over-turn' Hillary's book:

    "This blog, once it is truly up and running, will be dedicated to speaking the truth and dealing with the real issues. While Hillary makes a lot of false assumptions, we are NOT against Hillary. Yes, I believe Hillary needs to deal with her bitterness and discontent; but, I do not view her as an enemy…I view her as my sister."
    Grace and Peace

    My reply:
    I posted my comment over here as you closed the thread on which I first commented…and please don’t wish me grace and peace…you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

    I consider Hillary a sister. When I interviewed her for my blog, The Cult Next Door I experienced a God-ordained time of renewal and healing. The pain and bitterness I had been holding inside washed away with my weeping. Some life-changing events came out of the conversation. My dear sister helped me through my bitterness…and you have the gall to point the finger?!?!? You have seriously ticked me off, lady.

    You would be very lucky to have Hillary consider you a sister.

    Shed some legalism and get some Christ.

    Oh and btw, I was abused for twenty-plus years by a so-called pastor to the point I almost ended my life.

    As evil as she is I felt it an affornt to name her in my blog (that and she could sue the pants off me for slander).
    Maybe you should re-think?

  47. This comment has been removed by the author.

  48. I have to agree with Bean in that the most trying part of Stacy's review is using Hillary's sister against her. My sister and I have differing views on our growing up years. My mother was extremely unstable towards me, & my father showed some very blatant favoritism,(such as giving my sister all the family jewelry from his mother and even his own wedding ring. I got nothing.)They would always speak glowingly of her. Although my sister is eight years older, parents can react very differently towards their children who are also close in age.

  49. All the comments (the ones that were allowed before everything went "under construction") are deleted now.

    If they can't honestly and consistently defend their viewpoint, without repeatedly deleting comments, why start a blog like that in the first place? It's just bizarre.