Friday, November 5, 2010

There She Goes YET Again (Part 4)

Over at Amazon, below her inclusion of a letter from Hillary's sister within her "review" of Quivering Daughters, Stacy yesterday added the following disclaimer...

[I included this portion of the personal email I received from Hillary's sister to demonstrate that perspective is everything. Here we have two siblings close together in age (Rebekah is 27) with two different perceptions of their childhood. It is entirely possible that both versions include blind spots and distorted facts. But, really, it's none of our business. And that was my point. If we've been willing to listen to the dark and ugly side of a family, why not allow another party to share the beauty and value they find in that same family? - added 11/3/2010] 

I call BS. On about a million different levels.

If she truly felt it was none of her business, she'd have listened to neither side. She included the note from Hillary's sister in an attempt to damage Hillary's credibility with the audience of Quivering Daughters. Period.

A scenario to consider here...Would Stacy deny the abuses that took place in the People's Temple/Jonestown?

Funny thing, when Congressman Leo Ryan went to visit Jonestown on November 17th, 1978 at the behest of the Concerned Relatives (a group consisting both of former high-ranking members of People's Temple who'd escaped the movement - with relatives still inside - and non PT relatives of Jonestown residents), he'd promised the Concerned Relatives that any relative of theirs at Jonestown that wanted to leave, he'd stand for their right to leave.

As he visited the Jonestown community on November 17th, the various people he communicated with expressed to him their incredible happiness with Jonestown and their devotion to Jim Jones - and they meant it completely. It didn't matter that Jim Jones had taken advantage of many of them sexually (both male and female), that Jones handed out cruel punishments regularly, from cruel and severe beatings, to being caged in a small hole in the ground, to threatening with snakes (I've heard the audiotape on that one - morbid) while he laughs at them, to threatening to tie them to stakes at the jungles edge where the wildlife could attack them.

Congressman Ryan, despite his misgivings about Jim Jones, was prepared to return to the US and report that the stories of abuse amounted to he said/she said and that the people he encountered appeared happy, well-fed, and content to remain in Jonestown. Before he left on November 18th, however, things changed dramatically. One Jonestown resident secretly slipped an NBC reporter accompanying the Congressman a note which read "Please help me get out of Jonestown." 

Once word of discontent broke out, all hell accompanied it. 16 Jonestown residents ultimately sought out the Congressman with requests to leave. The outward demeanor of Jones changed, and despite his message to his people over the public address system of  "Anyone who wants to leave with the Congressman is free to do so", current Congresswoman, and then Ryan-aide, Jackie Speier states, "It was obvious, though, that that wasn't the true message of his words." (I'm sure many 2nd generation readers from patrio homes can relate to that)

Before he left Jonestown, a man assaulted the Congressman with a knife, screaming "You're gonna die you %^^&*!" The man was subdued, and Ryan hustled to leave the camp shaken but still intact. He, his staff, the media accompanying them, and the 16 Jonestown residents loaded into a truck and headed to the Port Kaituma airstrip 6 miles away. As they arrived and began boarding the plane, a tractor, pulling a sideboarded trailer, carrying a handful of very heavily armed Jones loyalists which had followed Ryan's party as they left Jonestown, stopped a few feet away, and several men unloaded from it firing their weapons. The result was a bloodbath that left 5 people dead - Congressman Ryan (shot multiple times), the NBC reporter and NBC cameraman, a SanFrancisco newspaper photographer, and one of the Jonestown escapees - and practically everyone on the scene wounded.

While this was going on, Jones and his followers back at Jonestown began administering the cyanide laced Flavor-aid. Over 900 people died in Jonestown on the evening of November 18th, 1978 from cyanide poisoning. Over 600 of them were adults, the majority of whom drank the Flavor-aid willingly. Among them, all of the people who had denied, vehemently, the alleged abuses when interviewed by the Congressman and his staff.

In cultic dynamics, up is often down and left is often right. Who would you trust to hear the true story of Jonestown - the small number who escaped or the hundreds who drank the Flavor-aid? If you want to deny the abuses and cultic dynamic of Jonestown, I suppose you ask the happy residents.

The people who died in Jonestown were mostly good and well-intentioned people. They were the product of ritualistic indoctrination and mind control. Indoctrination and mind control produce some heart-breaking events. Stacy obviously doesn't believe (at least publically or outwardly) that the P/QF movement is largely a cult which breaks down into cultic family units. If you want to know why she doesn't publically or outwardly believe it, I'd suggest you reference my questions for her in my previous post.

Having now read her most recent article and her diminishing of the abused to uplift the abuser, it's pretty obvious what she's doing...

(borrowed from Under More Grace)

From Robert J. Lifton's Thought Reform Criteria...

Doctrine over person.

Member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group. The end ideology of the group must be maintained by any means, even at the expense or suffering of the group members. Love for the system or ideology supersedes that of the people, places or lesser causes. This promotes hatred and intolerance of all opposing critics or ideologies.

From Steve Martin's Bible-based cultic groups summary...

Doctrine Over Person consists of fitting everything under the leader’s dominating control into a pre-concieved mold. This involves:
· Human experience and the interpretation of those experiences.
· Human feelings and the interpretation of those feelings.
· Disregarding one’s feelings or sensitivities.
· No appreciation of someone’s talents, individuality or creativity; the only goal is to fit everyone and their personalities into the dominating vies and influence of the one in control, opposing diversity and individual differences.
· The rigidity of the doctrinal mold resists adaptation even when adaptation may prove to be best.
· The rewriting of history to fit the system of the doctrinal mold.
Stating it another way, the controller reinterprets the personal feelings and experiences of the group members to fit his own dominating views and influence. He disregards and remolds past events, individual differences and capabilities to fit his own preconceived mold. In essence, the controller rejects everything that does not fit into his preconceived mold or framework.

All of the above is what Stacy is trying to do with the abusive experiences of all quivering daughters. If you'll look at her writing, you'll see it pretty easily. Diminish the person, uplift the doctrine at the expense of the person.

Manipulate and control much, Stacy?

One last thought on Stacy's "review" disclaimer regarding the email of Hillary's sister...

Suppose I decided to write a piece examining the validity of James' ordination and qualification, and in the interest of "balance", decided to interview his ex-wife. Would a disclaimer such as Stacy's in her "review" satisfy her in such a scenario?

I think not.


  1. Another thing, Hillary DID share "the beauty and value" of her family. She said many good things about how she was raised and how much she loves her parents and siblings. With the entire tone of her book she honored her family. But obviously it wasn't the "right" beauty that Stacy was looking for. It wasn't enough for her. Obviously that's not what Stacy was truly after. If it was, she would've found it in Hillary's book.

  2. "Another thing, Hillary DID share "the beauty and value" of her family. She said many good things about how she was raised and how much she loves her parents and siblings. With the entire tone of her book she honored her family."

    I couldn't agree more. Any attempt by Stacy to convict her for not honoring her parents is nonsense.

    To readers unfamiliar with how Stacy's cult works...Anything less than outright worship of parents and parental authority is dishonorable. Very little in Stacy's cult has to do with Jesus Christ. Everything's tied up around human authority structures.

  3. As I commented the other day on Karen's site, publicizing things that are (as Stacy admits herself) "none of our business" is nothing if not an example of the behavior of "busybodies and malicious gossips." This is contrary to the Bible's specific teachings on what makes up "godly womanhood" in the passages all QFs dwell on (see 1 Timothy 5:13, Titus 2:3).

    If Stacy knows it's not her business, and she knows it's not our business, then for her to write about it in public shows that she is a model of ungodly womanhood by her own standard. This is absolutely shameful.

  4. in the most recent post on her new blog, the writer quotes Hillary's story of writing the poem for her parents, and then waiting to see their reaction. it is so telling of the patriarchal crowd, who consistently diminish the feelings of children, that the writer comments:

    "Perhaps the best parental treatment for a sinful, inordinate desire for approval is a loving hug together with a gentle, loving rebuke."

    Sinful desire?? Rebuke??? for wanting approval from her parents for doing something sweet?? that's the kind of thinking that distances children from parents, and breaks my heart.

  5. Eric...Seems they thrive on the double standard, no?

    Kristen...The author of that particular post needs professional counseling, and I'm not being even slightly facetious. Crazy stuff.

  6. I'm a different Kristen than the one who posted earlier, but I agree with her wholeheartedly. It is absolutely natural for a child to want approval from her parents. Do we not also want approval from our heavenly Father? This idea undermines everything that parenthood is supposed to be about.

    I have not read Quivering Daughters yet. But I do know that Stacy's attacks are unChristian to the core.

  7. I find it really hard to ready any of her drivel. It's so full of double standards and hypocrisy - case in point: the whole "none of our business" statement and then posting her sister's email. I don't know how anyone can take this woman seriously.

    To pit family members against each other publicly and then offer her services (cha-ching, cha-ching) for reconciliation is a joke.

  8. I want to know about her family relationships! I want to hear from her step-daughters, her ex-husband, her siblings, cousins, parents. I think it probably sounds familiar to her because she knows she has likewise hurt her own family with her self-righteous,rigid role playing.

    Stacy McDonald is a hypocrite of great proportion, and she herself knows this in her heart. I am sure that certain of her family members will testify to that truth, that even within her own blood/step relations the system means more than the individual.

    I think she herself is unhappy, and that's the real reason Hillary's book resonates with her. I think that her protesting the truth, while no doubt it is to protect her financial interests, is also an effort to squash her own daily frustration and unhappiness.

  9. I really think that her new blog is a reaction of total and utter fear for what Hillary's book and all of us that are speaking out against the pitfalls of the P/QF lifestyle will do to her bottom line.

  10. Wait, there are exes and step children in the MacDonald family???? Somebody please enlighten me!

  11. That post of Hillary's about the poem was the most influential post in her entire blog, for me. It was the biggest factor in making me open to her message.

    I too wrote poems, and I too, felt the same thing. Not the same situation, but the same shame and trying-so-hard but never-getting-there.

    That. post. helped me more than any other.


    Fourth paragraph, third sentence.

    First through third paragraphs seem to indicate that Jessica is her child, James and Stacey sued for custody of four children of his, and then Stacey got pregnant with their first mutual child in 1996.

    Paragraphs four through six make me want to vomit, as she encapsulates her relationship with her step-children as a "retraining" establishing "boundaries" (laying down the law?) and accusing the children of having "unforgiveness" and also teaching them to accept past truamas ("disturbing memories") as "God's soverignty".

    IF her step-children were being abused before they were given to Stacy McDonald to raise, adding spiritual abuse and demands for complete compliance to fundamentalist perfectionist standards WAS NOT loving those little lambs with a Christ-like love.

    Smarmy, self-righteous and self-deprecating at the same time, I can not stand to read her writing style.

    By the way, note she only came out with the truth about this being BOTH her and James second marriages in 2009! The blogosphere forced her to 'fess up.

    I have my suspicions as to who that blogger was, and whether I'm right or not, may God abundantly bless the hands that type the truth!

  13. "We no longer had individual social lives with individual friendships, and we declined most invitations that fostered this."

    yeah. I am sure that helped in the brainwashing process, too.
    I know ALL about that situation.