Has this been discussed? Doug Phillips *resigns* from Vision Forum (Ministries)!

[separateunion]

I am cutting out a lot of your actual post and speaking generally because I am typing on my phone while waiting for a child to finish at theatre. You do realize that WOMEN who were intimately involved with VF (eta: and other heavily patriarchal and/or dominionist groups) and its ministries would have more knowledge of how women are treated than a man who was only tangentially involved? You realize that you claiming to know better than established members of this forum comes across as patronizing...at best? And more likely comes across as an apologist in disguise.

WOW!!!! Are you insane? I think most sane, thinking women would eliminate child molestors as potential mates *because of the potential danger to their future children*!!! Child safety comes WAY before sympathazing with a child abuser. I will have to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are extraordinarily ignorant of the psychology of child molestors and children.

The potential to slip back into child molesting is spoken of a little too casually by you for my comfort. It makes me a little queasy and feel that your post here has a very different agenda than the one you claim.

 

Doug Wilson isn't VF. He is in no way associated with it, thus the reason I posted in the first place. He shouldn't be lumped in with Doug Phillips like that.
 

[separateunion]

I will let much wiser posters than I deal with the pedophilia issue, but the courtship....yeah, I got that one. The point isn't that the girl can refuse. The point is that she has no ability to initiate. I am a product of the original modern courtship ritual as put forth by Richard Crisco and later adapted by Wilson and ilk. I know it well. It puts our daughters in a powerless and passive position as they wait for someone to approach their father. She is not allowed to initiate or express interest.

I hope that readers can piece together more of my story. I believed in courtship, I lived it out, I was primed for a domineering and controlling church experience, my husband was conditioned to submit to his authorities....even in regards to his bride.

How were we conditioned and set up? Separetunion, you have brought up a foundational contributor to answer that question. The very courtship model you are praising. Intelligence of the women has nothing to do with it. Being allowed to use that intelligence, being trusted with that intelligence, being supported and encouraged in tha intelligence....has everything to do with it.

 

I'm no proponent of courtship. I apologize if my original post didn't make that clear. My wife and I are a product of courtship. We have some serious issues with it. However, that doesn't meant that Wilson's style should be unfairly lumped in with Phillips'.

[justasque]

In my very first post I stated that he could do it again. I just don't believe that the possibility of commiting a sin should preclude marriage. If so, no one should get married.

 

A murder is a murder. A thief is a thief. A liar is a liar. We're all sinners. If we marry, we all enter marriage with baggage. A know a married guy who used to be a homosexual. Should he not marry because he might partake in homosexual relations? Should he not be trusted around other ment? If past sin is a barometer for marriage qualification, none of us is qualified. Again, I'm not defending his past actions, but if he is truly repentant, there needs to grace.

But a history of convicted pedophilia really doesn't make a man ideal marriage material, though, does it?  At a bare minimum.
One can be kind to someone with such a background without having to enter into a marriage with them, a sexual relationship, a financial relationship, a parenting relationship.

Most women have fairly high standards for potential partners. And of course the more choice a woman has - the more potential partners she can reasonably expect to choose from - the higher her standards can be.  

And in the modern world, a woman faced with the choice of such a seriously flawed partner may well sensibly and happily choose to remain single.

And yet if her potential partners are quite limited, as is the case in a courtship model in a community that shelters its daughters from contact with potential partners, that has significant impact on her choices.  And ditto for a community that limits her choices outside of marriage, motherhood, and housekeeping.

[Mrs Mungo]

We are all sinners, absolutely.

Would you give a known thief and embezzler the keys to the church and make them the accountant? Absolutely not! A homosexual doesn't sexually abuse children, so I am unsure how that relates.

Have you actually read your Bible? You don't put people inclined to certain types of sin in situations where they will be tempted to indulge in the same sins. That means you don't marry and have children with child molestors. Grace does NOT mean absolving someone from all consequences of sin here on earth.

Doug Wilson isn't VF. He is in no way associated with it, thus the reason I posted in the first place. He shouldn't be lumped in with Doug Phillips like that.

Quote from my post:
"and other heavily patriarchal and/or dominionist groups"

Wilson qualifies. Interesting that you didn't respond to anything else in my post.

[UnsinkableKristen]

In my very first post I stated that he could do it again. I just don't believe that the possibility of commiting a sin should preclude marriage. If so, no one should get married.

 

A murder is a murder. A thief is a thief. A liar is a liar. We're all sinners. If we marry, we all enter marriage with baggage. A know a married guy who used to be a homosexual. Should he not marry because he might partake in homosexual relations? Should he not be trusted around other ment? If past sin is a barometer for marriage qualification, none of us is qualified. Again, I'm not defending his past actions, but if he is truly repentant, there needs to grace.

 

So, just to clarify, you are totally cool with a man that used to rape children marrying someone who currently has an underage child because regardless of his past sins, he has the right to marry anyone he wants?

 

Please let me know if I have misunderstood. 

[Mrs Mungo]

So, just to clarify, you are totally cool with a man that used to rape children marrying someone who currently has an underage child because regardless of his past sins, he has the right to marry anyone he wants?

Please let me know if I have misunderstood.

Legally, I think it would be grounds to report her for child endangerment. Legally, a convict of such crimes could probably be reported for parole violations.

[Slartibartfast]

In my very first post I stated that he could do it again. I just don't believe that the possibility of commiting a sin should preclude marriage. If so, no one should get married.

 

A murder is a murder. A thief is a thief. A liar is a liar. We're all sinners. If we marry, we all enter marriage with baggage. A know a married guy who used to be a homosexual. Should he not marry because he might partake in homosexual relations? Should he not be trusted around other ment? If past sin is a barometer for marriage qualification, none of us is qualified. Again, I'm not defending his past actions, but if he is truly repentant, there needs to grace.

 

I don't believe anyone can "used to" be a homosexual. 

[Slartibartfast]

Doug Wilson isn't VF. He is in no way associated with it, thus the reason I posted in the first place. He shouldn't be lumped in with Doug Phillips like that.
 

 

I lump them together because they are both nutjobs. I don't care if Doug Wilson has anything to do with VF.

[NASDAQ]

The issue isn't wise or unwise marriage. I would think that marriage to a self-proclaimed cured homosexual is unwise. But it is a high risk situation, not necessarily an immoral one. It is immoral for a person with a history of paedophilia to position himself to be around children. It is immoral for anyone to enable a person with a history of paedophilia to be around children.

[Catwoman]

In my very first post I stated that he could do it again. I just don't believe that the possibility of commiting a sin should preclude marriage. If so, no one should get married.

A murder is a murder. A thief is a thief. A liar is a liar. We're all sinners. If we marry, we all enter marriage with baggage. A know a married guy who used to be a homosexual. Should he not marry because he might partake in homosexual relations? Should he not be trusted around other ment? If past sin is a barometer for marriage qualification, none of us is qualified. Again, I'm not defending his past actions, but if he is truly repentant, there needs to grace.

It is your opinion that there needs to be grace toward pedophiles.

I do not share your opinion in any way, shape, or form.

And I completely agree with Sis -- there is no such thing as "used to be" a homosexual. I'd be willing to hazard a guess that the guy you know likes to refer to himself as a "repentant homosexual." :rolleyes:

[Slartibartfast]

The issue isn't wise or unwise marriage. I would think that marriage to a self-proclaimed cured homosexual is unwise. But it is a high risk situation, not necessarily an immoral one. It is immoral for a person with a history of paedophilia to position himself to be around children. It is immoral for anyone to enable a person with a history of paedophilia to be around children.

 

Exactly, ITA.

[Sara R]

Ladies, according to Phillips we are succumbing to the "female sin of the internet" by gossiping online, and if our husbands would just shut us up lovingly shepherd us, then more families could be brainwashed we won't have to answer for our rebellion before God.

[PeterPan]

I'm sorry for this terrible instance of googlefu, but I was really interested in the question of what the recidivism rate is on "repentant" pedophiles.  A quick google turned up this provocative article.  http://jimmyhinton.org/2013/08/20/how-should-christians-treat-repentant-pedophiles/  First thing it tosses out is the idea that your "forgiven" pedophile then might want to enter the church as a minister, as a ...  Shudder.  

 

This Harvard article Pessimism About Pedophilia - Harvard Health Publications finds very high recidivism rates and suggests that 50-70% of pedophiles also have *other* issues going on as well.  For a girl in that courtship-oriented situation to agree to marry that guy is equivalent to marrying someone in a glass bubble, when you've never seen them under other circumstances to know who they really are.  The article also seems to recommend chemical castration...  

 

I'm a strong believer in grace and change, but I also know Christ said to cut off the arm that offends you, gouge out the eye.  Or in this man's case...  Surely a glib answer will be incomplete any time you're dealing with strong, brain-based addictions and habits.  

 

I'm glad we've had this discussion and these things have come out.  I've been concerned for some time that this whole movement seemed more concerned with their ideas, their standards, their profound/novel ideas, whatevers, THAN THEY ACTUALLY WERE WITH THE GOSPEL.  And somehow we just always assume the gospel is being taught there and emphasized and reiterated, and I'm just not sure it is, at least not the gospel of the Jesus I know.

[Catwoman]

Ladies, according to Phillips we are succumbing to the "female sin of the internet" by gossiping online, and if our husbands would just shut us up lovingly shepherd us, then more families could be brainwashed we won't have to answer for our rebellion before God.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Is it an even bigger sin if we do it while we eat cupcakes and google pictures of men in kilts?

(Of course, I'm not asking for myself, as I would never do such a thing. I'm just trying to help others identify their sins so they can say they're sorry and become "repentant internet sinners." ;))

[PeterPan]

Ladies, according to Phillips we are succumbing to the "female sin of the internet" by gossiping online, and if our husbands would just shut us up lovingly shepherd us, then more families could be brainwashed we won't have to answer for our rebellion before God.

I'm sure he could type that while watching violence (football) on Sunday (the Lord's Day).  

[PeterPan]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Is it an even bigger sin if we do it while we eat cupcakes and google pictures of men in kilts?

(Of course, I'm not asking for myself, as I would never do such a thing. I'm just trying to help others identify their sins so they can say they're sorry and become "repentant internet sinners." ;))

Remember it's only a sin if you KNOW the man in the kilt.  ;)

[PeterPan]

The issue isn't wise or unwise marriage. I would think that marriage to a self-proclaimed cured homosexual is unwise. But it is a high risk situation, not necessarily an immoral one. It is immoral for a person with a history of paedophilia to position himself to be around children. It is immoral for anyone to enable a person with a history of paedophilia to be around children.

Further, it's unfathomable to me that someone who's supposedly repentant doesn't recognize his own propensity and WANT to take actions to prevent it from recurring.  

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Is it an even bigger sin if we do it while we eat cupcakes and google pictures of men in kilts?

(Of course, I'm not asking for myself, as I would never do such a thing. I'm just trying to help others identify their sins so they can say they're sorry and become "repentant internet sinners." ;))

 

Now I'm wondering what the recidivism rate for "repentant internet sinners" is... :D

[Catwoman]

Now I'm wondering what the recidivism rate for "repentant internet sinners" is... :D

I'd google it to find out, but I'm pretty sure that would be sinful. ;)

[Slartibartfast]

Ladies, according to Phillips we are succumbing to the "female sin of the internet" by gossiping online, and if our husbands would just shut us up lovingly shepherd us, then more families could be brainwashed we won't have to answer for our rebellion before God.

 

Obviously he has never been to some of the mom boards if he thinks the bloggers are harsh on him.

[NASDAQ]

Further, it's unfathomable to me that someone who's supposedly repentant doesn't recognize his own propensity and WANT to take actions to prevent it from recurring.  

 

It looks about as repentant as an alcoholic on his way into the bar.

[Slartibartfast]

I noticed that he never apologized to the other person involved for abusing his position.

[pfamilygal]

In my very first post I stated that he could do it again. I just don't believe that the possibility of commiting a sin should preclude marriage. If so, no one should get married.

A murder is a murder. A thief is a thief. A liar is a liar. We're all sinners. If we marry, we all enter marriage with baggage. A know a married guy who used to be a homosexual. Should he not marry because he might partake in homosexual relations? Should he not be trusted around other ment? If past sin is a barometer for marriage qualification, none of us is qualified. Again, I'm not defending his past actions, but if he is truly repentant, there needs to grace.

Are you out of your d*^n mind? If I lie or cheat or even steal, a child doesn't get raped. And I don't know that murderers make good parents either, FWIW.

[LucyStoner]

There are sins. And there is civil law. If a liar marries and then lies again, in most instances no laws have been broken and in many cases no damage. Especially if that lie is telling your wife her butt doesn't look fat in those pants (we will ignore that she shouldn't be wearing pants at all, but what do I know as I sit and tap away while wearing tight red pants.)

Raping your children however is not only a sin, it is a crime. A crime with serious, here and now repercussions. A pedophile should not be having children because among a pedophiles most likely victims? Their own children. This is not rocket science people.

All sins may be equal to some people but all sins are not crimes and all crimes are certainly not equal. My husband has a few speeding violations. Not the same thing as being a rapist. And no one told me to marry him. I, gasp, chose on my own. But I'm also wearing red pants. Tight ones. So don't listen to me. My feminist self can't be trusted. :)

[*Lulu*]

There are sins. And there is civil law. If a liar marries and then lies again, in most instances no laws have been broken and in many cases no damage. Especially if that lie is telling your wife her butt doesn't look fat in those pants (we will ignore that she shouldn't be wearing pants at all, but what do I know as I sit and tap away while wearing tight red pants.)

Raping your children however is not only a sin, it is a crime. A crime with serious, here and now repercussions. A pedophile should not be having children because among a pedophiles most likely victims? Their own children. This is not rocket science people.

All sins may be equal to some people but all sins are not crimes and all crimes are certainly not equal. My husband has a few speeding violations. Not the same thing as being a rapist. And no one told me to marry him. I, gasp, chose on my own. But I'm also wearing red pants. Tight ones. So don't listen to me. My feminist self can't be trusted. :)

I just liked this, but it was dishonest.

I love this post.

And I think the red pants a pretty awesome too.

[pfamilygal]

^^^^^ amen!

[pfamilygal]

Like Zaccheus, who made reparations!

[LibraryLover]

This thread has nearly 30,000 views. 

 

Wow.

[Anne in CA]

Well, now I've had a laugh before bed. I might look at a kilt pic just for sport before completely turning in though.

 

My uncle and aunt fell into these sorts of circles when I was a small child. They would not discipline their oldest son for anything he did to torture his much smaller younger sister. Later that son had an "affair" with a young (14yo) girl in their church youth group and kept it going for two years although he had a subservient wife and young child at home. No, he never admitted his disgusting "dalliance". He failed a lie detector test and had to go to jail. For six years. He never apologized to his subservient wife for any of it, after all he felt he was a victim in the whole "affair". It came out that MANY of the men in their church had grown dd's who said their fathers had molested them. I am pretty sure DP is no different from any other man who does not admit to the extent of his affair. I have never heard of a man who did not try to plead he did nothing wrong when caught out. 

 

My aunt finally stood up to her dh after years of servitude, including not wearing any makeup or fixing her hair in an attractive manner because he didn't want other men looking at her. I can still remember him complimenting other women on how nice they looked though. Nasty. I have no tolerance for any teaching that says women are less than. It didn't go well for my poor aunt. She had not used her mind for too long and stood up to her husband over the wrong issue. Very sad all around.

[Mrs Mungo]

Ladies, according to Phillips we are succumbing to the "female sin of the internet" by gossiping online, and if our husbands would just shut us up lovingly shepherd us, then more families could be brainwashed we won't have to answer for our rebellion before God.

They can never take our FREEEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!

Someone upload this; it won't let me.
http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2009/9/braveheart6.jpg

[CookIslandsMommy]

I know nothing about this church or the pastor.  From the information I could get from googling, it appears erratic behavior/infidelity from his wife took place over the course of ten years.  They tried counseling and dealing with it for a long time.  The things I read said she is getting psychological treatment.  So on the surface (of course I could be totally wrong) it doesn't bear any resemblance to "the Dougs."

 

Hi :)

 

I had to comment on this situation. My gut feeling & assumption from all the information that has come out from this church/situation and the fact that the wife has gone to therapy that is meant to last an entire year is that she my suffer from something like histrionic personality disorder. 

 

I met someone once who suffered from this: It was mind blowing how terrible this was, to her family, husband and herself. 

 

I think that most people, from the comments on the net, assume that she is "just" an adulterer and that the husband in a domineering manner sent her off to rehab for cheating on her. I disagree. There is loads more going on, this woman is most likely suffering from a serious personality disorder & needs major help. The Pastor, her husband himself has stated that she has her own keys to the house and car with her and so she is able to leave willingly at any time she wants. She was not forced to go & not forced to stay in therapy. 

 

I have alot of grace & mercy for this family, anyone who has known someone with a personality disorder like histrionic will completely understand that this is serious, serious stuff & which needs major help and therapy. 

 

May God heal & deliver the wife and their family.

 

Thanks Sherid

[[email protected]]

Separateunion is on our watch list for trolling, since he [?} appeared from nowhere to derail the thread. I have not deleted the posts and follow-ups because of many of your thoughtful and lengthy answers.

 

However, let's table discussion of Doug Wilson in this thread, please. It's off-topic.

 

Moderator

 

 

[FaithManor]

Thanks Mod! I think that if we can get back to the other subject and ignore Separateunion maybe the fruitful discussion of extreme patriarchial movements can go forward.

 

Link to another person whose life was turned upside down by dominionist patriarchy...she also states that the VF website has been taking down the pictures of the older teen/adult daughters who "volunteer" at VF...their fathers are employees. Hmmm....I need to check that out. Those pics were still there a few days ago when I checked.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/11/how-doug-phillips-wreaked-havoc-on-my-family.html

 

 

Here is also one in which the blogger, using documented facts...from the VF websites themselves and IRS tax filings, makes some interesting points about possible financial hanky panky between the ministry arm and the business arm of what we think of as vision Forum. I have the same questions she does...the ministries take in 2.6 million in donations and then BUYS the Jonathon Park radio program from the business arm for $670,000 + . Hmm....how does that work? They were already marketing the radio program through the ministry for free! Suddenly close to 3/4 of a million dollars needs to exchange on the books and the business arm STILL sells the product, not the ministry arm. It raises some serious red-flags.

 

http://jensgems.wordpress.com/

 

Also, did you all know that the home Doug and Beall live in is a parsonage of the ministry part of the business? Now, in our church, when a pastor is asked to step down from his duties (has only happened once, but ABUSE of power was the reason so it applies here), the pastor is given X number of days to move. In this case, the pastor's transgressions were so bad (and his wife was suicidal and he wouldn't get her any help even after a nearly successful attempt) was 14 days and the church leadership called her parents to come get her ASAP along with the children. It was a bit of a brouhaha in the church parking lot, but the men and women of the church stood their ground and the grandparents took her and the children away. They then asked him if he needed help getting packed up and out.

 

Now, I kind of don't expect this to happen to Doug and Belle since Howard Phillips, Doug's father, is the vice-president and his lackeys Scott Brown and Don Hart, Josh Wean, and Jim Zes are in charge. Kind of really don't expect Howard to evict his son. But, we are talking about the use of a 6000 sq. ft. home that is normally not claimed as income on taxes due to the ministerial exemption except DOUG RESIGNED from this ministry and is no longer, according to them employed, plus he is not an elder of Boerne Assembly anymore either.

 

And about the eldership issue. Something smells...I checked it out. He resigned from that position 9 months ago! He only resigned from VF last week. So, what gives? If the first set of transgressions was significant enough for him to resign as elder, and main pastor, of Boerne nearly a year ago, but not bad enough for him to resign from Vision Forum Ministries, then what did he do since then that put his seat back in the frying pan? If there aren't any new confessions or allegations, why the delay?

 

This whole thing smells like ripe road kill, and there is a lot more to the story than they've "fessed" up to so far. At any rate, one would think that this would keep Doug out of the limelight and ministry for a good long time if not permanently. However, I predict this is going to be one very short period of repentance before he re-emerges on the speaking circuit.

 

I hope that those who have been involved with VF will do some hard thinking about this.

 

Faith

[unsinkable]

I'm pretty sure the wife is not Belle...spell check must not like her name, Beall.

[cave canem]

Now, I kind of don't expect this to happen to Doug and Belle since Howard Phillips, Doug's father, is the vice-president and his lackeys Scott Brown and Don Hart, Josh Wean, and Jim Zes are in charge. Kind of really don't expect Howard to evict his son.
 

Howard Phillips has been dead for at least several months.

 

Also, VF has a parsonage?  Wouldn't that belong to his church?

[FaithManor]

Howard Phillips has been dead for at least several months.

 

Also, VF has a parsonage?  Wouldn't that belong to his church?

Wow..didn't know about Howard, but I haven't been able to find out who would have replaced him. So, are they out both a president and a Vice President? If so, who is running the company?

 

That's an interesting point. I haven't really done any googling of Howard Phillips himself and the blog posts concerning Doug's resignation from Boerne were dated back closer to that event and didn't mention Howard. I guess one would suppose that Scott Brown or Don Hart will be promoted as the natural order of things, but then that vacates two directors posts which would need to be filled.

 

Oh, and Kristen, I knew that about Beall's name. This is what I get for not refilling my morning coffee mug, LOL!!

 

Faith

[fairfarmhand]

Nope, you didn't read it wrong. I think they also did some event where the daughters were blindfolded and had to listen for directions from their dad. VF is all about daughters giving their hearts to their daddies until their dads pass them off to husbands. The strict courtship program, however, doesn't seem to be leading to nearly as many early marriages as they hoped for. In my previous church, the oldest girls raised this way are nearing 30, with no prospects. Many of them have been out of high school for 5-10 years and have little to show for it: no career and no college (well, a few got English degrees from Thomas Edison by using CLEP exams to test out of most of college). Even working miniumum wage FT for all those years would've let them save up enough to buy a starter house around here! Instead, they are doing what they were taught, staying home and being Mommy's helper, rather than being "worldly" by having goals of their own. (Writing music, writing Christian fiction, and speaking at local himeschooling conferences are approved paths for a few, but none of those pay much, if anything.)

Because any sane young man doesn't want to have to compete for a young woman's affection with her god-like father. They know they can never win, since daddy has trained their girls to be subservient to HIM. No son in law wants to play servant to their father in law.

 

 

Second, Jesus had much harsher words for people who were religious hypocrites than for the plain old ordinary sinners. He hates religious hypocrisy.

[FaithManor]

Howard Phillips has been dead for at least several months.

 

Also, VF has a parsonage?  Wouldn't that belong to his church?

Actually, I'm trying to make it through the IRS forms that were made public, but it looks like Visions Forum Ministries claimed the parsonage not Boerne.

 

According to what I've read so far it is owned by VF. The companies most recent 990 filing form indicates only THREE voting members for an organization that took in 2.6 million per year in donations. That's really not much of a checks and balances system there. Three men without oversight of another board get to decide how 2.6 million gets used.

 

Here's the link to the 990:

 

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2011/742/984/2011-742984736-08cd5f98-9.pdf

 

I haven't been able to confirm yet by way of IRS forms, but other bloggers who used to attend Boerne claim that the home is owned by Vision Forum and that Boerne couldn't have afforded to build the house. So, I'm leaning this way until I find something that links ownership to Boerne.

 

Faith

[mommaduck]

When one reads the lives of the Saints, one encounters pretty serious sins But what one also encounters is repentance. And serious repentance isn't just a glib "Oops. Sorry 'bout that." It's willingness to bear the consequences of that sin, to sacrifice one's desires, hopes, plans, freedoms, wishes, and so on, to making sure that the sin is never, ever repeated.

In the stories of the saints, many, many times, one will encounter the person who has committed _______ (fill in any sin you wish) who seriously repents. And the next step is turning themselves into the police, isolating themselves from those who tempt him/her, or whatever is the consequence, and living out IN REPENTANCE the rest of their lives, bearing the consequences of the sin.

(Apologies for tense and pronoun shifts.)

Moses the Black came to mind in the case of sexual sins and his future of, not only living a celibate life after, but also how he controlled his desires by throwing himself into other, more productive, habits.

St. Mary of Egypt would be another. There are times for celibacy and keeping oneself from being placed in a position that would cause them to harm themselves and others.

I know Dr. Laura is not well liked here, but there was something in one of her books that helped me place healthy boundaries with my mother and stepfather. In The Ten Commandments... honor thy father and mother... part of that can be keeping them from sinning ( our harming) against you and your children. Don't put them in that situation if you know they have issues that trend towards that. That is honoring them... doing what ifs for the good of them and those around them. The same applies to the situation of pedophilia. Marrying them off does NOT help the situation... it just creates more victims.

[mommaduck]

Separateunion is on our watch list for trolling, since he [?} appeared from nowhere to derail the thread. I have not deleted the posts and follow-ups because of many of your thoughtful and lengthy answers.

However, let's table discussion of Doug Wilson in this thread, please. It's off-topic.

Moderator

oops... commented before I read this. I'm sorry! :) back to regular programming.

[Guest adozenblessings]

nm

Edited November 7, 2013 by adozenblessings
Ok, THAT'S a troll.

[Laurie4b]

We have so many trained mental health, religious, and medical professionals on this board. Perhaps someone could tell me if I'm wrong in this assumption: Nobody defends pedophiles.

 

Is that right? We all know the recidivism rate. We know that clergy and social workers (and victims and parents and society) have a vested interest in hoping that this type of criminal can somehow be rehabilitated or truly converted but that nobody truly believes it, I think. I have never heard of anyone until this thread who thinks a pedophile is potentially a good prospective parent. Never.

 

Are there new studies or new, legitimate ways of thinking on this topic, or are we hosting an apologist for the potential goodness of child molesters? If it's the latter, maybe we should be reporting that post instead of engaging the poster in conversation.

 

Some European countries actively engage pedophiles in treatment. I suspect that we will eventually benefit from their research here. I first encountered these types of studies (linked below) from reading about their research. Today I just googled.

 

Below are some research studies. Summary: The recidivism rate is not as high as the general public thinks. There are problems with accuracy, but the reported rates of recidivism range between 10-50%. Studies don't all use the same criteria of recidivism (ie some would count recidivism as conviction on any charge at all). Over 90% of pedophiles are men.  Generally, the greatest rates of recidivism are male on male victims or male on both male/female victims. Lowest rates of recidivism are for incest offenders. Male on female victims is between the two.

 

http://www.courseweb.uottawa.ca/PSY3171/personalwp/P38%20Recidivism%20in%20Pedophiles%20%20different%20diagnostic%20methods.pdf

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/61/4/646/

http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=53036

 

 

I am no longer in the field of mental health, but when I was, I learned that there is a significant percentage of teens who sexually abuse children but who are not pedophiles; they are not sexually attracted to children but are experimenting on someone who is less threatening than a peer. I consulted a nationally recognized expert on sexual abuse regarding this and he was the one who explained the phenomena to me. If caught, they would be tagged sexual predators for life, whereas in most cases, they stop on their own after a very few incidents, sometimes only one. (The abuse is often fleeting and occurs during diaper changes, etc. Some of it the victims might not even notice or tune into it. So the quality of the abuse is different as well.)   Despite the statistics on 90% + perpetrators of sexual abuse toward prepubescent kids being male, females seem as involved as males--another statistic indicating a different profile from an adult offender. They typically don't continue to offend. The key is that they are not actually sexually attracted to children.

 

Also because of the research data and my experience,  I never used teens as babysitters, not even ones I knew well. I never let my own kids babysit while teens, either. Neither men nor teens of either gender are allowed to take kids to the bathroom at our church. We play the percentages and go with adult females when kids need bathroom escorts or help and then with a second person.

 

I'm just the messenger bearing research studies and some experience.  Please don't call me an apologist for pedophiles!

[mommaduck]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/11/how-doug-phillips-wreaked-havoc-on-my-family.html

 

Short, but interesting blog post. Interesting is the first comment "'Michael Pearl himself has spoken out in recent years against the patriarchal ideas put out by Vision Forum.' That kind of puts a chill in your bones. Vision Forum is too misogynistic for Michael Pearl."

[Slartibartfast]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/11/how-doug-phillips-wreaked-havoc-on-my-family.html

 

Short, but interesting blog post. Interesting is the first comment "'Michael Pearl himself has spoken out in recent years against the patriarchal ideas put out by Vision Forum.' That kind of puts a chill in your bones. Vision Forum is too misogynistic for Michael Pearl."

 

 

 

http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/patriarchal-dysfunctional-families-part-2/

 

Ok now the people that say we should take back our husbands if they sexually abuse our children (after they are done serving their prison sentence of course) actually discuss VF as "'patriarchal” evil disguised as righteousness." I am stunned speechless.

[*Lulu*]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/11/how-doug-phillips-wreaked-havoc-on-my-family.html

Short, but interesting blog post. Interesting is the first comment "'Michael Pearl himself has spoken out in recent years against the patriarchal ideas put out by Vision Forum.' That kind of puts a chill in your bones. Vision Forum is too misogynistic for Michael Pearl."

That says a lot right there.

[mommaduck]

Well, hopefully Jason and Nicole will continue to read and learn that this thread is about bigger issues than just a particular man's affair.

[mommaduck]

http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/patriarchal-dysfunctional-families-part-2/

 

Ok now the people that say we should take back our husbands if they sexually abuse our children (after they are done serving their prison sentence of course) actually discuss VF as "'patriarchal” evil disguised as righteousness." I am stunned speechless.

 

I know...it's strange...Twilight Zone, anyone?

[TechWife]

 Summary: The recidivism rate is not as high as the general public thinks. 

 

 

Recidivism only refers to repeat offenders who get caught and are convicted for a second time. Since most pedophiles go undetected to begin with, a low recidivism rate is not any proof that the rate of repeat offenders is low. Personally, I don't think a 10 - 50% recidivism rate is low. Additionally, 25% of convicted pedophiles went on to commit another offense. 

 

See the following from Harvard Medical: 

 

Estimates of recidivism vary because studies define this term in different ways. One review found recidivism rates of 10% to 50% among pedophiles previously convicted of sexual abuse, although this could include anything from an arrest for any offense to reconviction on a crime against a child. One long-term study of previously convicted pedophiles (with an average follow-up of 25 years) found that one-fourth of heterosexual pedophiles and one-half of homosexual or bisexual pedophiles went on to commit another sexual offense against children.

 

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia
 

 

 

 

[TechWife]

 

 So the quality of the abuse is different as well.

 

Um, no. There is no difference in quality. Abuse is abuse, period. It is all equally disgusting. 

[*Lulu*]

Recidivism only refers to repeat offenders who get caught and are convicted for a second time. Since most pedophiles go undetected to begin with, a low recidivism rate is not any proof that the rate of repeat offenders is low. Personally, I don't think a 10 - 50% recidivism rate is low. Additionally, 25% of convicted pedophiles went on to commit another offense.

See the following from Harvard Medical:

Estimates of recidivism vary because studies define this term in different ways. One review found recidivism rates of 10% to 50% among pedophiles previously convicted of sexual abuse, although this could include anything from an arrest for any offense to reconviction on a crime against a child. One long-term study of previously convicted pedophiles (with an average follow-up of 25 years) found that one-fourth of heterosexual pedophiles and one-half of homosexual or bisexual pedophiles went on to commit another sexual offense against children.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia

The under reporting of abuse makes getting an accurate sense of the society wide rate of any type of abuse very difficult.

It is like rats; for every one you catch............