Pedophiles don't change their spots

[Howl]

I don't know if this has been discussed anywhere on FJ yet - it looks like some of the women in Doug Wilson's life (wife Nancy, daughters Rachel and Bekah, and daughter in law Heather) have their own blog: feminagirls.com.

Patriarchy, headship, submission; lather, rinse, repeat.

I was wondering about the Wilson women....On Rebekah Wilson's "My Brush with Feminism" there is vigorous and substantive blowback from commenters who don't buy into the Wilson party line, or alternately, see right through the B.S.

Katie Botkin is still tearing it up over at Culture Adventure Stillness with a new post today

that's continuing the 50 Shades of CREC riff.

kbotkin.com

Go there now!

[Howl]

Julie Anne over at Spiritual Sounding Board has posted the first in a series on CREC, Doug Wilson and sexual abuse. Natalie details the timeline and specifics of her abuse at the hands of Jamin Wight. Natalie is a woman of uncommon courage determined to tell the truth.

spiritualsoundingboard.com

Sex Abuse Victim Natalie Rose Greenfield, the Timeline, Doug Wilson’s Attempt to Shift Focus off the Real Story

[older than allosaurs]

Katie Botkin has yet another post today, where she gets wonderfully specific, with documention, on Doug's lies about the Greenfield family.

[onlyme]

Doug's taking down all the comments on everything Sept. 15 and earlier.

Oh dear GOD let Doug Wilson go the way of Mark Driscoll and Doug Phillips!

I wonder if anyone is seeing a lawyer about that witness tampering thing.

[GenerationCedarchip]

I don't know if this has been discussed anywhere on FJ yet - it looks like some of the women in Doug Wilson's life (wife Nancy, daughters Rachel and Bekah, and daughter in law Heather) have their own blog: feminagirls.com.

Patriarchy, headship, submission; lather, rinse, repeat.

His daughter Rachel wrote a book called Loving the Little Years that gets trotted out to new moms in these circles with regularity. I got a copy as a shower gift. The book itself is actually not bad; mostly short essays about putting the stressful moments of toddlerdom in perspective. However, her bio just made me sad. IN the bio, she talks about how she loves books and reading, confines herself mostly to cookbooks these days so that she doesn't get too wrapped up in a story due to "story grip."

[Howl]

Doug's taking down all the comments on everything Sept. 15 and earlier.

Oh dear GOD let Doug Wilson go the way of Mark Driscoll and Doug Phillips!

I wonder if anyone is seeing a lawyer about that witness tampering thing.

There is also commenting going on at Spiritual Sounding Board re: New Saint Andrews and Grayfriars Hall students boarding with CREC families in Moscow.

This is SOP in the Moscow CREC-ville, and apparently if one curries sufficient favor with Doug Wilson, one receives a favorable recommendation to take in student boarders. Some families likely can afford a larger house by taking in these boarders, using the extra $$ to help pay the mortgage every month. However, those doing this are required to report the extra income to the IRS. Doug himself takes in boarders. Speculation, of course, is that no one reports this extra income to the IRS.

A commenter provided the link to report fraud to the IRS and others are naming names.

irs.gov/Individuals/How-Do-You-Report-Suspected-Tax-Fraud-Activity%3F

:popcorn2:

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

His daughter Rachel wrote a book called Loving the Little Years that gets trotted out to new moms in these circles with regularity. I got a copy as a shower gift. The book itself is actually not bad; mostly short essays about putting the stressful moments of toddlerdom in perspective. However, her bio just made me sad. IN the bio, she talks about how she loves books and reading, confines herself mostly to cookbooks these days so that she doesn't get too wrapped up in a story due to "story grip."

I've thought about getting that book; all of the excerpts I've read have been really good. I had no idea the author was Wilson's daughter.

[GenerationCedarchip]

I've thought about getting that book; all of the excerpts I've read have been really good. I had no idea the author was Wilson's daughter.

The book itself is not bad, though I have wrestled with the baggage of it coming from Wilson's family.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

From a post on Doug Wilson's blog (30 Sept) dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/this-morning.html :

One of the reasons, I would suggest, is that the crimes are so appalling that anybody associated with them, to any extent and in any way, can be destroyed by the association. Whether you respond rightly or wrongly is an irrelevance to some people. You could do everything in textbook fashion, as we did in these cases, have the offender arrested, no cover-up at all, and still get “the treatment†from a writer like Rod Dreher.

Emphasis added.

I cannot believe he is so tone deaf that he continues to argue that the way he dealt with these cases is "textbook." (Well, I can believe it, but I don't LIKE it at all.)

He's responding, by the way, to an essay here:

www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/ ... in-moscow/

[DomWackTroll]

Rod Dreher updated the above article and says that Doug is lying about trying to contact him: "I have received no e-mail from Doug Wilson, neither at my TAC address, nor at my private address. Just so you know."

[mirele]

Rod Dreher updated the above article and says that Doug is lying about trying to contact him: "I have received no e-mail from Doug Wilson, neither at my TAC address, nor at my private address. Just so you know."

I am no fan of Rod Dreher's but I sent him an e-mail thanking him profusely for his post. I think Dreher's misled on a lot of things, but he's right about Doug Wilson and child abuse.

[hoipolloi]

I am no fan of Rod Dreher's but I sent him an e-mail thanking him profusely for his post. I think Dreher's misled on a lot of things, but he's right about Doug Wilson and child abuse.

Re: bolded. Agree on both counts.

Dreher has a much wider online readership than Wilson. Dreher's readers, while they may be conservative or even fundie, are NOT fooled by Wilson's bullshit. It is a good thing that Dreher's chosen to discuss the Moscow, ID situations.

[Howl]

One commenter claimed that Dreher has slandered Wilson and criticized Dreher for not contacting Wilson to get his spin on things. I didn't read anything in Dreher's post that couldn't be confirmed by reading primary documents and Wilson's own words as well as the words of those directly affected.

Wilson keeps trying to imply that he has

1) the Real Story

2) he can't tell the Real Story because of pastoral confidentiality

3) he threatens to tell the Real Story if he thinks it would make annoying people shut up

4) if we only knew the Real Story, we'd all understand that what he did was the Right Thing, so all annoying people should just Shut Up already, because he's getting ready to pour a stiff shot of Laphroaig and get after it with another word salad-y blog post whose theology will bite.

The only problem is, some of the principals in these events have spoken up loud and clear with the true story. Bloggers like Katie Botkin (Culture Adventure Stillness) and Julie Anne (Spiritual Sounding Board) have either first-hand knowledge or have interviewed and spoken with people directly involved and have published letters written by Doug. Both Katie Botkin and Julie Anne understand the nature of slander and libel, the tendency of powerful churches to sue to shut people up and are extremely careful with both their statements and sources.

It is becoming abundantly clear that Emperor Doug has no clothes. I write that knowing full well that were I to see that image literally, I'd have to implement a brain bleach procedure STAT.

My sincere wish is that Doug Wilson's theology will bite him in the ass.

[Howl]

This is Rod Dreher's response to the commenter who accused Rod of slandering Doug Wilson's good name:

NFR: “Slander†by definition is something that is untrue. If I have linked to something untrue, by all means correct me. Truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander.

Not one of you has pointed out an untruth in my post. You seem to take the point of view that even if it’s true — and you will note that I linked to primary documents in the public record, as well as to Wilson’s defense — it still ought not to be talked about, because … why, exactly? It causes people to reflect critically on Doug Wilson and his ministry?

I committed journalism. Journalism is not a sin.

If you want to defend Wilson’s actions here, then defend them. But I’m not interested in listening to you tell me or anybody else to shut up about sexual abuse within the church because it is inconvenient for some who bloody well ought to be inconvenienced. I have been down that miserable and long road with the Catholic hierarchy and its defenders. This is all too familiar. — RD

The man is ON FIRE here. Awesome, awesome response:

"I committed journalism. Journalism is not a sin."

[DomWackTroll]

Doug Wilson's response to Rod Dreher in The American Conservative:

theamericanconservative.com/dreher/doug-wilson-reluctant-response/

ETA: On the Jamin Wight case:

The reason we did not want it treated as pedophilia is that her parents had bizarrely brought Jamin into the house as a boarder so that he could conduct a secret courtship with Natalie. So Jamin was in a romantic relationship with a young girl, her parents knew of the relationship and encouraged it, her parents permitted a certain measure of physical affection to exist between them (e.g. hand-holding), Natalie was a beautiful and striking young woman, and at the time was about eight inches taller than Jamin was. Her parents believed that she was mature enough to be in that relationship, and the standards they set for the relationship would have been reasonable if she had in fact been of age and if the two had not been living under the same roof.

[libriatrix]

Wilson keeps trying to imply that [...]

2) he can't tell the Real Story because of pastoral confidentiality

I will admit that when I heard Wilson claiming this it gave me pause, because it seemed like a legitimate concern. However, Katie Botkin has an enlightening paragraph revealing what Wilson really means by his claims of pastoral confidentiality:

Doug has been using the “proof†he claimed he had as a threat to shut Natalie up, and actually wrote her a letter in which he the first thing he asks is “Did your mom hurt you or wrong you in some way that makes you want to get back at her like this? Is there something we don’t know? Are you aware that my central reason for not talking publicly about all this has been to protect your mom from accusations of parental negligence?†Translation: if you don’t stop talking about this, I’m going to have to try to vilify your mother publicly, even though, legally speaking, she had nothing to do with the case. So stop talking!

...even now, I can't believe the gall of this man or the sheer twistedness not just of what he does about these situations, but of how he seems to genuinely perceive them. He truly thinks that if he discusses facts about what Natalie's family and Jamin did as this situation unfolded, that the primary result will be that people will accuse Natalie's mom of negligence. ... He displays not one thought or care for Natalie's own hurts, her need for justice, her need for support, or the need (which is also Natalie's desire) to speak for other hurting victims, to call child abuse what it is and give hope and strength to others hurting silently, to show them that others see, hear, and care. Doug Wilson plainly does not comprehend the concept of speaking up for victims, has not TRIED to comprehend it, and flat out doesn't care.

Oh, and why will people accuse Natalie's mom (and dad) of negligence if Doug Wilson speaks about the case? Because DOUG WILSON WILL ACCUSE HER. Because Doug Wilson thinks that's one of the most important things about the situation, second only to how tall and pretty Natalie was at 14. He discusses this at length in the response on Rod Dreher's site (link just posted by DomWackTroll).

[libriatrix]

Rod Dreher updated the above article and says that Doug is lying about trying to contact him: "I have received no e-mail from Doug Wilson, neither at my TAC address, nor at my private address. Just so you know."

Also, just because I think in a situation like this it is important to be extremely fair and precise with the facts in order to be clear from any suspicion of believing what you want to instead of what is true, let's note: Rod Dreher has updated the article yet again, because he finally did find an e-mail from Wilson, sent to a defunct account, but still sent. So Wilson didn't actually lie about this, which is consistent with his MO -- he doesn't really lie, per se, he just wilfully misunderstands and focuses on his own pet points without desiring to learn how others think or why.

And in my own post above, I was exaggerating bitterly when I said the most important thing about the case to Wilson is how pretty and tall Natalie was at 14. I don't think it IS the most important thing to him, but it is clearly way more important than it ought to be. (As in truth it is completely irrelevant to anything except how it contributed to making Natalie an easier target :cry: )

[Howl]

I read Doug Wilson's response to Rod Dreher, but to make sense of it, I had to head to Katie Botkin (Culture, Adventure, Stillness) and Spiritual Sounding Board to comprehend the full awfulness of Doug Wilson and to have Natalie's response.

It is getting pretty het up out there, but I don't see Doug ever being "defrocked".

From the Christ Church constitution:

In the case of an involuntary termination of his call, a pastor may be recommended for dismissal from service at Christ Church by a unanimous vote of the session (excluding said pastor). In such a case, the pastor may have recourse to the electors by calling for a vote to eithersustain his call as pastor or not (with an option to abstain).

If the electors sustain his call by a two-thirds majority vote, the other elders must afterwards either concede to his call or refer the matter to the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches for binding arbitration.

Each household, rather than each person, of Christ Church gets one vote.

[dpndetfarm]

This may be outside of the point of this thread somewhat, but I have gone to every link offered about this and in the Rod Dreher blog I read all the comments. I expected the usual DW leg humpers spewing the party line, but then one went so much further. I was shocked and sick to my stomach at what he posted. I, personally, know NO ONE who is a healthy, normal, loving father/parent who has the reaction to their child that this man wrote about as if one should be shocked if it didn't happen.

Here are his two comments:

Seriously? Does this guy really believe this is normal? Am I the odd one? I personally know of no father who gets or has gotten a hard on looking at his children. I think this writer must have pedophile leanings to think nothing of this. Both his comments are abhorrent to me in that it would appear he thinks nothing of having sexual thoughts about his children and the only reason not to act on those thoughts is because society has made it against the law.

If this is the kind of person attracted to DW's church I say get every child out of that church because it must be FULL of pedophiles!

[RosyDaisy]

What the actual fuck did I just read? I need to go throw up now.

[Howl]

LIbriatrix, thanks for joining us here at FJ. It's especially important to hear from people who have direct knowledge of Doug Wilson, and I value your posts.

dpndtfarm, one of the more fascinating aspects of this sad Doug Wilson expose is reading comments, especially when people inadvertently reveal themselves as William Dalton has done. Unfortunately, William Dalton is staggeringly creepy (or is he a troll?), but there you have it.

I was noodling around trying to find out how many people attend Christ Church (800 or has it increased/decreased?), and found a trove of articles by Nick Gier (Univ. of Idaho professor emeritus/philosophy) taking a critical look at Doug Wilson/neo-Calvinism/culture wars/biblical scholarship/Moscow, ID-related topics at webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/Wilson.htm

Gier is very readable and is a refreshing respite from Wilson’s typical Laphroaig-logic, mind-shtup drivel. Worth a read.

For example, PATRIARCHY, POSSESSION, AND SLAVERY begins

Recently on Vision2020 one of Doug Wilson's defenders complained that his critics are picking one small booklet on slavery out of his voluminous writings on other topics. In this essay I will show that Wilson's support for slavery is intimately connected with other writings that affirm male superiority, hierarchy, and inequality.

[Sera's Arrow]

The posts by William Dalton reminded me of a quote I read years ago at Perverted-Justice. "People who base their morality by the law are some pretty fucked up people." I wish I remembered exactly who said it, my brain keeps on saying that it was Xavier Von Erck but my brain has been wrong before.

I especially hate how This Sick Bastard compares sexual relations with the same sex or sex outside of marriage with being sexually aroused by a baby. One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Good thing that I learned something else at Perverted-Justice, namely that there are three kinds of people who compare consensual and adult same sex relations with pedophilia. 1) angry rednecks, 2) religious freaks and 3) pedophiles themselves. 2 is pretty obvious but I'm looking a few red flags that inform me that 3 could be just as valid for Mr. Dalton.

[dpndetfarm]

The posts by William Dalton reminded me of a quote I read years ago at Perverted-Justice. "People who base their morality by the law are some pretty fucked up people." I wish I remembered exactly who said it, my brain keeps on saying that it was Xavier Von Erck but my brain has been wrong before.

I especially hate how This Sick Bastard compares sexual relations with the same sex or sex outside of marriage with being sexually aroused by a baby. One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Good thing that I learned something else at Perverted-Justice, namely that there are three kinds of people who compare consensual and adult same sex relations with pedophilia. 1) angry rednecks, 2) religious freaks and 3) pedophiles themselves. 2 is pretty obvious but I'm looking a few red flags that inform me that 3 could be just as valid for Mr. Dalton.

I love that quote no matter who wrote it Sera's Arrow. And I totally agree with the rest of your post.

Howl, I never thought he was a possible troll mainly because of the way his comments sounded. They seemed too matter of fact. Too blase^ (That is for the accent mark). And usually if you reread a troll enough you can catch a whiff of immaturity or challenge somewhere in the word vomit. Having said that I pray to my creamy peanut butter god that this was a troll. In this case a troll WD would be 1000X better than a serious WD.

I am off to read some more after the latest websites I now know about because of both of you.

Thanks.

[keen23]

I don't really follow the Doug Wilson threads, because he disgusts me. However, I came across this and thought some of you might be interested.

dougwilsonarchive.wordpress.com/

[DomWackTroll]

I don't really follow the Doug Wilson threads, because he disgusts me. However, I came across this and thought some of you might be interested.

dougwilsonarchive.wordpress.com/

Thank you, keen23-- that's a treasure trove!

Andrew Sandlin distances himself from his blurb for Doug’s book because he does not “endorse coddling pedophiles, publicly mocking godly critics, and favoring convicted sex abusers over their victims. My friends know that I find these actions godless and reprehensible.â€

docsandlin.com/2015/09/30/a-brief-clarification/