RC Sproul Jr, 2016 MERGED

[Schmoopy]

I think she is intelligent enough to know how social media can distort truth and that hater sights aren't truth.  She's at least 50yo and works in the medical profession where she deals constantly with both other professionals and patients. Now, that said, I also think it's more difficult to see what her view or story was given we know so little of this private family. 

Both being accomplished. Both having common interests. Both probably very different also- yet-he has posts reflecting his gratitude of her love. Not everyone has the good fortune of being loved flaws and all.

[hoipolloi]

49 minutes ago, DomWackTroll said:

Do you believe she never once googled him? I don't-- and that's all it would take. No crystal ball necessary. 

Exactly. RC2 is Lisa's  4th husband but she didn't think to check him out before marrying him? Right.

 

 

[Schmoopy]

I guess the bottom line is their family seems happy, despite the hardship.  

[Schmoopy]

What is Lisa's past? Does anyone know?

[laPapessaGiovanna]

You're right 8pm isn't midday. What I meant to say was that it's still day, in my country it's not socially acceptable to be that drunk by that hour (and ebil Catholics generally don't have qualms about moderate drinking). Maybe in the US it's different. Anyway pretty sure DUIs aren't a socially acceptable behaviour in the US.

You didn't answer my question though. Do you think it's acceptable that, if an addict husband is demonstrably a danger for the children, the wife take the door with said children or does she have to stay until someone gets hurt?

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

This isn't a hardship -- hardship is getting laid off.

This is a man who is a chronic alcoholic for the last 25-30 years.  Who drove blind drunk -- knee walking, pavement licking, commode hugging drunk -- with 2 small children in the car.

And the only thing that happened to him was losing his license for 6 months,

The minute he has it back he can drive drunk again. And he will -- because he has never been able to stay sober.

Next time -- and there will be a next time -- the odds are he will kill himself, a passenger or someone(s) in another car.

Lisa's behavior indicates to me she is living deep, deep in denial, because she cannot accept the fact she married an alcoholic-- probably willfully ignored all the signs, RC2 is fundie royalty after all --  and that alcoholic put 2 of her children at serious risk.

[Marian the Librarian]

19 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

people who drive the same roads as RC2 have a RIGHT not to be at risk from RC2's alcoholism while he is exercising his PRIVILEGE to drive a motor vehicle. 

a thousand times.

[DomWackTroll]

3 hours ago, Schmoopy said:

I guess the bottom line is their family seems happy, despite the hardship.  

Oh, FFS. This isn't Charles Ingalls desperately trying to protect and feed his family as they move west in a covered wagon. Please...

ETA: I want to clarify that this comment doesn't mean that I don't think the kids are having a rough time. I'm sure they are-- all through the fault of their drunken father. But "hardship" implies that the problem was externally imposed or some cruel twist of fate, rather then something that came from within the family and was totally preventable. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

So two children assisted while the father committed at least a felony. They saw him blind drunk, unable to keep the wheel straight, unable to walk straight nor talk clearly. They were there while police checked him and saw him brought away (in handcuffs?). How scared and worried were they? But oh look at them they're a happy family despite the "hardships"!

[older than allosaurs]

And these boys, assuming it was the youngest two kids, are adopted. They've already lost their original families and culture, then their new mother, then gotten a stranger as a stepmother, and spent most of their lives to date with a drunk for a dad. But not to worry, since they look just darling in the family pictures.

[Schmoopy]

This post list many of the hardships prior to Nov. 29th. That being established, we see that the kids, all of them, went through various hardships that many in this world go through. They still have to move forward, like everyone who experiences grief and loss.

Most of the posts from page 1 to current are going off pictures, FB posts, assumption, and personal vandetta or personal grievance.

Nov.29th just gave more reasons for hate from the public haters. Having experienced family death through tragedy, i.e. Drunk driver, I know the how it feels to hope for payback, but I also know that sometimes it works in the direction of that perpetrator getting his life in order after after the biggest wake up call one could ever have... and many get upset with that happening.

As far as his new wife goes, who is highly complimented on previous pages, I would suggest that we don't know what struggles they have had having to deal with Rc2's ghosts or issues.. the older we get the more we have.  No matter what opinions are expressed, let's look at what we know: 

1) He lost his job.

2) He lost his license for the maximum time one can lose their license in IN related to his plea.

3) He pled guilty to a felony charge.

4) He has to live with his scars and his embarrassment daily.

5) He is seeking professional help according to WW and is putting the pieces of his life back together. Jagged, broken pieces. 

While most of these posts were started by pictures of the two them engaged/married, then his DUI, job loss, guilt, shame, health issues -someone reported.  His wife, to me, doesn't seem in deep denial, but deeply committed to the health and well being of her/his family and has been challenged to prove it early on. Her own family of five she had prior and taking on his seven other children. He went into her territory and she got his children established there.  I don't think throwing her under the bus is too cool. As far as the comment regarding their "new" mother being a stranger- she surely isn't now- especially having to be the one they have had to depend on while dad heals.

its obvious she did not need rescued, being established in her own community both professionally and personally. She looks to me like a grown ass woman who isn't lacking security in herself.

 

[ViolaSebastian]

Catching up on this whole saga, I can't help but think of Biblical submission, Lori Alexander style. This whole fiasco illustrates just how badly it can go wrong when one person is an 'authority' in marriage and one person a help meet who takes directions. The healthiest response from a Mrs. in this situation would be "Husband is responsible for his own, deeply reprehensible actions. He's responsible for his recovery, for going through the steps, for completing his therapy." What Mrs. RC is demonstrating right now is an acute case of co-dependency, which helps exactly no one. 

The last, last damn thing I would be doing for a loved one of mine in similar situation is spending my time defending him/her on the internet. There's NO defense for this kind of behavior, particularly from a person who is, without doubt, an enabler. She needs therapy just as badly as he does.

2 hours ago, DomWackTroll said:

Oh, FFS. This isn't Charles Ingalls desperately trying to protect and feed his family as they move west in a covered wagon. Please...

And this is, undoubtedly, not the first time he has been in some sort of trouble for his behavior while intoxicated. After the first few times (which I am positive he had, reportedly being a drinker of many years), any sympathy I have leaves. He had YEARS to address his drinking, but chose not to do it. 

[Schmoopy]

Enabling constitutes repeative acts. What are those exactly? I haven't seen one except what was posted in the beginning.  

What I read at WW was not a defense but an update for those who continue to make up what they want to believe. That's my take.

[ViolaSebastian]

6 minutes ago, Schmoopy said:

Enabling constitutes repeative acts. What are those exactly? I haven't seen one except what was posted in the beginning.  

What I read at WW was not a defense but and update for those who continue to make up what they want to believe. That's my take.

Okay, for real? She said that it was a "great day" when he became a convicted FELON. And aside from that, she let her stepchildren, for whom she is partially responsible, ride in the car with a man who she acknowledges is a chronic alcoholic. The real question here is, why on earth are you defending this man?

[Schmoopy]

Go back and reread the posts. It says what the police report states- the sheriff contacted her at 8:30pm and she was not aware. Facts are essential in conclusions. 

[ViolaSebastian]

5 minutes ago, Schmoopy said:

Go back and reread the posts. It says what the police report states- the sheriff contacted her at 8:30pm and she was not aware. Facts are essential in conclusions. 

That's what she *said*. Do you really believe for a moment she didn't know he had the children? And do you really believe she had no idea he was a chronic alcoholic, being the substance-abuse-treating-expert-dietitian that she she claims to be? Aside from that, how do you reconcile the post about it being a "great day" on the day he became a felon AND the earlier posts, that you acknowledge as enabling, with your claim that she isn't an enabler of his behavior?

Like many here, I have considerable experience with alcoholism in my own family. And yes, members of my family have called the police to prevent the drunken individual from driving. Because that's what responsible, non-enabling adults do. 

[Schmoopy]

As I read the post from the "Great day" they were already a combined FB... someone's post on FJ said the same thing, but concluded that it was a great day to have it end so well for them- despite the anger felt by FJ audience. 

 All I can say is the energy in trying to adjudicate RC2 is going nowhere and has done nothing for you. I know this is a snark site- but come on people-Burning with anger towards what the law is determining for his future is for them to live out- and they are- regardless of anyone's opinions. 

I would say God is giving beauty for ashes- regardless of our opinions.

[ViolaSebastian]

20 minutes ago, Schmoopy said:

All I can say is the energy in trying to adjudicate RC2 is going nowhere and has done nothing for you. I know this is a snark site- but come on people-Burning with anger towards what the law is determining for his future is for them to live out- and they are- regardless of anyone's opinions. 

People who have posted here have talked about why they're taking this so personally--to note, that they have been negatively affected by the actions of a drunk driver. They have every right to be 'burning with anger' over what they (and I) feel is an inadequate punishment for putting young children and others lives in danger. You don't get to tone police others' hurt and anger. Just no.

Spoiler

 

[DomWackTroll]

56 minutes ago, Schmoopy said:

 All I can say is the energy in trying to adjudicate RC2 is going nowhere and has done nothing for you. 

Yeah, I can decide for myself whether it "does something for me" or not, but thanks. 

Has it occurred to you that joining a forum that is critical of right-wing/anti-feminist religious movements and immediately, aggressively, and repeatedly defending a felonious proponent of patriarchy might raise a few red flags for members who have been here for years? 

[ViolaSebastian]

Hey, here's a fun comic about tone policing. I'm tapping out to go talk about my bunions over on the Boyer Sisters thread. Because frankly, that's more productive than talking with someone who is an apologist for drunk drivers.

http://boingboing.net/2016/10/06/this-comic-explains-tone-polic.html

[Coconut Flan]

I believe this one earned a parrot.

[ViolaSebastian]

12 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

I believe this one earned a parrot.

Sorry @Coconut Flan, we're just trying to make sure we make you work for the big bucks you're making.

[Coconut Flan]

I am so sorry that I was unclear.  The awardee of this parrot is Schmoopy. 

[Howl]

Question to @Schmoopy: Why is Lisa Sproul and our discussion of her important to you?  Of all the people we discuss on this site, why is the RC,Jr/Lisa situation something you want to comment on? It seems personal to you.  Do you know Lisa Sproul?  Do you know any of the Sprouls? 

The Wartburg Watch post titled RC Sproul Jr Is Now a Convicted Felon Alcoholic and Is One Step Away From a Tragedy is closing in on 800 comments, so to say this is a controversial topic is an understatement.  However, I'd strongly encourage you to read a comment on the article by Claire, posted at Mon Jun 26, 2017 at 02:03 AM.  She pretty much lays it out RC's problems in context and why even sobriety won't address all of his problems.  

[MamaJunebug]

Schmoopy asked if we knew anything about Mrs. Lisa. There was somebody posting snarky things about her and her previous marriages, some weeks ago -- anybody else remember that? Did the contributor fade away or flounce or other? I've been having too much fun [sic] IRL to have been able to pay much attention. 

Do want to ask, since Schmoooy mentioned Mrs. Lisa "taking on" her new husband's 7 children, how many are actually at home, under their roof? (The roof being something Mrs. Lisa gained in her 3rd divorce, IIRC, according to the poster I asked about earlier.)

Darcy is married, Delaney is engaged to a Phillips boy ... I'm thinking the three who are older than the youngest sons are young adults? Just a detail, and not to say that kids in adolescence or young adulthood are necessarily easy to step-parent, especially in a case like this where the biological parent is in heaven and not on earth to help carry the load.  

Just wondering about the ages.