BRADRICK! Divorce Part 2

[PsyD2013]

Question for WA residents, could Peter's & Kelly's divorce documents be sealed?  Just wondering. I live in Iowa the ex that ours be sealed.

[WonderingInWA]

53 minutes ago, PsyD2013 said:

Question for WA residents, could Peter's & Kelly's divorce documents be sealed?  Just wondering. I live in Iowa the ex that ours be sealed.

Mine are not public but I was divorced in a different county than P and K are.  I personally would be furious if mine were so readily available.

[MamaJunebug]

13 hours ago, BobJonesBabe said:

[Quoting an old Scottie blog]

 

Craig Houston's sons were an enormous help to us at the conference. Throughout the weekend, while we were at the Bremerton conference, he delegated his sons to us. He gave Samuel to me (not pictured) Daniel to Peter and Nathaniel to David. They were sharp, efficient, and able in all the tasks we gave them to do. I was so excited to see such young boys whole heartedly dedicated to the mission of their father.

That "he gave Samuel to me... Daniel to Peter..." made and makes me want to throw up!  I had to listen to a WW2 vet reminisce about "the boy that was given to me" during his deployment in SEAsia somewhere. Apparently all the men in his group had boys "given" to them. 

The grossout side of my insect brain immediately thought the worst, then on quick reflection I realized this man would not have told me -- a young woman new to the family -- about it if that had been the case. I still wanted to hurl, at the idea that kids were made available as servants to men who basically were part of an occupying military force. 

But that was war, and whatever the soldiers/Army paid the kids doubtless was a windfall to their families  This is part of Christ's work on Earth?!

No!

I don't think so!

It's the "give" verb that repulses.  Preserve the child's inherent worth by saying/writing, "He assigned Butchie to help me, and put Buddy on Nathaniel's team and sent Chipper to assist Peter."  The boys are not chattel to be lent out nor given.

Ugh. All the militarism, all the empire-building.  "The mission of their father." Not their Heavenly Father God --- their father who's happy to believe himself a god! 

Repugnant. 

[ophelia]

On 17.3.2017 at 9:42 PM, Black Aliss said:

Past experience. Especially if it was a judge in Pierce County, which is not at all liberal and the location of a horrific murder-suicide that actually did involve supervised visitation. It's a very long and complicated saga, but if you are curious, search deseretnews.com or google  "Josh Powell". But I warn you, the accounts of what happened are very disturbing.

Indeed really disturbing. I'm glad I read this during daytime.

On 19.3.2017 at 5:35 PM, acheronbeach said:

This one?

Thank you for posting this video! I have seen it for the first time now and it is even shittier and more embarassing that I expected it to be.

On 19.3.2017 at 6:11 PM, formergothardite said:

The Titanic one! Kelly saying "it is recording", the trucks flying by, the wind blowing making it hard to understand him and the poor child on the fence who looks like he really, really needs to pee. 

I thought the exact same thing! Although the little boy looked as if he might have to poop.

On 19.3.2017 at 11:31 PM, fundiefan said:

Holy crap. I just watched those videos. I'd forgotten how full of themselves the whole VF crowd was (is). The manly men spent all their time giving each other emotional blow jobs. All I could do was laugh at the absurdities. How the hell did anyone ever get sucked in and take that seriously? So, so much worse than I even remember. 

Been asking myself the same question for years. And now, a long time after the fall of VF, I find it even weirder that they were so popular and such a huge crowd coming to their conferences etc.

[acheronbeach]

55 minutes ago, MamaJunebug said:

Ugh. All the militarism, all the empire-building.  "The mission of their father." Not their Heavenly Father God --- their father who's happy to believe himself a god!  

These VF types have no idea at all what the military is about.  It's a romance-novel version of the military.  They love the imagery, but wouldn't last ten minutes in any of the forces.  Just imagine any of them putting themselves under the discipline of their commanding officer.  Just imagine any of them obeying orders, for goodness' sake. 

And what about the actual skills required?  It's not all firing guns and staring longingly at the sunset while you drink camp coffee.  Can you imagine Dougie having to learn to sew, and then having to repair his own clothes (to this day, my dad still his own sewing kit)?  Can you imagine him making his own bed and having it inspected? 

You'll notice that none of those Hazardous Journeys boys have actually joined any armed forces.  I doubt they'd last a month, and I'm glad they're so weak, because we REALLY don't need those types in the army. 

[refugee]

On 3/17/2017 at 11:59 AM, MamaJunebug said:

Best part -- very likely the $2.50 you're paying probably doesn't go to a VF'er, and also likely it might be going to a VF refugee. 

Although this family of VF refugees either burned or destroyed everything we could. Put some in recycling bin to be pulped (am happy to think they might have been made into anything... graphic novels... toilet paper...). Broke CDs and DVDs before throwing in trash. It was therapeutic. And we didn't want this poison to fall into anyone's hands. (I used to buy this kind of stuff at the thrift store when I saw it, just so I could throw it in the recycle bin.)

My hope is that someday those materials will only be available on the shelves of researchers who are writing about dead social movements of the past, or people like the writer of the Scarlet Letters blog, not sitting like a snake on a thrift store shelf, ready to strike out at some unwitting, well-meaning person who is experiencing conflict or crisis in their family and wishing for something better.

If you're not familiar with the Scarlet Letters blog, check out the "Big Box series" and the "So Much More" series.

https://scarletlettersblog.wordpress.com/

[Hane]

On 3/20/2017 at 11:56 AM, acheronbeach said:

My favourite part of the clip is when they're trekking through Jökulsárlón (where the big chunks of ice are washed up on shore).  They've shot it so you don't see the large tourist building and parking lot directly behind them. 

My family and I visited Iceland in 2009. It gives me the giggles when I think of DPIART's manly trek up a glacier. At our hotel, we met a woman who had just spent her 60th birthday glacier-climbing.

[refugee]

On 3/17/2017 at 0:23 PM, nausicaa said:

1. Their "counselor" is some dude at Westside Baptist Church. a)  and b ) aren't the Browns/Bradricks pretty hardcore Calvinists? I'm very surprised at this choice.

Someone else may have already answered this (I am doing that thing of not reading the whole thread before replying, because frankly, it's taking me days just to go through this thread!).

Neo-calvinists are apparently in the process of taking over at least one Baptist denomination. If you have the time and interest, the Wartburg Watch has quite a few articles about the likes of authoritarians Mark Dever and Al Mohler (and others) and the takeover and decline of the Southern Baptist denomination. Apparently (from what I've read there) people are leaving in droves. From what Baptists and former Baptists say in the comments over there, the focus of that denomination has changed from evangelizing the world (sending out missionaries to preach the gospel) to taking over existing churches (mainly in wealthy areas in the US) and replacing their "error" with the correct "gospel"--authoritarian calvinistic theology.

ETA: We weren't Baptists, and you don't think of Baptists sharing doctrine with Presbyterians and Episcopalians (for example), but many of the "ultra" homeschoolers went to "reformed" churches with "reformed" doctrine. I suspect that in this context, "reformed" is actually a code word for "authoritarian" and perhaps patriarchal. For example, just a few who professed "reformed" or "covenant theology" that I remember include the Sprouls, DPIAT, Elisabeth Elliot, Scott Brown, Kevin Swanson, Gregg and Sono Harris, (CJ Mahaney?), and Doug Wilson.

There are many more.

[refugee]

On 3/17/2017 at 0:23 PM, nausicaa said:

. Did VF bang the "no debt" gong the way Gothard does? They have $12,000 listed in debts, and some of that on two credit cards.

We were never into Gothard, never went to his seminars, were semi-shunned by ATI families (they would associate with us, for example in a homeschool support group, but they were always standoffish), but I remember sitting in a homeschool conference being told by VF types (maybe even the Tool himself) that the goal was to be free of worldly encumbrances. There was "biblical" teaching on owing nothing to nobody, that debt was a form of slavery and a goal for every christian ought to be getting debt-free. (Maybe a little Dave Ramsey influence there? or did he just find an already-primed audience to feed off of?) So instead of sending your kids to college, why not put away savings toward your sons' home downpayments so they can start their marriages on their way to owning their own homes, not pissing away their earnings on rent. And if you could manage to give your sons a home that's free-and-clear, that would be even better.

Of course, the people preaching this and earning conference fees were much wealthier than the bulk of the crowd listening to their spiel. If you're a lawyer or doctor or engineer, maybe you could make it work. An auto mechanic trying to support a wife and six kids? Not so much.

ETA: And the Vision Forum booth (and most of the booths at the homeschooling conferences) took credit cards. So they didn't mind you going into debt buying their materials.

One funny (well, not so funny) anecdote was a friend who told me that the VF booth people would not talk to the women with questions. They'd sell stuff to them, ring up purchases politely, but they would not engage in conversation. They talked to her husband, but not to her.

[samurai_sarah]

23 hours ago, VVV said:

I cannot understand why Peter is still voluntarily submitting to the crazy after it has ruined the lives of everyone in his family. Unlike Kelly, he doesn't seem to need to remain in the fold in order to eat. What a stunted life he leads, both in the world and in his head.

I don't know either, so I'm internet arm-chairing guessing that this may be akin to an abusive relationship? From my limited experience, in an abusive relationship, you want to believe, you make yourself believe, every little thing takes on enormous meaning, and a little hope makes up for so, so much.

I don't know anything with any certainty, what I am saying is that this whole situation reminds me of a personal experience. That may be just me trying to relate, or it may be applicable. Only Peter and Kelly know, what's really going on.

[Granwych]

2 hours ago, acheronbeach said:

These VF types have no idea at all what the military is about.  It's a romance-novel version of the military.  They love the imagery, but wouldn't last ten minutes in any of the forces.  Just imagine any of them putting themselves under the discipline of their commanding officer.  Just imagine any of them obeying orders, for goodness' sake. 

And what about the actual skills required?  It's not all firing guns and staring longingly at the sunset while you drink camp coffee.  Can you imagine Dougie having to learn to sew, and then having to repair his own clothes (to this day, my dad still his own sewing kit)?  Can you imagine him making his own bed and having it inspected? 

You'll notice that none of those Hazardous Journeys boys have actually joined any armed forces.  I doubt they'd last a month, and I'm glad they're so weak, because we REALLY don't need those types in the army. 

They couldn't survive boot camp.

13 minutes ago, refugee said:

ETA: And the Vision Forum booth (and most of the booths at the homeschooling conferences) took credit cards. So they didn't mind you going into debt buying their materials.

Neither do the Maxwells, for all their "debt-free living."

[refugee]

On 3/17/2017 at 0:52 PM, Jezzable said:

Is it me or does it seem that quite a lot of adults who were homeschooled in very rigid and legalistic homes act out sexually as adults?  It seems many kids go through a normal and mutually harmless sexploration and perhaps theirs was delayed?

Maybe a trigger warning. If I found that writing what comes below this line upsetting, maybe someone else will, too.

Just what is a "normal and mutually harmless sexploration" anyhow? This is a serious question. I know in our state, if there's a 3-year (or more) difference between siblings, for example, it's considered the crime of molestation.

So what makes it "normal" and "mutually harmless"?

Just take from the question that I did not have a "normal" upbringing, and I'd really like to know what would be considered harmless. One of the reasons my pendulum swung so far to the right was because I wanted to spare my kids from what I went through. For all the good such extremes do... it appears that fundie families are even more prone to molestation than non-fundies. Or are lots of non-fundies out there molesting their kids, or with kids molesting younger kids, too, and it's all "normal"?

Is the whole world just totally fucked up? (No pun intended.)

As a former fundie, I have heard so many stories from/about other fundies, and people saying things like "it happens in 90% of families" (so no big deal????).

Are there more child molesters in the fundie ranks, or are they about the same as the world outside the fundie ranks because molestation is a fact of life, or should we just turn a blind eye to sexual exploration between little kids who are the same age because it's normal and mutually harmless?

I guess I don't get the difference between "playing doctor" (which my mom joked about with other moms, not knowing the darker things lurking in the shadows) and "normal, mutually harmless" sex "play".

[FeministShrew]

35 minutes ago, refugee said:

Someone else may have already answered this (I am doing that thing of not reading the whole thread before replying, because frankly, it's taking me days just to go through this thread!).

Neo-calvinists are apparently in the process of taking over at least one Baptist denomination. If you have the time and interest, the Wartburg Watch has quite a few articles about the likes of authoritarians Mark Dever and Al Mohler (and others) and the takeover and decline of the Southern Baptist denomination. Apparently (from what I've read there) people are leaving in droves. From what Baptists and former Baptists say in the comments over there, the focus of that denomination has changed from evangelizing the world (sending out missionaries to preach the gospel) to taking over existing churches (mainly in wealthy areas in the US) and replacing their "error" with the correct "gospel"--authoritarian calvinistic theology.

 

It's been quietly happening here in SC, much like the conservative takeover of SBC churches in the late 70s-early 80s. I saw it happen about 7-8 years ago at the SBC I attended before I finally left religion completely. The super-nice normal pastor of 15+ years was forced out* & replaced with a patriarchal, conservative, entitled neo-Calvinist asshole who insisted on a McMansion in a gated community rather than the existing parsonage & then asked church members to move his furniture rather than pay movers. (Yeah, I may be a little bitter.)

 

*It's a long story- A group of disgruntled, conservative, & monied former members agreed to come back if he was ousted. They couldn't dig up any dirt on him, so they backed him into a corner over a minor matter & said "resign quietly & get severance pay or force us to vote you out & we'll ruin your reputation." He chose to be voted out. As far as I know he hasn't had a church yet & is working as a used car salesman.

 

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

7 minutes ago, FeministShrew said:

*It's a long story- A group of disgruntled, conservative, & monied former members agreed to come back if he was ousted. They couldn't dig up any dirt on him, so they backed him into a corner over a minor matter & said "resign quietly & get severance pay or force us to vote you out & we'll ruin your reputation." He chose to be voted out. As far as I know he hasn't had a church yet & is working as a used car salesman.

Oh please, please tell us more. I do so love stories of how the mighty fundies fall and can't get up

[iEscaped]

21 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

Just a quick question for @iEscaped (thanks) and any of our WA residents.

In my state the divorce papers would not become public record (and downloadable for a price) until a judge had already signed off on the agreement.  Until then the records would be sealed.

So this divorce agreement has been signed, sealed and delivered.  Yes?

I can't answer that one, I don't live in WA and don't have any info on how that process works. 

[Howl]

I recall reading (Wartburg Watch comments?) about a church that was taken over by a 9 Marks pastor flying under the radar.  The church had a sound financial footing and several wonderful and viable outreach ministries, including a soup kitchen feeding a lot of people; finances and outreach ministries were ultimately trashed by this guy, because compassionate assistance was not part of his program. Getting $$$$ and setting up more 9 Marks churches is what they are after. 

[FeministShrew]

39 minutes ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

Oh please, please tell us more. I do so love stories of how the mighty fundies fall and can't get up

I wouldn't call this pastor a fundie, really. He towed the standard SB party line, but with some social justice thrown in. One of the things that go him in trouble was questioning why the big-ass "family life center" sat empty most of the time. He wanted to use it for community service - ESL classes, food pantry, soup kitchen, etc. Except instead of just serving the community to be like Jesus, he still wanted to use it as a tool to "spread the gospel." His wife was a nice lady, who was working on her Master's Degree at a local secular college  (I don't know what her degree was in, but she became a librarian). 

The  "minor matter" was an altercation with a delivery driver. The youngest son had seizures and his meds were delivered once a month & had to be refrigerated within a certain time frame. There were very specific delivery instructions, but one time the driver didn't follow them, left the package outside, and the medication was ruined. This led to a shouting match between the pastor & the delivery driver a few days later, the police showed up, but no one was charged. Everything blew over.
Except this is a very small town* (one stoplight, one family runs everything - dad is fire chief & on the town council, one son is police chief, other son & grandson are  police officers). Fire chief dad  just happened to be one of the disgruntled former members, word got around about the incident, and it was exaggerated into the pastor hitting, choking, & knocking the driver down. 
The majority of members (at least while I was there) are just sheep who come to that church on Sunday morning as a social obligation, because it's the local Baptist church & they've always gone there, and really don't care about theology or philosophy. They didn't really believe the story, but they would rather have a nice quiet church with no hint of scandal. Also, some of the wealthier members threatened to leave, taking their tithes with them. 
FWIW, I was not in the service when the vote was taken. I, along with a couple of other ladies known to support the pastor, had been asked to stay in the church nursery at the last minute. I guess someone was pretty smart.  I definitely would have voted against firing him. From what I heard afterward the deacons called an emergency business meeting & the whole thing was over in 10 minutes.

*I don't live there anymore. It's still a nasty, petty little shithole.  I moved to the next county and the "big city" lol.

[EmiGirl]

The SBC is definitely becoming Calvinistic. Southern Seminary in Louisville is 100% Calvinist and I believe it spits out the majority of the SBC pastors, at least in my area. It also has an undergraduate affiliated branch called Boyce College that teaches the same. So pretty much all the newbie pastors coming out are Calvinists and they are going to eventually take over the whole denomination. It's inevitable and I'm not pleased.

I am somewhat happy to report that there are a few SBC churches who have recently ordained women pastors.

[DomWackTroll]

Tim Bayly is calling Scott (and Doug) out again-- this time by name!-- but he does not make a direct reference to the divorce. Since he's turned off the comments on his blog, I'm linking to his Facebook post so we can see the comments there. 

 

[apandaaries]

1 hour ago, refugee said:

<snip> As a former fundie, I have heard so many stories from/about other fundies, and people saying things like "it happens in 90% of families" (so no big deal????).

Are there more child molesters in the fundie ranks, or are they about the same as the world outside the fundie ranks because molestation is a fact of life, or should we just turn a blind eye to sexual exploration between little kids who are the same age because it's normal and mutually harmless?

I guess I don't get the difference between "playing doctor" (which my mom joked about with other moms, not knowing the darker things lurking in the shadows) and "normal, mutually harmless" sex "play".

I am by no means an expert, but these are important questions.  I think the 3 year gap you mentioned is really significant, because for children, those years account for huge differences.  The older one would have much more power and sway over the younger one.  Rape is about power.  Molestation, like other forms of  sexual abuse, is also about power to some degree. 

A stat like "90% of families" is, to me, a never-fundie, an insane number, almost unfathomable.  As someone who has lived in the secular world, been to college, travelled and lived abroad, I can assure you that 90% beyond comprehension for huge portions of the population.

"Normal, mutually harmless" exploration and play is, to me, kids near in age getting together to break a few rules with mutual consent.  A 7 year old who play-kisses with a 6 or 5 year old (who WANTS to play this game) isn't molesting that other child.  A 10 year old kissing a 6 year old?  Problematic.  2 and 3 year olds who strip down to play "doctor"? Normal & harmless, so long as all the kids wanted to strip down and play, and no force was involved.  A 15 year old kissing a 14 year old? Normal and fine.  A 13 year old with a 19 year old?  Nope -- no good.  It's the power dynamic hidden in the ages, as well as the issues of consent and coercion.

I don't know about the differences in molestation rates between fundies and non-fundies.  I also don't know of parents who just turn blind eyes to sexual exploration, but they don't condemn it, either.  If someone found their kid naked with another kid playing doctor, most parents I know would have a little talk with the kids (and probably make them get dressed).  And that conversation should keep going as they age -- talking about relationships, what is and is not appropriate, etc.  

For Peter and Kelly, just being allowed to be teenagers and young adults with normal parameters would have been better.  Going out on unchaperoned dates, kissing before marriage, experiencing crushes and teenage infatuation -- all of that would have helped them so much before getting married. They could have learned so much more about themselves before attempting to make a lifelong commitment and bringing more lives into the world. I just hope their children are able to do better, somehow, because they deserve better than what their parents had. 

 

[nausicaa]

1 hour ago, refugee said:

Maybe a trigger warning. If I found that writing what comes below this line upsetting, maybe someone else will, too.

Just what is a "normal and mutually harmless sexploration" anyhow? This is a serious question. I know in our state, if there's a 3-year (or more) difference between siblings, for example, it's considered the crime of molestation.

I guess I don't get the difference between "playing doctor" (which my mom joked about with other moms, not knowing the darker things lurking in the shadows) and "normal, mutually harmless" sex "play".

I totally read "normal and mutually harmless sexploration" as between non-related people, and people more in their adolescence and teens rather than children, as in dating situations.

I don't want to put words in @Jezzable 's mouth, but interpreted her comment to mean that non-Fundamentalist kids get to date and go to dances in high school, make out in parked cars, lose their virginity, maybe get a bit wild in college and have some drunken rendez-vous and one night stands. And then for the most part get that out of their system. And in the process they realize what it is they do and don't like sexually and in a relationship, so when the time comes for marriage they have a better idea of what they want.

I know it's not the same for everyone, and plenty of people marry as virgins and have happy and sexually satisfying marriages, but I do agree that there are some people that just doesn't work for, and making the fruit forbidden makes it all that more tempting. 

 

[refugee]

On 3/17/2017 at 3:40 PM, ChunkyBarbie said:

I'm still working on feeling bad for Peter too, just can't quite swing it now. I know he is a victim of his upbringing and lifestyle, but the arrogance, being a bully and a cheater, makes all my sympathy go to Kelly and the children. Especially the children.

Someone else was just speculating on how fundie lifestyle can set things up for the father to be alienated from the children. It made sense, something I hadn't thought about before. The comment quoted here sparked a further thought--was Peter molded into an arrogant bully by fundie attitudes and teachings? Is he the firstborn son, the one who gets a double portion of the inheritance? Was he perhaps the Crown Prince in his family (which makes me think of what some have said about Josh Duggar)?

[DomWackTroll]

15 minutes ago, refugee said:

Someone else was just speculating on how fundie lifestyle can set things up for the father to be alienated from the children. It made sense, something I hadn't thought about before. The comment quoted here sparked a further thought--was Peter molded into an arrogant bully by fundie attitudes and teachings? Is he the firstborn son, the one who gets a double portion of the inheritance? Was he perhaps the Crown Prince in his family (which makes me think of what some have said about Josh Duggar)?

Here is a 1995 newspaper article on the Bradricks, and it seems that Peter is the second son (after Andy) in a family of four boys and five girls. God, what I wouldn't give to see the long-gone photos that accompanied this!

http://web.kitsapsun.com/archive/1995/02-11/304200_bradricks_raising_godly_childre.html

[VVV]

2 hours ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

Oh please, please tell us more. I do so love stories of how the mighty fundies fall and can't get up

I don't take any pleasure in this kind of story. I have a family member who is a non-fundy Baptist pastor who was forced out of his church by similarly politically based machinations, and the stress it put on him and his family was unbelievable. At my own decidedly non-fundy non-SBC Baptist church, we had an extended fight a few years ago in which a small group of powerful families attempted to force out our pastor. Fortunately in that case, the good guy prevailed, but all too often it goes the other way.

There are a lot of horrible people in churches. Not all of them are fundy.

[Black Aliss]

18 hours ago, Chicken bones said:

The only thing I can focus on is that Peter still has a gigantically wide stance for no real reason in that picture.

What, you don't find that a sign of manly manliness?