Jump to content
IGNORED

Spanky Sproul 2: WTF is Happening, In More Ways than One


FundieFarmer

Recommended Posts

On 10/6/2018 at 10:42 AM, Howl said:

For the sake of his children, I truly, truly hope he is clean, straight and sober and that his sobriety is as miraculous as he and Lisa claim it is. However, growing up with an alcoholic, I'm a little cynical that things are as rosy as he and Lisa claim they are.  That they are starting up a "ministry" raises all kinds of red flags, because if it's based on God's miraculous ability to cure alcohol abuse.....

 

 

If he does stay sober I don't think he'll do it for the sake of his children. I think he just uses his children for personal advancement/bragging rights. Sobriety for his own sake, that I'd believe he might do. "Drinking in moderation" seems to be a lost cause thanks to his DUI. Seems to have lost its appeal to his followers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 611
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DomWackTroll said:

Oh, my... Doesn't look like Reformed worship to me. And their website makes it clear that it is a "believer's baptism" church. Infants need not apply. Poor RC Sr. must be rolling over in his grave.

 

Wow! The whole package, the worship, believer's baptism, etc. is about as far removed from Reformed in practice and doctrine as it gets. Charismatic, repetitive lyrics, hand raising, swaying. Nothing wrong with it per se. Common practice with millions of Charismatics. But it's just exactly the kind of church RC Jr has belittled, mocked and disparaged for many years. It's not "the true worship of God." And RC Sr. is most definitely rolling in his grave, and the living Reformed who have known RC Jr for years would be truly shocked -- if they only knew. One can speculate he's left Presbyterianism because no Presby church would have him. Becoming Charismatic must also be appealing because such churches usually have no accountability. No church discipline. And unlike Presbyterian churches PHC has no compulsory church membership either -- "You could remain a guest of Pine Hills. You could remain a regular attender of Pine Hills."  He'll be able to get away with a lot there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been a lot of discussion on this site about Doug Wilson's scandalous behavior of enabling two pedophiles in his church, Jamin Wight and Steven Sitler. What seems to have escaped almost everyone's notice is that even before Steven Sitler started molesting children in Moscow Idaho he'd been molesting children in RC Sproul Jr's St. Peter Presbyterian Church/Highlands Study Center in Mendota, Virginia.

Quote

Stephen Sitler was a "student" at the Highlands Study Center the summer of 2003. This was just prior to his moving to Moscow Idaho to join Doug Wilson's Christ Church and NSA. Most have assumed that Sitler first started molesting children in Idaho, but it actually started before that in Virginia, and prior to that in his native Washington.

As "Or Somebody" pointed out Stephen Sitler posted many pictures of young children, boys and girls, on his web site. Some have referred to Sitler's photo site as a "pedophile trophy site" because all appear to be between the ages of 2-12, boys and girls, which fits Sitler's M.O. of the children he targeted for molestation.

Court records are sealed in the Sitler case, but there are some important details we do know. Steven Sitler molested many children, perhaps over a hundred, in at least three states. As part of his plea deal with the Latah County Idaho Prosecutor Sitler had to write letters of apology to the parents of all the children he'd molested. But that was all based on his confession and what he could remember, so there's likely children (and families) he forgot about, perhaps even in states he never mentioned. We're told one of those letters was addressed to RC Jr.

Open Letter to CREC Pastor Doug Wilson

The other comments in that article reveal even far more and are extremely disturbing. The way RC Sproul Jr dealt with Sitler is in some ways even worse and more scandalous than the way Doug Wilson dealt with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Banyan said:

The other comments in that article reveal even far more and are extremely disturbing. The way RC Sproul Jr dealt with Sitler is in some ways even worse and more scandalous than the way Doug Wilson dealt with it.

Thanks for highlighting this. Had somehow missed the comments section on that post.

If even a fraction of the alleged behavior & actions are true, it's horrific & appalling, not to say utterly damning of R.C. Sproul, Jr. and everyone who has covered for him over the years.

It would certainly seem to be enough to require the defrocking of a bogus "pastor" like Spanky. Then again, we're discussing people who are far more appalled by minute doctrinal differences than they are actual abuse & evil-doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

If even a fraction of the alleged behavior & actions are true, it's horrific & appalling, not to say utterly damning of R.C. Sproul, Jr. and everyone who has covered for him over the years.

Agreed. Maybe even more damning of Sproul than of Wilson.

It seems to be pretty well established that Wilson covered up Sitler's predations for almost a year before revealing it to a select few in his church. Sproul however managed to cover up Sitler's predations for several years and never did say anything to anyone about it. It's only because of a whistleblower that members of St. Peter Pres were informed. Sproul knew or should have known the likelihood was high that other children in his church had been molested, but rather than taking any steps to find out and get those kids the help they needed he covered it up.

Quote

Shortly after RC Jr’s defrocking in early 2006, a former member of St. Peter Presbyterian Church upon discovering the dreadful facts confronted RC Jr in writing and demanded that RC Jr immediately notify everyone who'd been attending St. Peter's during the summer of 2003, and who had children who fit Sitler's M.O. (boys and girls 2-12) to determine if there had been any additional child victims and, if so, to get them the professional help they would need. RC Jr refused to comply and so the former member notified in writing any such St. Peter parents he could identify. Needless to say that letter caused quite a stir and resulted in some members leaving St. Peter.
Open Letter to CREC Pastor Doug Wilson

Unlike Wilson who did ultimately inform his church after a some months, it’s clear that RC Jr had no intentions of ever disclosing it to his church. As bad as Wilson's actions have been in some ways I consider RC Sproul Jr's complicity in all this to be even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Howl said:

Would RC have had a legal obligatin as a pastor to forward this information to legal authorities? 

Putting aside his moral responsibility to report, Virginia statutes have an interesting approach to clergy members being mandatory reporters:

Quote

Any person 18 years of age or older, who has received training approved by the Department of Social Services for the purposes of recognizing and reporting child abuse and neglect. This reporting requirement shall not apply to any regular minister, priest, rabbi, imam, or duly accredited practitioner of any religious organization or denomination usually referred to as a church as it relates to (i) information required by the doctrine of the religious organization or denomination to be kept in a confidential manner or (ii) information that would be subject to § 8.01-400 or 19.2-271.3 if offered as evidence in court.

As disgusting as I find it, it appears as though he would not have to report it if Sitler told him about his crimes in counseling/confidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ViolaSebastian said:

As disgusting as I find it, it appears as though he would not have to report it if Sitler told him about his crimes in counseling/confidence. 

The confession Sitler made to Sproul wasn't shared in confidence or in counseling. It was in an entirely different setting. To restate the previous quote, with emphasis added:

Quote

As part of his plea deal with the Latah County Idaho Prosecutor Sitler had to write letters of apology to the parents of all the children he'd molested. But that was all based on his confession and what he could remember, so there's likely children (and families) he forgot about, perhaps even in states he never mentioned. We're told one of those letters was addressed to RC Jr.

So it's not a question of whether or not Sproul had any legal obligation to report Sitler to the legal authorities. The question is why didn't he file criminal charges against the man who molested his own children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the comment the same person left, it's unknown whether that was the first time that RC Sproul had heard about the molestations. I was not trying to defend his decision in any way (I find it repugnant and disagree with the Virginia statue), merely answering another poster's question about mandatory reporting.

Quote

Nora, no one other than RC Sproul Jr is absolutely certain about when he found out that Stephen Sitler was a serial pedophile. It’s possible he became aware while Sitler was still a "student" at the Highlands Study Center (his stay there appears to have been cut short). If this is true then it’s astonishing that Sproul didn’t warn his friend Doug Wilson that a pedophile was on his way to his church and college. However, it's also possible he only became aware when Sitler wrote RC Jr the "apology" letter, naming his victims in Virginia, as he was required to do as a condition of his criminal plea bargain in Idaho. Either way, much like Doug Wilson, RC Jr concealed it from his church. Unlike Wilson, however, who did ultimately inform his church after a number of months, it’s clear that RC Jr had no intentions of ever disclosing it to his church. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

Thanks for highlighting this. Had somehow missed the comments section on that post.

If even a fraction of the alleged behavior & actions are true, it's horrific & appalling, not to say utterly damning of R.C. Sproul, Jr. and everyone who has covered for him over the years.

It would certainly seem to be enough to require the defrocking of a bogus "pastor" like Spanky. Then again, we're discussing people who are far more appalled by minute doctrinal differences than they are actual abuse & evil-doing.

 

Even Homer sometimes nods - and it was over 12 years ago. 

Indeed, if Spanky had known when Sitler was at Highlands (if he was) that he was a predator and passed him on to Wilson without doing anything then he is very much at fault.  

If he had found out later about Sitler from a church member, covered up and refused to notify members of his church that the predator had been in their midst, he is just as bad as Wilson, if not worse.

And if Sitler had written him a personal letter as a "condition of his plea deal" confessing to have molested Spanky's children - then Spanky would not have been the only person to know about it.   The authorities in Idaho would have known about all the confessions too.

13 hours ago, Banyan said:

So it's not a question of whether or not Sproul had any legal obligation to report Sitler to the legal authorities. The question is why didn't he file criminal charges against the man who molested his own children?

In VA he is not a mandatory reporter.  If he had found out directly from Sitler that his own children had been victims - I would hope he would have been horrified and reported it to law enforcement.   Whether he did that or not would not be public information unless the case went to court. Individuals do not file criminal charges.  District Attorneys do that.  They have to have sufficient evidence to file charges.

However, this is:

  1. Coming a little too close to speculating about the identities of victims of abuse for my comfort.  That is against the rules here.  And
  2. These allegations are just that - allegations.  And they appear to come from a single source:  RC 2.0 of Spinderella Sproul.

The Spinderella Sproul site has been dedicated to following and exposing Spanky for years.  I admire their persistence, they have been right many times, but they never disclose their sources and I try to read that site carefully.  It has an agenda.  I don't find it as trustworthy as many others - like Julie Anne of Spiritual Sounding Board.

RC 2.0 sounds impressive but I can poke holes in their story easily.  And I am no fan of Spanky Sproul.

Quote

 

At 8:21 PM,  RC 2.0 said...

Nora, no one other than RC Sproul Jr is absolutely certain about when he found out that Stephen Sitler was a serial pedophile. It’s possible he became aware while Sitler was still a "student" at the Highlands Study Center (his stay there appears to have been cut short). If this is true then it’s astonishing that Sproul didn’t warn his friend Doug Wilson that a pedophile was on his way to his church and college.

 

Truly astonishing.  If he knew.

Quote

However, it's also possible he only became aware when Sitler wrote RC Jr the "apology" letter, naming his victims in Virginia, as he was required to do as a condition of his criminal plea bargain in Idaho.

And how does RC 2.0 know this detail?  It is also the strangest inclusion in a plea bargain I have ever heard of - it sounds more like a Doug Wilson "Christian" requirement than that of a DA. 

Quote

Either way, much like Doug Wilson, RC Jr concealed it from his church. Unlike Wilson, however, who did ultimately inform his church after a number of months, it’s clear that RC Jr had no intentions of ever disclosing it to his church. 

The church whose members are such ignorant lambs that they had no idea that Sitler had ever been around, were incapable of following the news, and were totally ignorant of the fact that Doug Wilson and RC the Younger were buddies.  
 

Quote

Shortly after RC Jr’s defrocking in early 2006, a former member of St. Peter Presbyterian Church upon discovering the dreadful facts confronted RC Jr in writing and demanded that RC Jr immediately notify everyone who'd been attending St. Peter's during the summer of 2003, and who had children who fit Sitler's M.O. (boys and girls 2-12) to determine if there had been any additional child victims and, if so, to get them the professional help they would need. RC Jr refused to comply and so the former member notified in writing any such St. Peter parents he could identify. Needless to say that letter caused quite a stir and resulted in some members leaving St. Peter. 

What a hero.  Why did he wait until RC Jr was defrocked?   Wasn't that over paedobaptism anyway?

And yes, Sproul should have notified church members of Sitler's crimes as soon as he knew about them.  If Sitler was ever there.

Quote

“Did R. C. Sproul Jr. pursue criminal charges?” No, he did not. In our view he should have, and he certainly could have.

No he couldn't have., as explained above.

Quote

As of the time Sitler wrote him about it the statute of limitations had not expired. The Latah County, Idaho Prosecutor attempted on several occasions to contact RC Sproul Jr about the case but RC Jr evaded responding. At no time did RC Jr contact the legal authorities in Virginia either. 

RC 2.0 fails to give any sources to back up this claim of Spanky evading responding to the prosecutor.  They also would have no way of ascertaining whether or not Spanky had contacted authorities in VA.
 

Quote

Sitler’s plea deal in Idaho only covered those crimes he committed in Idaho. RC Jr had the option of filing criminal charges and having Sitler extradited to stand trial in Virginia. Instead he swept it all under the carpet, and in the process he permitted Sitler to skate by with only a one-year jail sentence in Idaho.

The DA in Idaho would, could, and should have contacted their counterpart in VA and WA in the Sitler case.  It is not all on Spanky with whatever he knew and whenever he knew it.  

Quote

The obvious question is why? Why would he have so little regard for his own children’s wellbeing that he wouldn’t want to see the perpetrator of such horrendous crimes brought to justice? 

As to "why" any parent of child who is a victim of sexual abuse would not want to cooperate with a trial - many would prefer to concentrate on helping the child heal than on pursuing justice.  It is understandable but a big problem in getting cases to trial.
 

Quote

As you appear to be aware (your having already commented about this matter on another blog) there is speculation that Doug Wilson may have arranged some hush money from Sitler’s family to buy RC Jr’s silence. The Sitler family is known to be quite wealthy and was a significant benefactor to Wilson’s NSA. Such speculation seems not unreasonable. Certainly, it escaped no one’s attention in Moscow that Sitler received every possible courtesy Wilson could extend, whereas Jamin Wight received no such favors, although Wight’s crimes paled in comparison to Sitler’s.

At least they admit that it is speculation that both Sproul and Wilson were both paid off.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

According to the comment the same person left, it's unknown whether that was the first time that RC Sproul had heard about the molestations. I was not trying to defend his decision in any way (I find it repugnant and disagree with the Virginia statue), merely answering another poster's question about mandatory reporting.

 

Even in states that include clergy as mandatory reporters any number of them refuse to comply.  It is almost impossible to go after them for it too.

To clarify what I said in the other post:  RC 2.0 (the commenter in question) is also the writer of the blog post and the person (or persons) behind Spinderella Sproul.   I think they believe what they say, but it is their opinion (not always informed), and they don't provide sources for their wilder claims.

Although I can easily see Spanky as guilty of all the above, I am not taking RC 2.0's opinion  as gospel truth or fact on this one ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

Even Homer sometimes nods - and it was over 12 years ago. 

:laughing-rofl::laughing-rolling::laughing-rofl::laughing-rollingyellow:

 

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

The Spinderella Sproul site has been dedicated to following and exposing Spanky for years.  I admire their persistence, they have been right many times, but they never disclose their sources and I try to read that site carefully.  It has an agenda.  I don't find it as trustworthy as many others - like Julie Anne of Spiritual Sounding Board.

I totally agree with this assessment. The Spinderella Sproul site makes very sparing use of actual corroborative evidence or documents. Whether that's by choice or circumstance (i.e., the site's proprietor usually lacks access to any evidence supporting his or her assertions) isn't clear.

 

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

And how does RC 2.0 know this detail?  It is also the strangest inclusion in a plea bargain I have ever heard of - it sounds more like a Doug Wilson "Christian" requirement than that of a DA. 

This also caught my attention, which is why I said "fraction" -- how would someone who was not an actual party to Sitler's case know this, even if it were true? And it certainly does sound more like the bogus-ass "repentance" shtick beloved of many fundie pastors & congregations-- say you're really sorry and then we'll just move on.

Thank you, @Palimpsest, for laying it out so well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

These allegations are just that - allegations.  And they appear to come from a single source:  RC 2.0 of Spinderella Sproul.

I'd previously posted a comment with a link in the Wilson/Sitler thread to another site that confirms pretty much the same information as Spinderella Sproul, http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2008/03/serial-pdophile.html. Two different blogs run by a different group of people confirming the same things. One focused on Wilson the other on Sproul. 

I don't know if the Sproul/Sitler information might be posted on other blogs too. If it is it's not easy to find. As significant as the Sproul/Sitler matter is I find the lack of discussion about it to date very odd.

On 11/1/2018 at 4:13 PM, hoipolloi said:

If even a fraction of the alleged behavior & actions are true, it's horrific & appalling, not to say utterly damning of R.C. Sproul, Jr. and everyone who has covered for him over the years.

Exactly. That's what I think must be going on too. A major cover up. For some weird reason it seems like many people were outraged by Wilson's handling of Sitler. Something Wilson well deserves. But there's barely been a peep about Sproul's handling of Sitler, even though in some respects Sproul's conduct may have even been worse. Maybe others just see it all differently, but for me it just doesn't add up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Banyan said:

For some weird reason it seems like many people were outraged by Wilson's handling of Sitler. Something Wilson well deserves. But there's barely been a peep about Sproul's handling of Sitler, even though in some respects Sproul's conduct may have even been worse. Maybe others just see it all differently, but for me it just doesn't add up.

Yeah, I'm kind of in shock that yesterday was literally the first time I'd ever even heard/seen anything about this. But when I saw Junior's and Darby's social media posts about the Kavanaugh issue-- and their failure to "like" one another's posts-- I thought, "Something is going on here that I don't know about." 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Banyan said:

That's what I think must be going on too. A major cover up.

Perhaps.

When I said "covering for" I was actually thinking of the many years that Spanky clearly had (or has had) a drinking problem and of all of those who must have known, including his family (RC Sr & Vesta, for example) as well as erstwhile parishioners and others in his church or social circles.

It's actually difficult to be a secret alcoholic. As Rhett Butler said to Scarlett, "Don’t drink alone, Scarlett. People always find it out and it ruins the reputation." Spanky's arrest for drunken driving in IN a couple of years ago was possibly the first time he was caught but it was almost certainly NOT the first time he got behind the wheel, drunk, and drove with others in the vehicle. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Banyan said:

For some weird reason it seems like many people were outraged by Wilson's handling of Sitler. Something Wilson well deserves. But there's barely been a peep about Sproul's handling of Sitler, even though in some respects Sproul's conduct may have even been worse. Maybe others just see it all differently, but for me it just doesn't add up. 

Hopefully I didn't confuse anyone with the above poorly phrased statement. I should know better than to groggy-post. Should have waited until after my morning coffee. Here's what I meant to say:

Many people were outraged by Wilson's handling of Sitler. Something Wilson well deserves. But for some weird reason there's barely been a peep about Sproul's handling of Sitler, even though in some respects Sproul's conduct may have even been worse. Maybe others just see it all differently, but for me it just doesn't add up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

When I said "covering for" I was actually thinking of the many years that Spanky clearly had (or has had) a drinking problem and of all of those who must have known, including his family (RC Sr & Vesta, for example) as well as erstwhile parishioners and others in his church or social circles.

It's actually difficult to be a secret alcoholic. 

Agreed. But there are also different forms and methods of covering up and the rationale for doing so. It seems like the boozing which ultimately led  to Sproul's felony DUI conviction and the Sitler coverup fall into different categories.

My read of things is that Sproul normalized heavy drinking at St. Peter's church to the point where church keggers, passing around whiskey bottles, and little children drinking freely from punch bowls spiked with Everclear raised no eyebrows with anyone but the occasional teatotaling visitor. Some of those visitors were apparently shocked but then mocked for expressing concern, both privately and in Sproul's publications (also some very disturbing comments in that article starting here). Any hostilities they faced for opposing the great leader seemed to be effective in silencing them. Other guests though relished the alcohol-fueled party atmosphere. Even drunk driving was viewed as "manly.'

Little need to cover up conduct the majority condoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sitler coverup and its subsequent coming to light seems to be much different from the boozing coverup/normalizing. It falls in a different category.

The Sproul/Sitler whistleblower allegedly became informed of the matter around or after the time Sproul was defrocked in 2006. A few families left St. Peter at the time of the defrocking (apparently one of the three parishes left entirely) but many stayed. As I read it the whistleblower upon discovering that a serial pedophile had been in attendance the summer of 2003 confronted Sproul and demanded he inform his church. Sproul refused which left the whistleblower the sordid task of notifying everyone. Apparently a number of St. Peter parents left the church over the way Sproul covered it up. No doubt many felt shocked and disgusted, but for whatever reason said nothing publicly. However given Sproul's reputation at the time for being an authoritarian cult leader it's also possible parents felt very much afraid of speaking out. Threats of excommunication and church discipline were allegedly not uncommon.

Tragically pedophiles usually get a pass in the same way rapists do, and for often similar reasons. Both often get away with their predations for years and with multiple victims before justice is meted out. And even when they face their day in court the penalty may not prove much of a deterrent or keep the public safe by locking away the perp for very long (Sitler's life sentence later got reduced to a one-year slap on the wrist, in part thanks to Wilson's pleas for leniency). Victims may not be believed, or even if they are believed they may face challenges prosecuting their assailant, not to mention having to deal with the public stigma of being the victim of such a horrific and ugly crime. Things need to change.

For one thing statute of limitations laws on sex crimes need radical revision. For another thing parents need to stop thinking they're "protecting the children" by not seeking to prosecute their child's assailant. As well intentioned as that may be they're usually accomplishing no such thing, and just like the woman who refuses to prosecute her rapist, leaving him free to rape others and perhaps worse (rapists and pedophiles often go on to murder their victims), a parent's decision to not prosecute a pedophile means the pedo is left free to molest again and again.

Sproul should have returned the Latah County Prosecutor's calls so he could properly weigh his options, as well as have the benefit of the Prosecutor's knowledge of the extent of Sitler's predations. Instead he evaded and actively concealed. He also gave no consideration to the children of other families in his congregation who Sitler could have easily preyed on without Sproul's knowledge.

Sitler was in Virginia as a "student" of the Highlands Study Center, boarding at Sproul's house. That fact alone would have made all St. Peter families feel Sitler was safe. Allegedly it was Sitler's M.O. to offer parents to babysit their young children, leaving them alone with him for hours unsupervised. He would have had many families to choose from at St. Peter's. Sproul could have found out if he'd only taken one of the multiple calls placed to him by the Latah County Prosecutor. He acted very much like so many of the Catholic Bishops we hear of, or Doug Wilson for that matter, putting his reputation ahead of the well being of the children of his own church.

It's hard for me to imagine what his own children now think of the father that wouldn't even lift a finger (or a phone receiver) on their behalf to see justice done. Had he intervened on their behalf it's entirely possible Sitler would be in prison to this day, likely in Virginia, instead of just having served a one year sentence in the Latah County Idaho Hilton (as they call it). As it stands Sitler is a free and married man. He's molested his own baby son. That may have been prevented had Sproul taken action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virginia doesn't have a statute of limitations on felony abuse, so it's not unheard of for abused children to contact the authorities as adults years after the abuse occurred.  Obviously, it would be huge speculation to wonder whether anyone in Virginia would ever come forward, but the fact remains that they wouldn't automatically be barred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Doug Wilson:

Quote

 


I know we kind of inferred some of RC's adult kids felt this way, but there you have it.

And if she feels this way, it tells me that others in that congregation must have thought so to.  What a tragedy :( 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A comment from Katie Botkin's blog:

Quote

Former CREC church member said:

September 16, 2015 at 2:59 pm

Agreed. Idaho definitely needs harsher penalties for such horrific crimes as child molestation. But what I don’t get is why hasn’t Sitler been criminally charged in any of the other state where it’s known that he also molested children? He confessed to molesting multiple children in multiple states, something like close to 200 children, and Wilson well knew it too. Sitler’s plea deal in Idaho only covered his crimes committed in Idaho and never precluded his being charged by any of the other states where he’d also molested children.

I’ve been totally baffled by what’s happened. Why is molesting a child treated like such a minor crime? Or at least that’s the way it gets prosecuted across state lines. For all practical purposes raping a grown woman is dealt with far more aggressively than molesting a child when, in my opinion, they should be treated on par with one another. To show how this works you’ve got cases of truckers picking up women and raping them, across multiple state lines. When they get apprehended, charged and prosecuted in one state, do the other states where they committed rape just say, “Oh, okay, Texas took care of that guy so we won’t prosecute him here too”? No way. After Texas has tried and convicted them all the other states line up to extradite him to stand trial in their states too. But what’s happened in the Sitler case is just the opposite and it’s an utter travesty of justice.

As an example, it came out that Steven Sitler molested children in R.C. Sproul Jr’s church where Sitler spent the summer immediately before heading off to Moscow and NSA. It appears that R.C. Sproul Jr. did pretty much the same thing that Wilson did and covered it up. Had R.C. Sproul Jr reported Steven Sitler as a child molester to the Virginia authorities, rather than covering it up, it’s likely Sitler would still be behind bars to this day, unmarried, and unable to molest his own baby son. How can justice be served when the so-called “shepherds” keep protecting wolves?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2018 at 10:52 AM, DomWackTroll said:

Hmm, what’s this? “As First Lady of the Sproul Home…” No, I’m not kidding:

https://thepurposedrivenwife.com/

“First Lady of the Sproul Home” rivals “The Chanceys of Africa” in the “delusions of grandeur” department.

I miss read her blog name. Porpoise? How are dolphins involved? 

On 10/30/2018 at 3:13 PM, DomWackTroll said:

That’s because most reformed churches wouldn’t have him. Or anyone that is involved in scandal. At least, the few people I still talk to from that group really don’t like Rc. Jr. or Wilson anymore. However, many Charismatic churches don’t care. 

Hell, from what I’ve heard Wilson is hemorrhaging church members. Many millennials have left after news of the abuse came out. 

On 11/1/2018 at 4:19 PM, Banyan said:

There's been a lot of discussion on this site about Doug Wilson's scandalous behavior of enabling two pedophiles in his church, Jamin Wight and Steven Sitler. What seems to have escaped almost everyone's notice is that even before Steven Sitler started molesting children in Moscow Idaho he'd been molesting children in RC Sproul Jr's St. Peter Presbyterian Church/Highlands Study Center in Mendota, Virginia.

The other comments in that article reveal even far more and are extremely disturbing. The way RC Sproul Jr dealt with Sitler is in some ways even worse and more scandalous than the way Doug Wilson dealt with it.

Barf. So glad I never went there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2018 at 7:54 AM, DomWackTroll said:

..

Steven Sitler, even as a young man, and probably starting in his teens, was a prolific and "accomplished" pedophile with a bombproof modus operandi -- the so very, very nice young boy/man (and Christian!) who loved kids so much he'd offer to babysit.  I cannot imagine that any child in his preferred age range was left untouched if he had any kind of access. 

I am still to this day stunned and aghast at how Sitler skated without spending life in prison, but the combination of very wealthy enabling parents and Doug Wilson's evil genius pulled it off, or rather the sheer evil that passes for Doug Wilson's soul.  Sadly, the only thing that will put Sitler in prison is if he is caught abusing another  child. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.