135 thoughts on “Marvin Smith Tells A War Story (And Hopes It Won’t Be Put Online)”

    1. And after having watched the vid, I call baloney on the guy’s story. Too many details changed. Song leader to deacon, children to grandchildren, knew the couple previously from a town, wife had to move to that town…

      👿

      1. I’m sure he’s not telling the whole truth, but his story’s not that incoherent. He’s telling it in a too-neat package, but it is possible to be a deacon and lead singing, and it’s not unheard of for someone to molest their children and then their grandchildren, and his wife supposedly moved to the town where the prison was located. I want to know why he didn’t encourage her to get a divorce, back when her husband went to prison the first time. I want to know why he’s so reluctant to have other people know how he handled this case. I want to know why in 2013 he could try to blame porn for child molestation.

        1. Oh, I know it’s not unheard of to be both deacon and song leader, especially in smaller churches. My own father filled both roles simultaneously. Actually, at my church, there were two song leaders, and they were both also deacons. Perhaps in some churches, one must be a deacon as a prerequisite for serving in other positions?

          I’m also aware that serial molesters tend to harm several generation of their own family.

          It is entirely possible Smith tried to condense the story too much. Or that he took elements from many different situations and created this amalgamation of a tale.

          It just sounds more like a cautionary tale than a true story, imo. 😕

        2. Maybe porn doesn’t “cause” child molesting, but aren’t most molesters found involved with porn? Perhaps they start with porn and then move on to worse because the “same old” doesn’t give them the satisfaction anymore?

          Even if all child molesters have porn, it doesn’t follow that one causes the other.

        3. “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.”

          Even if it’s true that most child molesters indulge in pornography (and I have no idea if that is true or not), that does not prove any causative effect.

          Most child molesters probably wear shirts with buttons. That might lead a very conservative Amish person to conclude that wearing shirts with buttons makes a person become a child molester. Just as faulty an assumption.

        4. To make the analogy clearer:
          Most child molesters wear clothes. Nudists could argue that wearing clothes puts a person on the path to child molestation …

        5. Yet another post that just proves that you people really are off your rockers. I have no idea what this video is about since I haven’t even watched it. But, it sounds as if a Baptist is trying to say that things like abuse are bad and that porn is unhealthy. Three-hundred-sixty-four days a year you people come on here and complain about being a victim of this pastor and a victim of that IFB person. In some cases I’m sure you actually are telling the truth and have a legitimate right to complain. But, now that an IFB person is apparently saying that sexual abuse is wrong and that porn is unhealthy, all of a sudden you think that sexual abuse is way overblown, not that big of a deal, and that porn is great and something we should all have the right to engage in with great gusto. Porn is a scourge and more harmful than probably most people realize. Years ago a person had to go out to a bad neighborhood and buy it, hoping no one saw you. Now it is available for free and in the privacy of your home at any time or day of the year with no challenge at all. It has corrupted the morals of our country and world and will only continue to do so. Just because an IFB person says porn is bad, you suddently turn into a Jekyll-Hyde character and all of a sudden stop your crusade “against IFB abuse” and now claim, “How dare anyone stop me from accessing as much porn as possible and saying I can’t enjoy as much sexual unrestraint as I want!” The hypocrisy of this blog is just stunning.

        6. Mr Jenkins, he is saying that internet porn causes pedophilia. So all we have to do is get rid of internet porn, and there will be no pedophilia. This is blatantly not true, since pedophilia existed long before internet porn did. You can argue against the morality of internet porn all you want without making false claims about it.

          The point is, that there are a lot of victims of pedophilia within independent baptist churches, and they NEED for independent baptist pastors to take the issue seriously and get a real education on the issue. Over and over again, the pastors fail real victims of abuse by refusing to report suspected cases of child sexual abuse to the police, by warning a predator and allowing them to move in the middle of the night, by sending the victim away to a group home, or by forcing the victim to ‘confess’ their sin of being abused.

          It’s time to deal with pedophilia seriously.

        7. Nah. This pompous ass would rather come on here, make false accusations about stuff we never said, stroke his own ego, and sneer.

        8. Here’s the problem as I see it for Mr Jenkins: Is it ever okay to lie for Jesus? When a Christian has to lie to prove a point, then what is the use of faith? There are plenty of ways to discuss the use of porn as a sin. Making up a story to prove it leads to a crime is not a good way.

        9. I’d think child porn could very easily lead to child molestation, although it wouldn’t be cause and effect. No healthy person would be looking at child porn unless he already was halfway to offending.

    1. Assuming this guy is telling the truth (which I don’t), how does he qualify as a behavioral specialist? This is a common theme in fundy preaching: just basically making things up. Hey, let’s all play “Spot the Missing Major Premise”! I love that game…

      1. Besides, which: what kind of counseling session takes 9 hours over two days?

        Were they using sleep deprivation on the guy to loosen him up? That doesn’t make any kind of sense.

        1. The 9 hr counseling session(s) were probably along the lines of, “Show me what you were watching so I can better counsel you.” 😈

        2. What gets me is the fact that this person was probably molested as a child himself! Not all that have been molested go on to repeat the violence, but some do.

          Pastors should leave the counseling to the professionals.

        3. These organizations seem to have all learned their counseling techniques from police interrogators. One of ABWE’s stated reason for firing G.R.A.C.E. is that they allowed alleged victims to speak to each other before hand. Police interrgators would never let suspects collaborate their stories before hand.

          Of course, that assumes you treat victims and perps the same. Police interrogation manuals generally start out with the premise that the person being interrogated must be viewed s guilty, and interrogation should only stop when the suspect has proven his innocence beyond doubt. The premise is that innnocent people will always protest their innocence.

          Unfortunately, psychological research does not back up that premise. Most people, when made uncomfortable enough, will say whatever is demanded of them just to end the discomfort. This has led to more and more restrictions on the practice of police interrogation. For example, confessions can be thrown out if the interrogation goes too long. Nine hours is certainly far too long.

  1. I’m just wondering what state this was in. If this story is even true. In most states, if you molest your own children, they are taken into DCS custody and both parents are charged. The perpetrator usually gets the book thrown at them in cases of incestual child molestation. Also, I highly doubt any child, molested by their father, would dare have anything to do with him as an adult or have their children around him to possibly be assaulted. My reasoning is this, if all their children, then all of their grandchildren were sexually assaulted by this man, the wife had to know about and condone it, making her an accessory to the crime. 😈

    1. As much as you’d think most victims would be overly cautious when it comes to molesters, a much higher % of victims than of the general populations grows up to either be perpetrators, or exposing their kids to other molestors (uncles, significant others, etc). Cycle of abuse is an awful thing.

      1. For what its worth, Walker’s theory is not so popular these days. It seems the current theory is that it is not being a victim of abuse that increases the probability of perpetrating further abuse, but rather the social context. I think it was Timothy Kirn who compared victims who moved to new areas as adults and those who stayed where they grew up. The ones who moved away actually had a lower perpetration rate than the general public. I think the jury is still out, but the danger of the cycle theory is that it tells victims that they are now monsters due to being a victim. Probably not healthy.

        1. I think, however, the cycle theory is basically true in its basic form: many child molesters were themselves victims of child abuse.

          That doesn’t mean that all victims of child abuse become molestors. To read it that way is a logical fallacy (illicit minor).

          It also doesn’t imply that the actual act of molestation by itself causes one to be an abuser, but rather is caused by the programming and environmental factors that accompany it. I don’t think any one who promotes “cycle of abuse” would deny that getting the victim out of the environnment could change the outcome.

        2. “I think the jury is still out, but the danger of the cycle theory is that it tells victims that they are now monsters due to being a victim. Probably not healthy.”

          I had several people in a child psychology class (of all places) go off on a tangent about how victims of child abuse should never have children or even be around children. It’s not enough that you already endured hell and survived: You now have to spend the rest of your life marked as bad or somehow less-than because of what was done to you rather than what you did.

          Survivors of child abuse internalize all kinds of negative messages about themselves, not the least of which is that they were somehow at fault or somehow deserved what was done to them — this is why so many of them internalize their anger and hurt and strike out against themselves rather than others. So when they hear that they are now bad (or potentially bad) BECAUSE they were abused, it opens up all those old wounds and leaves them raw and bleeding again. Cycle of abuse indeed — same victims, new abusers.

    2. Aaron, the kids are taken into DCS custody IF THE ABUSE IS DISCOVERED.

      Very often, the children say nothing and the adults who do discover the situation help to cover the abuser’s ass. 👿

      There are some women who blame their children for “tempting” the husband and “leading him on.”

      It’s sick, but it happens. One friend of mine was sexually abused by her father. When her mother discovered it, she began physically abusing my friend because she was jealous of the “attention” my friend was receiving. Also, she thought my friend was encouraging the “attention.” Just…barf.

      In some families (like my friend mentioned above), only one of the children is sexually abused. Then, the other siblings in the family bring the grandkids around the abuser because they either don’t know about, or don’t believe the allegations of the other sibling.

      1. I get the point of the abused keeping quiet, but it does not change the fact that the mother in this cause is guilty as well. That’s assuming this story is even true, which I doubt.

  2. I frequently volunteer at two prisons. Many of the men I know are lifers, and they haven’t ever seen the Internet except in the movies. Think back: as late as 1995, 18 years ago, it was still new to many people. So this guy had an Internet porn habit, molested his kids, went to prison, served his time, got out, molested his grandkids, and went back into prison for life. (No mention of a parole officer in this story, which is also curious because where did this guy live when he got out of prison?) And when he gets out of prison after serving the first sentence, someone he molested let him near his grandkids. What I don’t believe here is the math. How long was that first prison sentence? No wonder preacher doesn’t want this on the Internet. He embellished the story to make his point.

    1. @ J Heller,

      I was thinking the same thing, time wise. Devil’s advocate here, but it might be feasible if he received a lighter prison sentence before most states moved to the mandatory minimums sex crimes against children. Then again, his children would have probably had to have been in their teens by then. Unless they were MTV material, and by that I mean 16 and pregnant.

      1. I don’t mean to be crude, but some of this story depends on what, precisely, was the criminal offense. But let’s suppose the person in the story got six years. (I’m not supposing the story to be true, but six years seems an absolute minimum in Indiana of late.) Let’s also suppose that the Internet porn thing was happening prior to 2000 and this guy was arrested in 1998. He serves six years and gets out in ’04. Some things we are being asked to believe are (1) his children are old enough between ’04 and ’12 to be producing his grandchildren AND (2) they would have anything to do with him after he was released from prison AND (3) no parole officer was involved in the decisions of where the offender could live and whom he could see. The story isn’t flatly impossible, but unlikely to the point of making the story unbelievable. I’ll put it this way: Smith’s story could have been more believable if he hadn’t said the man had an Internet porn addiction.

        1. If he served an entire sentence, a parole officer would not be involved with a releases prisoners home plan after prison. But, as a registered sex offender the DCS would. I know at the least they would be notified that he was released from prison. If this is the case and they allowed him to return to a situation were children were present, then they are partially to blame as well.

        2. If he served an entire sentence, a parole officer would not be involved with a released prisoners home plan after prison. But, as a registered sex offender the DCS would. I know at the least they would be notified that he was released from prison. If this is the case and they allowed him to return to a situation were children were present, then they are partially to blame as well.

  3. By the way, in Louisiana, if you want anyone to attend your Bible conference beyond your own church members, you wouldn’t have it during Mardi Gras.

    1. About the only reason a church would have a conference during Mardi Gras is to have a reason to rage against the lack of attendance and to stoke one’s vanity about one’s dedication to the Lord in the face of “opposition” or “persecution” (from people who have no idea the church is meeting anyway).

    2. I’m pretty astonished that Fundamentalist Baptists celebrate the Catholic and carnal feast of Mardi Gras, even in Baton Rouge.

  4. So this guy candidly acknowledges that he knew the guy was unrepentant, that he told the wife the man was unrepentant, and YET HE NEVER ENACTED CHURCH DISCIPLINE against a man engaged in gross sin who was unrepentant. That’s a Baptist for you! Everything except the remedy commanded in Scripture.

    Next, the Lord Jesus taught that it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what proceeds from his heart. A child molester is not coerced to molest because of porn. His wicked heart prompts him to molest.

    1. Great points. I honestly didn’t know there was such a thing as church discipline until I heard about it on a Christian podcast about 6 years ago. In my fundy mindset if someone was in sin, the pastor may or may not talk with the person in private, but everyone else would surely gossip about it. No wonder things never got resolved.

      1. I think it’s a safe assumption that if you questioned the rapture, or the efficacy of the bus program you’d find out about church discipline. Sex offenders aren’t necessarily up to that level. 🙂

      2. To be fair, “church discipline” is often used as a weapon by those who hold to it. I have seen many people crushed beneath the wheels of an injustice named “church discipline”. The real issue, I think, is the philosophy and telos of the church leadership, not what they call their practices. Leaders without love will always suck, no matter what programs they put in place.

        1. That’s why it is so vital for church members to understand the Biblical process of church discipline, and to be responsible church members and see that it is used according to a church constitution or a book of Church Order, both of which are often ignored in Fundamentalism (although my teen years were spent in an IFB church with a constitution and a required 6 week class on the church constitution, so YMMV.) MOGs use church discipline as their personal weeding tool to get rid of dissent, and that is just as rebellious against Scripture as ignoring the rightful and needful use of church discipline.

  5. I’m surprised they call it a Mardi Gras event. That is an event that is associated with all sorts of Hh-eveel?

    1. It’s the old bait and switch. Get the heathens into the chruch believing there’s gonna be a party, then get them saved.

  6. Along the same thought stream as Bassenco above: this is a hallmark of erroneous fundamentalism. It consistently confuses symptoms with causation. It is evident that one must suspend nearly all faculties of critical thinking in order to accept such backward logic.

    1. yes, porn addiction and abusing sexually are two different symptoms of a problem. Neither of the two is a cause of the other. I was trying to think of how to say that. Your comment helped me put it together. thanks.

      1. Porn addiction an child molestation are two different symptoms of a problem? The same problem?

        I think a sexual attraction to young children is categorically different than an attraction to adult members of the opposite sex.

        I don’t think you can throw all forms of sexual sin into one bucket and label it “perversion.” A young man and woman in college having sex before marriage is not the same as two women having sex in college is not the same as frat boys going to a strip club is not the same as a loner college student watching porn in his dorm room is not the same as a Bible college youth pastor having sex with a girl in his youth group is not the same as a college student molesting a five year old.

  7. Making stuff up – fundy style. Only I’m a little surprised he didn’t make himself out to be some kind of a hero in the story. Perhaps that comes later.

    1. I would call his naming of himself as the sole bell ringer about the dangers of having your grandkids around a molester is an attempt to establish his heroism.

    2. Oh I loved the old fundie preacher stories to make the MOG look like the hero of the day. Especially the ones where I knew the real story behind them. I always loved stirring the pot after the service attempting to correct the MOG’s hero story.

  8. I think the way he tells the story is manipulative. “I’m about to tell you a story that can’t be publicized, but it’s ok to tell you guys, cause you’re my friends and all.” He sets himself up as a keeper of great secrets, and the congregation is blessed to be part of his inner circle.

    Hopefully, I’m wrong. I know I sometimes cringe when

    1. That’s exactly how the gossip spreads there. Mr. Buchanan LOVES asking “Did you hear about so and so?”

      It’s so nice to be out of that gossiping errant crap. 🙄

  9. Ugh, I’m related to him. He’s a classic case of amazing, charismatic person who got twisted and poisoned by the beliefs of the system. He was the assisstant pastor in our grungy, flip flop-wearing, drums and base guitar + praise team church before the pastor staged a coup when a ton of members were out of town and the church left the convention. This guy would get his hands dirty, make relationships with homeless people. He made everyone who talked to him feel like they mattered. Not too long after being IFB set in, he moved and started a work in the north. Suddenly when we visited him, we had to call him “pastor smith” instead of ‘Brother Marvin.’ He started chewing us out when we’d visit because we were considered family and we might not be keeping rules that he wanted his church to follow. He got involved with the Gothard stuff, and Jack Decoster started throwing millions his way and POOF! My relative is just like every other IFB pastor…I hate how the poisonous beliefs mar and twist people. He is a sefl-important terror now who has covered up and moved men around who have had sex within his “group home” just to keep up appearances. 🙁

  10. At our fundy church we had the resident child molester too (he was high up in the ACE home school pyramid scheme). As kids. we we all went and told the mog what was going on, but he did not believe us. Apparently he was a great tither (thats what the mog told the parents) and since the mog needed cash for his pet projects, nothing was done. Even after he was convicted and sentenced in a court of law, the mog still stood up for him saying “there might be some truth to what was said in there…but we will need to wait and see…” Wait for what? He was sentenced to jail!!! I was there, trust me the evidence was overwhelming. Thinking about that whole thing still pisses me off…

    1. In truth does the Bible say that the love of money is the root of evil.

      And James condemns treating one man better than another because of his wealth.

  11. AMAZING!!!! 😯 😯

    Everytime a fundy MOG tells a story the message they’re always trying to convey the same self-inflating rhetoric:

    “I…and I alone…had the wisdom…to know the REAL REASON…and was able to predict….the outcome” 💡

    Every head bowed, every eye closed. If there’s someone here tonight who etc…….

  12. The idea that porn causes sex crimes is a common one in conservative circles, not just IFB. You can find numerous examples of Al Mohler saying stuff like this, usually quoting someone like Regnerus.

    It sounds completely reasonable, just like blaming video games for mass killing sounds reasonable. The problem is there’s very little evidence to back up either assertion. Over the past fifteen years in which video games have had increasingly realistic depictions of death and Internet porn has become widespread, the United States has seen falling rates of murder, mass murder, and rape. In light of that, even the argument that porn only causes that reacton in men who were already vulnerable is questionable.

      1. I would be interested to know where you got that information. I know Deviant magazine (a psychology journal) published a few studies indicating that we now have the ability to know more about more abuses, but that actual incidence levels were decreasing. Unless you mean non-abusive deviancy? Regardless, please share your source; it sounds interesting.

        1. I’m sure you’re familiar w/ Dr. Drew from Loveline, HLN, and many other places. He’s dealt w/ sex and sexual addiction issues for years. He’s cited correlations between the rise in porn and risky sexual behavior for years(anal sex, promiscuity, etc.). Here’s a couple links that give a brief opinion on the matter. The 2nd link can be skipped to about the 10 minute mark. Notice how he talks about porn causing disassociation; very dangerous when it comes to that part of our nature.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNscTgcVPSE

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwVxQx3WQlY

        2. I don’t necessarily disagree with porn causing disassociation. I’ve noticed that porn can have a similar affect on me.

          However, it’s never turned me gay, turned me on to prostitutes or strippers, nor has it made me a rapist or child molester. Also, the “disassociation” makes me *less* likely to connect with a woman in a way that’d make her open to sleeping with me. So… porn =/ risky sex, at least for me.

        3. Not saying I’m a porn addict ‘cuz I’m not… but I am a single man who lives by himself and would be a liar if I said it never tempted me. There’s a variety of reasons I don’t like it. It affects how I view women. But making me engage in risky sex? No…

        4. EG,

          Does it “make” you engage in risky sex? No, nothing will “make” you do anything. However, you admit that it effects your view of women. That’s the point. It alters our view of reality. So, while it does not directly cause bad behavoir at a 1:1 ratio, we can say that it pushes us in that negative direction can’t we? Now imagine if you were someone who viewed it all the time, and you were constantly pushed in that direction. It might manifest itself in different ways, but the result is always going to be a bad one.

    1. Thanks for pointing that out, EC. For centuries, humans have associated things in our minds. It is normal, and probably helps keep us alive. However, the advent of statistical sciences allowed us to test our assumptions and validate or invalidate them. For example, in the past, it was believed that cats caused SIDS. We now know that to be false; maybe we even laugh at it. But we shouldn’t be so quick to judge, as we make the same kind of assumptions. There is a high correlation between cars and garages, but being in a garage does not a car make. Correlation is not causality.

      1. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, again.

        Plus categorization by association. One finds huge numbers of cars in streets, highways, and parking lots. So if I walk in the street, cross a highway, and then stand in a parking lot, am I a car? If I hang from a hook in the cloakroom, am I a raincoat?

        By the way, my grandmothers believed the stories about cats causing infant deaths. One (who was afraid of cats) said cats, attracted by the smell of milk, would “suck the babies’ breath away.” The other (who liked cats) said cats might lie on top of very young babies and accidentally suffocate them. The first theory strikes me as inherently crazy. The second seems reasonable on the face of it; except that there is no evidence of such things actually happening.

        1. I hat to always have to be the one to interject some reason and sanity into the blog here, but if no one else is going to, then I am forced to. Again, your hypocrisy is showing. Ninety-nine percent of the time on this blog if person A is from an IFB church and is a man, then he is manipulative, a sexual abuser(or at least condones sexual abuse even if he doesn’t actualy do it), a clown, and an abuser overall of women. If you’re an IFB woman there’s one worde: victim………….Hypocrite much?

    1. Yeah, I always wonder how these people explain the existence of sex crimes before the Internet, and of violence before video games, and so on.

  13. This is very sad. Why do you love sin so much that you talk about it all the time? It would be better write wholesome words that bring life and health to the reader.

    “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are of good report, think on these things.”

    1. Wrong. We don’t talk about sin because we love sin. Just like cops don’t talk about criminals because they love crime.

      1. Actually, I think polices officers are very interested in crime. Not that they are in favor of it, but it’s their job to be fascinated by it and an interest in how it happens may lead many people into that field.

        Most people are fascinated by sin, because it’s part of human nature. If I could manage to stop sinning, I might lose my interest in it.

    2. It’s relatively easy to quote standalone verses – how about he was obeying: “Them that sin rebuke before all”

      ?

    3. DOULOS,do you read your Bible? Does the Bible only tell good stories about good people who do good things?

      It does not.In fact, there are some pretty horrible stories and some pretty vile sins recorded in the Bible. Some of those sins were committed by otherwise good or decent people. God never — not anywhere — tells us to sweep sin under the rug and look the other way. He recorded it, and He issued guidelines under which the perpetrators could be brought to judgment.

      You may keep turning a blind eye if the idea of sin is too much for your tender stomach, but don’t blame your emotional incontinence on God.

    1. Oooooh, “living in sin.” Doesn’t that sound so decadent and scandalous? 😈

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but we here are plumbing the depths of grace. Join us, won’t you? 🙂

        1. Exercising freedom because of Christ’s grace — yeah!

          Being able to call “foul” when we see something wrong, even if it’s from an “untouchable” man-o’-God? It’s a good thing. Closing our eyes and pretending stuff like this was OK, that was bondage.

      1. Really now, are you sure? What kind of sin am I “only living in” now? What do you know about my home, church, and private life?

        Or am I to assume that because you cannot actually deal with the message, your only choice is to attack the messenger?

        If there is bitterness here — and there is — it is because the treatment we were given at the hands and mouths of the so-called men of God was awful and wrong. For many of us, we endured the abuse, thinking that we were somehow in the wrong and under God’s discipline or judgment and that we somehow deserved it even if we did not know why.

        And somehow, by God’s grace, we came to our senses.

        Yes, fundamentalism hurts. Fundamentalism does not make sense. It twists the soul as surely as it twists the facts and wrings out any logic in the world.

        Getting untwisted does not come without pain. What you see here is not so much bitterness, but the pain of getting untwisted from the nonsense of fundamentalism.

  14. “Starvin” Marvin Smith didn’t want this to be on the web and it still showed up on the web. Smith is a disciple of Jim Vineyard who pastored Windsor Hills Baptist in OKC. Vineyard was a disciple of Hyles and led the bus route and was the leader of the Underground “Roadway Gang” at HAC.

    1. Hey Disco, Marvin is from Missouri and I wouldn’t say he was discipled by anyone. Maybe you have the wrong Marvin?

        1. Now that I see the video again, it’s a different “Starvin” Marvin Smith. There is also a lesser known IFB Pastor named Larry Brown but he’s not as popular or “sought after” like THE Dr. Larry Brown (a.k.a. The Gallagher of IFB’s).

  15. Are we on the Internet, guys? Good.

    Marvin Smith’s thesis (as stated at the end of this clip) is that anything a man can imagine, he is sure to do eventually?

    Nonsense. I can easily imagine strangling this blowhard with his own necktie, but mark my words: I will never do that. In fact, I will not harm him at all. But I can imagine it.

  16. In this electronic age, if something is recorded or printed, and someone finds it interesting or entertaining, it will appear on the internet, where that data could last almost forever.

    A person should assume anything they record, photograph or print will be seen or heard by everyone.

  17. This year at Pastors School, Larry Brown needs to go back into Gallagher mode and smash an old Computer monitor on the stage ala 2011 when he smashed a television because IFB’s hate anything electronic 😮

  18. We know that lots of child molesters (maybe all of them, but that is inconsequential) have been involved with porn.

    So if porn is the cause of child molestation, what caused it before the internet?

    Yes, it just so happens that molestation, rape, and all sorts of sexual sins occurred before the internet, even during times when women wore their skirts to cover their ankles! What caused rape back then?

    What about all those huge numbers of people who look at porn and *don’t* molest children or rape women? And what about a fairly substantial number of married people who do not cheat on each other but watch porn?

    Please remember that the porn industry does not thrive on the dollars of the criminals, but on the dollars of the non-criminals who are tempted to spice up their sex life (or want to fantasize about having a sex life if they don’t have one. Which is why many married people frequent porn sites!). The US prison population for all crimes is under 3 million. There are 200 million non-incarcerated adults in the US, the vast majority of which have viewed pron or do view porn.

    If you have the internet, watch television, breathe air, drive a car, read a book (the Bible, even!), you have lots of things in common with child molesters. Why it turns out that being a preacher with a Hyles Anderson background makes you much more likely to be a molester than the average person who watches porn.

    Why do Christians turn to porn? The church’s only information about sex is “don’t, it is dirty, nasty, and sinful.” Yet we have God-created bodies that desire sex. Try reading a “Christian” book on sex. They almost NEVER actually touch on it. They are written to leave you more ignorant after reading it than you were before you read it.

    Young people and adults, Christians and non-Christians, turn to the only places they can get “information” in private. Asking someone for information or help or advice almost always leads to condemnation by some sanctimonious so-and-so who is probably a closet addict. They know sex shouldn’t be dirty. But we have made it so in our culture.

  19. Christians turn to porn because they are human beings with sex drives.

    We act like it’s some sort of abnormal thing. It’s very normal. Notice I didn’t say “right” or “healthy.”

    1. Something about your statement, Elijah Craig, has been troubling me since yesterday.

      “Christians turn to porn because they are human beings with sex drives. We act as if its some sort of abnormal thing. It’s very normal.”

      Thinking on it, it should be “normal” for human beings who do not profess Christ to turn to porn, but those professing to be Christians it should be very abnormal. We as Christians are called to live lives pleasing and in submission to Christ, and abstain from the lusts of the flesh. When a Christian indulges in porn, it clearly indicates they are self-focused, not Christ-focused.

      There is nothing abnormal about having a sex drive, but scripture clearly dictates what is “normal” and pleasing to God in this area of a professing Christian’s life. And, it’s not going to porn, raping, incest, etc…

      I’m not quoting scripture, for I’m sure you know what I’m referring to in this matter. I’m so glad you added “not right” or healthy. Thank you.

  20. I can’t crack jokes at this, I don’t care if the story is trumped up or not, it’s just not something to laugh about. That being said, am I the only one who thought he came off rather Calvinist, with the whole “you will eventually choose according to your nature/heart” thing? I, being one of those Calvinists thought that was kind of funny.

    1. They also like to act unethically (violating confidentiality) by telling the details of private counseling sessions.

      I have preached before, and I found that the Bible had so much to say, I didn’t NEED to tell stories about people.

      Of course, in my experience, most Indy Fundy preachers don’t know enough Bible, haven’t studied enough Bible, to fill the allotted time. Thus all the stories.

  21. Another detail has just struck me as weird. The wife. She moved to another state to be near her husband’s prison the second time he was convicted? Who is she? Mrs Sandusky? Again, I volunteer with a prison program. Yes, families do often try to stay together as a member serves time. But the crime is supposedly against family members. The wife makes no sense at all here.

    1. It’s really not all that uncommon. I don’t know whether the story is true or not, but I do know many women cover for their husbands for whatever reason and many parents ignore their children’s abuse in order to preserve their own peace of mind. “If we ignore it, maybe it’ll go away.”

      1. ETA: “Many” may be too strong a word. But it is certainly not unheard of and is hardly uncommon.

        1. Here’s the problem: she’s the one said to have told the preacher what the husband had done. And, according to the story, she moved to another state and took a low paying job to be near the prison. In a sense, Mrs Sandusky can afford to live in denial. Apparently, this woman is willing to live poor and nearer the abuser of her children and grandchildren. Who testified in court against this guy? What is this woman’s relationship with them? A large problem with Smith’s story is that it’s unlikely psychologically. And there are the problems of timing noted earlier. (By the way, any such woman should see a nona tide counseler.)

        2. I disagree that it is. I think many women who have been born and raised in the IFB environment and who are taught to “stand by their man” no matter what would perhaps understand this a little bit. A man in my former church raped a mentally disabled woman. He served his jail time, and when he was done, his wife welcomed him back into their home, around their children. I’ve no idea what went on behind closed doors, but I do know she stood by him because divorce wasn’t ok. It’s not ok. And so rapist or not, she took her husband back.

          Again, I know nothing about the veracity of the story, but I do know that people don’t always act according to the understood script, and many times, women marry men who are abusive if they grew up in an abusive environment, which makes it just that much easier to accept whatever crap he throws at you.

          She stood by her man. Her kids probably never wanted anything to do with her again. But in her mind, she did the right thing.

        3. As we both agree that, if true, the wife made the wrong decision, I’ll leave the difference with a “perhaps.” And I’ll note that in my previous comment, “bona fide” got autocorrected as “nona tide,” whatever that would be.

    2. It’s actually very common for spouses and sometimes parents of convicted offenders to move to somewhere close to the prison where their family member is incarcerated, so they can visit as often as is allowed.

      I agree, J Heller, that it is seldom a good idea to do so. But it happens often. And I don’t think it matter much what crime the person is in prison for. Even the direct victims of domestic assaults will very often make bail for the offender and then visit him in jail, provide him with money, and otherwise “stand by their men.”

      1. I didn’t mean to say that it’s a bad idea for family to move closer to a prison to visited their loved ones. As a matter of fact, some recent research has shown that maintaining family contacts reduces recidivism. (The program I volunteer for, Shakespeare Behind Bars, has a 6% recidivism rate among released participants. Many of them have maintained family ties.)

        HOWEVER, and this is a big exception, it would be a mistake to seem to prefer the victimizer over the victims in a case of sexual abuse, especially, I’d say, after recidivism has occurred. Mrs Sandusky has been an enabler, and if Smith’s story is even half true, then so has this woman. As she has admitted her husband’s guilt, according to Smith, what she is doing isn’t computing for me.

  22. I grew up in a fundy church in PA where the choir director/song leader had a thing for the teen girls. Of course, when it was found out he was sent away. But, not before the church threw him a Sunday night party to make it seem like he was leaving because it was God’s will. Apparently, the church and pastor were in court over years for it…while hiding it from the church.

    Seems like there’s a lot of covering things up to save people’s ministries. The church members should know about it, not have it hidden from them.

    1. God’s Will alright, baked up by several angry families. 😡 Let’s hope they notified wherever this jerk was going about his disgusting hijinks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *