Priesthood Abuse And The Role Of Father

[zshallr]

Dear President 1st Counselor

If I didn't love you so much I'd be a little more than just mildly annoyed at how my wife's recent calling was presented and has since developed. Please allow me to explain my feelings and concerns.

I believe I'm not wrong in my observations over the past 15 or 20 years that our dear church leaders at the ward and stake levels have succumbed to political pressures of sex equality and time expediencies to treat men, women, and children on an equal, one-on-one basis with little regard for the position of the husband/father as the head of his house. They also seem to have little discernment for how a calling might affect a home, a marriage, children with needs, etc. that no church leader could even guess at, let alone have substantial knowledge concerning.

May I ask you a hypothetical question? If President Hinckley happened to knock on your door to visit you and your family, and you invited him to stay for dinner, who would call on someone to give thanks for the meal? It shouldn't take you long to answer, "Why, me, of course, since I'm the head of my family." That's the correct answer whether you're a stake president, a bishop, a teacher, or even an inactive non-priesthood holder. Church leadership authority has no bearing whatsoever upon God's hierarchy when dealing with and inspiring the on goings in a family. It's an established doctrine in our church that the husband is recognized by God as the ranking authority in every home on earth. He is God's oracle in this one-and-only enduring institution, for all other institutions, including the LDS Church, will have an end.

The Handbook of the Church reiterates this doctrine by requiring that leaders consult with the head of house prior to issuing a call to any member of his house. Many leaders don't even attempt to conform to this edict, simply calling whomever they choose without speaking to the husband or father at all, especially if he is less active or a non-member, while many others make a poor attempt at compliance by having their executive secretary invite the husband, usually through the wife, to come to the interview also if he'd like. That's how I got invited; I declined to come with my wife, however, knowing how meaningless the trip would be. It's assumed that the husband will give his blessing, which he invariably does, because very few husbands will, in front of their wife, divulge any special circumstances that might countermand the leader's "inspiration" for issuing the call. I emphasize "inspiration" because I personally know. One woman who was given an "inspired" call to be the primary accompanist, which she laughingly stated she was willing to accept but for one glaring concern, she couldn't play a note on the piano. A phone call to her husband would have saved the bishop the ensuing embarrassment.

In the case of a stake calling, deference is given to the bishop of the ward, as it should be, since the bishop might need the individual for another assignment in the ward, but deference is all that is required here since the stake president outranks the bishop. He can call any ward member he chooses, if he wishes to go over the head of the outranked bishop. But the head of house outranks even the president of the church in his home, and yet in too many cases he receives virtually no respect or deference from any authority. It's my belief that when a woman's services are sought by a ward or stake leader, her husband should be consulted as though he's a third counselor, since he's the only person who has near-total insight into the needs of the family that will be impacted.

It's obvious that I'm very passionate about this subject. I've been in three bishoprics, twice as first counselor and once as bishop. I've observed and experienced from several angles how truly awesome and intimidating the power of a bishop or stake president is to an active, member trying to obey covenants. This is not an exaggeration; the power is very intimidating. I believe that, more often than we'd care to admit, the love we express to our leaders is really dressed up fear on masquerade. We'd like to speak out, to say what we really think and feel, but we don't dare. We're intimidated into compliance. We're told in general conference to never turn down a calling, and so we don't, often to the detriment of the family. In fact, I agree with that council, if the calling is offered according to the pattern set in the handbook and the temple. If the husband were given temporary status as a counselor to the leader and then sincerely asked to speak frankly about his home, wife and children, and then, after the leader has learned much about this particular home, yes, then if the leader and all three counselors agree, the call should be issued and should not be turned down.

We give our leaders special titles, thus exacerbating an elitist gap that already exists between them and us that Christ Himself seems to frown upon (see Matthew 23). We call the bishop the "father of the ward," a title that suggests we should supplant the real fathers in the ward with this one "super inspired" father, which in turn engenders an almost worshipful respect for him. Whatever he does then with our family is okay since he's the new "father-in-charge." None of us wants to cross our file leader. To do so marks or flags us as mal-contents, and dams our potential for meaningful leadership or teaching callings since we don't "support unconditionally." Well, I've arrived at the station in life where I don't even want a leadership calling of any sort, so I guess I'm bolder than most, and bolder now than I've been in the past.

In general, women respond somewhat differently than men do to a church calling. The zeal with which a faithful woman attacks a calling can be cyclonic, something to marvel at and get out of the way of. But it is often zeal without knowledge, restraint or due consideration for her other callings, which are to be a wife first and a mother second. The church calling should be third in importance, but more often than not is put into the first position. She justifies this convoluted rearranging of priorities by citing statements such as "magnify your calling," which means, of course, to "make it bigger or more grandiose" (of course she should magnify her callings, but duly consider which callings should come first and then magnify them first and most). Her zeal is then lauded and applauded by her "father of the ward or stake" because she has made him look good, and since he's God's representative each compliment smacks of God's own approval and her rearranged priorities are thus given the seal of justification. This feminine attitude is then reinforced from the pulpit by leaders who say things like, "if you want something done right, ask a busy woman to do it." So they do-ask some husband's busy helpmeet, I mean.

To hit this problem head on, I'll call it what I believe it is, unrighteous dominion. We’ve arrived at a state in our church where middle management, ward and stake leaders, appear to think they're the ranking authority, in every home, since wards and stakes are made up of families, and that's all they're made of. The leaders are volunteers, working long hours selflessly serving the members, and to make one more step in a calling appears to be just too much. Also, since women today are equals in the marketplace, asking their husband for permission to call them is an affront to many of them. And so our bishops and stake presidents, in order to not offend the women, must necessarily countermand handbook and temple edicts and offend the men. There is no other way. So we must either change the handbook and temple covenants and succumb to the world or offend the women by complying, and since we don't dare offend the women, we’ve taken the tack of offending the men by exercising unrighteous “demotion" of their endowed position. The scripture says that "almost all" men, upon getting some authority, cannot do other than to "exercise unrighteous dominion" over their members" It doesn't say that some will, or that many will, but that "almost all" will. So when a region conference is held of all stake and ward leaders, one can look around at all present and conclude that nearly everyone there (almost all) is a leader who exercises unrighteous dominion to some degree over his ward or stake. God says it can't be helped, and my observation after forty years of church service and thirty four years of family service is that God is correct in this warning. That fact alone should send shivers up our spines and humility into our hearts.

Of course, husbands are also leaders "with a little authority" whose propensity is to exercise unrighteous dominion over their families. The telling difference in this discussion, however, is that the father is the ranking authority, and as such is entitled to direct inspiration from God, which leaders must accept. And if defensively an indignant leader counters with "you have no right to put forth your hand to steady the ark," the husband merely needs to point out that his family is his ark, not the church's, and leaders have no right putting forth their hand to steady it. It must be this way so there is order throughout the kingdom--no individual can abuse another's stewardship without causing the withdrawal of a grieved holy spirit, and amen to the priesthood or authority of that man. On the other hand, righteous dominion elevates the position of the patriarch in the home, for, as Moses said, "I would to God that all men were prophets."

Well, I've probably made more of this than I should have, but I think the First Presidency isn't aware of how blatant the non-compliance of their handbook is. Hugh Nibley once quipped that the calling in the church with the greatest potential for abuse and unrighteous dominion is that of stake president, perhaps the most unregulated position in all the church, where every idea that pops into the president's head can become the very voice of God from Sinai. In such a situation there is no need to counsel with heads of households about their families since "God has spoken" (I wonder, does such a stake president even consider that there are some 800 or 1000 men in his stake who outrank him in regards to dealing with individual families, except of course with membership issues)? I hasten to add here that I don't believe you three brethren fall into the category of leaders I'm speaking of here, I love you all, respect you all, am pleased that you are my stake presidency (especially pleased that it's finally' recognized that there are men with the spirit living outside town and I support and sustain you all. I also believe that this missive will in no way affect my standing in the stake. Otherwise, I will be fearful, as I have been in the past, to even begin to broach this subject. It's a compliment to you that I'm bold enough to write this now. I wouldn't have been this bold with any bishop or any other stake president, accept one, Stake President in Sandy, a fair man who I dearly love as I love you brethren.

I should add President 1st Counselor that the Stake President phoned me and apologized for not understanding the scope of what you had asked my wife to do. I forgave him and explained that my concerns actually go beyond that, which I've explained above. We then talked for several minutes, reaffirming our long friendship, and he then did something that many others have given lip service to but don't seem to have the insight and humility to actually do. He asked me if I will watch him and point out any mistakes I might see him make, correcting him if I feel inspired. My eyes are filled with tears enough now as I write this, finally feeling that a leader really does care enough and know enough about the meaning of “being a servant rather than a commander" to in fact do what we preach and profess to believe. My relief is profound, the effect instead being one of wanting to support rather than find fault. I am now so disarmed that it'll be difficult to honor his wish for correction even if I should think he needs it. I know of no other leader who has put it that way, except both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young who begged the people to not blindly follow their leaders, but to pray to God to see if they were leading in righteousness. We seem to be afraid now-a-days of admitting that a leader might err.

I once had a stake president who demanded blind obedience. A good friend of mine was run right out of the church by him simply because my friend insisted on saying he sustained his leaders "in righteousness" when asked in a temple recommend interview. The stake president wouldn't allow that qualifier, as though my friend must support blindly, even in "unrighteousness." Joseph Smith said that any leader who demanded blind obedience had it in his heart to do evil himself. God bless a Stake President for understanding this. The time I endured living under the yoke of bondage in another Stake Presidents dictatorial and "GA campaigning" regime was excruciatingly frightening and trying to my faith, but was almost perfectly juxtaposed to the relief, joy and safety that I felt when I moved beyond his iron curtain into New Stake President's stake. I honestly felt as though I had escaped in a balloon over the hated wall.

MISC.

And first, it becomes an elder when he is traveling through the world, warning the inhabitants of the earth to gather together, that there may be built up an holy city unto the Lord, instead of commencing with children, or those who look up to parents or guardians to influence their minds, thereby drawing them from their duties, which they rightfully owe these legal guardians, they should commence their labors with parents, or guardians; and their teachings should be such as are calculated to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of children to the fathers; and no influence should be used with children, contrary to the consent of their parents or guardians; but all such as can be persuaded in a lawful and righteous manner, and with common consent, we should feel it our duty to influence them to gather with the people of God. But otherwise let the responsibility rest upon the heads of parents or guardians, and all condemnation or consequences be upon their heads, according to the dispensation which he hath committed unto us; for God hath so ordained, that his work shall be cut short in righteousness, in the last days; therefore, first teach the parents, and then, with their consent, persuade the children to embrace the Gospel also. And if children embrace the Gospel, and their parents or guardians are unbelievers, teach them to stay at home and be obedient to their parents or guardians, if they require it; but if they consent to let them gather with the people of God, let them do so, and there shall be no wrong; and let all things be done carefully and righteously and God will extend to all such his guardian care.

And secondly, it is the duty of elders, when they enter into any house, to let their labors and warning voice be unto the master of that house; and if he receive the Gospel, then he may extend his influence to his wife also, with consent, that peradventure she may receive the Gospel; but if a man receive not the Gospel, but gives his consent that his wife may receive it, and she believes, then let her receive it. But if a man forbid his wife, or his children, before they are of age, to receive the Gospel, then it should be the duty of the elder to go his way, and use no influence against him, and let the responsibility be upon his head; shake off the dust of thy feet as a testimony against him, and thy skirts shall then be clear of their souls. Their sins are not to be answered upon such as God hath sent to warn them to flee the wrath to come, and save themselves from this untoward generation.

Thirdly, it should be the duty of an elder, when he enters into a house, to salute the master of that house, and if he gain his consent, then he may preach to all that are in that house; but if he gain not his consent, let him not go unto his slaves, or servants, but let the responsibility be upon the head of the master of that house, and the consequences thereof, and the guilt of that house is no longer upon his skirts, he is free; therefore, let him shake off the dust of his feet, and go his way, but if the master of that house give consent, the elder may preach to his family, his wife, his children, and his servants, his man-servants, or his maidservants, or his slaves; then it should be the duty of the elder to stand up boldly for the cause of Christ, and warn that people with one accord to repent and be baptized for the remissions of sins, and for the Holy Ghost, always commanding them in the name of the Lord, in the spirit of meekness, to be kindly affectionate one toward another, that the fathers should be kind to their children, husbands to their wives, masters to their slaves or servants, children obedient to their parents, wives to their husband, and slaves or servants to their masters. (HC 2:262-64) (Joseph Smith, Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 175-176)

[CrimsonKairos]

What brought this on?

[StrawberryFields]

His wife was extended a calling...

[CrimsonKairos]

I know, but I meant, why suddenly post this to our forum without any introduction, no "Hi, I'm new, this happened to me waddya all think?"

Seemed to come from left field, that's all.

[StrawberryFields]

I think he is venting.

[Gwen]

although i agree with most of what he says, and i can see where that kind of thing could happen in an area. i want to make it clear that i have never lived in a stake or ward or branch that has left me feeling that way.

i am familiar with unrightous dominion my father did not "preside" over the home as he should have. and my only complaint with stake and ward leaders is that they deffered so much to his authority to "preside" in the home that they never sat him down and said, "look, you have crossed the line, you are falling into unrighteous dominion, it needs to stop........" how i wish this would have been done so many times. if that is going on in his stake it needs to be addressed not ignored. (which posting it here doesn't actually do that) but i hope he understands this is not a whole church problem, but that area.

[sixpacktr]

I've had this happen to me, and didn't take it as some conspiracy by the leaders to subvert my role as father and patriarch of my home. I was in a Bishopric when the Bishop and 1st Counselor decided to call my daughters to some callings without my knowing it (I had been away on business), and let me know very last minute, after everything was decided. Was I upset? NO. I knew those men, and that it was a simple oversight.

Geesh, to find fault with every little thing. Life has to be difficult, keeping track of everyone else's shortcomings...

[MaidservantX]

Your point of view about the government of the family is incorrect.

You do not know more than your wife does about what is needed for your family. You are not receiving more revelation straight from our Father, than she is. In fact, I daresay He might be talking to her a great deal more (and she is (perhaps?) likely listening more!).

There is no gospel doctrine that instructs men to make choices for their wives, even in the context of the needs of the family and certainly not in regards to whether or not they should accept ward callings.

Your Father in heaven is not the source of your inspiration that has resulted in your deep anger and fear and disdain for women. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon condemn men that cannot listen to women. (1 Nephi 18:19; Daniel 11:37).

As well, the fact that there is more female leadership in this world (you term it 'the marketplace') is a result of an outpouring of spirit and the teachings of the church and gospel -- NOT a forsaking of truth. The Old Testament is replete with women's leadership; the New Testament is replete with women's leadership; and the Restoration and good ol' Brigham Young's Utah was replete with women's leadership.

For BOTH men and women, their first and most important calling(s) are in the home. There is no difference. But both should be accepting church callings as well. Accepting a church calling and doing it to the best of your ability is one of the best ways to receive blessings for your children and family.

I very rarely directly tell people that they are wrong -- I trust that they are doing their best and they are trying to learn. I do respect some of the things I have heard you say, z.

[Guest mamacat]

Your point of view about the government of the family is incorrect.

You do not know more than your wife does about what is needed for your family. You are not receiving more revelation straight from our Father, than she is. In fact, I daresay He might be talking to her a great deal more (and she is (perhaps?) likely listening more!).

There is no gospel doctrine that instructs men to make choices for their wives, even in the context of the needs of the family and certainly not in regards to whether or not they should accept ward callings.

Your Father in heaven is not the source of your inspiration that has resulted in your deep anger and fear and disdain for women. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon condemn men that cannot listen to women. (1 Nephi 18:19; Daniel 11:37).

As well, the fact that there is more female leadership in this world (you term it 'the marketplace') is a result of an outpouring of spirit and the teachings of the church and gospel -- NOT a forsaking of truth. The Old Testament is replete with women's leadership; the New Testament is replete with women's leadership; and the Restoration and good ol' Brigham Young's Utah was replete with women's leadership.

For BOTH men and women, their first and most important calling(s) are in the home. There is no difference. But both should be accepting church callings as well. Accepting a church calling and doing it to the best of your ability is one of the best ways to receive blessings for your children and family.

I very rarely directly tell people that they are wrong -- I trust that they are doing their best and they are trying to learn. I do respect some of the things I have heard you say, z.

dear xhenli ~

thank you so much for your brilliant explanation here. i read this post right before going to sleep last night, and i was distressed about it all through my sleep and dreams....i woke up feeling distraught about it as well. you've restored my faith.

love, mamacat

[tiancum]

dear xhenli ~

I didn't get the feeling ever that he was belittling women....saying that he knew more than his wife.

If you meant the whole thing about going to the husband first, to extend a calling, I don't think he was trying to say that.

I believe it is proper procedure to do so, not because the man is better, more enlightened, more inspired, but only because it is correct priesthood protocol..

I see a proper man/wife relationship much like a bishop and his councilor.

There come times when each needs gentle correction and both act as support for their different missions. neither one makes a major decision without counciling with the other.

If I have missed anything, please feel free to point it out.

Really the only issue I have with his lengthy letter, is that he has absolutely no authority to call another to repentance not under his stewardship. He does, however, have the right to voice his concerns to his priesthood leaders, if something has been done to affect him directly. The final word then lies with the presiding authority. It is the priesthood leader's superior, not the rank and file of the ward and stake to call a Bishop to repentance. It beleive it is important to follow the line of authority the Lord has established.....ward leaders<bishop<stake pres< AE pres< Apostle.

I see nothing wrong with extending a calling through the husband. If one is present. it is polite, and does indeed follow priesthood protocol.

[Guest mamacat]

i thought his letter was about the husband having absolute and tyrannical authority in his home, even over any member of the priesthood who would enter his home, or interact with any of his family members, esp his wife, whom i think he stated, does not have the capacity to make decisions for herself (to paraphrase). i think this is what xhenli was addressing. sorry if that was a misperception.

[CrimsonKairos]

xhen, the father is to preside over the family in righteousness.

Preside. Not rule. Not dictate. Not dominate.

[MaidservantX]

CK: I agree with YOU! I'm pretty sure Z doesn't.

Also, paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 of the OP stated gender issues or thereabouts that could have been brought up respectfully, but I'm not going to apologize too deeply for getting a gist of I repeat, anger, fear and disdain of women. Of course, it's nothing that I can't get over, but certainly worth a post on my part, eh?

I do not have a problem AT ALL with my husband (although I don't have one at present) being part of any decision regarding a call I would receive. I realize that generally, this is how the bishopric makes calls to women, although I should say, there have been plenty of times that I have been asked to fill calls where my husband wasn't even asked into the room. Course none of them were for Relief Society president or anything. By the same token, I would think my voice would be asked for if they were going to call my husband to be the Elder's Quorum pres. or something, and I think they would.

My problem is with the word "permission". Perhaps, the BISHOP needs to ask the husband/ father formally. But my HUSBAND, when we go home and talk it over, SURE AS HECK better say something like, "Honey, you know I support you and believe in you, whatever you do. Let's pray about it, and I know we can fit it into our family life." If my HUSBAND thinks he is giving me permission -- then I repeat, there is a lack of understanding of family government, including the concept of Presiding.

'Course maybe this is all Z meant -- the courtesy and respect for order from the bishop. But he said a lot of things and one of the tones I got was that Z is afraid his wife might not be able to make a good decision about where her time should be spent, and I can assure Z and all husbands everywhere, that she can.

[tiancum]

CK: I agree with YOU! I'm pretty sure Z doesn't.

Also, paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 of the OP stated gender issues or thereabouts that could have been brought up respectfully, but I'm not going to apologize too deeply for getting a gist of I repeat, anger, fear and disdain of women. Of course, it's nothing that I can't get over, but certainly worth a post on my part, eh?

I don't think you did anything that would warrant an apology.

I am glad you responded so passionately to what the OP stated. Even if he didn't mean what you thought he did, I think what you said is doctrinally sound, I agree with i ttotally.

Honestly It breaks my heart to see this kind of thing happen. On both sides of the fence. men treating women poorly, and the converse, women treating their husbands badly.

I knew a woman who would tell her husband what he needed to say in blessings that he gave, was constantly belittling him, and telling him what to do. It was heartbreaking.

LOL, i have NEVER told my wife what to do, and she never to me. We council each other as equals. We make mistakes, and both of us cross the line sometimes, but we learn and try not to repeat our mistakes.

I pray that men and women do their best to understand and to see when they are practicing unrighteous dominion. It is so dang common and hard to resist for both sexes. I would guess 100% have done it at one point or another. I hope that the OP wasn't trying to say that he was better, smarter, more enlightened, better able to follow the spirit than his wife, or his leaders. I will hope for the best.

Hugh Nibley was one of my heroes. He said something so powerful once. He said, "We are down here to learn to forgive ad repent." It has changed my own outlook and made me try and look inward more.

[Guest mamacat]

Zshallr --

It's my belief that when a woman's services are sought by a ward or stake leader, her husband should be consulted as though he's a third counselor, since he's the only person who has near-total insight into the needs of the family that will be impacted.

Xhenli --

You do not know more than your wife does about what is needed for your family. You are not receiving more revelation straight from our Father, than she is.There is no gospel doctrine that instructs men to make choices for their wives, even in the context of the needs of the family and certainly not in regards to whether or not they should accept ward callings.

my ex-husband would beat our dog mercilessly, kicking her in the stomach repeatedly with much sadistic cruelty. i would often tell him that was wrong. he would reply to me with a threatening glare and ask me what i was going to do about it. he would tell me that i she was his property, just as i and my son were his property, and that he was allowed to beat us as severely as the law would allow.

that i would tell him that it was wrong to beat our dog, that it was wrong to threaten to physically abuse our son, that it was wrong to endanger our lives with extremely wreckless driving......and so on....

well, he considered that 'unrighteous dominion', and that i was out of place in 'telling' him what to do. he still says that he resents my 'telling him what to do,' though i never told him what to do, other than regarding things such as the above.

once we were preparing to visit relatives out of town and packing up the car. my son was around 10 months old, constantly nursing, and i was just recovering from pneumonia and still had complications from a c-section. i asked him to help me load the car with our luggage. he was offended that i asked him to do some physical labor, and said that i was not to 'tell him what to do.' i ended up having to put my large babe in a backpack carrier, and load all the considerably heavy luggage into the car myself, while he sat on the sofa reading a magazine, watching me make several trips lugging the heavy stuff to the car. when he asked me why i did so while carrying my boy on my back, i replied that he was crying and needed me to hold him. he became angry, and said that if he cried like that again, that he would duct tape him to a chair and duct tape his mouth shut. i suggested that that would be child abuse, and that it would be terribly wrong to do that to any child, esp one that he had fathered. to this day he resents these instances of my 'telling him what to do.' other than instances such as these, i never told him what to do.

i suppose that for these reasons i was delighted and impressed with the high status that the LDS church gives women, and their standing in the family. from all the words that i've read of President Hinckley, of his reiterating the importance of the partnership between husband and wife...to several other doctrinal works, i was exhilerated at something that i had found that actually seemed to afford true respect both women and men. i also admire and respect the authority of the priesthood. i love that the priesthood is directed to impart their spiritual guidance to their sisters with gentleness and respect. i think that life without the influence of male perspective is incomplete and bereft. i appreciate the LDS perspective that says that a woman's role in the family is just as important as her husband's. the LDS view of the family is the most complete and healthy that i have encountered. i think it is the best environment i have found for raising successful and happy children.

until reading Zshallr's tract. i perceived the derision and anger toward women as well. the message it seemed to emit was anger at church authority for allowing women their own voice, as though it were detracting from the 'ownership' of the husband.

i appreciate that xhenli expressed with such articulation and elan the importance of a wife and mother's influence in the family. and i also love what Tiancum said re: "LOL, i have NEVER told my wife what to do, and she never to me. We council each other as equals. We make mistakes, and both of us cross the line sometimes, but we learn and try not to repeat our mistakes."

these things are important. i am glad to have these perspectives.

love, mamacat

[CrimsonKairos]

mamacat, I'm sorry your husband was so callous towards you and your son.

That behavior pushes the needle way past "unrighteous dominion."

I think the husband should be consulted because what happens to his wife affects him, and vice versa.

Preside merely means to lead as first among equals. The Bishop conducts sacrament meeting...not because he's better than the rest of us, but because order requires one person or persons to conduct, etc... instead of people just randomly jumping up and saying, "Hey, wanna hear what I learned about tithing last week?" and giving an impromptu talk.

Of course the ward is not even near a perfect parallel of the family, far from it.

Too many men and women don't know what presiding entails. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I know it doesn't involve telling your spouse you own them or can do whatever you want with them.

[tiancum]

...well, he considered that 'unrighteous dominion', and that i was out of place in 'telling' him what to do. he still says that he resents my 'telling him what to do,' though i never told him what to do, other than regarding things such as the above.

Mamacat, have you ever noticed that the evil among us always accuse the innocent of what they themselves are doing? It is almost like a law. It is bound to happen sooner or later.

Your ex was indeed severely crossing the line, yet he accused you.... I am so sorry that you as well as many of us have had to experience that kind of behavior. Honestly< i am glad you were able to escape. Thank you for being strong.

[Guest mamacat]

thank you Crimson Kairos for such genuine and kind words, and that explanation.

Tiancum ~ what you said touched my heart. i don't feel very strong lol. but i loved what you said, and it was soothing to my soul.

love, mamacat