MAD's McCue Dogpile

[_Mister Scratch]

MBeesley's comments were the inanest of all the inane comments on that thread.

I find him/her extremely irritating.

Also, the idea that Chris was libelous in his posting is outrageous and flatly wrong.

KA

Yeah. I think what we can observe on that thread is a clear backtracking---a clear "circling of the wagons," if you will. They want very very badly for their smear of McCue to work, and yet it's pretty much become obvious that Greg Smith (or whomever) has stooped to some astonishingly low tactics here. So, they keep stepping back:
---"Well, McCue actually said this!"
---"Oh, well, we better hold off on any accusations against FAIR until we know just what the nature of McCue's comments were!"
---"Oh, wait---the FAIR article is down, so no one better accuse, since we can't verify it!"

They should have just condemned Greg Smith (or whomever), but, of course, they've instead opted to try and concoct BS reasons for justifying the behavior.

[_Blixa]

mbeesley wrote:
Defendants only have the burden of proof on issues they raise as an affirmative defense. In the first instance, the plaintiff must prove their case. So, McCue has the initial burden of proof. He might meet that burden at trial by testifying, for example that he never cheated on his wife. But if I were on the jury, I wouldn't believe him just cause of his reputation.

What reputation? That he's long winded and a golfer?

[_Jersey Girl]

Did anyone bother to actually examine the words of mbeesley in the following?

mbeesley wrote:
Defendants only have the burden of proof on issues they raise as an affirmative defense. In the first instance, the plaintiff must prove their case. So, McCue has the initial burden of proof. He might meet that burden at trial by testifying, for example that he never cheated on his wife. But if I were on the jury, I wouldn't believe him just cause of his reputation.

Does that make sense to anyone regarding burden of proof?

JAK?

Well, I made a stab at "examining" mbeesley's words, and I *did* find it a "bother." As to what s/he actually means.... Well, I'm not too sure. I do understand the last bit, however. S/he's saying that s/he believes that Bob McCue would cheat on his wife (and lie about it!) simply because McCue is a critic of the LDS Church--I.e., "just cause of his reputation".

What I'm saying (typing) is that the burden of proof remarks make no sense to a sane person. Let's find a sane person and get them to comment, okay?

;-)

Lol. Naw, it ain't happenin', Girl. There are too many sane folks in this joint. Now, if we were to retire to the aptly named MADboard.....

Here is my problem with the comments by mbeelsey and I'm trying to hold back commenting on the situation entirely but I don't think I can do that much longer.

Isn't mbeesley saying that McCue has to prove he did not cheat on his wife? Isn't he saying that a way for McCue to "prove" that he didn't cheat on this wife is to state so?

Does that make sense?

Isn't it or wouldn't it be THEIR burden to prove that he DID?

[_Trinity]

I am reminded that Infymus has archived nearly everything that Bob has ever said on RfM on his website, so it is entirely possible that someone got the old material there. That makes the premeditation about #3 questionable.

There are several websites devoted solely to disaffected believers who remain active or semi-active due to pressures from family or spouse. NOM, Fringe, and there's another one ( I can't remember what it is called) for mixed married couples.

I don't think mbeesley's comments are worthy of a response. Nor California's. I have known Bob for nearly a decade and have spent enough face time with him to recognize his sincerity, his honesty, his loyalty and love for his family. He is one of the most unassuming and sensitive guys I have ever spent time with. I would be happy to stand as a character witness for him.

[_Mister Scratch]

I just did a search of The Mormon Curtain, using the "Find" feature with the terms "terror" and "wife," and came up completely nil as far as Bob "terrifying his wife" into disbelief. In fact, the material archived on TMC seems totally contrary to that. In Section 2 of the archive, McCue presents what appears to be a very, VERY thorough timeline of his apostasy, including this:

I had not yet noticed how ill my wife was, and how desolate our relationship was. This was largely the result of my neglect and the ridiculous burden she imposed on herself as a result of constant pregnancy and effectively raising our children alone. Her individuality had dissolved.

It seems to me that McCue is quite forthright on what he sees as his mistakes and failings as a husband. But what I found even more intriguing was this:

I told him [the Stake President] that my wife was not coping well [due to the strains of childrearing]; etc. He questioned the wisdom of taking this step [i.e., McCue getting a vasectomy], noting that my wife and I were young (35 and 32 respectively), and that he and his wife had 8 kids and one of his counsellors had 10 and the other 7. The second counsellor’s wife had her children all in circumstances of difficult health. Her referred me to the GHI (see above) where it counsels against vasectomy and suggested that we continue to use the forms of birth control that had so far resulted in four pregnancies. He noted that if my wife's health was that bad, that perhaps a hysterectomy might be in order.

(emphasis added)

Um, *who* exactly was doing the "terrifying" here? And just who on earth was this SP? Dr. Mengele???

[_harmony]

He noted that if my wife's health was that bad, that perhaps a hysterectomy might be in order.

(emphasis added)

There is a reason for that. If the wife's health is poor, the odds of her living a long life are lower. If the husband has a vasectomy, he would not be able to father children via the second wife.

It is an unspoken mandate in my ward that the women have their tubes tied or get a hysterectomy when they're finished having children. The men do not ever get a vasectomy. Doing so removes the ability of the man to father more children on a younger wife, once the older one is dead. (which explains 80+ year old Hollywood actors fathering children via 30 something year old wives, ala Tony Randall).

Is this one of those "unwritten order of things" things? Or is it in the CHI? Or is it just a phenomena in my ward?

[_KimberlyAnn]

He noted that if my wife's health was that bad, that perhaps a hysterectomy might be in order.

(emphasis added)

There is a reason for that. If the wife's health is poor, the odds of her living a long life are lower. If the husband has a vasectomy, he would not be able to father children via the second wife.

It is an unspoken mandate in my ward that the women have their tubes tied or get a hysterectomy when they're finished having children. The men do not ever get a vasectomy. Doing so removes the ability of the man to father more children on a younger wife, once the older one is dead. (which explains 80+ year old Hollywood actors fathering children via 30 something year old wives, ala Tony Randall).

Is this one of those "unwritten order of things" things? Or is it in the CHI? Or is it just a phenomena in my ward?

I think it's the unwritten order of things, Harmony.

Several of the older ladies in my former ward were discussing hysterectomies, saying that it was best for a woman to take care of permanent birth control, as it was not right for a man to have a vasectomy in case he wanted children with a new wife, were his used-up wife to die. ("Used up" my term, not theirs!)

KA

[_Dr. Shades]

Yeah, but what if a wife wants to have children with a new husband? What then?

[_moksha]

Was there anyone at MAD who took the position that, regardless of what transpired in the McCue household (we do not have all the information and I for one do not care to know), it was wrong for the FAIR Wiki to have included any such information about McCue's family?

[_Sethbag]

LOL. I find it funny when TBMs consider this stuff marriage manipulation, when this is exactly what TBMs do to their no-longer-believing spouses. The TBM in the relationship almost always threatens divorce and puts pressure on the non-believer until he/she finally caves.

Isn't it strange that we hear about a lot of people here who left the Church and none of them caved and became active again, because of pressure from a believing spouse.

I think the best that pressure from a spouse will bring is for the people to continue attending Church...rather than believing.

Example: Runtu

I'll chalk myself up for that too. My wife has pressured me to keep attending at least Sacrament Meeting. I got away with skipping a few times several months back, but then my wife brought it up again. So I've been going again pretty much every week. I think I'll skip a few times in the next few months and see if I can work my way out of it again. At any rate, I go to Sacrament meeting and then leave. It's no secret, and I'm quite sure the whole ward knows of my unbelief.

My wife brought up divorce a few times due to the whole loss of testimony thing. She has brought enormous pressure to bear on me over this. I can 100% back up that kind of pattern of behavior. I've not forced her to listen to the "bad side" of Mormon history, read any books, or anything else. Fortunately, in my case, my wife is the sort who gets used to things and stops being as strident in her attitude as previous, so I fully expect that she'll get more and more used to things as time goes on. She's already way more used to my apostasy than she was, say, two years ago.