Susan next reiterates Priscilla's concerns about Tom attending the party saying "she mainly focused on the concern of appearing accepting of homosexuality in front of her grandchildren" and that she expressed a small concern about AIDS." Her understanding of Priscilla’s position is apparent. Confusion follows when she says she can't see where it is any different whether it is Wesley or Tom. She is absolutely right -- it is not either of them as an individual -- the problem lies in their "couple relationship."
In the next paragraph if, as she stated, she would not be offended if Priscilla decided to not attend, why is she so offended???? It seems to me that she is offended because Priscilla does not agree with her view on Christian values, tolerance and judgment. I have to say that loving some one is not always expressed in approval. Christ loved me enough to lay down his life for me but I certainly do not believe that indicates any approval of my sinful behavior.
I agree with Susan that demonstrating Christian love to children is important and, yes, the unknown and forbidden is enticing. However, you do not take children to a tavern to demonstrate your Christian love for drunkards nor do you have drunken parties in your homes for that purpose. It isn't that parents pretend that homosexuals don't exist, it is that they have the choice of when to introduce whatever sexual information they feel is appropriate for their child. That is why Susan and I once again agree that it is up to the parents to decide what they believe is best for their own children regardless of what anyone else thinks. The anyone else includes me, Susan, Wes, and Priscilla. The timing should be up to the parents not to the homosexual couple or grandparents.
The next portion of Susan's letter has been hashed over in previous portions of this letter except the homophobic part which is irrelevant. I did not see where Priscilla said she isn't being judgmental. I did not read anywhere of her accusing Susan of having ulterior motives -- only "now, I believe I know why." That could mean many things, but given that Priscilla believed Susan was purposely planning the party and leaving out the fact that Wes and Tom planned to be there, she might view it as Susan being deceptive because Susan knew of Priscilla's strong opinions on homosexuality. They had discussed it many times. I asked Priscilla about so "proving the point." She said it relates to Dan who should not be discussed in this letter but must be because Susan brings it up. Priscilla said that Dan's position was it was their home and they would have anyone into it that they wanted. The point is – Priscilla was not going to be able to tell Dan what he could do in his own home. I did not read or hear of anyone saying Susan was feeble-minded, a liar or stupid but you could interpret Priscilla's comment to mean manipulative and plotting. Susan then puts in writing a wonderment of Priscilla’s demonstration of values, beliefs and convictions.
I addressed the same Uncles' Party earlier and am in agreement. I think William and Priscilla had discussed a delay of one year. Apparently their discussion was not effective since the party, according to Susan, was being planned. I've heard two different stories on when Susan and Dan decided to make plans. Swede told me that Dan was so excited about it that they started right away and Susan says "since no one else was making plans, she and Dan started to do so. I have no way to know nor is it relevant except in answer to Susan's letter.
Susan says Priscilla called her and said no one wanted Tom there, that he wasn't welcome and that Harry refused to have it at his place. Therefore, they ceased planning. Priscilla's version is that she asked Susan if they had told Harry. Susan says they then found out that almost everyone wanted to come so they started to plan again. It is unclear to me what the next problem is if Priscilla had indicated that she just wouldn't come and Susan says in Paragraph 4 that she would not be offended if Priscilla decided to not attend. If my suggestion that it not be an Uncles Party was a problem, I don't know why Wes indicated in his July 12 letter that would be fine. Was it still a problem for Susan????? and so they once again complied??? Complied with what????? I do not understand.
Susan continues with a very harsh statement about their compliance not being good enough because it was after that Priscilla sent out "the" letter and made offensive phone calls. "The" letter was sent June 29, Wes answered July 12. What offensive phone calls??? The only phone calls I know of were to Wes and Swede. I would suppose that Priscilla also talked to her daughters. Did my phone calls to Susan become offensive at this time??? It appears that she thinks Priscilla was making a lot of phone calls – my interpretation -- since her next comment is nothing less than total compliance to Aunt Priscilla's will, will suffice. How many people in the family did Susan think Priscilla called? How many did she think Priscilla controlled? Priscilla did not try to get me to change my mind about any part of what I was doing. I believe it was because my position from beginning to end was that it would not be appropriate for children.
If only Priscilla had a political agenda, then why Point/Counterpoint? That was political according to what Susan explained to me about the show. I had never heard of it. I think they both had a political agenda and a personal agenda.
Susan goes on about Priscilla regarding doing what’s best for the family, letting everyone make their own decisions, exerting pressure on them, making unfounded accusations and stating what she (Susan) believes to be truth. "…she wants others to do what SHE thinks is best." What's wrong with that? Everyone wanted the others to do what they thought was best. So then, to make peace, etc., Susan calls off the party and says they will see people in Astoria and offers to make arrangements for "anyone in the Dallas-Salem area". This does not make one ounce of sense to me. Priscilla has stated that if Tom is there, she won’t go – at no time does she say Susan should not have a party at her home or that adults should not attend. I believe Susan is intimating that Priscilla has pressured her daughters. I am not saying her girls would not feel pressure, but it would be very important to know if it is self-inflicted or put on by Priscilla.
I can tell you that without a doubt, after Susan's letter went out Priscilla felt some one in our family --family being her siblings -- should have stuck up for her. She says she would not have tolerated that kind of attack on any of us. Prior to Susan's letter, I believe Priscilla was hoping her girls would not take their kids -- no different than my position except that I also offered to take care of Sisser's and Dean's kids.
I think the next thing is the letter from Ned Flanders. He analyzes Priscilla's position and clarifies the scriptures used by both. His letter was a real lift to me and very welcome. Somewhere along in here, I went to brunch with Susan, Wes, Genevieve and Michael. I contacted them at their motel and asked Wes if he would be willing to see me without Tom. He said "No." I said that would be fine. Tom did not show up and they explained that he did not like confrontation. I teased them about my reputation preceding me. We spent 3-1/2 hours together where we discussed a lot of things part of which was Susan's letter of August 3. I was very unhappy when I received that letter, thought then and still think it was uncalled for. Just for clarification I asked Wes if he, at anytime, was willing to see any of us without Tom. He answered, "no." This leads me to believe and I stated to him that his position was his way or no way. He agreed with me that it was. (No different than Priscilla's position on it being inappropriate for children -- her way or no way.) I see his unwillingness to see family members without Tom as very divisive in the family and hurtful to those who wanted to see him. It was a way to passively apply pressure. This, added to the stress family members felt due to his health could have caused additional pressure and influenced decisions.
During the time here, Wes, Tom and the others were made welcome at family members' homes. They saw all of the kids except Jared, who was at his Dad’s, and Jenny, who stayed with me. I had asked Cybill not to have the gathering at her home and she complied. Sisser called me and talked with me about doing at her house. I stated to her that was her call but I would be willing to take her kids for the evening. I also had talked to Leeza and offered to baby-sit Brittania. I did not offer to baby-sit Jack's kids. By this time Mary Jo and her family were out of town but they had been to her home previously.
Then we have a letter from Susan to Priscilla, no date on it. In this particular letter Susan is very -careful to tell Priscilla that she is "like a snake poised and ready to strike" and how she has changed her previous positive opinion of Priscilla. She says Priscilla needs to beware devil is very deceptive. I agree, the devil is deceptive. She tells Priscilla that she will not pursue as close a relationship with her as in the past because it would be emotionally dangerous since Priscilla is always ready to attack and she does not need that stress in her life. She ends the letter with a statement of being willing to do whatever may be needed for anyone in the family (including you -- you being Priscilla) and that she loves her.
Certainly, Susan could not think that this would help the situation. If I were the recipient of this particular letter, I would be very hurt. It makes me wonder why anyone would write this type of letter.
Then guess somewhere along in here Prince and Butch received a letter from Susan. They refused it. If the refused letter were an attempt at reconciliation, their refusal would not help the situation. If it was not a reconciliation attempt, their refusal still closed the door of communication.
Next, Wes mails Priscilla a letter which she refused. I have a copy of an apology letter to her from Wes dated August 24. I assume this is the same letter. He states that he, Priscilla, and now Susan have managed to create a schism in the family and he would like to see it ended as soon as possible. Quoting from his letter: "I for one, am sorry for anything I have said or done that has hurt you." He ends with: "Let's start this over as it should be. From my point of view, this cannot be done since there is no way to go back and change the fact that my grandchildren were included with those who opened their lives to the influence of a homosexual relationship and gave the impression that they did not object to Wes and Tom's joint presence. I must say that this is not the only thing our lives have been opened to since we have a family where divorce, swearing, alcoholism, drugs, slandering, sex outside of marriage, etc. etc. etc. have been tolerated and much of it has taken place in front of kids.
On August 25, there is a note from Wes to Ned Flanders thanking him for his time and effort saying he particularly appreciated the Biblical clarifications and corrections.
I think this is about the time Jethro wrote a letter to Susan. I do not know what he said. I think it was in response to the letter Susan wrote to Priscilla about being like a snake.
Sept. 4 , Susan writes to the family saying she made a mistake in starting her August 3 letter "Dear Family" when it should have been "Dear Priscilla." She says she sent it publicly because they were accused publicly and she let anger influence the tone of that letter due to how she felt. She apologizes for letting anger seep in for any negative impact it had but not for what she said. I do not understand why if the letter of August 3 was not intended for us, why she would apologize to us? I don't see what she was accused of. other than maybe a lack of courtesy in informing others. She really sees the "now I believe I know why" as something more accusatory than I am able to read into it.
Susan also wrote a note to Ned Flanders on his copy of the Sept 4 letter. She says she appreciates his letter and knows his motives are pure. She says that it was "not a lack of concern for the children but rather a different opinion of what's best for the children and that's why I still invited Tom. Also, from being with Wesley and seeing the 'whys' behind his homosexuality I probably have a strong opinion of what's best, but that is hard to really know beforehand." (I have a problem with Susan knowing what is best particularly when you read her last statement in this paragraph.) She says he should not have found fault with Wesley for sending the letters to a widening audience since it should have been up to the parents (not grandparents) to make decisions.
Susan's next paragraph includes something that if she really believes should not have been shared others. Quote: "I believe the Lord is dealing with Aunt Priscilla on some important issues right now. I think your stamp of 'fault' might lend weight to her denial system and help her feel justified with all of her actions. So I am concerned that it may have an impact you never intended. I do not propose that you do anything about it, because the way things are now it might create more problems. I think that we all need to be open to whatever it is that the Lord would have us do and act accordingly. As you can tell, I'm concerned about getting in His way & also trying to do whatever it is He would have us do. Being new to the family, I suggest that you remember everyone sees everything through their own eyes and the same fact can mean two different truths when two different people are viewing them. Remembering that will help you and me have a true objectivity." There seems to be some problem with this reasoning. Considering what was going on at the time, to me this does not seem like a sincere concern for Priscilla. I could be wrong in my assessment of it. The statement about the same fact meaning two different truths bothers me greatly. While people do view things differently, truth remains truth. Putting a personal view on it does not change the truth but it may change a person's interpretation of a situation, statement etc.
Previous part of letter |
Next part of letter 