“Narcissists will smear your name to cover their sins.”
– Mark Stephens, recently

In one of his many recent posts, Mark makes the claim that narcissists engage in smear campaigns to hide their wrongdoing. It’s a bold statement, considering he typed it while actively smearing his ex-partner’s name in real time. Without punctuation. In one unbroken sentence. While tossing around terms like “cult,” “adultery,” “sickness,” and “3 personalities” with the subtlety of a jackhammer.

Let’s be clear: this is not a testimony. It’s not spiritual. It’s not healing. It’s a one-man smear campaign dressed in a Jesus meme and a few hashtags.

---

🔄 DARVO in Action: Confess the Crime, Then Commit It

DARVO—Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender—isn’t just something Mark does. It’s practically his brand. And this post is a masterclass:

1. Deny: He denies any wrongdoing, insisting he was the one who tried to speak life into her.
2. Attack: He drags her through every emotionally sensitive corner of her past—trauma, cult upbringing, alleged cheating, and more.
3. Reverse Victim and Offender: He paints himself as the endangered savior who was betrayed by her inability to obey “God’s word.”

This is not a one-time lapse. This is a cycle. He’s done it to Melissa. He’s done it to Tori. He’s done it to professionals, pastors, and now, once again, to the mother of his children—online and in public view.

---

🧠 Psychological Projection: The Mirror Lies Loudest

The irony is so thick it’s practically biblical. Mark calls out narcissistic smear tactics while committing them line-by-line. He projects his behavior onto others as a way of deflecting attention from his own accountability.

“She’s the narcissist.”
“She smeared me first.”
“I’m just telling the truth.”

But let’s inspect the truth:

• He accuses her of adultery—while conveniently forgetting the restraining order she filed against him first.
• He mentions she was raised in a cult—yet Mark is the one who has been accused by multiple sources of using religion as a control tactic.
• He says she believed “dreams over God’s word”—yet Mark routinely twists scripture into spiritual grenades to justify his abuse.

This is not testimony.
This is emotional and reputational warfare masquerading as spiritual insight.

---

⚖️ Selective Outrage: When Both Parties Moved On… But Only One Gets Blamed

One of Mark’s most-used accusations is that “she cheated.” He’s said it about Melissa. He’s said it about Tori. It’s a well-worn claim designed to frame himself as the noble, faithful husband who was betrayed by sinful women.

But here’s what he leaves out:

• Melissa and her now-husband began dating just before their divorce was finalized.
• So did Mark.

The timeline cuts both ways. But in Mark’s version of the story, only she gets branded with infidelity. Why? Because for Mark, moral standards aren’t about accountability. They’re about ammunition.

He doesn’t actually condemn infidelity—he weaponizes the accusation.
Not for healing. Not for closure. But for image and revenge.

He’ll quote scripture about adultery in one breath and act out revenge fantasies in the next—all while conveniently forgetting that the mirror reflects back more than just other people’s flaws.

---

🧠 Control, Not Care: “I Should’ve Had You Committed”

When Melissa finally left him, Mark didn’t reflect. He didn’t apologize. He didn’t seek help.

He said:

“I should’ve had you committed.”

Let’s call that what it is: coercive control.

That wasn’t a statement born out of concern—it was born out of rage and fear. Fear that she might speak. That she might heal. That she might finally name what he was doing.

To Mark, her emotional distress was never an opportunity for support. It was a threat to be neutralized. Committal, in his eyes, wasn’t about help—it was about erasure. It was a way to legally silence her, to discredit her, to put her “away” before she could expose the truth.

And now, years later, he’s doing the same thing on Facebook—just with less paperwork and more hashtags.

---

🪞 The Pattern Is the Proof

This isn’t new. Mark’s history tells the same story over and over:

• Rob Peters’ letter describes a man who creates chaos at kids’ events, avoids accountability, and instigates conflict for attentionRob_Peters_Mark_Stephen….
• Dr. Rao’s medical statement reveals a father who rejected medical reality, interfered with treatment, and fed his son misinformation about food, health, and medicationDr. Rao.
• And countless social media posts show a man obsessed not with healing—but with framing himself as the hero and everyone else as deluded, dangerous, or demon-possessed.

He is, by his own admission, watching every move his ex makes—even though there is a restraining order in place. He’s reading her posts, reacting to them, crafting counterattacks in real time while preaching online about forgiveness and restoration.

---

🕊️ Reality Check: 10 Years of Calm, Not Chaos

Mark loves to throw around accusations of mental instability. He did it with Tori. He did it with Melissa. He labels women as “crazy,” unstable, mentally ill—anything to undermine their credibility after they leave him.

But here’s the truth you won’t hear in his posts:

Melissa and I have been together for ten years. A full decade.

In all that time—not once has she shown signs of instability.
Not once has she been cruel, erratic, or unhinged.
If anything, her biggest flaw might be that she’s too kind. Too forgiving. Too willing to see the good in others—even when they’ve done harm.

She is calm. Measured. Patient.
She’s the one who shows up with grace when others show up with accusations.
She is the emotional safety net for her children. The one who absorbs the fallout from Mark’s chaos and does the work of healing what he breaks.

If there’s anything “unstable” about her, it’s this:

She continues to hope for peace in a war she didn’t start.
She shows mercy to a man who never deserved it.

That’s not instability.
That’s strength.

---

🧨 Final Thought:

When someone tells you “narcissists smear others to cover their sins” while casually airing someone’s trauma and discrediting their character with no punctuation or proof—

They’re not testifying.
They’re projecting.
And they’re proving, once again, exactly who they are.