Rob Porter, and Mormonism's #MeToo Moment

[Calm]

"So, you don't understand the rules of the game and still don't, but we are going to punish you anyway."

That you refer to what is going on as some sort of game is quite insulting.

And the "rules" are respecting the other person as a human being who doesn't exist primarily for your own pleasure.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Calm

[Yirgacheffe]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Whereas before males were not punished and females were never heard - now we have males just have to breathe and they thrown out of universities and/or lose their jobs. This is not a good time for our society. 

But it was a good time for our society before when males were not punished and females were never heard, that was a much better time.

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Especially given the reports about the MazeRunner author who sounds like was engaged in sexual misconduct. The problem is that famous people usually have a hard time living the gospel. Look at all the Mormons who make it in Hollywood. How many stay active?  A lot of the same sorts of things are happening elsewhere but perhaps not as well known. Which isn't to say there aren't really solid famous Mormons. Just that you don't know who will be able to survive that environment. So why set yourself up for disaster?

While not as famous and it's not clear if they are actually Mormon, there's two prominent Utah legislators who've been caught up in prostitution scandals this week.

Portraying famous Mormons as important ultimately hurts the cause they seek. Far too many just turn out to have a dark side.

Well, we all have a dark side because we are human and there must be opposition in all things. It’s so sad that many LDS celebrities fall away. It’s even sadder when they turn on the Church and use their status to criticize it. The pressure to conform to public and peer expectations must be tremendous. Of course it’s wonderful when a fellow Saint achieves something extraordinary, but if God is no respecter of persons, perhaps we should be more circumspect in our lionization of a few individuals. How do we appropriately celebrate that success?

For example, once in a while I respond to a Deseret News or Church News feature of some talented LDS athlete who signs a contract to play a sport, inks a letter of intent to attend a certain university, or gives up two years of training to serve a mission....not to take away or diminish their accomplishments. Good for them! But they are not the only ones making sacrifices. What about promising music students who stop practicing for two years during the most critical time of their training? Non-LDS musicians would consider that a disastrous, career ending decision. Should they not get the same recognition and praise and a nod in the Church papers? Of course. But, every missionary who goes sacrifices something  important. They all deserve nods in my book.

When we lived In Australia, we learned about the Tall Poppies. Those were people who achieved something but then thought that made them special....taller than the rest of the poppies. They were to be cut down. The actor Paul Hogan (Crocodile Dundy) was a good example of that. His sudden rise to fame and the divorce of his Aussie wife and marriage to his American co-star ended his popularity there. A student swimmer from Brisbane State High School where I taught won five gold medals in swimming in the Commonwealth Games and later won two Olympic medals. When she came back to school after the Games, there was no big celebration for her other than to say, “Good on ya, Hayley!” She had done what was expected of her, no Tall Poppy stuff.  When a swimmer from my high school in Washington won two gold medals in the Sydney Olympics, she was given a hero’s welcome with a parade, all-school assembly with band and cheerleaders, and a plaque on Main Street touting her accomplishments and proudly declaring our town as her home. Interesting contrast of the treatment of celebrities.

What’s the best course for our Church? How should we recognize celebrity?

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Yirgacheffe said:

But it was a good time for our society before when males were not punished and females were never heard, that was a much better time.

As my uncle used to say, “Two mules can’t make a horse.”

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/15/2018 at 10:39 AM, CA Steve said:

They are a newspaper organization who published a positive article on someone who had already been accused of abuse, an article that would not have been published had they known of those accusations. It was their job to know about them. That is what they do. That is why they printed a correction. Arguing that they could not of known it does not fly either, all they had to do was interview either one of his ex-wives. In the retraction itself the author acknowledges "his failings". 

I don't know I would call it eating crow but certainly they failed to do a proper job the first time around when they missed the abuse.

When was he first publicly accused of abuse? You seem to think this was known when the DN article was written. Perhaps you know more about that.

The FBI knew then because of private interviews with the wives. Was it public knowledge, though? They didn’t reveal it.

The sources below say it just now became public. When you write a puff piece, how deep should you dig in the dirt? Perhaps the DN could have scooped the Daily News...

From the OP article...

Quote

Religious marriage counseling, like most marriage counseling, is often done quietly, with little public scrutiny, until someone famous or important is accused of something terrible. This week, that happened. Holderness's accusations against Porter, a rising star in the White House, were published in a British tabloid.

 

Quote

The allegations were first reported earlier this week by the Daily Mail.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/07/politics/rob-porter-ex-wives-white-house/index.html

 

Quote

The Daily Mail first reported the allegations against Porter. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rob-porter-hope-hicks-boyfriend-white-house-aide-resigning-amid-abuse-allegations/

Quote

I never imagined myself in the situation I’m in now — no one could have. I’m not a partisan. I’m not an activist — far from it, in fact. Willoughby and I didn’t seek to tell our stories in such a public way. Rather, others sought us out in the course of investigating Rob. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rob-porter-is-my-ex-husband-heres-what-you-should-know-about-abuse/2018/02/12/3c7edcb8-1033-11e8-9065-e55346f6de81_story.html?utm_term=.9b270eed7955

It might have wings.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

It is sad. Definitely not ideal. But the alternative (divorcing with eight kids who turned out well by the family sticking together) is also not ideal, and given the benefit of hindsight, not by any means a given, either. 

Again, my wife and her siblings are very happy that their family remained intact throughout her life. That is an important factor in the big picture. 

The mother will in no wise lose her reward. Perhaps reconciliation, atonement, and forgiveness await in the next life. I would hope so.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

I suspect the apology is an attempt to stop gory details from emerging. There should be enough examples out there to know that denials are an invitation for more women to step up. I really wonder if these predators have both oars in the water though as they continue to think they can still wiggle out. That is why I don’t have a lot of confidence in them redeeming themselves. 

Redeeming themselves? How does that happen?

 

I hope this is true.....I’m counting on it being true.....

Quote

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/11/the-brilliant-morning-of-forgiveness?lang=eng

To earn forgiveness, one must make restitution. That means you give back what you have taken or ease the pain of those you have injured.

But sometimes you cannot give back what you have taken because you don’t have it to give. If you have caused others to suffer unbearably—defiled someone’s virtue, for example—it is not within your power to give it back.

There are times you cannot mend that which you have broken. Perhaps the offense was long ago, or the injured refused your penance. Perhaps the damage was so severe that you cannot fix it no matter how desperately you want to.

Your repentance cannot be accepted unless there is a restitution. If you cannot undo what you have done, you are trapped. It is easy to understand how helpless and hopeless you then feel and why you might want to give up, just as Alma did.

The thought that rescued Alma, when he acted upon it, is this: Restoring what you cannot restore, healing the wound you cannot heal, fixing that which you broke and you cannot fix is the very purpose of the atonement of Christ.

When your desire is firm and you are willing to pay the “uttermost farthing,” the law of restitution is suspended. Your obligation is transferred to the Lord. He will settle your accounts.

I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ.

If not, we are all lost. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

The only reason I can think of is fear of poverty.

Or incredible (godly) patience, faith, and love. Sister Gui and I have a good friend who fits that description.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Did she have triplets or twins?  How old was she when she had the last one?

No twins or triplets. She was somewhere between her mid to late 40s when she had her youngest. My wife was the 4th of the 8. It's remarkable that she had so many kids starting so late. 

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Gray, the problem of not have due process is that a citizen is punished without ever being guilty of a crime or anything else.  The only thing that has been done is that another citizen has made an accusation.  For example,  next week an individual with whom you worked with at company "A" makes an accusation that you molested them ten years ago while at work.  Upon this accusation being made public you are fired from your job and no one will hire you.  Does this sound fair and just?  We have due process so that each and every citizen actually is not punished for crimes unless actually being found guilty of a crime.

 

Due process applies to law enforcement, not employment. Most people who are let go of their jobs are not let go because they were found guilty of something in a court of law.

[CA Steve]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

When was he first publicly accused of abuse? You seem to think this was known when the DN article was written. Perhaps you know more about that.

The FBI knew then because of private interviews with the wives. Was it public knowledge, though? They didn’t reveal it.

The sources below say it just now became public. When you write a puff piece, how deep should you dig in the dirt? Perhaps the DN could have scooped the Daily News...

From the OP article...

It might have wings.

 What I know is that the article was published after he divorced two different women. Are you saying the DN didn't have any responsibility to interview his ex wives?

He is a very bright, good looking very wealthy LDS man with two ex wives. In our culture those are pretty big red flag, especially for someone who is the focus of a puff piece. How hard can it be to pick up the phone and call the wives? 

So yes, that is a reasonable expectation, which is validated by the fact the author is apologizing for the article.

I am not sure why you are defending DN when they themselves acknowledged a problem?

 

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by CA Steve

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

 What I know is that the article was published after he divorced two different women. Are you saying the DN didn't have any responsibility to interview his ex wives?

 

 

I thought it was an opinion piece, not an investigative report?

There is also such a thing as privacy and there is no way of knowing beforehand if the exwives would view calls about their ex husbands as intrusive.  Many people want to just move on with their lives when ties are cut with no children and not been see as connected or somehow accountable to others for telling their exspouse's stories to the world...over and over again.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Calm

[CA Steve]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I thought it was an opinion piece, not an investigative report?

There is also such a thing as privacy and there is no way of knowing beforehand if the exwives would view calls about their ex husbands as intrusive.  Many people want to just move on with their lives when ties are cut with no children and not been see as connected or somehow accountable to others for telling their exspouse's stories to the world...over and over again.

Again, how hard is it to make a phone call?  If there was no error in the opinion piece (IOW the same standards do not apply for some reason) why did the DN publish an apology for the initial piece? Why are we defending the DN when they themselves recognize an error had been made?

 

The author himself said

Quote

If I was even slightly aware of the allegations which have recently surfaced against Mr. Porter, I would not have written this column, and I certainly would not have deployed such effusive prose. The journalistic failings of this column are mine alone

He rightly acknowledges  the "journalist failings". Maybe we should stop trying to defend what he himself says was wrong?

[juliann]

18 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Gray, the problem of not have due process is that a citizen is punished without ever being guilty of a crime or anything else.  The only thing that has been done is that another citizen has made an accusation.  For example,  next week an individual with whom you worked with at company "A" makes an accusation that you molested them ten years ago while at work.  Upon this accusation being made public you are fired from your job and no one will hire you.  Does this sound fair and just?  We have due process so that each and every citizen actually is not punished for crimes unless actually being found guilty of a crime.

 

Except what is really happening is that it is rarely (if ever) one accusation. That is what is different now.  These creeps are serial abusers, shouldn't that be a DUH? Do you not get that is what created the #metoo movement?? That is the only reason women are now being believed, there are too many of them for men to cover it up. 

What in the world would it take for you to approve of a man being fired?  

[juliann]

18 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

 

I think maybe we are going to go through a rather turbulent time before we ever get to a fair environment for all students.  Whereas before males were not punished and females were never heard - now we have males just have to breathe and they thrown out of universities and/or lose their jobs. This is not a good time for our society. 

And now we know why men are so afraid of equality....they are terrified women will do to them what they have done to women. My advice? Buck up. Welcome to our world. Your sex created it, now live in it.

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Due process applies to law enforcement, not employment. Most people who are let go of their jobs are not let go because they were found guilty of something in a court of law.

Yes, that is correct.  I am glad you pointed that out; it is a vital point.  Tell me, you seem to know a lot about this topic - how many people are let go of jobs based solely on an allegation with no proof and no evidence of any wrong doing?  Do you have any statistics on that?

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Yes, that is correct.  I am glad you pointed that out; it is a vital point.  Tell me, you seem to know a lot about this topic - how many people are let go of jobs based solely on an allegation with no proof and no evidence of any wrong doing?  Do you have any statistics on that?

I don't know of any statistics, but I suspect the conclusions of any study would be difficult to interpret given the significant differences in employment law across state lines.

[Storm Rider]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

Except what is really happening is that it is rarely (if ever) one accusation. That is what is different now.  These creeps are serial abusers, shouldn't that be a DUH? Do you not get that is what created the #metoo movement?? That is the only reason women are now being believed, there are too many of them for men to cover it up. 

What in the world would it take for you to approve of a man being fired?  

This is one of those "DUH" questions that seems obvious.  I think an individual should be fired based on the same standard regardless of gender.  I don't think there should be a separate standard for anyone.  

For example, you used the term "serial" abusers.  I assume that means at least more than one.  There is currently a leader of the #ME TOO movement in the California assembly that has had two separate instances of groping other individuals.  In this instance the abuser is a female, Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia.  Did she quit?  No.  Were there calls for her to step down?  Nope.  

I have linked to three different articles about the allegations against her.  What is surprising is that she has stated she would not work with another assembly member, a male, who had allegations brought against him.  I think he resigned from his position though was not leaving his position for several months.  She has one standard for men and a completely different standard for herself.  She has stated that she has no recollection of groping either staffer and that it was against her standards.....therefore she will wait for an investigation to be completed to prove her guilt or innocence.  

See the problem with that?  What is so shocking to me is the absence of women asking for her to resign.  NOTHING!  It has been reported and no female, not ME TOO group, no JUSTICE group lead by females has stepped forward and demanded the same standard be enforced for a female that they demand for a male.  

In fact, no female on this board has talked about it that I have read. 

When the hypocrisy is this loud why should any man think this movement is about justice?  About accountability?  When the same light that has been focused on men in power is focused on women in power how do you think it is going to shake out?  Will the same standard be used?  Based on what has happened to Cristina Garcia I have my doubts that women are ready to live and judge other women by the same standard they demand of men.  

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

And now we know why men are so afraid of equality....they are terrified women will do to them what they have done to women. My advice? Buck up. Welcome to our world. Your sex created it, now live in it.

No need to buck up - my counsel to every small business owned by a man - get rid of every woman in your employ and never hire another one.  Women represent a liability too great for any small to medium sized business to accept.  You can lose your entire business based solely on an allegation.  

I remember how many of you ridiculed VP Pense when he said he would not go to lunch alone with a woman.  My counsel is not no man should ever be alone with a woman for any reason at any time in business or in a social function.  

Now, Buck up, Juliann. lets see how this plays out now that you support this wonderful puritan world.  Get ready, it is going to have some serious repercussions for everyone. 

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by Storm Rider

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No need to buck up - my counsel to every small business owned by a man - get rid of every woman in your employ and never hire another one.  Women represent a liability to great.  You can lose your entire business based solely on an allegation.  

I remember how many of you ridiculed VP Pense when he said he would not go to lunch alone with a woman.  My counsel is not no man should ever be alone with a woman for any reason at any time in business or in a social function.  

Now, Buck up, Juliann. lets see how this plays out now that you support this wonderful puritan world.  Get ready, it is going to have some serious repercussions for everyone. 

 

You have GOT to be kidding.  Even in the most employer-friendly states, this would be a totally illegal thing to do; not to mention immoral.

Edited February 16, 2018 by ttribe

[Calm]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Again, how hard is it to make a phone call?  If there was no error in the opinion piece (IOW the same standards do not apply for some reason) why did the DN publish an apology for the initial piece? Why are we defending the DN when they themselves recognize an error had been made?

 

The author himself said

He rightly acknowledges  the "journalist failings". Maybe we should stop trying to defend what he himself says was wrong?

I am not defending DN, I am thinking about the exwives' normal preferences.

[CA Steve]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not defending DN, I am thinking about the exwives' normal preferences.

My experience with watching news reporters pushing microphones in the faces of people who just learned a family member had tragically died, tells me that reporters care very little for the feelings of victims and their families.

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by CA Steve

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

 What I know is that the article was published after he divorced two different women. Are you saying the DN didn't have any responsibility to interview his ex wives?

He is a very bright, good looking very wealthy LDS man with two ex wives. In our culture those are pretty big red flag, especially for someone who is the focus of a puff piece. How hard can it be to pick up the phone and call the wives? 

So yes, that is a reasonable expectation, which is validated by the fact the author is apologizing for the article.

I am not sure why you are defending DN when they themselves acknowledged a problem?

 

 

Did you not see my comment that the DN could have scooped the Daily News? Just after the question about how deep does one dig in a puff piece.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

And now we know why men are so afraid of equality....they are terrified women will do to them what they have done to women. My advice? Buck up. Welcome to our world. Your sex created it, now live in it.

That’s kind of an unfair blanket statement. 

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Yes, that is correct.  I am glad you pointed that out; it is a vital point.  Tell me, you seem to know a lot about this topic - how many people are let go of jobs based solely on an allegation with no proof and no evidence of any wrong doing?  Do you have any statistics on that?

Probably just about everyone who is fired is fired based solely on allegations. Usually based on alleged poor performance.