Rob Porter, and Mormonism's #MeToo Moment

[MiserereNobis]

17 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

For your first point - I like it when we use really gruesome words to make it even worse than it is. I am talking about sins in general; abuse takes many forms and all of them can be done without be vicious or repeated.  Great, live by the standard you judge others and lets see how this turns out for you.  I already have my popcorn and enjoy a good, gruesome, horrible finish.

Gads, the exaggeration that goes on.  What I am suggesting is that humans are multidimensional individuals; that not a single human has lived perfectly; that an individual - male or female - can do very bad things while also doing good things; that some of the humans we call monsters are just human while there are real monsters - Pol Pot comes to mind, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin Dada, etc., these are monsters.  Are all individuals that have emotionally or even physically abused their spouse monsters the same type of individuals as these others?  Talk to me about what is disturbing again....I am having a major problem with your definitions and the sanctimonious manner in which our society is now judging other humans willy-nilly.  

What terrifies me is the counsel not to judge or that we will be judged in the same manner.  I am concerned that so many blindly jump on the any social band wagon without thinking it through and understanding what is really being said and done.  Lastly, I really detest the new class of Puritans that want a perfect society as long as they themselves will never be judged or measured by the same standard they burn everyone else. 

I think it is perfectly acceptable to hold those in power to higher standards than those without power. And I'll judge those with the same standards I'd judge myself. If I beat my wife, I shouldn't be an advisor to the president, either. If I abuse children, I shouldn't be a teacher. Etc.

And while your point is true, we are multi-dimensional characters, isn't a good thing that society is upping its standards to say this behavior or that behavior is unacceptable? I mean, we are talking about spousal abuse here, which is pretty heinous. I guess I'm perfectly ok with him losing his job at the White House for doing something against the law.

[HappyJackWagon]

I feel badly for these women who suffered.

I also feel badly for the bishops who were likely involved over their heads. I'm sure they did the best they could under the circumstances. Calm's previous post really nailed it, IMO, for why the bishop's counsel that a restraining order could really hurt her husband's career was actually reasonable. It would have been important for her to consider all angles, not just for her abusive husband but also for her own benefit.

A bishop should help the individual think about important issues and encourage them to make their own decisions. Frankly, a bishop shouldn't be advising a woman to divorce, or not to divorce. The best thing a bishop can do is recognize he isn't equipped to handle some of these kinds of things and forward them on to appropriate authorities and counselors. I think part of the cultural problem revolves around the notion so many people have that the bishop is their one stop shop for family/marriage/financial/employment/spiritual counseling. A culture seems to have been built up the idea that a bishop will be inspired to help congregants in all of these ways so they should consult him, when they really should consult professionals. People expect too much of bishops. It's the honest truth. They shouldn't be blamed for these expectations because they come to it honestly. The culture has supported these high expectations for many decades. IMO it's an issue that should be addressed at the highest levels.

I would estimate that 60% of all fast offering expenditures I approved were for counseling. That probably seems really high to a lot of people, but counseling is expensive and the need is ubiquitous.

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sure they'd say Catholic bishop, if that were the case.

Honestly I doubt it.  There are a lot of very liberal Catholics, and CNN has a decided lean to the left.  And there are a LOT more Catholics than Mormons.  Of course we have our share of liberals as well but that is not our sterotype.

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't think the amount of criticism or derision a society holds for a religion should be the marker of the truthfulness of a religion. Otherwise you and I should sign up for a stress test with the Scientologists

 

LOL yes you right!  But I am already cool with them because in the olden days I actually got audited and got to hold the tin cans.  In the beginning, honestly they really looked like tin cans- very crude!

http://exscientologykids.com/e-meter/

Quote

The person who is operating the E-meter is usually called the “auditor”, while the person holding the tubes (called “cans”) is called the pre-clear, or PC. In Scientology auditing, the auditor asks the PC questions from one of many prepared auditing lists written by Hubbard. After each question, the auditor checks the needle movement of the E-meter. If there is needle movement on that question, the auditor probes the PC further on that point. 

Hey I have been bumping around the ol' religion biz for a while now!    I feel like the ball in a religious pin ball machine!  I have even forgotten half the religions I have explored until someone mentions them.  So have a good nam-myoho-renge-kyo day!

http://www.sgi.org/about-us/nam-myoho-renge-kyo.html

 

Edited February 10, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Storm Rider]

26 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think it is perfectly acceptable to hold those in power to higher standards than those without power. And I'll judge those with the same standards I'd judge myself. If I beat my wife, I shouldn't be an advisor to the president, either. If I abuse children, I shouldn't be a teacher. Etc.

And while your point is true, we are multi-dimensional characters, isn't a good thing that society is upping its standards to say this behavior or that behavior is unacceptable? I mean, we are talking about spousal abuse here, which is pretty heinous. I guess I'm perfectly ok with him losing his job at the White House for doing something against the law.

MiserereNobis, the fact that a society chooses to be a more righteous people is a good thing. However, I don't think the current movement has anything to do with being righteous or a desire to become more holy.  It has absolutely nothing to do with religion or morals.  I see this strictly in terms of political power. 

I wish it was about a sincere desire for righteousness.  Do you see it as such?

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I feel badly for these women who suffered.

I also feel badly for the bishops who were likely involved over their heads. I'm sure they did the best they could under the circumstances. Calm's previous post really nailed it, IMO, for why the bishop's counsel that a restraining order could really hurt her husband's career was actually reasonable. It would have been important for her to consider all angles, not just for her abusive husband but also for her own benefit.

A bishop should help the individual think about important issues and encourage them to make their own decisions. Frankly, a bishop shouldn't be advising a woman to divorce, or not to divorce. The best thing a bishop can do is recognize he isn't equipped to handle some of these kinds of things and forward them on to appropriate authorities and counselors. I think part of the cultural problem revolves around the notion so many people have that the bishop is their one stop shop for family/marriage/financial/employment/spiritual counseling. A culture seems to have been built up the idea that a bishop will be inspired to help congregants in all of these ways so they should consult him, when they really should consult professionals. People expect too much of bishops. It's the honest truth. They shouldn't be blamed for these expectations because they come to it honestly. The culture has supported these high expectations for many decades. IMO it's an issue that should be addressed at the highest levels.

I would estimate that 60% of all fast offering expenditures I approved were for counseling. That probably seems really high to a lot of people, but counseling is expensive and the need is ubiquitous.

Honestly I think the bishop would have to be an idiot to NOT call in the pro's early in the game as soon as he figured out what the problems are.

I kind of saw myself as a gate-keeper with my function simply to find who else might be qualified to handle the problem.  Delegation!  If it was a doctrinal issue, "not living the commandments" or a repentance problem I was all over it.  But a genuine marital issue or someone who was mentally ill?  Fergitaboutit, call the legal line if necessary and turn it over to a pro immediately!

Who would NOT know to do that?  It is just weird to me that these guys think they can handle it.

Few know that bishops have a LOT of ability to get pros involved with hot-lines to Salt Lake etc - so even if we are not "qualified" there is help for us a phone call away.  There is no excuse not to use those options

Edited February 10, 2018 by mfbukowski

[CA Steve]

The term "leadership roulette" is perhaps a bit cynical, but there is also some truth to it. I have been around long enough to have seen 1st hand how dozens of bishops and perhaps 10-20 stake presidents, served. IMO 95% of them were honest dedicated hard working men. (I love making up statistics.) And while the dedication of these men did not vary much, their abilities were/are all over the place. So the church has a dilemma. We proudly declare our lay leadership to the world, where we have unpaid volunteers serving at nearly all levels. At the same time a cornerstone of our belief is that we are led by the spirit in our own lives and for those with stewardship, over the lives of those we serve. So what is the church to do? It would be impossible to adequately train each and every stake president and bishop in all the areas in which they are expected by members to advise. As HJW points out above, bishops are seen as advisers in a wide variety of fields. To his list I might add health concerns, both physical and mental health. I have too often see a bishop trying to deal with a mental health issue as if a blessing, prayer and/or obedience can somehow solve/cure them. In some cases a religious leader is the worst person for someone with mental heath issues to seek help from.

I believe the starting point would be to get members to understand that a bishop, in all likelihood, is not more qualified to advise them in matters unrelated to spiritual needs (finances, health, marriage and family counseling, employment etc.) than any one else. At best, members should be going to a bishop for advise on where to go for help in those areas.

Secondly I think bishops should be trained to stay away from offering anything but the most general advise in those areas as well as some training on who to recommend when members do ask.

 

This already may be standard procedure, but my immediate experience is that if it is, I know bishops who are not following it. 

Edited February 10, 2018 by CA Steve

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

For your first point - I like it when we use really gruesome words to make it even worse than it is. I am talking about sins in general; abuse takes many forms and all of them can be done without be vicious or repeated.  Great, live by the standard you judge others and lets see how this turns out for you.  I already have my popcorn and enjoy a good, gruesome, horrible finish.

Gads, the exaggeration that goes on.  What I am suggesting is that humans are multidimensional individuals; that not a single human has lived perfectly; that an individual - male or female - can do very bad things while also doing good things; that some of the humans we call monsters are just human while there are real monsters - Pol Pot comes to mind, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin Dada, etc., these are monsters.  Are all individuals that have emotionally or even physically abused their spouse monsters the same type of individuals as these others?  Talk to me about what is disturbing again....I am having a major problem with your definitions and the sanctimonious manner in which our society is now judging other humans willy-nilly.  

What terrifies me is the counsel not to judge or that we will be judged in the same manner.  I am concerned that so many blindly jump on the any social band wagon without thinking it through and understanding what is really being said and done.  Lastly, I really detest the new class of Puritans that want a perfect society as long as they themselves will never be judged or measured by the same standard they burn everyone else. 

I am curious, did you watch her interview?

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

However, I don't think the current movement has anything to do with being righteous or a desire to become more holy.  It has absolutely nothing to do with religion or morals.  I see this strictly in terms of political power. 

You're painting with a pretty broad brush there using words like "absolutely" and "strictly," which means that you think that every single person in the #MeToo movement isn't sincere about improving our society but is instead only in it for political power. Am I understanding you correctly?

11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I wish it was about a sincere desire for righteousness.  Do you see it as such?

Overall, yes, though I think proponents might not use the word "righteousness" but instead "justice." In other words, for many involved it is more of a moral issue than a religious one, though of course the two overlap. In any movement you are going to have extremists and those who want power -- no denying that -- but the basic underlying desire is for justice, fairness, and equality.

There is always the danger in any movement that it swings too far and destroys itself. I hope this movement figures out how to avoid that. But telling men, powerful or not, that there will be consequences when they abuse, demean, objectify, and dehumanize women is a good thing. Jesus tells us to be on the side of the weak, the abused, the oppressed. For far too long women have been in that category.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Honestly I think the bishop would have to be an idiot to NOT call in the pro's early in the game as soon as he figured out what the problems are.

I kind of saw myself as a gate-keeper with my function simply to find who else might be qualified to handle the problem.  Delegation!  If it was a doctrinal issue, "not living the commandments" or a repentance problem I was all over it.  But a genuine marital issue or someone who was mentally ill?  Fergitaboutit, call the legal line if necessary and turn it over to a pro immediately!

Who would NOT know to do that?  It is just weird to me that these guys think they can handle it.

Few know that bishops have a LOT of ability to get pros involved with hot-lines to Salt Lake etc - so even if we are not "qualified" there is help for us a phone call away.  There is no excuse not to use those options

This happens a lot. Bishops start believing the hype about the role, righteousness, skill, discernment etc of the bishop. They trust in their call and believe they will be inspired to help in any situation thrown at them. You've never known people, or even bishops, who think they have all the answers? That is weird to me.

In this kind of case, I think it is quite understandable for a bishop to feel his calling is to save an eternal marriage. If that is the preset goal, which I think it would be for many people, then a lack of training and an excess of believe/trust in themselves, it would be very easy for a bishop to send the wrong message to someone he things may be suffering from abuse.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Why is there no audio?  Or is she perhaps less articulate than you thought?

It works well for me on Google Chrome.  Maybe your browser is the problem, or your sound is turned off.

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Honestly I think the bishop would have to be an idiot to NOT call in the pro's early in the game as soon as he figured out what the problems are.

I kind of saw myself as a gate-keeper with my function simply to find who else might be qualified to handle the problem.  Delegation!  If it was a doctrinal issue, "not living the commandments" or a repentance problem I was all over it.  But a genuine marital issue or someone who was mentally ill?  Fergitaboutit, call the legal line if necessary and turn it over to a pro immediately!

Who would NOT know to do that?  It is just weird to me that these guys think they can handle it.

Few know that bishops have a LOT of ability to get pros involved with hot-lines to Salt Lake etc - so even if we are not "qualified" there is help for us a phone call away.  There is no excuse not to use those options

This was my experience when I was a bishop.

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Honestly I think the bishop would have to be an idiot to NOT call in the pro's early in the game as soon as he figured out what the problems are.

I kind of saw myself as a gate-keeper with my function simply to find who else might be qualified to handle the problem.  Delegation!  If it was a doctrinal issue, "not living the commandments" or a repentance problem I was all over it.  But a genuine marital issue or someone who was mentally ill?  Fergitaboutit, call the legal line if necessary and turn it over to a pro immediately!

Who would NOT know to do that?  It is just weird to me that these guys think they can handle it.

Few know that bishops have a LOT of ability to get pros involved with hot-lines to Salt Lake etc - so even if we are not "qualified" there is help for us a phone call away.  There is no excuse not to use those options

The thing is...as a bishop, would you not be just plain scared of making a good decision?  I agree with you here.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Jeanne

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

MiserereNobis, the fact that a society chooses to be a more righteous people is a good thing. However, I don't think the current movement has anything to do with being righteous or a desire to become more holy.  It has absolutely nothing to do with religion or morals.  I see this strictly in terms of political power. 

I wish it was about a sincere desire for righteousness.  Do you see it as such?

I think you are mistaken.  This is not about political power, and it is not about righteousness.  I realize that the evangelical community is quite comfortable with a president and administration pleasing to Satan, but they also miss the point.

The government is about professionalism and proper conduct of the people's business.  It is not a religious endeavor, and should not be.  We simply cannot have people in high places who have major character defects which prevent them from getting security clearances.  Why?  Because they can easily be blackmailed, and their character defects indicate that they have a low regard for high integrity.  Jekyll-Hyde anger issues are also a problem in deciding on whether to seek war or diplomacy.  People without patience and charitable attitudes are unlikely to understand or make appropriate decisions on important issues.  We do not need chaos and backbiting in govt.  I am not comfortable with an administration which does just what Putin wants them to do.   Instead, I expect govt employees to be loyal, honest, consistent, and reliable. 

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This happens a lot. Bishops start believing the hype about the role, righteousness, skill, discernment etc of the bishop. They trust in their call and believe they will be inspired to help in any situation thrown at them. You've never known people, or even bishops, who think they have all the answers? That is weird to me.

In this kind of case, I think it is quite understandable for a bishop to feel his calling is to save an eternal marriage. If that is the preset goal, which I think it would be for many people, then a lack of training and an excess of believe/trust in themselves, it would be very easy for a bishop to send the wrong message to someone he things may be suffering from abuse.

Define "a lot." Isn't one instance too much? How many bishops out of all you've known fit the profile you're describing? How many members out of all you've known don't make their own decisions about the spiritual guidance and temporal referrals they receive from their bishops?

[Storm Rider]

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You're painting with a pretty broad brush there using words like "absolutely" and "strictly," which means that you think that every single person in the #MeToo movement isn't sincere about improving our society but is instead only in it for political power. Am I understanding you correctly?

Overall, yes, though I think proponents might not use the word "righteousness" but instead "justice." In other words, for many involved it is more of a moral issue than a religious one, though of course the two overlap. In any movement you are going to have extremists and those who want power -- no denying that -- but the basic underlying desire is for justice, fairness, and equality.

There is always the danger in any movement that it swings too far and destroys itself. I hope this movement figures out how to avoid that. But telling men, powerful or not, that there will be consequences when they abuse, demean, objectify, and dehumanize women is a good thing. Jesus tells us to be on the side of the weak, the abused, the oppressed. For far too long women have been in that category.

MN, I think that those individuals who have been abused are seeking justice and it is not about political power. However, I think they are being used to achieve political objectives.  My mind is at the macro level of this social upheaval and the intent of my language follows that.  I will admit that I don't have a very good perception of anyone in politics or who are leading these kinds of social movements. I think they are all hypocrites and liars with morals that are fungible.  I don't even think they have a sense of justice.  It is only about power - wanting it and willing to do anything to get it.  

When morals or righteousness are unhinged from God I think they lose direction and will inevitably will destroy themselves.  I completely support that men, any man, that abuses their spouse or another woman should be held accountable.  In the same manner I believe that women should be held to the same standards for abuse of their spouse or children.  I see a disconnect between the two, particularly in this current movement.  A woman can emotionally abuse her husband without any degree of being held accountable because men are supposed to be capable of handling it. Yet, it is without fail that we hear the constant refrain that a man emotionally abused a woman and everyone swoons at shocking revelation that the poor, defenseless, weak, oppressed woman was forced to endure emotional abuse.  There is just so much double speak - a very one-sided standard of fairness.  

No, I don't think Jesus tells us to be "on the side" of the weak, the abused, and the oppressed.  I find that what the Bible teaches us is that the answer for the weak, the abused, and oppressed is found in Jesus Christ.  I may be tripping over semantics here too.  We are told to defend the weak and the oppressed - which I think can be stated as being on the their side.  Where defend does not concern me I don't know why the other does concern me.  

I hope to be as wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove while being surrounded by wolves that only seek the destruction of Jesus Christ, his gospel, and those who seek to follow him. 

[Storm Rider]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am curious, did you watch her interview?

No, I have not done so.  I mentioned on another recent post that I am focused on the macro level of this movement.  

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Define "a lot." Isn't one instance too much? How many bishops out of all you've known fit the profile you're describing? How many members out of all you've known don't make their own decisions about the spiritual guidance and temporal referrals they receive from their bishops?

I think the vast majority of bishops I have known felt that the things they said and did were inspired. Even when they didn't make good decisions or say wise things. So why did they believe inspiration was the default? A- they believed the hype of the calling and the gifts associated with the ordination B- members treated them like they had the answers.

I was shocked by the number of members who would want me to tell them what to do. They may have their opinions and seek validation, or they honestly wanted the bishop to make the inspired decision for them. I found this very concerning and did all I could to address it. People actually got upset with me when I wouldn't make important decisions for them. Honestly. They thought I was slacking and not seeking the spirit on their behalf when I really wanted them to seek the spirit for themselves and own their own decisions.

 

[Storm Rider]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think you are mistaken.  This is not about political power, and it is not about righteousness.  I realize that the evangelical community is quite comfortable with a president and administration pleasing to Satan, but they also miss the point.

The government is about professionalism and proper conduct of the people's business.  It is not a religious endeavor, and should not be.  We simply cannot have people in high places who have major character defects which prevent them from getting security clearances.  Why?  Because they can easily be blackmailed, and their character defects indicate that they have a low regard for high integrity.  Jekyll-Hyde anger issues are also a problem in deciding on whether to seek war or diplomacy.  People without patience and charitable attitudes are unlikely to understand or make appropriate decisions on important issues.  We do not need chaos and backbiting in govt.  I am not comfortable with an administration which does just what Putin wants them to do.   Instead, I expect govt employees to be loyal, honest, consistent, and reliable. 

Robert, we agree.  My position is that that standard be uniformly met by all people at all times regardless of party affiliation, gender, religion, etc.  

Let me make myself clear - I detest the type of man, his manner, his speaking, his words that are found in Trump.  He is anathema to me, my beliefs, and my desire for a political leader.  I pity anyone that works for him.  I detest Democratic leadership because I find them morally bankrupt - which is exactly what I find within the Republican leadership.  I just hope that the people of the United States make sure Trump serves at most a single term before turning him out to be shunned for the rest of his life by simple, decent citizens.

[Storm Rider]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think the vast majority of bishops I have known felt that the things they said and did were inspired. Even when they didn't make good decisions or say wise things. So why did they believe inspiration was the default? A- they believed the hype of the calling and the gifts associated with the ordination B- members treated them like they had the answers.

I was shocked by the number of members who would want me to tell them what to do. They may have their opinions and seek validation, or they honestly wanted the bishop to make the inspired decision for them. I found this very concerning and did all I could to address it. People actually got upset with me when I wouldn't make important decisions for them. Honestly. They thought I was slacking and not seeking the spirit on their behalf when I really wanted them to seek the spirit for themselves and own their own decisions.

Slacker,  you should have least given me the correct Lotto numbers once!

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, I don't think Jesus tells us to be "on the side" of the weak, the abused, and the oppressed.  I find that what the Bible teaches us is that the answer for the weak, the abused, and oppressed is found in Jesus Christ.  I may be tripping over semantics here too.  We are told to defend the weak and the oppressed - which I think can be stated as being on the their side.  Where defend does not concern me I don't know why the other does concern me.  

That's fine, we can go with defend. I'll reword my statement:

Jesus tells us to defend the weak, the abused, the oppressed. For far too long women have been in that category.

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

I   thought it was great she talked about redemption in relation  to her ex-husband.  Men can change, other men need to talk with them, show them a better way. I read once that anger was because of either fear, frustration or hurt.  

Ultimately, anger is a self-centered or selfish emotion. We experience it when we feel we have been wronged, we feel hurt, etc. To overcome it, we only need think of others. This can be a challenge, but it is about mental discipline and selflessness. This is really what the story of Job is about or maybe the story of Abraham and Isaac. How many people would be angry in their situation? Many people get angry and frustrated with God. I am not immune. It is a battle between the natural man and the righteous/loving man. Rather than just being subject to our emotions, to learn to control them, and overcome natural tendencies, makes the man(and woman) better, and more like God. 

Porter's second ex-wife seems like an amazing person. She seems to have conquered the anger Porter apparently has yet to master. That is the difference. She recognizes that Porter may be able to learn to do so, and expresses that hope for him. That is huge for her, and speaks volumes for the beautiful person she is. My hat is off to her. Hopefully, Porter himself, can learn from this, and change. I have seen it. There is hope. I have seen abusers mellow and change, and save their marriage. I hope that for Porter, but ultimately he has to realize he needs to change, and want to change. We should not condemn him to a life of shame, but support him to the extent that he expresses a desire to be a better person. That is the best way to overcome the natural man that rages in many abusive relationships, and has not learned better because of abusive childhoods, weak upbringing, etc.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think the vast majority of bishops I have known felt that the things they said and did were inspired. Even when they didn't make good decisions or say wise things. So why did they believe inspiration was the default? A- they believed the hype of the calling and the gifts associated with the ordination B- members treated them like they had the answers.

I was shocked by the number of members who would want me to tell them what to do. They may have their opinions and seek validation, or they honestly wanted the bishop to make the inspired decision for them. I found this very concerning and did all I could to address it. People actually got upset with me when I wouldn't make important decisions for them. Honestly. They thought I was slacking and not seeking the spirit on their behalf when I really wanted them to seek the spirit for themselves and own their own decisions.

 

But you don't know what these bishops actually believed about themselves, unless they told you. These are only your perceptions, and we know how that can go. At least you seem to have an opinion about how you would believe in holding the office of bishop.

Are you saying you were a bishop and were an exception to what you are saying about the vast majority of other bishops? Did you counsel people in abusive marriages? How did you handle "this kind of case" (your use of this terminology raises some questions for me)? Is there anything you would have done differently, in hindsight? 

[bsjkki]

And what do you all make of this story. http://fox13now.com/2018/02/09/utah-senator-says-woman-tried-to-entrap-him-at-hotel/  A purposeful setup?

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

For your first point - I like it when we use really gruesome words to make it even worse than it is. I am talking about sins in general; abuse takes many forms and all of them can be done without be vicious or repeated.  Great, live by the standard you judge others and lets see how this turns out for you.  I already have my popcorn and enjoy a good, gruesome, horrible finish.

Gads, the exaggeration that goes on.  What I am suggesting is that humans are multidimensional individuals; that not a single human has lived perfectly; that an individual - male or female - can do very bad things while also doing good things; that some of the humans we call monsters are just human while there are real monsters - Pol Pot comes to mind, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin Dada, etc., these are monsters.  Are all individuals that have emotionally or even physically abused their spouse monsters the same type of individuals as these others?  Talk to me about what is disturbing again....I am having a major problem with your definitions and the sanctimonious manner in which our society is now judging other humans willy-nilly.  

What terrifies me is the counsel not to judge or that we will be judged in the same manner.  I am concerned that so many blindly jump on the any social band wagon without thinking it through and understanding what is really being said and done.  Lastly, I really detest the new class of Puritans that want a perfect society as long as they themselves will never be judged or measured by the same standard they burn everyone else. 

So first you backtrack to not talking about abuse despite this thread about abuse and then you try to dismiss the fight against abuse as some kind of trendy social bandwagon? Again....disturbing.

I don't beat women. I have hurt some with words but I am not emotionally abusive towards men or women. I really do not think this is a high bar to clear or some crazy worldly standard I am jumping on. If holding that standard keeps me out of heaven because I am too harsh on others who will be there I am not sure I want to go there anyways.

Jacob's counsel on being abusive to your wives and children probably applies here. Was Jacob jumping on some silly social trend?