Rob Porter, and Mormonism's #MeToo Moment

[The Nehor]

3 hours 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?

Wait, so the entire "don't beat or assault women" movement is calculated to bring down a political party. If a political party is that susceptible to that movement bringing them down maybe that party should reevaluate itself.

[Jeanne]

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. 

I am trying to see your point..but having a hard time.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am trying to see your point..but having a hard time.

If I parse him correctly he condemns abuse, condemns the idiots in the Trump White House involved with abuse including Trump, and anyone else involved. On the other hand he also sees the call to end abuse as being used to score political points by one side of the spectrum and hopes everyone will vote for the party that put an abuser in office and continues to defend him because otherwise the whole thing is being coopted.

I can sympathize a little bit. I was an old school Republican. As soon as they go back to being about fiscal responsibility, boot the Evangelical crazies to the curb, and focus on practical solutions instead of denial of the facts and blind stupid ideological "principles" that they seem to think will magically conjure results despite all evidence to the contrary I will probably go back to them. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Edited February 10, 2018 by The Nehor

[mfbukowski]

3 hours 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.

 

Nope, in 40 years in the church, all in callings in which I have at least been required to attend  PEC,  I have never met a bishop who thought he had all the answers based on his authority especially if it is seen as an authorization for abuse.   Honestly- I can't think of one.

We have some ethnic wards in our stake and I do not speak all the languages spoken there and do not know those bishops well, so that might be the case there- I don't know.

I have also been on the HC for a number of years and was assigned to many other wards and have not seen it there either.

California. Maybe we are just more "enlightened" in the land of fruits and nuts.     Since they are everywhere we are used to turning troubled folks over to the experts.  That statement may not be PC but such is life!

 

Edited February 10, 2018 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Nope, in 40 years in the church, all in callings in which I have at least been required to attend  PEC,  I have never met a bishop who thought he had all the answers based on his authority especially if it is seen as an authorization for abuse.   Honestly- I can't think of one.

We have some ethnic wards in our stake and I do not speak all the languages spoken there and do not know those bishops well, so that might be the case there- I don't know.

I have also been on the HC for a number of years and was assigned to many other wards and have not seen it there either.

California. Maybe we are just more "enlightened" in the land of fruits and nuts.     Since they are everywhere we are used to turning wackos over to the experts.  That statement may not be PC but such is life!

 

Yeah, I have never seen a bishop like that either. Maybe they exist but I have never met one. I have met bishop's whose leadership style rubs me the wrong way but that is not the same thing. They still sought counsel.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I have never seen a bishop like that either. Maybe they exist but I have never met one. I have met bishop's whose leadership style rubs me the wrong way but that is not the same thing. They still sought counsel.

In the eyes of two witnesses.... 

 

[Duncan]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nope, in 40 years in the church, all in callings in which I have at least been required to attend  PEC,  I have never met a bishop who thought he had all the answers based on his authority especially if it is seen as an authorization for abuse.   Honestly- I can't think of one.

We have some ethnic wards in our stake and I do not speak all the languages spoken there and do not know those bishops well, so that might be the case there- I don't know.

I have also been on the HC for a number of years and was assigned to many other wards and have not seen it there either.

California. Maybe we are just more "enlightened" in the land of fruits and nuts.     Since they are everywhere we are used to turning troubled folks over to the experts.  That statement may not be PC but such is life!

 

I had two Bishops who thought they knew everything and had to do everything, I recall one saying he has several hats, one hat for this one hat for that. I can see if I can transfer their records to you so you can deal with them and all their blooming hats!

[CA Steve]

I suspect that as men we might find that women are a lot more likely to feel like they're dealing with a leader who thinks he knows everything than we are as men. I have had conversations with women who were experiencing difficulties with bishops who I considered great leaders.

As far as my experience dealing with a leader who thought he knew everything, our last stake president came off that way to me, but that was the exception from others I have known.

I do find it interesting how this thread is progressing when one considers the gender of the posters.

[Gervin]

8 hours ago, USU78 said:

What is Anthony Weiner's religion?

it's right there ... in his name

[Duncan]

Is there some law that says the Church can't say if someone was excommunicated or at least disciplined by the Church? I know with this Rob story the Church says that it's against abuse but it doesn't say that this particular person would be at least subject to Church discipline with the possible outcome of .... 

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If I parse him correctly he condemns abuse, condemns the idiots in the Trump White House involved with abuse including Trump, and anyone else involved. On the other hand he also sees the call to end abuse as being used to score political points by one side of the spectrum and hopes everyone will vote for the party that put an abuser in office and continues to defend him because otherwise the whole thing is being coopted.

I can sympathize a little bit. I was an old school Republican. As soon as they go back to being about fiscal responsibility, boot the Evangelical crazies to the curb, and focus on practical solutions instead of denial of the facts and blind stupid ideological "principles" that they seem to think will magically conjure results despite all evidence to the contrary I will probably go back to them. I don't see that happening any time soon.

I don't support either party and haven't for a while.  I am a fiscal and social conservative and we don't have any party that represents those positions.  The rest an acceptable summary - not perfect, but acceptable - I crossed out that which is not accurate in any degree.

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, Gervin said:

it's right there ... in his name

Religion of malefactors is relevant to a news story only if he's Muslim or Mormon.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, so the entire "don't beat or assault women" movement is calculated to bring down a political party. If a political party is that susceptible to that movement bringing them down maybe that party should reevaluate itself.

I would say that the leaders of the movement are about getting power and moving their agenda forward.  Politics is only one part of that; I don' think it is a political movement so much as a social movement that expresses itself through a political lens.  

I think you have seen men from both sides be brought down by this movement.  It is harder for the women that have protected such men to be excoriated yet - it goes against their grain to use the same standards when it comes to women. Thus we have Clinton still being fawned over though she protected an abuser.  

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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?

This kind of exaggeration to extremes seems a common ploy; if it makes you feel better go for it.

Frankly, I don't give two hoots in the darkest hell if you find anything I say disturbing; however, if sharing that does something to make you feel better I suggest speaking to a mirror because you are good enough.

Again, please read this slowly, 1)  Separating moral standards from religion is not something I support.  The reason we have these moral standards is because of Judeo-Christian religion and not in spite of it.  2) I have no problem with a standard UNLESS that standard is applied in a haphazard manner.  If it is a good standard for the goose it is a good standard for the gander.  3)  The meat of anything I have said can be found in Matt 7:1-3:  

          1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

          2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

          3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

It is a nice little bandwagon we have created and the lesson is not novel even though some would like to treat it as such.  How many of these people that are prepared to burn these individuals at the stake are perfect?  How many of them have no sin?  How many of them have never abused another human emotionally?  Are you individually capable of judging that for yourself?  Would everyone you have ever met feel the same way?  Who gets to define what is and what is not emotional abuse?  

Once we set the standard then let us each be judged by that standard for all things.  It is sort of stupid for a group of teetotalers to judge an alcoholic, but that will never excuse them from being judged in the same harsh manner for their own sins that are covered form the world. 

[bcuzbcuz]

18 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

What surprises me about this type of statement is the desire to make humans - male or female - one, or at most, two dimensional characters.  If a man is an abuser it is impossible for him to be anything else.  If a woman is an abuser she cannot possibly have any other achievements or accomplishments. An abuser is only permitted to be an abuser and nothing else.  If they do excel in anything else then they must be pounded down until they become a single dimensional individual - an abuser without job, business, home, family, or friend.  

These people that create this standard and enforce this type of "compensation" - I wonder, are they prepared to live by that same standard?  I hope so because this kind of thing more often than not turns on the enforcers rather quickly and they die in the flames they created to burn others. 

Not quite sure how to interpret your post. You seem to imply that being labelled an abuser erases all other characteristics, witling a many facited person into a caricature. I think some behaviours automatically default the perpetrator to his/her lowest level, either erasing or cancelling out many other positive characteristics.

Abuse can be in psychological and or physical. Physical abuse that has left damage is easier to verify. But IMO an abuser chooses to lower themself below all dignity. An abuser may be rich and well educated, extremely capable in many ways, but their abuse makes them worthless in my eyes.

Too harsh? My opinion is based on my experiences. I was the abuser in my first marriage. I was never charged by the police, but my wife reported me to the bishop. I not only said my sorries, I truly felt the remorse. I promised repentence and to be better. I was even granted a temple recommend.

I held the promise to be better until the next crises is my life. Then I was the same a** and abuser once again.

I didn’t improve. I didn’t stop the abuse. It wasn’t until the mother to my children took herself and our children as far away from me as she could, that I looked in the mirror and decided that change was necessary and that the cause of the situation was 100% my problem.

Many years of counselling and reading many books about the reasons an abuser uses abuse to control those in their life, finally bought about change. Nine years after our divorce, and after my wife could accept that I had truly changed and could be trusted, we married again.

No woman should ever have to fear bad treatment from her partner. If a man threatens harm or psycologically abuses or physically harms his partner, the woman must press charges, and leave the relationship. It doesn’t matter how intelligent or rich or capable the man is. There is no cure, until the man accepts full responsibility for his actions and actually changes.  

[strappinglad]

Honestly, If one reads the biographies of past POTUSs ( Potiis ??) , there are quite a few who would not be good role models. The current edition has many flaws. Sadly, he is not alone in history. Others may be been better at hiding the truth, or lived when the media demurred . 

[mrmarklin]

11 hours ago, USU78 said:

What is Anthony Weiner's religion?

Weiner is Jewish.

[USU78]

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Weiner is Jewish.

Yes, of course, but his Jewishness is not mentioned in news accounts as is this here Mormon's.

[strappinglad]

" Oh, how the mighty have fallen "

When we tell the world of our high standards, and someone is found lacking, the world loves to ' take 'em down a peg '

[Stargazer]

12 hours 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

 

Yeah, I think my midichlorian levels are getting a bit high lately...  or was that Thetan?

[cinepro]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, so the entire "don't beat or assault women" movement is calculated to bring down a political party. If a political party is that susceptible to that movement bringing them down maybe that party should reevaluate itself.

The #metoo movement just got this Democratic state legislator in CA, and Al Franken might not agree that it's just targeting one party:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-cristina-garcia-sexual-harassment-investigation-20180209-story.html

Quote

A Los Angeles-area assemblywoman has voluntarily taken leave of her seat Friday after facing allegations of sexual harassment, an unusual twist of the gender dynamics shaping the misconduct controversies engulfing California's state Capitol.

Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) denied allegations that she made inappropriate advances on two men: a then-legislative staffer and a lobbyist. In a statement, she said she would take an unpaid leave of absence from the Legislature while she faces an investigation into her conduct.

 

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Not quite sure how to interpret your post. You seem to imply that being labelled an abuser erases all other characteristics, witling a many facited person into a caricature. I think some behaviours automatically default the perpetrator to his/her lowest level, either erasing or cancelling out many other positive characteristics.

Abuse can be in psychological and or physical. Physical abuse that has left damage is easier to verify. But IMO an abuser chooses to lower themself below all dignity. An abuser may be rich and well educated, extremely capable in many ways, but their abuse makes them worthless in my eyes.

Too harsh? My opinion is based on my experiences. I was the abuser in my first marriage. I was never charged by the police, but my wife reported me to the bishop. I not only said my sorries, I truly felt the remorse. I promised repentence and to be better. I was even granted a temple recommend.

I held the promise to be better until the next crises is my life. Then I was the same a** and abuser once again.

I didn’t improve. I didn’t stop the abuse. It wasn’t until the mother to my children took herself and our children as far away from me as she could, that I looked in the mirror and decided that change was necessary and that the cause of the situation was 100% my problem.

Many years of counselling and reading many books about the reasons an abuser uses abuse to control those in their life, finally bought about change. Nine years after our divorce, and after my wife could accept that I had truly changed and could be trusted, we married again.

No woman should ever have to fear bad treatment from her partner. If a man threatens harm or psycologically abuses or physically harms his partner, the woman must press charges, and leave the relationship. It doesn’t matter how intelligent or rich or capable the man is. There is no cure, until the man accepts full responsibility for his actions and actually changes.  

I am not sure there is any degree of disagreement on most of what you say....except when you stated that an abuser is "worthless in my eyes".  I cannot say that and I don't think it squares well with what the scriptures teach about the value of a child of God.

A few questions:  as an abuser did you retain a job or were you fired from your position?  If you were fired from your employment were you ever able to get another job or were you simply labeled a worthless abuser and good for nothing?  What these questions are getting at is trying to define the line between what is appropriate punishment and what is not.  

The reason I stated that a human is multidimensional is because I don't think that a single character flaw, such as abuse, qualifies as expelling that person into social outer darkness.  An example, I think an alcoholic learns that (s)he has a problem and chooses not to put themselves in situations where they are tempted to abuse alcohol again.  They go through a very similar process you described above - they are the only one responsible for their actions and no one else.  They have to change and yet they may never be capable of being around alcohol again. In other words, they never stop being an alcoholic.  However, that does not mean they cannot be a productive, valued citizen within our society.  

What I have observed in the last few years is a willingness of our judicial system and our society to completely destroy human beings - they judge them of no value - for choices they make.  We have talked ad nauseum about company owners that refuse to provide a service to gay couples is one example.  In the last while we have seen this incredible social upheaval where actual sexual abuse has been confused with nothing more than asking someone to have sex - all offenses have been judged the same, which makes no sense.  Instead of due process these individuals - guilty or not - have each been destroyed by innuendo, allegations, etc., but not by a court of law.  Who gets to be judge and jury in our society?  Why is it not the judicial system? 

What is more concerning to me is who is pushing this agenda?  What are their objectives?  The media leads society around by the nose and it appears more like anything but a reflection of a civil society.  All it takes now is for an allegation of an event - last week, last year, or 40 years ago and that man is dead to the world.  They lose their employment, they lose their integrity, and become social pariahs.  And it all happens because of an allegation and often - particularly the old stories - without a shred of evidence.  Now that is power.  Who do you think wants that kind of power?  

In closing, I am not sure we should ever pick up the proverbial stones and consciously choose to stone our brothers and sisters.  Everything I understand of the gospel of Jesus Christ tells me to defend the weak, but also to turn the cheek.  What is most amazing in your story is that you did repent; you did experience a change of heart.  These are the little miracles that tell me that humans are of great value and we should not give up on them.  There are times when repentance occurs with but a thought, but when sins are serious they take time.  You testify to that reality and I believe you and have believed you.  I know that our Father in Heaven rejoices each and every time one of his children repents and turns toward him and willingly humbles themselves before him and accepts his will for their lives.  

I ask you not to give up on others that are at a different place in their lives; even those in the middle of great sin.  They are still of great value and should not be forgotten or stoned for simply being found to be a sinner. 

[bcuzbcuz]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I am not sure there is any degree of disagreement on most of what you say....except when you stated that an abuser is "worthless in my eyes".  I cannot say that and I don't think it squares well with what the scriptures teach about the value of a child of God.

A few questions:  as an abuser did you retain a job or were you fired from your position?  If you were fired from your employment were you ever able to get another job or were you simply labeled a worthless abuser and good for nothing?  What these questions are getting at is trying to define the line between what is appropriate punishment and what is not.  

The reason I stated that a human is multidimensional is because I don't think that a single character flaw, such as abuse, qualifies as expelling that person into social outer darkness.  An example, I think an alcoholic learns that (s)he has a problem and chooses not to put themselves in situations where they are tempted to abuse alcohol again.  They go through a very similar process you described above - they are the only one responsible for their actions and no one else.  They have to change and yet they may never be capable of being around alcohol again. In other words, they never stop being an alcoholic.  However, that does not mean they cannot be a productive, valued citizen within our society.  

What I have observed in the last few years is a willingness of our judicial system and our society to completely destroy human beings - they judge them of no value - for choices they make.  We have talked ad nauseum about company owners that refuse to provide a service to gay couples is one example.  In the last while we have seen this incredible social upheaval where actual sexual abuse has been confused with nothing more than asking someone to have sex - all offenses have been judged the same, which makes no sense.  Instead of due process these individuals - guilty or not - have each been destroyed by innuendo, allegations, etc., but not by a court of law.  Who gets to be judge and jury in our society?  Why is it not the judicial system? 

What is more concerning to me is who is pushing this agenda?  What are their objectives?  The media leads society around by the nose and it appears more like anything but a reflection of a civil society.  All it takes now is for an allegation of an event - last week, last year, or 40 years ago and that man is dead to the world.  They lose their employment, they lose their integrity, and become social pariahs.  And it all happens because of an allegation and often - particularly the old stories - without a shred of evidence.  Now that is power.  Who do you think wants that kind of power?  

In closing, I am not sure we should ever pick up the proverbial stones and consciously choose to stone our brothers and sisters.  Everything I understand of the gospel of Jesus Christ tells me to defend the weak, but also to turn the cheek.  What is most amazing in your story is that you did repent; you did experience a change of heart.  These are the little miracles that tell me that humans are of great value and we should not give up on them.  There are times when repentance occurs with but a thought, but when sins are serious they take time.  You testify to that reality and I believe you and have believed you.  I know that our Father in Heaven rejoices each and every time one of his children repents and turns toward him and willingly humbles themselves before him and accepts his will for their lives.  

I ask you not to give up on others that are at a different place in their lives; even those in the middle of great sin.  They are still of great value and should not be forgotten or stoned for simply being found to be a sinner. 

You ask a good question. As an abuser, did I get fired? No. First of all my wife did not report me to the police. Secondly, this was almost 50 years back in time and I was a blue collar worker. As long as it was behind closed doors, wife abuse was almost ignored, somehow even a man’s privilege.

But the church asked only that I say I was sorry. I was. But I wasn’t a better man because of my sorrow. My abuse continued.

But as an abuser, did I lose my job? Yes, I did. My wife had herself grown up in an abusing household and so I was given the benefit of doubt for a good number of years. But finally she had had enough and took herself and our children far away. I was no longer a husband, I was no longer a father. So yes, I lost the most important job I would ever hold.

Should an abuser be held responsible for his abuse? If the abuser cannot recognize his/her abuse, yes, the abuser should be stripped of their job, same as in many criminal actions. Most important is that an abuser be outed and the woman get as far away as possible and be protected by law. Society must take its responsibilty and protect its children and those who are abused.

 Should an abuser be stoned? Don’t be ridiculous. Sorry, but I think my actions should have been exposed. The church should have been more condemning. An abuser is skilled at presenting a marvelous image outwards and hiding actions behind closed doors. The church must learn that simply saying sorry is not enough.  

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You ask a good question. As an abuser, did I get fired? No. First of all my wife did not report me to the police. Secondly, this was almost 50 years back in time and I was a blue collar worker. As long as it was behind closed doors, wife abuse was almost ignored, somehow even a man’s privilege.

But the church asked only that I say I was sorry. I was. But I wasn’t a better man because of my sorrow. My abuse continued.

But as an abuser, did I lose my job? Yes, I did. My wife had herself grown up in an abusing household and so I was given the benefit of doubt for a good number of years. But finally she had had enough and took herself and our children far away. I was no longer a husband, I was no longer a father. So yes, I lost the most important job I would ever hold.

Should an abuser be held responsible for his abuse? If the abuser cannot recognize his/her abuse, yes, the abuser should be stripped of their job, same as in many criminal actions. Most important is that an abuser be outed and the woman get as far away as possible and be protected by law. Society must take its responsibilty and protect its children and those who are abused.

 Should an abuser be stoned? Don’t be ridiculous. Sorry, but I think my actions should have been exposed. The church should have been more condemning. An abuser is skilled at presenting a marvelous image outwards and hiding actions behind closed doors. The church must learn that simply saying sorry is not enough.  

I am familiar with repentance.  It may be that we should start wearing scarlet letters identifying everyone by their sins in an effort to protect society and protect individuals from the bad people among us.  As long as everyone meets the same standard and everyone is identified by their sins then I can support it.  What I cannot support is the hypocrisy of society by only identifying a few select sins, completely destroying the lives of those individuals, and then patting one another on the back that they did the good deed and got the "real" sinner and now all is well. 

An aside, in that context being stoned should be recognized as hyperbole.  

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I am not sure there is any degree of disagreement on most of what you say....except when you stated that an abuser is "worthless in my eyes".  I cannot say that and I don't think it squares well with what the scriptures teach about the value of a child of God.

A few questions:  as an abuser did you retain a job or were you fired from your position?  If you were fired from your employment were you ever able to get another job or were you simply labeled a worthless abuser and good for nothing?  What these questions are getting at is trying to define the line between what is appropriate punishment and what is not.  

The reason I stated that a human is multidimensional is because I don't think that a single character flaw, such as abuse, qualifies as expelling that person into social outer darkness.  An example, I think an alcoholic learns that (s)he has a problem and chooses not to put themselves in situations where they are tempted to abuse alcohol again.  They go through a very similar process you described above - they are the only one responsible for their actions and no one else.  They have to change and yet they may never be capable of being around alcohol again. In other words, they never stop being an alcoholic.  However, that does not mean they cannot be a productive, valued citizen within our society.  

What I have observed in the last few years is a willingness of our judicial system and our society to completely destroy human beings - they judge them of no value - for choices they make.  We have talked ad nauseum about company owners that refuse to provide a service to gay couples is one example.  In the last while we have seen this incredible social upheaval where actual sexual abuse has been confused with nothing more than asking someone to have sex - all offenses have been judged the same, which makes no sense.  Instead of due process these individuals - guilty or not - have each been destroyed by innuendo, allegations, etc., but not by a court of law.  Who gets to be judge and jury in our society?  Why is it not the judicial system? 

What is more concerning to me is who is pushing this agenda?  What are their objectives?  The media leads society around by the nose and it appears more like anything but a reflection of a civil society.  All it takes now is for an allegation of an event - last week, last year, or 40 years ago and that man is dead to the world.  They lose their employment, they lose their integrity, and become social pariahs.  And it all happens because of an allegation and often - particularly the old stories - without a shred of evidence.  Now that is power.  Who do you think wants that kind of power?  

In closing, I am not sure we should ever pick up the proverbial stones and consciously choose to stone our brothers and sisters.  Everything I understand of the gospel of Jesus Christ tells me to defend the weak, but also to turn the cheek.  What is most amazing in your story is that you did repent; you did experience a change of heart.  These are the little miracles that tell me that humans are of great value and we should not give up on them.  There are times when repentance occurs with but a thought, but when sins are serious they take time.  You testify to that reality and I believe you and have believed you.  I know that our Father in Heaven rejoices each and every time one of his children repents and turns toward him and willingly humbles themselves before him and accepts his will for their lives.  

I ask you not to give up on others that are at a different place in their lives; even those in the middle of great sin.  They are still of great value and should not be forgotten or stoned for simply being found to be a sinner. 

I don't understand calling spousal abuse a 'character flaw.'  Do you consider rape, murder, robbery, etc. character flaws as well?