I had a private message concerning this topic and I want to use an extract to highlight something else. (I'm not telling you who PM'd me. If that person wants to "out" themselves, that's their business.)
I noticed while in High School a strong human dynamic that pops up in all human organizations and all ages:the Captain of the Football team get his choice of the hot cheer leaders.... so many ministry leaders were like Football Captains and so many girls threw themselves at their feet, just like in High School and College.
Just in case anyone had the idea that the women who servedat theentrance to the tent of meeting were high school cheerleaders and "threw themselves" at Eli's sons, can I just remind them that Moses had, not that long before, firmly prohibited adultery. (D'ya remember? The ten commandments?) Who's the "guardian" of those commandments? Eli and his wicked sons. Even if (and there is no such inference) such women had crept naked into the sons' beds, it was still the sons' responsibility to say NO! and not to abuse the women. Eli knew, and half-heartedly rebuked his sons.
There were big OT penalties for illicit sexual activity. It's clear those penalties were still in force (albeit laxly) in Jesus's time, and that's a long time later, centuries - over a millennium. There are many admonitions in the epistles; Paul wrote about sexual matters several times. And yet here we are. Two millennia later. Still dealing with clergy abuse of the women of the congregation. It's not limited to TWI. But it is - truly - the modus operandi for TWI.
If male clergy feel "tempted" by the women in their congregation, whose fault is that? No, it is not the women's! It's the men's fault, and their weakness, if they cannot resist. And they should do what it takes to remove themselves. Never be alone with a woman not your wife (as Billy Graham is said to have insisted - so as to avoid any possible faint inference of impropriety). And never, never, never hunt down vulnerable women to take advantage of them.
If male clergy feel "tempted" by the women in their congregation, whose fault is that? No, it isnot the women's! It's the men's fault, and their weakness, if they cannot resist. And they should do what it takes to remove themselves. Never be alone with a woman not your wife (as Billy Graham is said to have insisted - so as to avoid any possible faint inference of impropriety). And never,never,neverhunt down vulnerable women to take advantage of them.
Here's where I embrace my fate of not having been one of the Captains of the Football Team in twi. I had no sexual conquests but I did engage in pre-marital sexual activity a time or twi during my time in thrall to the cult. Enough sexual activity to make me very thankful I was not one of the clergy or leader otherwise. I know I would have failed in some respects. Always believed it would have been improper for me to take advantage of (prey upon) women. But if they were to come on to me during that time of my life, I am self-aware enough to recognize it could have been a huge stumbling block for me.
Here's where I embrace my fate of not having been one of the Captains of the Football Team in twi. I had no sexual conquests but I did engage in pre-marital sexual activity a time or twi during my time in thrall to the cult. Enough sexual activity to make me very thankful I was not one of the clergy or leader otherwise. I know I would have failed in some respects. Always believed it would have been improper for me to take advantage of (prey upon) women. But if they were to come on to me during that time of my life, I am self-aware enough to recognize it could have been a huge stumbling block for me.
and no, I am not the source of Twinky's private message quoted in her comment.
and no, I am not the source of Twinky's private message quoted in her comment.
Thanks for confirming that, Rocky. Others, bear in mind that, as well as regular posters here, there are lurkers who read and don't post. I'm not going to tell.
There will always be those stronger males who appear more attractive to the opposite sex (or their own sex...!) and some are not perhaps so attractive but their role in society is. Clergy, doctors, etc, fall into this category. Perhaps politicians, too. Office bosses. Do groupies still hang around pop groups? Some are "alpha males" (and wannabe alpha males) who think it's a recognition of their physical beauty or power.
What would Jesus do? He loved women! Surrounded himself with them. Boosted them up against the cultural norm that saw them as second-class citizens (or less). Women followed him, tended him, helped fund his ministry, hung about devotedly with the band of followers and apostles. But show me the report where Jesus abused women, or slept with any of them. I missed that. Or where other males in the company abused such women. Other males in his company had wives, who may or may not have travelled with the band. Jesus did not. Was he asexual? Unlikely. He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb 4:15) Therefore, it's possible to resist sexual urges, throwing yourself at women, women who throw themselves at you, etc etc.
We all need (yes, really need) food. In a foodstore, do you help yourself to what's available? No! You recognise that it must be paid for, otherwise it's theft. You have the willpower to avoid pocketing that tasty-looking cake or chocolate bar or whatever. You don't steal a bottle of beer - well, maybe, if you're an alcoholic (=sick, ill) - you pay for it and consume appropriately. You don't nick your neighbour's car and go joyriding in it (unless you want a spell behind bars). You have the willpower to resist doing all these things. So why nick your neighbour's wife, daughter, mother? Do you really need to announce to the world how weak you are? How very far from being the strong man you fancy yourself as?
Aha! Here is the answer (1 Cor 7:1ff):
It is good to abstain from sexual relations.2But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. 5Do not deprive each other, except by mutual consent and for a time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
Lack of self-control is acknowledged, but hey! Here's the solution!
And males who consistently show their weakness and lack of self-control in this area should take themselves away from temptation. Find another job. Never be alone with a woman. Wear a chastity belt. Get themselves castrated. Get psychological help/therapy. Give up your power and ego trip. Your problem - you do what it takes to fix it (developing willpower is a start).
(And yes, I write this as one who loves delicious cakes and fine chocolate.) (I cope by avoiding cake shops and the choccy aisle.)
Here's where I embrace my fate of not having been one of the Captains of the Football Team in twi. I had no sexual conquests but I did engage in pre-marital sexual activity a time or twi [two] during my time in thrall to the cult. Enough sexual activity to make me very thankful I was not one of the clergy or leader otherwise. I know I would have failed in some respects. Always believed it would have been improper for me to take advantage of (prey upon) women. But if they were to come on to me during that time of my life, I am self-aware enough to recognize it could have been a huge stumbling block for me.
Well done, Rocky. Sounds like your activity was with equals, and not, from your quote, as an abuse of leadership power. Self-awareness is a wonderful thing.
vpw himself is the originator of the phrase "all the women in the kingdom belong to the king."
vpw tried to justify King David's "affair" with Bath-sheba, where he showed interest in her, and one way or another, he got her to "consent." Many people would argue that, with imbalances of power that extreme, consent is dubious at best. (If I say 'no', the monarch has me beheaded.) Then David attempted to cover his having a kid with Bath-sheba by trying to get Uriah to leave the field of battle and fool around with his own wife. Uriah was too principled. So, David arranged for Uriah to die in battle, then took Bath-sheba for his wife. When Nathan the prophet confronted David, he mentioned SPECIFICALLY what he was confronting him on- taking another man's wife.
All of that having been said, vpw's supposed "expert" understanding and explanation started with him saying that , TECHNICALLY, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king. No, the Bible forbade taking another's wife and so on, so there was no "TECHNICAL" exception for a King to take another man's wife.
But all of that said quite a bit about vpw's state of mind on the subject.
It was interesting to see what vpw said about David, Nathan and Bathsheba. vpw said that what David did to URIAH was wrong. He said that David's actions concerning adultery, forced sex with Bathsheba (he "TOOK HER" as the Bible says) (she had no literal ability to refuse him so any "consent" would be considered INVALID in any fair court-yet there was no mention of her consenting in any verse), and the murder or Uriah to cover his tracks was "OFF THE BALL." In the Bible, the same was "DOING EVIL." What vpw said David did to Bathsheba was "FOOLING AROUND". The Bible said David "TOOK HER". vpw said he "FOOLED AROUND"- and he used the Nathan-David-Bathsheba incident as a specific example of "RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD."
vpw (Orange Book chapter 6:
"There are many examples of correction in the
Bible. Take David, for instance. David was off the
ball. He found beautiful Bathsheba and then had her
husband shot while in the front lines of battle so that
he, David, could have Bathsheba as his wife. A few
people knew about the sequence of events leading to
David’s marriage, but nobody had a right to say any-
thing because
David was king and every woman in the
kingdom was technically the property of the king or
belonged to the king."
============================== Someone may creatively reinterpret what vpw meant, but vpw was rather clear that "TECHNICALLY" didn't mean this was "de facto" and not "de jure" (illegal but he was able to do so because nobody had the power to stop him from breaking the law), but that this was a LEGAL RIGHT of David's - "NOBODY HAD A RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING". If David broke the law, then people had a LEGAL RIGHT to say so (to say nothing of the obligation to uphold the law.) vpw considered the CITIZENS of Israel to be the SLAVES, the CHATTEL of the King- "every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king or belonged to the klng." In case "belonged to the king" was unclear, he doubled down and said they were "PROPERTY".
Now, someone can come along later and say that the clear words here- "belonged to" "property" "nobody had a right" - mean something completely different than what they say. Doesn't mean they're correct or that reality changes to match their wishes that the book had said something else.
Cunning, isn't it. As king, all citizens were subject to David. His to command. But not owned by him. Not belonging to him. And that's all citizens - all the men, all the women, all the children.
Here's another VPW aphorism: "With rights comes responsibility." Well, David may have had rights to command - but he had commensurate responsibilities to exercise that right, or power, in a way that protected the people. Not in a way that protected, first and foremost, himself.
Whether Bathsheba consented or not, what David did was a clear abuse of power. He abused the woman at least once; he abused her husband repeatedly. He also (and nobody has raised this) abused his army and his nation by this selfish act and the subsequent attempted cover-ups. He treated Uriah with contempt, deceitfully trying several times to get Eliab to go to his wife, once after drinking and dining with him [think "salt covenant"], before finally arranging his killing.
Bathsheba was in no position to consent. Surely she knew that adultery was wrong. And also what the penalty for adultery was: stoning to death. (Hands up anyone who thinks a one-night stand should lead to a particularly nasty form of execution.) (Wot, no takers? ) Sexual intercourse without consent, both then and now, is called RAPE.
To cap it all, VPW claimed that "David was a man after God's own heart" and the clear implication is that this little foible could be overlooked because of the good, or wonderful, or [whatever] things David did. ("It was only a one-off." "It didn't mean anything." "She threw herself at me." And other blah blah excuses.) Check it out: God yelled at David (via Nathan) for the abuse. He "utterly scorned the Lord." God's own heart? I don't think so.
Deeply shamed, David repented and seriously humbled himself before the Lord. And as far as we know, although he obviously loved having women around, he didn't rape any other women nor arrange for their husbands to be disposed of. But he did not escape without penalty. The illicit child died, despite David's pleading otherwise.
Imagine Bathsheba's grief. Her loving and loyal husband - dead. Her baby - dead. Her king and new husband - a rapist and murderer. And next, imprisoned in a harem with lots of other, probably jealous, women.
But David had repented, stayed repented, and it's only that that made him a man after God's heart.
That should be the model for anyone, especially clergy indulging in adultery. Once: perhaps forgiveable? Twice: perhaps forgiveable, but to protect the congregation, remove such a person from any further temptation - protect the congregation, and the perpetrator himself, from his own weakness - take him away from any role where he might find himself in a position to commit further abuse. Take him away! Put him out!
Hey! That sounds very like mark and avoid!
1 Cor 5:11 :But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who claims to be a brother [yes, even a "clergy brother"] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a verbal abuser, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
Cunning, isn't it. As king, all citizens were subject to David. His to command. But not owned by him. Not belonging to him. And that's all citizens - all the men, all the women, all the children.
Technically, the concept of (and the word) citizen and citizenship didn't arise in common use until long after David's era.
What we now consider citizens, then (I think) were considered "subjects." Perhaps nowadays in the UK, a person is (or can be) both a citizen and a subject. That said, semantically and rhetorically, your point is the same, if my understanding is even close to being correct.
Nevertheless, Wierwille wasn't a king, didn't have a kingdom lawfully, and I'm confident he could easily have been convicted of sexual offenses based on what we know of his history.
In church we are looking at 1 Samuel. I nearly fell off my chair when the reading was 1 Sam 3 and verse 13 hit me like ... well, I almost missed the rest of the reading. Fortunately, I had a Bible in my hands to read as well as reading the screen.
Do look at all the variant readings for this verse.
Eli's sons blasphemed God. Made themselves vile. Brought a curse upon themselves. Did wickedly. Were cursing God. Sons "reviled the people" (Lamsa Bible).
The Strong's notes contain this:
blasphemed God מְקַֽלְלִ֤ים(mə·qal·lîm) Verb - Piel - Participle - masculine plural Strong's Hebrew 7043:1) to be slight, be swift, be trifling, be of little account, be light1a) (Qal)1a1) to be slight, be abated (of water)1a2) to be swift1a3) to be trifling, be of little account1b) (Niphal)1b1) to be swift, show oneself swift1b2) to appear trifling, be too trifling, be insignificant1b3) to be lightly esteemed1c) (Piel)1c1) to make despicable1c2) to curse1d) (Pual) to be cursed1e) (Hiphil)1e1) to make light, lighten1e2) to treat with contempt, bring contempt or dishonour1f) (Pilpel)1f1) to shake1f2) to whet1g) (Hithpalel) to shake oneself, be moved to and fro
Various commentaries (click within the page above) refer to this in various less than lovely ways. Gill's commentary calls them vile and contemptible.
The Bible reading in church was supposedly from NIV but it described Eli's sons as "CONTEMPTIBLE." I can't find a version of NIV that says this, but I did find on the above page a note that said the Masoretic and the Septuagint versions use the word "contemptible." You can see Strong's definition above.
Ugh! Who could stand God saying they - because of their behaviour - were contemptible? I shudder to think of it. "Vile" - sounds horrible. "Blasphemed" - brush it off. (A bit common, what? We hardly think of it these days) But to have God think of one as "contemptible" - now that is scary. Scare-ee.
He treated Uriah with contempt, deceitfully trying several times to get EliabUriah to go to his wife, once after drinking and dining with him [think "salt covenant"], before finally arranging his killing.
youmightthinkthat VPW might have confessed his sins, he never changed his ways but continued raping women for years. As also did his protege, LCM.
Thinking on this, and about Eli not reproving and stopping his sons from sleeping with the women at the entrance to the temple, I find myself thinking that VPW not only did not reprove LCM in his wandering habits - he actively encouraged it.
Eli was a bad priest, a bad minister. He only weakly told his sons not to mess about with the women. I find myself wondering if he too had indulged in his younger days, basically taught his sons by his example, and therefore felt he couldn't reprove them. (Of course, I might be libelling in saying this, but he's hardly going to sue me.) It's not a sin that God laid at his door in this instance; who knows what went beforehand that isn't recorded? One doesn't get to be a bad priest in one incident.
In later centuries, Jesus said this: (Matt 23:15) “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
Does that just refer to pedantry over the law? Or to other sins as well? - some of which are listed in Mt 23.
Mind you, even good priests could have difficulties with their sons:
1 Sam 8:1ff When Samuel grew old, he appointedhis sons as Israel’s leaders.[a]2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah,and they served at Beersheba.3 But his sonsdid not follow his ways. They turned asideafter dishonest gain and accepted bribesand pervertedjustice.
Dishonest gain. Bribery (love of money!). Perverted justice. (But didn't, it appears, sexually abuse women.)
And that led directly to the appointment of the first king of Israel, one Saul (verses 4, 5), much against the wishes of Samuel himself, who clearly foresaw trouble.
So all the eldersof Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah.They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a kingto lead[b]us, such as all the other nationshave.”
We don't know what became of the sons, but they lost any part of the larger story - in which they too could have become great and as deeply revered as their father.
And yet, when David appointed the temple and its various officers:
31These are the men David put in charge of the music in the house of the LORD after the ark rested there.32They ministered with song before the tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting, until Solomon built the house of the LORD in Jerusalem. And they performed their duties according to the regulations given them.33These are the men who served, together with their sons.
From the Kohathites:
Heman the singer, the son of Joel, the son of Samuel,34the son of Elkanah, the son of... [and his whole genealogy is listed]
So although we hear no more of Samuel's sons, at least one of his grandsons received grace to minister by singing in the temple.
Of Abijah there is no trace (uses of this name are in reference to other people).
I'm struck by how many times the young David, before his coronation, insisted on seeking counsel of the lord. He would find a priest (with ephod) and ask (by Urim and Thummim) for an answer. The answer, unsurprisingly, appears to follow what David proposed to do. Did God put that desire on his heart, did God confirm a thought of David's, or is it post-fact editing?
Weirwille did what many did. Looking outside of TWI, in the same area of the country . . . something like TWI was bound to happen.
Write to the lawmakers of the State of Ohio.
Not sure the state legislature in Ohio could or would have done anything to mitigate the problem. But yeah, it was bound to happen.
Over the weekend (just passed), I watched the 2015 movie Spotlight three times. Something (some) legislatures have done and others (including citizens) still can do is eliminate clergy-penitent privilege. (Btw, THIS is a matter of law/legal discussion, NOT politics.) Several US states have successfully eliminated it. In others, certain churches have thwarted movements to eliminate it by carrot or stick manipulation of only a handful of legislators.
It's application to the RC and Mormon churches would have substantial impact to mitigate risk of potential harm to children.
To twi, it would have been a bit murkier but helpful nevertheless, not limited to potential risk to minors.
Eliminating the privilege would require the confessor to report to law enforcement whenever s/he became aware of sexual assault and/or likelihood of assault in the future. And to testify in court when necessary to put such facts into evidence/record. In the RC church, an abusive priest goes to confession w/one of his colleagues hearing the confession. Because of the privilege, the one who heard the confession is prohibited from disclosure to law enforcement.
I'm confident readers here are aware of the pervasiveness of the problem in the RC church. Spotlight cited former priest and research psychologist Richard Sipe as estimating at the time of his research, 6 percent of all priests in the RC church act out in sexual ways with children. In Boston, during the time of the Spotlight investigation, that estimate was 90 priests. The Globe's investigative team identified 87 such priests.
There's NO question the social structure of twi enabled clergy and other leaders to "command" or otherwise elicit sexual compliance from (younger) adult married or unmarried women. There's no question that accountability via the internet made a difference.
And Bolshevik, I'm so sorry for how people in NK blamed you. Hopefully, that too has passed.
There's NO question the social structure of twi enabled clergy and other leaders to "command" or otherwise elicit sexual compliance from (younger) adult married or unmarried women. There's no question that accountability via the internet made a difference.
And Bolshevik, I'm so sorry for how people in NK blamed you. Hopefully, that too has passed.
I'm unclear what accountability via the internet means. Anyone can post anything to the internet. And I doubt someone with LCM's reality feels the effects.
(events in Ohio recently were strong reminders of when I was much younger in a number of other states . . . which was a major factor for why I came to Ohio)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
22
45
16
Popular Days
Oct 11
25
Oct 12
19
Oct 13
19
Oct 27
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 15 posts
Twinky 22 posts
Bolshevik 45 posts
chockfull 16 posts
Popular Days
Oct 11 2022
25 posts
Oct 12 2022
19 posts
Oct 13 2022
19 posts
Oct 27 2022
17 posts
Popular Posts
Rocky
Do you mean "criminal case" rather than having used "federal case?" Hence the potential catastrophe of a class action civil suit to twi. In such a situation a $65 million treasury wouldn
chockfull
So looking at the latest views of wayfers regarding their founding President, you have to wonder are they seriously conflicted over topics such as the title of this thread? Or more, like me in th
Twinky
Bolshevik, have you heard of "coercive control"? It can include where the victim (and yes, there is a victim) feels compelled to perform certain acts by a person in some sort of trusted, or supe
WordWolf
Well said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I had a private message concerning this topic and I want to use an extract to highlight something else. (I'm not telling you who PM'd me. If that person wants to "out" themselves, that's their business.)
I noticed while in High School a strong human dynamic that pops up in all human organizations and all ages: the Captain of the Football team get his choice of the hot cheer leaders. ... so many ministry leaders were like Football Captains and so many girls threw themselves at their feet, just like in High School and College.
Just in case anyone had the idea that the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting were high school cheerleaders and "threw themselves" at Eli's sons, can I just remind them that Moses had, not that long before, firmly prohibited adultery. (D'ya remember? The ten commandments?) Who's the "guardian" of those commandments? Eli and his wicked sons. Even if (and there is no such inference) such women had crept naked into the sons' beds, it was still the sons' responsibility to say NO! and not to abuse the women. Eli knew, and half-heartedly rebuked his sons.
There were big OT penalties for illicit sexual activity. It's clear those penalties were still in force (albeit laxly) in Jesus's time, and that's a long time later, centuries - over a millennium. There are many admonitions in the epistles; Paul wrote about sexual matters several times. And yet here we are. Two millennia later. Still dealing with clergy abuse of the women of the congregation. It's not limited to TWI. But it is - truly - the modus operandi for TWI.
If male clergy feel "tempted" by the women in their congregation, whose fault is that? No, it is not the women's! It's the men's fault, and their weakness, if they cannot resist. And they should do what it takes to remove themselves. Never be alone with a woman not your wife (as Billy Graham is said to have insisted - so as to avoid any possible faint inference of impropriety). And never, never, never hunt down vulnerable women to take advantage of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Amor fati
Here's where I embrace my fate of not having been one of the Captains of the Football Team in twi. I had no sexual conquests but I did engage in pre-marital sexual activity a time or twi during my time in thrall to the cult. Enough sexual activity to make me very thankful I was not one of the clergy or leader otherwise. I know I would have failed in some respects. Always believed it would have been improper for me to take advantage of (prey upon) women. But if they were to come on to me during that time of my life, I am self-aware enough to recognize it could have been a huge stumbling block for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
and no, I am not the source of Twinky's private message quoted in her comment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Thanks for confirming that, Rocky. Others, bear in mind that, as well as regular posters here, there are lurkers who read and don't post. I'm not going to tell.
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
There will always be those stronger males who appear more attractive to the opposite sex (or their own sex...!) and some are not perhaps so attractive but their role in society is. Clergy, doctors, etc, fall into this category. Perhaps politicians, too. Office bosses. Do groupies still hang around pop groups? Some are "alpha males" (and wannabe alpha males) who think it's a recognition of their physical beauty or power.
What would Jesus do? He loved women! Surrounded himself with them. Boosted them up against the cultural norm that saw them as second-class citizens (or less). Women followed him, tended him, helped fund his ministry, hung about devotedly with the band of followers and apostles. But show me the report where Jesus abused women, or slept with any of them. I missed that. Or where other males in the company abused such women. Other males in his company had wives, who may or may not have travelled with the band. Jesus did not. Was he asexual? Unlikely. He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb 4:15) Therefore, it's possible to resist sexual urges, throwing yourself at women, women who throw themselves at you, etc etc.
We all need (yes, really need) food. In a foodstore, do you help yourself to what's available? No! You recognise that it must be paid for, otherwise it's theft. You have the willpower to avoid pocketing that tasty-looking cake or chocolate bar or whatever. You don't steal a bottle of beer - well, maybe, if you're an alcoholic (=sick, ill) - you pay for it and consume appropriately. You don't nick your neighbour's car and go joyriding in it (unless you want a spell behind bars). You have the willpower to resist doing all these things. So why nick your neighbour's wife, daughter, mother? Do you really need to announce to the world how weak you are? How very far from being the strong man you fancy yourself as?
Aha! Here is the answer (1 Cor 7:1ff):
It is good to abstain from sexual relations. 2But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. 5Do not deprive each other, except by mutual consent and for a time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
Lack of self-control is acknowledged, but hey! Here's the solution!
And males who consistently show their weakness and lack of self-control in this area should take themselves away from temptation. Find another job. Never be alone with a woman. Wear a chastity belt. Get themselves castrated. Get psychological help/therapy. Give up your power and ego trip. Your problem - you do what it takes to fix it (developing willpower is a start).
(And yes, I write this as one who loves delicious cakes and fine chocolate.) (I cope by avoiding cake shops and the choccy aisle.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Well done, Rocky. Sounds like your activity was with equals, and not, from your quote, as an abuse of leadership power. Self-awareness is a wonderful thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I found myself a little lady to raise a family with. That's all I need. I'll pass on the mid life crisis activity with Harleys and hoochies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Well done, Chocky. I wish you many more years of happiness together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In case anyone somehow forgot,
vpw himself is the originator of the phrase "all the women in the kingdom belong to the king."
vpw tried to justify King David's "affair" with Bath-sheba, where he showed interest in her, and one way or another, he got her to "consent." Many people would argue that, with imbalances of power that extreme, consent is dubious at best. (If I say 'no', the monarch has me beheaded.) Then David attempted to cover his having a kid with Bath-sheba by trying to get Uriah to leave the field of battle and fool around with his own wife. Uriah was too principled. So, David arranged for Uriah to die in battle, then took Bath-sheba for his wife. When Nathan the prophet confronted David, he mentioned SPECIFICALLY what he was confronting him on- taking another man's wife.
All of that having been said, vpw's supposed "expert" understanding and explanation started with him saying that , TECHNICALLY, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king. No, the Bible forbade taking another's wife and so on, so there was no "TECHNICAL" exception for a King to take another man's wife.
But all of that said quite a bit about vpw's state of mind on the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It was interesting to see what vpw said about David, Nathan and Bathsheba. vpw said that what David did to URIAH was wrong. He said that David's actions concerning adultery, forced sex with Bathsheba (he "TOOK HER" as the Bible says) (she had no literal ability to refuse him so any "consent" would be considered INVALID in any fair court-yet there was no mention of her consenting in any verse), and the murder or Uriah to cover his tracks was "OFF THE BALL." In the Bible, the same was "DOING EVIL." What vpw said David did to Bathsheba was "FOOLING AROUND". The Bible said David "TOOK HER". vpw said he "FOOLED AROUND"- and he used the Nathan-David-Bathsheba incident as a specific example of "RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD."
vpw (Orange Book chapter 6:
"There are many examples of correction in the
Bible. Take David, for instance. David was off the
ball. He found beautiful Bathsheba and then had her
husband shot while in the front lines of battle so that
he, David, could have Bathsheba as his wife. A few
people knew about the sequence of events leading to
David’s marriage, but nobody had a right to say any-
thing because
David was king and every woman in the
kingdom was technically the property of the king or
belonged to the king."
==============================
Someone may creatively reinterpret what vpw meant, but vpw was rather clear that "TECHNICALLY" didn't mean this was "de facto" and not "de jure" (illegal but he was able to do so because nobody had the power to stop him from breaking the law), but that this was a LEGAL RIGHT of David's - "NOBODY HAD A RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING". If David broke the law, then people had a LEGAL RIGHT to say so (to say nothing of the obligation to uphold the law.) vpw considered the CITIZENS of Israel to be the SLAVES, the CHATTEL of the King- "every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king or belonged to the klng." In case "belonged to the king" was unclear, he doubled down and said they were "PROPERTY".
Now, someone can come along later and say that the clear words here- "belonged to" "property" "nobody had a right" - mean something completely different than what they say. Doesn't mean they're correct or that reality changes to match their wishes that the book had said something else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Cunning, isn't it. As king, all citizens were subject to David. His to command. But not owned by him. Not belonging to him. And that's all citizens - all the men, all the women, all the children.
Here's another VPW aphorism: "With rights comes responsibility." Well, David may have had rights to command - but he had commensurate responsibilities to exercise that right, or power, in a way that protected the people. Not in a way that protected, first and foremost, himself.
Whether Bathsheba consented or not, what David did was a clear abuse of power. He abused the woman at least once; he abused her husband repeatedly. He also (and nobody has raised this) abused his army and his nation by this selfish act and the subsequent attempted cover-ups. He treated Uriah with contempt, deceitfully trying several times to get Eliab to go to his wife, once after drinking and dining with him [think "salt covenant"], before finally arranging his killing.
Bathsheba was in no position to consent. Surely she knew that adultery was wrong. And also what the penalty for adultery was: stoning to death. (Hands up anyone who thinks a one-night stand should lead to a particularly nasty form of execution.) (Wot, no takers?
) Sexual intercourse without consent, both then and now, is called RAPE.
To cap it all, VPW claimed that "David was a man after God's own heart" and the clear implication is that this little foible could be overlooked because of the good, or wonderful, or [whatever] things David did. ("It was only a one-off." "It didn't mean anything." "She threw herself at me." And other blah blah excuses.) Check it out: God yelled at David (via Nathan) for the abuse. He "utterly scorned the Lord." God's own heart? I don't think so.
Deeply shamed, David repented and seriously humbled himself before the Lord. And as far as we know, although he obviously loved having women around, he didn't rape any other women nor arrange for their husbands to be disposed of. But he did not escape without penalty. The illicit child died, despite David's pleading otherwise.
Imagine Bathsheba's grief. Her loving and loyal husband - dead. Her baby - dead. Her king and new husband - a rapist and murderer. And next, imprisoned in a harem with lots of other, probably jealous, women.
But David had repented, stayed repented, and it's only that that made him a man after God's heart.
2 Samuel 11 RSV - David Commits Adultery with Bathsheba - Bible Gateway Read the following chapter, too.
That should be the model for anyone, especially clergy indulging in adultery. Once: perhaps forgiveable? Twice: perhaps forgiveable, but to protect the congregation, remove such a person from any further temptation - protect the congregation, and the perpetrator himself, from his own weakness - take him away from any role where he might find himself in a position to commit further abuse. Take him away! Put him out!
Hey! That sounds very like mark and avoid!
1 Cor 5:11 :But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who claims to be a brother [yes, even a "clergy brother"] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a verbal abuser, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*coughs* Uriah was Mr Bath-Shebah *cough*
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Quite right, WW. Mebbe that's why my optician sent me a reminder recently...!
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Technically, the concept of (and the word) citizen and citizenship didn't arise in common use until long after David's era.
What we now consider citizens, then (I think) were considered "subjects." Perhaps nowadays in the UK, a person is (or can be) both a citizen and a subject. That said, semantically and rhetorically, your point is the same, if my understanding is even close to being correct.
Nevertheless, Wierwille wasn't a king, didn't have a kingdom lawfully, and I'm confident he could easily have been convicted of sexual offenses based on what we know of his history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
In church we are looking at 1 Samuel. I nearly fell off my chair when the reading was 1 Sam 3 and verse 13 hit me like ... well, I almost missed the rest of the reading. Fortunately, I had a Bible in my hands to read as well as reading the screen.
Do look at all the variant readings for this verse.
1 Samuel 3:13 I told him that I would judge his house forever for the iniquity of which he knows, because his sons blasphemed God and he did not restrain them. (biblehub.com)
Eli's sons blasphemed God. Made themselves vile. Brought a curse upon themselves. Did wickedly. Were cursing God. Sons "reviled the people" (Lamsa Bible).
The Strong's notes contain this:
blasphemed God
מְקַֽלְלִ֤ים (mə·qal·lîm)
Verb - Piel - Participle - masculine plural
Strong's Hebrew 7043: 1) to be slight, be swift, be trifling, be of little account, be light 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to be slight, be abated (of water) 1a2) to be swift 1a3) to be trifling, be of little account 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be swift, show oneself swift 1b2) to appear trifling, be too trifling, be insignificant 1b3) to be lightly esteemed 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to make despicable 1c2) to curse 1d) (Pual) to be cursed 1e) (Hiphil) 1e1) to make light, lighten 1e2) to treat with contempt, bring contempt or dishonour 1f) (Pilpel) 1f1) to shake 1f2) to whet 1g) (Hithpalel) to shake oneself, be moved to and fro
Various commentaries (click within the page above) refer to this in various less than lovely ways. Gill's commentary calls them vile and contemptible.
The Bible reading in church was supposedly from NIV but it described Eli's sons as "CONTEMPTIBLE." I can't find a version of NIV that says this, but I did find on the above page a note that said the Masoretic and the Septuagint versions use the word "contemptible." You can see Strong's definition above.
Ugh! Who could stand God saying they - because of their behaviour - were contemptible? I shudder to think of it. "Vile" - sounds horrible. "Blasphemed" - brush it off. (A bit common, what? We hardly think of it these days) But to have God think of one as "contemptible" - now that is scary. Scare-ee.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Correction to above post. Can't edit it now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
From the "Absent Christ" thread:
Thinking on this, and about Eli not reproving and stopping his sons from sleeping with the women at the entrance to the temple, I find myself thinking that VPW not only did not reprove LCM in his wandering habits - he actively encouraged it.
Eli was a bad priest, a bad minister. He only weakly told his sons not to mess about with the women. I find myself wondering if he too had indulged in his younger days, basically taught his sons by his example, and therefore felt he couldn't reprove them. (Of course, I might be libelling in saying this, but he's hardly going to sue me.) It's not a sin that God laid at his door in this instance; who knows what went beforehand that isn't recorded? One doesn't get to be a bad priest in one incident.
In later centuries, Jesus said this: (Matt 23:15) “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
Does that just refer to pedantry over the law? Or to other sins as well? - some of which are listed in Mt 23.
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Mind you, even good priests could have difficulties with their sons:
1 Sam 8:1ff When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders.[a] 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
Dishonest gain. Bribery (love of money!). Perverted justice. (But didn't, it appears, sexually abuse women.)
And that led directly to the appointment of the first king of Israel, one Saul (verses 4, 5), much against the wishes of Samuel himself, who clearly foresaw trouble.
So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”
We don't know what became of the sons, but they lost any part of the larger story - in which they too could have become great and as deeply revered as their father.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
And yet, when David appointed the temple and its various officers:
31These are the men David put in charge of the music in the house of the LORD after the ark rested there. 32They ministered with song before the tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting, until Solomon built the house of the LORD in Jerusalem. And they performed their duties according to the regulations given them. 33These are the men who served, together with their sons.
From the Kohathites:
Heman the singer, the son of Joel, the son of Samuel, 34the son of Elkanah, the son of... [and his whole genealogy is listed]
So although we hear no more of Samuel's sons, at least one of his grandsons received grace to minister by singing in the temple.
Of Abijah there is no trace (uses of this name are in reference to other people).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
It's been an interesting perusal of 1 Samuel.
I'm struck by how many times the young David, before his coronation, insisted on seeking counsel of the lord. He would find a priest (with ephod) and ask (by Urim and Thummim) for an answer. The answer, unsurprisingly, appears to follow what David proposed to do. Did God put that desire on his heart, did God confirm a thought of David's, or is it post-fact editing?
I think I'll continue and work through 2 Samuel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Weirwille did what many did. Looking outside of TWI, in the same area of the country . . . something like TWI was bound to happen.
Write to the lawmakers of the State of Ohio.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Not sure the state legislature in Ohio could or would have done anything to mitigate the problem. But yeah, it was bound to happen.
Over the weekend (just passed), I watched the 2015 movie Spotlight three times. Something (some) legislatures have done and others (including citizens) still can do is eliminate clergy-penitent privilege. (Btw, THIS is a matter of law/legal discussion, NOT politics.) Several US states have successfully eliminated it. In others, certain churches have thwarted movements to eliminate it by carrot or stick manipulation of only a handful of legislators.
It's application to the RC and Mormon churches would have substantial impact to mitigate risk of potential harm to children.
To twi, it would have been a bit murkier but helpful nevertheless, not limited to potential risk to minors.
Eliminating the privilege would require the confessor to report to law enforcement whenever s/he became aware of sexual assault and/or likelihood of assault in the future. And to testify in court when necessary to put such facts into evidence/record. In the RC church, an abusive priest goes to confession w/one of his colleagues hearing the confession. Because of the privilege, the one who heard the confession is prohibited from disclosure to law enforcement.
I'm confident readers here are aware of the pervasiveness of the problem in the RC church. Spotlight cited former priest and research psychologist Richard Sipe as estimating at the time of his research, 6 percent of all priests in the RC church act out in sexual ways with children. In Boston, during the time of the Spotlight investigation, that estimate was 90 priests. The Globe's investigative team identified 87 such priests.
There's NO question the social structure of twi enabled clergy and other leaders to "command" or otherwise elicit sexual compliance from (younger) adult married or unmarried women. There's no question that accountability via the internet made a difference.
And Bolshevik, I'm so sorry for how people in NK blamed you. Hopefully, that too has passed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm unclear what accountability via the internet means. Anyone can post anything to the internet. And I doubt someone with LCM's reality feels the effects.
(events in Ohio recently were strong reminders of when I was much younger in a number of other states . . . which was a major factor for why I came to Ohio)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.