UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[DAII]

PO, get help.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

What she is wearing needs his approval?

Really?

Are we in Iran?

I doubt anyone communicated any of this to a judge. The judge probably asked if the had been separated for the statutory period of time, if there were children involved, what property needed to be divided, and if there was any chance at reconciliation. If the property had already been divided and no children were involved that's all the judge would need. There are factors that can play into division of property, children, and alimony but if that has been agreed upon the judge WON'T listen to any of your reasons.

I generally wear what I feel is modest, but YES, I do take into account as to whether my husband approves or not. One Sunday morning he said, "Are you going to wear that skirt? It looks a little snug?" So, I didn't wear it. It's a knit skirt and when you wash it, it takes a little while to loosen up, just like the material in blue jeans.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by DAII

PO, get help.

What do you want me to correct? That I think the pastor is the only one in the wrong?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

How do you know that? Didn't someone say SHE filed for divorce? It's just as much speculation to say what you think he was thinking and doing as it is to say we think we know what she was about.

Do you think I'm being unfair and uncharitable to him? Wearing a bikini in mixed company is not fornication. And it's even worse if we apply sinful reasons for Angela being in a bikini in mixed company. If he thought it was cause for divorce then why didn't he file?

[Charnock]

Originally Posted by missourimary

What we say on here is being recorded, just in writing rather than sound.





One of the sites DA listed at the very beginning of this thread has a new note and a link to this page:
http://spiritualabuse.org/experience...k_fogarty.html

It starts with a rebuttal to the early insinuation that the plaintiff contacted that site. It goes on to say:
"It would be good for some to not jump to conclusions regarding this case before having more knowledge. If this public bulletin board discussion, with all the accusations and insinuations made there against [plaintiff], yet accusing her of being unfaithful in her marriage and more, is indicative at all of what happened with talk among members of [defendant's] church (& other churches) after the announcement was made by [defendant], it shows the public gossip and harm that can-and DOES- happen when such announcements are made over the pulpit. And this continued through page after page of discussion, despite the fact that it is quite evident [defendant] had no proof of physical fornication as such evidence would have been presented by his attorney in court as a means of his defense. Some on this discussion group should be ashamed of themselves. Your accusations get picked up by internet search engines and [plaintiff's] reputation becomes further damaged."


We would do well to all understand that. Several people have thought about how their husbands would react to seeing them dressed a certain way... did any stop to consider how the new couple, members of the church, or the woman who was accused might feel about our statements? They weren't private, after all... and some were very harsh. Nice witness. Will we brag tomorrow about this thread being at the top of a search engine list?

Color me unmoved.

If someone was really worried about stopping gossip, I highly doubt they would publish their entire story on an internet website such as www.spiritualabuse.org.

[Charnock]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Do you think I'm being unfair and uncharitable to him? Wearing a bikini in mixed company is not fornication. And it's even worse if we apply sinful reasons for Angela being in a bikini in mixed company. If he thought it was cause for divorce then why didn't he file?

The idea that a marriage can survive when each partner exposes themselves to members of the opposite sex, at will, is new to me. You are totally disregarding his feelings.

I thought that interaction was to be saved for the marriage bed. Silly me. I'm such a prude.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Color me unmoved.

If someone was really worried about stopping gossip, I highly doubt they would publish their entire story on an internet website such as www.spiritualabuse.org.

from what I read on the spiritualabuse web site, the story was published without Angela's knowledge.

[drummerboy_dave]

Pressing, you've already said too much. I have an honest request.

I may be too much of a bleeding heart on this, but I must ask and am trying to do so respectfully, that you walk away from this thread. Your argument is extremely weak, complete speculation based on your own notions and totally irrelevent; not to mention you hadn't even read the case you are being recklessly insensitive to the parties involved. If you must continue, will you please take it to PM. I'm aware of how to use the ignore feature, and would do so, but I'm not asking this for myself.

Please, let's reign in some of our recklessness and show some respect to our brothers and sisters and the world who are reading what we type.

[Charnock]

I'm out of this one.

Sheesh.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Charnock

The idea that a marriage can survive when each partner exposes themselves to members of the opposite sex, at will, is new to me. You are totally disregarding his feelings.

I thought that interaction was to be saved for the marriage bed. Silly me. I'm such a prude.

What if it happened like this:

Let me give you an example. Angela went to visit a mutual friend of her and her husband's. A coworker of both of them. It was hot on that Georgia day and her friend gave Angela a swimsuit so they could both go in the pool to cool off. Her friend isn't an Apostolic. Angela didn't see anything wrong with wearing her friends bathing suit and taking a dip in the pool. After they were done swimming, they laid out on the lawn chairs in the sun. Angela's husband called on her phone. He knew where Angela was. Angela got hot again while lying in the sun and went for another swim. About that time Angela's friend's husband came home while Angela was in the pool. He had just gotten off from working outside all day and all he had thought about was jumping in the pool as soon as he got home.His wife, Angela's friend, went into the house about that time to take a cake out of the oven. The man didn't care that Angela was in his pool and his wife was in the kitchen, he took off his shirt and jumped in the pool. When he jumped in the pool, he splashed Angela and they both were laughing about it. At that moment , Angela's husband came by and saw Angela and the other man in the pool.

This is called context and I'm being charitable because I would want the same charity given to me in a like situation.

Let's add a little more speculative context. James and Angela's marriage was shaky at that time as well but it had nothing to do with Angela desiring to be with another man. They were both in different places in the Lord. Angela was asking the same questions Mirth is. And like Mirth's husband, James was not happy with her new ideas about holiness standards. Would this type of info change what we think of Angela and her decision to wear her friend's bikini?

James Driver was looking for biblical cause to remarry. He used this cause (he found his wife wearing a bikini in mixed company). In my opinion it is a trumped up charge of fornication. This is all we have to go by. We don't have any other testimony of the event. Nor do we have both sides of the event. And we shouldn't automatically think the worst of Angela just because James is still in the same church and married to the pastor's daughter.

And, Charnock, what would you think of Joseph if you only had Potiphar's wife's testimony?