UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

So, you are saying that the pastor and ex-husband lied to justify the marriage?

Did you read the article???? It certainly seems like the definition of "fornication" was at least STRETCHED to include Ms. Driver's offense. And then conveniently, the entire list of possibilities was shared with her specific offense withheld, letting imaginations run wild.

Stroke of genius, and an old trick.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Did you read the article???? It certainly seems like the definition of "fornication" was at least STRETCHED to include Ms. Driver's offense. And then conveniently, the entire list of possibilities was shared with her specific offense withheld, letting imaginations run wild.

Stroke of genius, and an old trick.

I didn't take it that way when I read what the pastor said. I took it that he listed nine things that included fornication, teaching moment, and said she had committed one of them. If everyone's imagination was running wild, then they are just stupid. LOL!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I didn't take it that way when I read what the pastor said. I took it that he listed nine things that included fornication, teaching moment, and said she had committed one of them. If everyone's imagination was running wild, then they are just stupid. LOL!

No, PO, they're just being people. That's what people do when you give them 9 possibilities and don't tell them which one is the correct one.

He defined fornication, then stated that Ms. Driver was guilty of one of those things he had listed, then further stated that his daughter and the ex were going to be "romantically involved." This statement was made 3 months after the divorce was final and 4 months before the new couple were wed.

You would think that if a statement really needed to be made to the church regarding Ms. Driver, it would have been made upon discovery of her indiscretion, in the form of an open rebuke. Nope--it was reserved for later, when the Pastor *discovered* that his daughter was going to be involved with the ex. You HAVE to concede that the timing is suspect.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

No, PO, they're just being people. That's what people do when you give them 9 possibilities and don't tell them which one is the correct one.

He defined fornication, then stated that Ms. Driver was guilty of one of those things he had listed, then further stated that his daughter and the ex were going to be "romantically involved." This statement was made 3 months after the divorce was final and 4 months before the new couple were wed.

You would think that if a statement really needed to be made to the church regarding Ms. Driver, it would have been made upon discovery of her indiscretion, in the form of an open rebuke. Nope--it was reserved for later, when the Pastor *discovered* that his daughter was going to be involved with the ex. You HAVE to concede that the timing is suspect.

Well, now you are backing up from your earlier post.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

When I first read the thread, I did the same thing you did--I put myself in her shoes. And with ME in her shoes, I can't imagine EVER being with another woman's husband at a pool, wearing only a bikini. Even if other people were around, that would be out of line for me. I wouldn't, couldn't do that without some serious motives in mind that would include great disregard for my husband and potentially the aim to attract the other man. Ergo, it's hard for me to identify with her having some sort of innocent motive. And I found myself immediately annoyed with her. LOL!!!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, now you are backing up from your earlier post.

No, I'm not. How am I backing up? I have agreed repeatedly that her actions were inappropriate. However, the timing of the pastor's announcement of her actions, and his characterization of those actions are suspect and that's why I have also said repeatedly that her lawsuit was justified.

There's enough bad judgment to go around here. Just because I'm picking apart the pastor's statement doesn't mean I'm suddenly in favor of wearing bikinis and spending quality time with men I'm not married to.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

No, I'm not. How am I backing up? I have agreed repeatedly that her actions were inappropriate. However, the timing of the pastor's announcement of her actions, and his characterization of those actions are suspect and that's why I have also said repeatedly that her lawsuit was justified.

There's enough bad judgment to go around here. Just because I'm picking apart the pastor's statement doesn't mean I'm suddenly in favor of wearing bikinis and spending quality time with men I'm not married to.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

No, I'm not. How am I backing up? I have agreed repeatedly that her actions were inappropriate. However, the timing of the pastor's announcement of her actions, and his characterization of those actions are suspect and that's why I have also said repeatedly that her lawsuit was justified.

There's enough bad judgment to go around here. Just because I'm picking apart the pastor's statement doesn't mean I'm suddenly in favor of wearing bikinis and spending quality time with men I'm not married to.

I agree! After all is said and done the woman won, but she wasn't in the right either. She just presented her case well and the pastor handled himself badly.

All of them were wrong!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I agree! After all is said and done the woman won, but she wasn't in the right either. She just presented her case well and the pastor handled himself badly.

All of them were wrong!

LOL!!! YES!!! I agree.

I'm going to bed now--Jeff is waking me up at 5 a.m. so he can get an early start on our drive in the morning. We're going away for a couple of days for our 16th anniversary.

What is it with men and having to start trips while it's still dark outside?

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

No, PO, they're just being people. That's what people do when you give them 9 possibilities and don't tell them which one is the correct one.

He defined fornication, then stated that Ms. Driver was guilty of one of those things he had listed, then further stated that his daughter and the ex were going to be "romantically involved." This statement was made 3 months after the divorce was final and 4 months before the new couple were wed.

You would think that if a statement really needed to be made to the church regarding Ms. Driver, it would have been made upon discovery of her indiscretion, in the form of an open rebuke. Nope--it was reserved for later, when the Pastor *discovered* that his daughter was going to be involved with the ex. You HAVE to concede that the timing is suspect.

How many preachers' daughters, marrying for the first time (as I can only assume she must have been) can we name that are married within four months of starting to date? Four months after engagement, yes. But even that is pushing it. Four months after starting to date? Probably not.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by missourimary

How many preachers' daughters, marrying for the first time (as I can only assume she must have been) can we name that are married within four months of starting to date? Four months after engagement, yes. But even that is pushing it. Four months after starting to date? Probably not.

Ummm...I can name one who got married about a month after her engagement, just last fall. I acknowledge that whirlwind romances happen, and I'm not knocking it. I'm not interested in placing my suspicions on the new couple. I'm thinking that Pastor Fogarty felt the need to justify their relationship to his congregation--that's where I'm smelling something foul.