Jamie123

You could say the same thing about Hamlet or King Lear. Does that mean there's no value to be gained from considering the characters and their motivations?

This must be a relatively new rule because back in the 1990s when I was investigating LDS, sister missionaries visited me many times without there being anyone other than me and them present. This was before I was married, when I lived on my own (aside from my cats). This happened over several years, with at least three different pairs of sisters, and in two different stakes, so you cannot argue this was a one-off lapse. The last time sister missionaries visited my home was in 1998, and they sat together on my couch without anyone else other than me present.
And no I didn't invite them into my cellar. (For one thing I didn't have a cellar.)
Having said that, this movie serves as a cautionary tale about why this rule is probably a good one.

I'm not sure about when that rule was implemented. I'm thinking it was sometime before the rule about getting brachial IUD implants.

I'm not suggesting it isn't a good rule - only that it must be a fairly recent innovation. Either that or its a rule which was until recently widely flouted.

Well well well ... that's the creepiest movie I've seen for a long time...

This must be a relatively new rule because back in the 1990s when I was investigating LDS, sister missionaries visited me many times without there being anyone other than me and them present. This was before I was married, when I lived on my own (aside from my cats). This happened over several years, with at least three different pairs of sisters, and in two different stakes, so you cannot argue this was a one-off lapse. The last time sister missionaries visited my home was in 1998, and they sat together on my couch without anyone else other than me present.
And no I didn't invite them into my cellar. (For one thing I didn't have a cellar.)
Having said that, this movie serves as a cautionary tale about why this rule is probably a good one.

I'm in the movie theatre now waiting for it to start. Hope it's not too scary! *shudder*
They are playing the theme music to The Lord of the Rings. The dadada da da da daaa theme.

I think what he's getting at is that (technically) an IUD is placed in the uterus.  Hence, IUD (IntraUterine Device).  But the term is loosely used to describe any type of implant that provides a slow-release of contraceptive drugs into the body.  One of the most common is placed in the upper arm.  That is what the movie seemingly depicted.
People still call those things IUDs even though it is not an accurate usage.
And, hey.  It's a movie.

The villain tells them that his wife is at home, in some other room.

When my father was a young man he and my mother spent a few years in Aden, which was not then part of Yemen but a British protectorate. He was a volunteer part time policeman. This was potentially quite a dangerous job - more dangerous than he let on to my mother, 'coz otherwise there's no way she'd have let him do it. He had a pistol, but (if I remember the story correctly) he was always told to practice shooting it from the hip. The thinking was that by the time you'd lifted your gun to eye level to get a better aim, the other guy would have shot you. I don't believe he ever actually fired it in anger, but he came close a few times.

I've also had this same question at the back of my mind. Many of the reports mention "sexual abuse", while concentrating on the "caning till they bled" aspect. A sadist might get sexual gratification from thrashing people till they bled - but you're right it doesn't necessarily follow.
In his autobiography, Roald Dahl said that when he was at Repton School the principal - Geoffrey Fisher - used to beat kids with a cane until they bled. (In fact he had to give them a towel afterwards to mop up the blood.) Fisher later went into the clergy and eventually became Archbishop of Canterbury, and was the same Archbishop who crowned the late Queen. Dahl cited this as one reason why he was not a Christian.
But I've never heard anyone suggest that Fisher was a sexual abuser. Perhaps he was, but severe caning was in those days par for the course. Some senior students (called prefects) were allowed to cane younger kids for pretty much any reason they wanted. Though it's clear there was sexual abuse too - as we read in C.S.Lewis' accounts of school (though he was a bit earlier than Dahl and at a different school).
Returning to Smyth though, I don't know whether the caning itself was the "sexual abuse" (and some people do get sexual gratification from such things) or whether it was in addition to it. It seems a rather morbid question to research. I would rather concentrate on the lessons the minister in the video pointed out, for example we shouldn't hide such things for the sake of protecting God's reputation. God is quite capable of looking after himself.
P.S. My morbid curiosity did get the better of me in the end. Brett Murphy in his YouTube video of this is saying there was "no sexual element" to what Smyth did. I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is there has clearly been some misreporting. (Which is hardly surprising - the media always does want to find sex at the bottom of everything.)

If you haven't read this article on Deseret News, you may wish to.

I had only heard in general terms that Welby had resigned over the church’s handling of some sort of sex abuse issue.  The treatment I saw was sympathetic and suggested that Welby’s resignation was an acknowledgement that since something happened on his watch, he wasn’t the guy to fix it; and that his willingness to admit to a new leadership was needed is an example for other Christian sects.
But . . . if this was something he knew about for years and he accepted his last position knowing the situation, but still didn’t remedy until the public found out he had known about it . . . Yeesh.

At first, this seemed a non sequitur. But I think it is not. Heaven help the country and the culture where "thrashing [people] with sticks until they ble[e]d" qualifies as sexual abuse.

Just to give you the background:
1. John Smyth was a lay preacher in the Church of England who did a lot of work with young people in the 1980s and 90s.
2. John Smyth was sexually abusing many of those young people including thrashing them with sticks until they bled in a specially soundproofed garden shed.
3. Many people knew (or at least suspected) that this was going on but kept quiet about it for fear of damaging the Church's reputation.
4. One such person was Justin Welby who eventually became Archbishop of Canterbury. (He claims he didn't hear about Smyth's activities until 2013, but even then did very little about it.)
5. An investigation was eventually held on the matter, but Smyth died before its findings were released.
6. Now the report is public, Justin Welby has resigned as Archbishop of Canterbury.
It's worth noting that there are other reasons why Welby is unpopular in certain sections of the Church - particularly his support of homosexual marriage. This has been conflated with the Smyth affair and several other issues too.
This guy says some interesting things about it. There are some ideas for us all to reflect on, regardless of our denomination.
 

Both members of the Church of England are deeply upset by this. 

Just to give you the background:
1. John Smyth was a lay preacher in the Church of England who did a lot of work with young people in the 1980s and 90s.
2. John Smyth was sexually abusing many of those young people including thrashing them with sticks until they bled in a specially soundproofed garden shed.
3. Many people knew (or at least suspected) that this was going on but kept quiet about it for fear of damaging the Church's reputation.
4. One such person was Justin Welby who eventually became Archbishop of Canterbury. (He claims he didn't hear about Smyth's activities until 2013, but even then did very little about it.)
5. An investigation was eventually held on the matter, but Smyth died before its findings were released.
6. Now the report is public, Justin Welby has resigned as Archbishop of Canterbury.
It's worth noting that there are other reasons why Welby is unpopular in certain sections of the Church - particularly his support of homosexual marriage. This has been conflated with the Smyth affair and several other issues too.
This guy says some interesting things about it. There are some ideas for us all to reflect on, regardless of our denomination.
 

That's why I'm an incurable romantic.
It doesn't really matter what he was convicted of. The important thing is that he was convicted by a properly qualified court (kangaroo or otherwise).
Many a person has been convicted of more serious crimes than those of which Trump was convicted, on much flimsier evidence. And the remedy has always been appeal to a higher court.
Not election of the defendant to public office.

For all I know you may be correct. But it was a legally constituted court of law nonetheless. And I dare say you're correct that a President (while he remains president) can do no wrong. But to set the verdict aside now sends the message that if you're powerful enough then a court verdict means nothing if you disagree with it. (And that's what you're really doing when you call a court "kangaroo".) If Trump expects others to respect the law he should lead by example.
P.S. Good to talk to you again Vort. I've been been away from the forum a few weeks. Hope all is going well.

Donald Trump is a convicted felon.
He may also, for all I know, be a "very innocent man".
However, there are many other convicted felons who claim to be "very innocent men". But are their claims of innocence alone going to get them out of prison? Not on your nelly!
Why should Trump be any different? Shouldn't the President Elect be setting a good example, instead of trusting that the rules which apply to "ordinary people" (whether guilty or innocent) don't apply to him?
Perhaps I'm an incurable romantic, but I'm still hoping that the sentencing goes ahead, and that the judge tosses every argument based on "he's the President" straight into the wastepaper bin, and gives Trump exactly the same sentence any non-President Elect would have gotten for the same crimes.
Of course, it Trump successfully appeals the verdict then that sentence should quite rightly be annulled. But if the verdict is set aside now simply "coz he's the president" it is hard to see how Trump, the Republican Party or the US system of justice can have any credibility ever again.

You're still essentially saying that the conviction doesn't count because YOU disagree with it. And you may be right. Perhaps the case against Trump really is a load of bunkum. (I'm not saying that it isn't.) But it is not for you or me or Trump (or even "People") to make that determination. It is for a court to decide. Maybe Trump was targeted unfairly for political reasons. But that again is a defence that should be presented to a court.
"People" has no business to be doing any such thing. If they didn't think he was guilty they should not have charged him in the first place. But they did charge him and the court agreed he was guilty. What is "People" saying now? "Sorry, we had a stupid attack, and the judge and jury were too stupid to see how stupid we were being. Please excuse us now while we go and take our anti-stupid pills."
There is only two good reasons for "People" to drop the charges: new evidence or new argument that Trump is innocent. "He was elected" don't make no matter.

That's why I'm an incurable romantic.
It doesn't really matter what he was convicted of. The important thing is that he was convicted by a properly qualified court (kangaroo or otherwise).
Many a person has been convicted of more serious crimes than those of which Trump was convicted, on much flimsier evidence. And the remedy has always been appeal to a higher court.
Not election of the defendant to public office.