DH was supposed to have gone on a recruiting trip to Phoenix earlier this week, but a few hours before he had to leave he became suddenly and violently ill. He called the department and arranged for one of his colleagues, Julie, to go in his place.
He felt awful about making such a last minute change and leaving everyone in the lurch, but so relieved that Julie was willing and able to make the one day overnight trip.
Then a new problem arose: The other person who was supposed to go, Clay, announced that he couldn't possibly travel with a woman not his wife. (Please note that "travel" in this context does not mean have a steamy illicit affair; it means sit next to on the plane and stay in separate rooms at the same hotel.)
UGH.
It all worked out all right in the end -- they were able to rearrange some schedules and make yet another (even more last minute) change so that a male colleague could go instead of Julie -- but the whole thing irritated me. Still does.
I understand Clay's position on principle; it's good to avoid the appearance of evil. I understand why some couples would have a "no coed business trips" rule for their marriage, whether there are trust issues in the relationship or not. But in a case like this, his lack of flexibility seems more like following the letter of the law than the spirit because there was (IMHO) no appearance of evil. It's a pretty big stretch for anyone to assume that DH got sick on purpose just so that Julie and Clay could have their illicit tryst in Phoenix, Arizona, City of Lahv. His obstinate refusal to adapt made an already (but unavoidably) inconvenient, stressful situation even more inconvenient and stressful.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind if DH had to go on the occasional business trip with a female colleague (whether planned or a last minute emergency trip like this one). I don't care what other people think because I know what I know: That he is faithful beyond reproach in every aspect of his life. That's kind of why I married him.
I agree that it's good to avoid the appearance of evil, but do you know what I think is even better? To avoid the commission of evil. If DH were going to cheat, he wouldn't have to go out of town to do it (especially with the erratic and long hours he works; I wouldn't know the difference). And even on a trip with a male colleague, he could still pick someone up in the hotel bar or dial up an escort service! So what's important to me is not that it doesn't look like DH would do that sort of thing, but that he flat out wouldn't do that sort of thing.
Am I being too hard on Clay? Are you annoyed with his behavior or do you agree that one ought to stick to one's principles, however inconvenient to everyone else? Please discuss.
~RCH~
6 years ago
6 comments:
I agree with you Sissy... I think this Clay guy was being too letter of the law-ish and just silly.
I'm with you, Sis. That seems a bit extreme. I'm glad that I don't ever have to worry about that sort of stuff.
FWIW, from what I know of him, Clay is a very good guy himself -- very religious and upstanding. Beyond reproach like DH is, I'm sure.
It just seemed like an odd (and irritating) thing to take a stand on. :-P
Hey RCH...I hope you don't mind me lurking around your blog every now and then....
Stuff like this really bothers me because...even though Clay didn't intentionally do this...he still denied Julie of a great working opportunity because she is a woman and capable of "tempting him." It's just another type of glass ceiling to me.
I can completely understand the 'no business trips with the opposite sex' idea. Though this is obviously a case where an exception to the rule was in order, reading the post at Times and Seasons about adultery makes me think that if someone is going to obstinate about something, this is the sort of thing to obsinate about.
Avoiding the appearance of evil:
I was looking on LDS.org at this term, and let's just say, President Faust has given a lot of talks on the subject. But, one quote I liked is from Victor L. Brown, presiding bishop in 1974. He said: "If Satan could but capture our minds, he would have won the battle and the war. He can only do this if we let him. If we refuse to walk with him, he will have no power over us, for God gave us our free agency and Satan cannot take it away. So what I am suggesting is that we refuse to even walk on the same street with Satan. In other words, not only should we avoid evil, we should avoid the very appearance of evil."
I think refusing to walk with Satan is different than going on a business trip with the opposite sex. I don't know. I don't think that Clay would be damned. It is a play by play world with our free agency, decisions that we are making on a daily basis, with a good foundation of knowledge and an understanding of the gospel, as well as walking with The Spirit as our guide. If we do those things, then nothing with happen on said business trip.
Once someone told me I shouldn't drink out of the cool IBC root beer bottles because people might think that I really drink, and then one day I really might. I still drink IBC rootbeer and I definately don't drink alcohol.
Post a Comment