OK; thanks for your further explanation. I personally am willing to accept that you hypothesized that Communication may have come to the conclusion (based on what, though, I still do not know) that someone was asserting that covering was a requirement for salvation. However, . . .
I understand that you brought your own understanding of Hebrew Roots people considering Torah Keeping as a requirement for salvation (I have wondered the same thing myself, but, I will add, I wonder the same thing about New-Testament Protestants and Catholics who often seem to claim that exhibiting fruit-of-the-Spirit behaviors is the only way to demonstrate evidence that one is saved) into this discussion, so I do get how that bias could have colored the manner in which you perceived that Communication might have perceived that someone was asserting that all women need covering in order to receive salvation. Even setting aside, though, the fact that no one made that assertion, what led me to the conclusion that you were white-knighting for Communication was that you were rushing to his defense by positing a hypothetical that Communication hadn't posited himself. Communication injected salvation into the discussion, and then you jumped in to assert that it was reasonable for him to conclude something he hadn't asserted he'd concluded. To me, Communication's assertion that injected salvation into the mix, combined with his general approach to these discussions, came across as purposeful deflection along a clear agenda to discredit biblical polygamy. I simply don't see him as an innocent in all of this, much less an innocent victim. And he's certainly not a damsel in distress.
So that's where I'm coming from about you being a white knight.
It appears, though, that you're saying that you didn't mean to assert the mirror metaphor as an assertion that what was in the mirror was a reflection of what was actually happening -- just that you could understand how Communication might be looking in the mirror and seeing an illusion that you considered an easy mistake to make. If so, we're all just miscommunicating, but that does presuppose that you didn't mean that the Hebrew Roots folks shouldn't get upset when people conclude that they believe that covering is necessary for salvation but were instead just saying that you were the messenger informing the Hebrew Roots people that an understandable misperception was occurring on Communication's part.
Given that I've never been fitted for a halo, I'll take the slings and arrows on this one: I'll acknowledge that I do engage in strife from time to time. When some people do that, it's called iron sharpening iron; when others do it, it's called being Satan's bitch.
What am I going to do about it? Probably what I always do: intend to avoid most strife, acknowledge it when I'm in it, and re-commit to working to minimize it. On the other hand, I'm going to remain just as committed to pointing out fairy tales when I hear them being dispensed. I don't like starting trouble, but I consider it to be cowardice when nonsense is being peddled as gospel.
And why is it that those who were stirred up are chastised but the eye-poker gets further white-knighted? It seems a bit akin to condemning people for crying when someone improperly pepper sprays them.
What won't be useful long-term is for all of us to just step back and pretend that the eye wasn't poked or that some people didn't mistakenly defend the eye poker.
