Crash

@anatess2 I am not sure why it is so hard to see how your attitude and behavior towards me from the very start has been rude and uncalled for. When I posted about not being familiar with folks here in order to tell if they are joking or not, you just continued to be rude and then started to insult me. This is exactly why I have defended myself against you. Does anyone here want to know what the responses can be from someone who has endured years of verbal, emotional and mental abuse? Well, you've just seen it from me and I do not have to put up with it from anyone. If you want to continue flinging insults at me, you're more than welcome to do so. I've heard plenty of them from the best of them and you won't bring me down. But from me, however, peace, love, Bobby Sherman.

Two people have told me to let this go but apparently defending myself is wrong. @anatess2 you're making it extremely hard to for me to accept what others have said about you when your actions continue to speak louder than words. The childishness being displayed by you here is palpable. Stop the passive aggressiveness and grow up.

Double post

So, you must've passed over my statement about not knowing when someone here was being humorous or nefarious and then continued a narrative that affirmed my first impression then, didn't you? And you call it character assassination because I defended myself against a perceived character assassination against me, which turned into a real character assassination?! Are you serious?! OK, so instead of just saying something like, "Hey, I was only kidding" or "You're misunderstanding my joking as being serious" you decide to spew insults about my character, screen name, making it easy to troll me, putting words into your mouth and perception about your intent. Sorry but I'm not getting the likelihood of your innocence.

I'd love to know what words I'm putting into your mouth for you to chew or thoughts I'm putting into your head. I'm waiting to get your perspective on what controversial things I may have written, if any, other than distinguishing between sex and gender because that's obviously gotten you worked up enough to troll me, or are you just that petty?

Great, let's do this. Literally the first time I've ever had any exchange with you whatsoever, you mocked me. So, when I confront you about it, you get more agressive towards me and your ad hominem attacks progress. But I'm ready to take it to the next round. Question though, should I take things to a personal level like you have towards me or should we keep our continuing exchange professional, which seems to be one-sided at the moment? Or are you completely not worth the time? I've had it out with other sociopaths, so if you're expecting me to be intimidated by you, not gonna happen.

I don't think it said that the sister missionary was wearing a bikini in the MTC, just that the MTC president was telling the sister missionary about a time when a woman took her bikini top off for him.

The problem with being relatively new is that one does not understand when another person has a dry sense of humor or is being nefarious. So, instead of being compassionate and swimming in peaceful waters, you are engaging in being passive aggressive. Paraphrasing: "Yeah, so I'll be nice but you deserve trolling because I think you are stupid and I hate your opinions and I don't want you telling me what I should write." But cue the compassion. How's that working out for you?

Bingo! The idea that men and women are so different that they can't, or at least have extreme difficultly, understand one another is totally against the purpose of becoming one. This idea, I believe, is created by mankind's limited understanding and not recognizing the doctines of the gospel. Men and women can become so well-known to each other in mind, body and spirit that they truly become one. It is how God has intended it to be. Instead, as a society we're always looking for ways to explain things, so we search for answers outside the gospel to explain our ways. As members of the restored gospel, we have knowledge of creating an intimate relationship with the Spirit to guide us and, yes, that means in our ability to effectively communicate with one another, including understanding one another perfectly well. Our purpose here is not to be confused. This is where the fallacy of psychology lies. It seeks to surplant truth with man-made explanations, causing further confusion. Confusion comes from the devil and our carnal state in order to hinder our progression in this life but the Spirit of enlightenment and truth is the Lord's way of guiding us away from that confusion.

I'm sorry to use the scientific and physiological term used to appropriately label men and women but is it necessary for you to mock me for it? Seriously?

From a post earlier quoting an article/report: Quote Bishop appears to acknowledge in the conversation that while the interviewer was a missionary he discussed with her some sexual preferences he had with his wife, as well as a previous encounter with another woman who had removed her bikini top in front of him.

There is so much to comment on since last night but it really does no good. Here's my take on what I've been reading: 1. I am a man and as such I have typical male tendencies that I must bridle. But there are also female tendencies that women must bridle as well. As an example, while I am extremely inexperienced with intimate encounters with women, my ex-wife is extremely experienced with intimate encounters with both men and women. So, one of us has bridled our tendencies more than the other one has. 2. As a man, or really just a human being, I have been around members of the opposite sex that I have been very attracted to and my thoughts have sometimes been, well, inappropriate. But that's where things stopped for me. There was a line I was never willing to cross, so I avoided all possible scenarios that could have led to any inappropriate language or action. 3. If Bishop did indeed do the things he said in those interviews, and I have no reason at this point to say that he didn't do them, then he did not bridle his passions. He allowed his tendencies to control his language and his actions. He placed himself in those positions just as the sister missionaries and others placed themselves in those positions (what in the world is a sister missionary doing by asking for a shoulder rub from the MTC president and why is the MTC president telling a sister missionary about a girl taking her bikini top off for him?!! And to that same point, why is the woman taking her bikini top off for him?!!). If anything, all of these adults put themselves in positions where they did not bridle their natural male and female passions. There should have been absolutely no reason for any of these things to have happened if they all just did what they knew to be right. Instead, they were all like Alma's son, Corianton. So, as of right now, my feeling is shame on all of them! On a side note, some here have used the word "gender" to describe the difference between male and female. For the record, the term "gender" is not an accurate description of men and women. That word does not actually identify the sex of a human being as it includes many other things, especially today. The correct term to identify the sex of a person is just that, "sex." I'm just being nitpicky but the accurate way to describe whether a person is male or female is by identifying their sex, not their gender.

Well, abuse and assault are two different things. Abuse obiously turns to assault when it becomes a physical violation. To the second part of your comment, if he admitted that he asked her, or any other woman, to expose themselves to him, against their will, then it would not be assault but would be abuse. Or just a creepy dude. Asking and forcing are two differently things. One is abuse, if she really didn't want to but didn't know how to say no, and the other is assault. This, perhaps, was not as clear to her and she could have naively went along with it because of his authority and to that I am sympethetic (I'm speaking in hypotheticals because we do not know if any of this played out as she is claiming). If the abuse continues without confrontation, including manipulation and coercion, the abuser is emboldened, which leads to the assault. In these types of cases, the assault is consentual because the abuse has gone on long enough for the abused to have been trained by the abuser to not put up much of a fight, if any at all, when the assault occurs. In any of the cases where abuse and/or assault occurs, the abuser is pretty much a low life. Again, I don't know enough about this case as I don't think there is enough solid evidence to lean one way or another (not for me, anyway). So, I'll watch this one unfold all the way through. I firmly believe that alleged victims should be taken very seriously but I also firmly believe that alleged abusers or assaulters should be allowed the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty. We may be given a Bill Clinton moment of admission. Maybe that's a bad example.

My time line is probably messed up. But I do find this very interesting. My personal theory, not based on any fact whatsoever, is that the Anasazi became a righteous people and were taken up by the Lord. Their mysterious disappearance is fascinating to me.

Do you know how many times I've been told to be a man or to man up by a woman? Not a bunch of women, mind you, so I'm not including all of them. No, just one woman, the same one who has been abusive towards me for 12 years and who physically, emotionally and mentally abused my son. There is nothing that can convince me that one sex is incapable of abusing others. I'll play devil's advocate again. What if it turns out that this woman is lying and the former MTC president is just mortified that he could have wronged anyone and that's why he's apologized? His reputation and legacy will forever be tarnished, if not destroyed, but this woman's legacy and reputation will not be tarnished or destroyed. Her reputation is already tarnished. She's got a criminal history and has not led a clean life, so it would just fall in line with how she's been living. She could, however, be sued for defamation and she'd lose but again, no big change in how she's been living, anyway. The MTC president, however, will always have others look at him and treat him differently no matter what, even in his innocence, and many who went through the MTC when he was president will forever be skeptical of him. His legacy will be destroyed. That's why it is so important that we do not pass judgement of any kind lest we be guilty of the greater sin. I believe this is the very essence of Christ's commandment to not judge others unrighteously. Let's talk about abuse and hope to high heaven that this man did not do what he is accused of doing. If he did do it, then th Lord will absolutely hold him accountable, assuming that his repentance is not genuine, and his reputation will justifiably be destroyed forever. Until then, however, the truth is unknown.