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.

See, and I don't believe that most men are scum - vile servants of Satan. The narrative that most women are innocent victims and most men are scum is one that is built up on our society by Satan and they are lies. Are there men who are scum - vile servants of Satan? Of course. Are their women who are innocent victims? Of course. But are there lots and lots of men, certainly not in the minority, who are not scum - vile servants of Satan and there are also many women who are scum - vile servants of Satan? It's sad but yes, there are.

Is that the same admission that he gave when he just came out of surgery and then later said that he had no recollection of anything that may have happened? If he did indeed do it, then I'm all for jumping on the bandwagon of nailing this guy, but neither you nor I have any knowledge of it whatsoever. And if you had seen my earlier post, you'd also see that given today's current "Me Too" climate, of course it's going to get a lot of traction. But there are massive holes in her story as well. Now, your statement "It seems that many men feel as you do that the accused is always guilty. Could that be because you are men, and you emplathize more with another man?" I assume that you meant, "It seems that many men feel as you do that the accused is alway innocent?" This question is completely biased and loaded. My point is that you are assuming that this is a standard among men but not among women. You say that "some men get it, some try and some don't" but then you say "because you are men, and you empathize with another man." You can't have it both ways and you are saying one thing with one hand and another with the other hand. I can tell you from personal experience that there are women who are very accomplished abusers and manipulaters or did my whole point about being abused by a woman get negated in order to make a point? The truth is, you have no idea if the former MTC president did it or not and neither do I. You can talk about how heinous the thought that such a thing would happen is but to have already passed judgement as if it definitely did happen without due process is dangerous and irresponsible. I haven't passed judgement either way because I have no knowledge whatsoever of the truth. I find it sad that you are so quick to do so because you are using the "I'm a woman" feminist argument.

Make that two of us. My father has always shown a great amount of respect for my mother. My grandfather did the same with my grandmother. All of my brothers and I were shown how to treat women respectfully. I can tell you that from a man's perspective, this has been exploited by the feminist movement. Many men do not want any woman to feel that they have been mistreated, so it's easy for them to cave. Are there predators? Obviously. But is it a widespread epidemic that being a man means that we don't understand how women feel about issues? Hogwash! I am a victim of abuse from an extremely manipulative woman. My son and his sister are victims of abuse from an extremely manipulative woman (their mother). In that, I'd say that anyone who says that abuse is a woman's issue or that men don't understand the woman's perspective, you are not being honest. I have seen statements from women who have never been abused think that men are only good for their wallets and reproduction because that is what society has taught them. The emasculation of men is very real and statements like "men don't understand" further exacerbate that feeling, so all of the men who have never thought that way are guilted into submission of this feminist view. Look at two shows that were on TV a few years ago, The King of Queens and Everybody Loves Raymond. In both of these shows, the men were portrayed as bumbling idiots with hourly wage jobs and their beautiful wives were portrayed as driven and smart. I remember reading a book about a doctor who's wife treated him like he was an idiot all the time. Here was a guy who could perform complex surgeries on the most complicated system in the world but his wife had no faith that he knew how to operate a lawn mower properly. So, forgive me if I do not accept the narrative that men don't get it!

Are we just assuming that this is what actually happened to her then? I fear that in all of these types of cases, the accuser is always correct and the accused is always guilty. Please don't take my point as advocating for either one but statements like this is solely in favor of the accuser in this case. I think it's wise to make statements about sexually abused people in general, which some of your post does, but to then draw the conclusion that this woman is feeling this way when we have no evidence that she was indeed abused, is dangerous. Continuing the narrative that he is guilty and she is a victim when none of us have knowledge of the truth is dangerous. Please do not take my words as condoning anyone's actions. I am seeing valid points on both sides of the argument of what the world of sexual abuse is seen by men and women. It's just that if we have already passed judgement that she is the victim and he is the perpetrator without having any knowledge of the truth, we, ourselves, will come under condemnation.

What I fear about the things in this thread is the immediate judgement being passed about the truth of the alleged rape. If I may play devil's advocate based on what I have read about the case: 1. The former MTC president does not remember ever doing what he is accused of doing. We can say that the accused always says this, and in many cases they are lying. When he said he was sorry, he had just had surgery, is 84 years old and was "out of it" to the point of perhaps not remembering anything but being apologetic at the idea that he did anything of the sort. 2. The alleged victim said that this happened in the 1980's, has since left the church and has a criminal history. Now, I know a thing or two of what it is like to be on the receiving end of accusations from a scorned woman and I know how women like this think, if indeed she is lying (I have no idea either way). I can definitely explain my own history but it would take away from the topic at hand. My point is, we truly do not know what her motivation is to come forward (again?) with her accusations over 30 years later. In our current political and social environment, especially with the Me Too Movement, she chose a great time to speak out. This could be because she feels like she'll finally be believed but to me, there are some things that don't align. 3. Hillary Clinton said that all women have the right to be believed when they come forward with such allegations. Unfortunately, this is how our society has gone. When someone cries wolf, the men of the village always come forward with their guns and pitchforks to kill the wolf. When there is no wolf, they find an innocent dog and kill it. The hypocrisy in Clinton's statement is that she, herself, did horrible things to destroy the lives of the women who spoke out about her husband's sexual assault against them. Women do not have the right to be believed, they have the right to be heard and everyone, especially the accused, has the right to due process. If we immediately believe them without due process, which many here are doing, the accused always loses. In almost all cases where innocent men are accused of such things, their reputations are destroyed forever because their accusers are believed without due process. Their legacy becomes mired by the thing that has stained them and only those closest to them do not believe the lie. Even in Scouting, when an adult leader is accused of abusing a young man and is later found to be innocent, the church does not allow that leader to be called to a position of leading youth ever again. So, the accused, though innocent, is punished, anyway. This type of instance is exactly why the Lord said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." The only people who know the real truth in this instance are the former sister missionary and the MTC president. Even if he turns out to be innocent, his legacy has been destroyed.

Maybe someone has already brought this up but I haven't read through the entire thread, so apologies if this has already been said. There are some things that Joseph Smith did and said: 1. Tried to show others that he was just a man by dressing up in dirty clothes when greeting converted saints who came to Ohio to be with the other saints. His point was to help others see that if they had preconceived notions about what a prophet was supposed to look like, they would be better served by seeing that prophets are human. 2. A prophet is only a prophet when he speaks prophetically or in the name of Christ. Otherwise, he's just a man. That's not to say that his wisdom is not true. Speaking as a man, he likely has more truth and wisdom than the average, wise fellow. 3. It is not enough to rely on the testimony of others. At some point, every member of the church must gain a testimony about the truth of the gospel for themselves. I take this to mean that we don't have to question or get a testimony of everything that comes from church leaders, no. Rather, it means that faith in our leaders' words alone is not enough and can lead to going astray because we do not have a testimony of the truth for ourselves. For example, I know without a doubt that the Book of Mormon is true. I do not rely on anyone else's testimony to that fact. Because I have that testimony, I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the church is true and that Jesus is the Christ. Therefore, He leads this church and as such, our church leaders do His will and administer His gospel. They will not lead us astray because He said He won't allow it. So, I have no need to question what they say in Christ's name. Now, there are leaders who have done bad things and they have been dealt with accordingly (disfellowshipped, excommunicated, etc), so they won't lead the saints away. In these cases, each of us are given the Light of Christ, the gift of the Holy Ghost and the gift of discernment to know when we are hearing truth or not. In our human weakness, we may not fully understand truths when we hear them, so we question what we hear. In these cases, our faith should lead us to humbly seek for the Lord's witness that what we have heard is true. If we are not humble, we will prop ourselves up with pride and will rely solely upon our own interpretation of things, which the Spirit cannot penetrate. The gift of discernment, which each of us is entitled to, can help us know if we are hearing the opinions of our church leaders or the doctrine and will of the Lord. Our degree of faith and testimony that Jesus Christ leads this church through His prophets/our church leaders will determine the degree of our acceptance of the truths we hear from them.

This looks like a job for Captain Literally! https://youtu.be/9jh4Mpgbi4A