How to deal with church critics and apostates?

[Mormonheart]

In my ward, a young man who was excommunicated because of homosexuality and apostasy  Now he calls the members, and tells them that the church is a lie. He has already called me. Last night he stood before my door, with a young man, holding hands and kissing. For me a provocation. I asked him to leave, but he gave me a book, written by an evangelical priest (Rüdiger Hauth), who writes about what is going on in the temple.
I did not want the book, and this morning I found it in the mailbox!
I took the book to my apartment and thrown it into the trash can. The dog (I have a German shepherd and a Poodle), has brought out the book from the trash can, and has given me (the shepherd). I have three questions:
 

1. How should I deal with this former member?
2. Should I read the book or send it back to him (he was my home teacher)? .
3. Can you pray for me so that I am strong enough to make the right decision?

I thank you all!

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

In my ward, a young man who was excommunicated because of homosexuality and apostasy  Now he calls the members, and tells them that the church is a lie. He has already called me. Last night he stood before my door, with a young man, holding hands and kissing. For me a provocation. I asked him to leave, but he gave me a book, written by an evangelical priest (Rüdiger Hauth), who writes about what is going on in the temple.
I did not want the book, and this morning I found it in the mailbox!
I took the book to my apartment and thrown it into the trash can. The dog (I have a German shepherd and a Poodle), has brought out the book from the trash can, and has given me (the shepherd). I have three questions:
 

1. How should I deal with this former member?
2. Should I read the book or send it back to him (he was my home teacher)? .
3. Can you pray for me so that I am strong enough to make the right decision?

I thank you all!

1.  A civil stalking injunction might be a start.  This goes beyond passionate advocacy, and into the realm of psychological instability.

2.  Chuck the book.  You tried to reject it, he forced it on you anyways.  You have no obligation to return it.

3.  Absolutely.

[Jane_Doe]

1.  How should I deal with this former member?   (I'm assuming you want him to scram, if not I can give other advice) What he is doing right now is legally stalking you.  If he shows up again, ask him point blank that he is trespassing.  He has 60 seconds to leave you and your property and never come back, and if he fails to comply you're take legal action to enforce your wishes.  If he fails to get out, file a stalker restraining order and then you can call the cops if he shows up again.  

 

2.  Should I read the book or send it back to him (he was my home teacher)?  Speaking personally, I'd walk it straight to your local dumpster. The guy obvious doesn't want it back (giving it is his version of free speech) but that doesn't mean you have to read it.

3.  Can you pray for me so that I am strong enough to make the right decision?  Will do.

[Guest]

You got yourself a member of the crazy folks club!

I would treat him just like any other member of the crazy folks club: by calling the police and having him escorted away.  (Or a civil injunction may work as well).  Or, if you feel safe doing so, simply ignore him until he gets bored.

Yeah, you can and should chuck the book.  There is some irony in this guy giving you a book by an evangelical priest.  I mean, don't most evangelical priests believe gay people are not going to heaven?  Whatever.  

 On a side note, one should approach anti-Mormon literature with much caution.  Even the most factually true anti-Mormon literature (and most anti-Mormon literature is not factually accurate) uses emotional "spin" and manipulation to make arguments sound stronger than they really are, in hopes of shaking the testimonies of the unwary.  I would recommend reading jefflindsay.com or fairlds.org instead, if you have questions.  This book the guy gave you, which from your description sounds like it jumps straight into blasphemous discussions on the most sacred temple ordinances, sounds like pure sensationalist garbage (and a good way to lose the Spirit).

Edited April 8, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[my two cents]

Agree with the others and would also let your bishop know in case others are getting these same unwanted visits.

[person0]

4 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

". . . an evangelical priest (Rüdiger Hauth), who writes about what is going on in the temple."

I also second what others have said but add this point:  If an evangelical priest is writing about any what goes on in our temples then he obtained the information by illegitimate and/or inappropriate means.  If he obtained it from a member, or if he used to be a member then sacred information was disclosed, covenants were broken, and the one who disclosed it is under condemnation for doing so.

Why would this evangelical preacher want this ill-gotten information? He seeks to instill doubt and dismantle his readers testimony and faith in the Church, or prevent them from beginning the path that would instill that faith.  Do you want to read a book from someone who wrote it with that purpose?  Do we have to disprove another individuals faith in order to lead them to the truth of God through the power of the Holy Ghost? No, they can read, pray, receive a witness and develop their own testimony without first needing to be torn down and disproved.

Our prayers are with you.

[Ironhold]

I'd check to see if the book has any sort of stamps or markings. 

In some instances, particularly brazen churches will stamp or mark the tracts and books they give out to "save" people so that people will know who's distributing them. It's done in the hopes of getting the people who read the tracts to come to that church and start worshiping. 

If there's such a stamp or marking on the book, let your bishop - and the police - know about it. They in turn can contact the church where the book originated from and have a chat with the minister about what's being done in the church's name, whether it's sanctioned or not. Society rather frowns on people who advocate the sort of disruptive behavior you've been seeing, so if the minister is sanctioning or even advocating this sort of behavior then they've got some explaining to do. 

[yjacket]

No social grace in today's society.  

The next instance, I would tell him in no uncertain terms that you don't care to hear anything about these beliefs and to please leave you alone.  That he should consider this his final warning before you involve authorities.  If he does it again, call the police.

[Mormonheart]

The problem is that Germany is not the US (unfortunately). Here, perpetrators have more rights than their victims. And I see myself as a victim of this young man.
He was excluded at the time because he was caught kissing another man, and, as he had distributed a flyer in front of another ward (before the excommunication), which was against the church.
So he had two problems:
His homosexuality, and
his apostasy.

That he is a fag, I might perhaps could forgive him that, but not that he is working against the church!
I must confess something. I was wrong. The pastor was a protestant (Lutheran), not evangelical. And I have read a few pages in the book, and when I felt the evil spirit in it, I burned it. But what I've read is now inside me. I can not believe it, even though the author has literally written what is happening in the temple! And, he has established a link between the Endowment and the Freemasons, with original quotes from both groups (Freemason, and our Church). It's in my head, and I can not get it out of my head. I think I will fast fast and pray.

And, btw, the Police wouldn't come, because he is not dangerous to me. He didn't want to kill me. He has the right (that's German law) to call me, to gave me nasty flyers, od to give me a book. He don't want to kill me, or want to blame me for something, or force me to his attitude. If he would stand before my door, and he wasn't my husband or Boyfriend, the police has no legal reason, to make something to protect me.

Oh, I forgot to mention: No call, no letter, no visit from him today.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Mormonheart

[Jane_Doe]

27 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

The problem is that Germany is not the US (unfortunately). Here, perpetrators have more rights than their victims. And I see myself as a victim of this young man.
He was excluded at the time because he was caught kissing another man, and, as he had distributed a flyer in front of another ward (before the excommunication), which was against the church.
So he had two problems:
His homosexuality, and
his apostasy.

That he is a fag, I might perhaps could forgive him that, but not that he is working against the church!
I must confess something. I was wrong. The pastor was a protestant (Lutheran), not evangelical. And I have read a few pages in the book, and when I felt the evil spirit in it, I burned it. But what I've read is now inside me. I can not believe it, even though the author has literally written what is happening in the temple! And, he has established a link between the Endowment and the Freemasons, with original quotes from both groups (Freemason, and our Church). It's in my head, and I can not get it out of my head. I think I will fast fast and pray.

And, btw, the Police wouldn't come, because he is not dangerous to me. He didn't want to kill me. He has the right (that's German law) to call me, to gave me nasty flyers, od to give me a book. He don't want to kill me, or want to blame me for something, or force me to his attitude. If he would stand before my door, and he wasn't my husband or Boyfriend, the police has no legal reason, to make something to protect me.

Oh, I forgot to mention: No call, no letter, no visit from him today.

The guy: I'm not familiar with German law, but if you honestly have no rights to get rid of a stalker, then I would just inform him to get loss and trash any of his "presents" he leave uninvited (like dog poop in your yard).  Tell him your not interested, shut him out, block his number, and he'll quickly get bored and go away.  You don't have to "nicely" tell a perpetrator to got lost or make polite small talk.  

As to the book: the problem with anti-anything junk is that is spins half-truths into something far removed from reality.  The solution is prayer and getting the real story.  Payer you're familiar with, and here's some straight talk on LDS and masons: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Freemasonry_and_the_Temple

 

[yjacket]

Mh, 

That sucks . . yeah I have no idea how other countries would handle it, but the US despite all it's faults and major problems still has a very strong belief and understanding of property rights.  My porch, my house, my land.  You come on my property and I ask you to leave and you don't, I call the cops and they arrest you for trespassing-end of story.  You threaten me (in most places-still), I have a legal right to defend myself up to and including use of deadly force.

I concur, the anti-Mormon stuff always takes part truth and mixes it into something horrible or something it's not. Yes Joseph Smith was at one point highly involved in Masonry and there are a lot of similarities b/w the temple and Masonic symbols.

IMO, at worst Joseph Smith was simply directed by God to use something that a significant portion of people were familiar with at the time (Masonry in the US in the 1800s was very common-many of the US Founding Fathers were Masons and their signs are found all over early symbols in the US).  A lot of people would have been familiar with masonic symbols and rituals. The Lord generally teaches his people using symbols and allegories they can understand (the NT talks about farming a lot and bread, people could understand deeper meaning by associating it with something they already knew).

At best, Masonry and their symbols/rituals were handed down from ancient times and had become polluted and JS was restoring them back to their original state.

We really don't know which and that is left up to the individual, through prayer and study.

We do know that Masonry was well known enough that it is very plausible (several GAs after JS death mention this) that when just before JS fell from Carthage Jail when he exclaimed "Oh Lord My God" that he was in the process of reciting the Masonic sign of distress "Oh Lord My God is there no help for the widow's son?" http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Were_Joseph_Smith's_final_words,_"O_Lord,_my_God!"_a_cry_for_help_or_mercy_from_Freemasons_in_the_mob_at_the_Carthage_jail%3F

 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Mormonheart said:

That he is a fag, I might perhaps could forgive him that, but not that he is working against the church!

Just a friendly reminder (and I realize English is probably your second language, so it isn't intended as condemnation)--in English, the term "fag" is highly derogatory and isn't generally used in polite society; even amongst conservatives and/or Church members who oppose gay marriage.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mormonheart said:

I must confess something. I was wrong. The pastor was a protestant (Lutheran), not evangelical. And I have read a few pages in the book, and when I felt the evil spirit in it, I burned it. But what I've read is now inside me. I can not believe it, even though the author has literally written what is happening in the temple! And, he has established a link between the Endowment and the Freemasons, with original quotes from both groups (Freemason, and our Church). It's in my head, and I can not get it out of my head. I think I will fast fast and pray.

Because the temple ceremony is so sacred, I cannot fully discuss this stuff with you.  However, let me give you a hint on dealing with this.  The temple ceremony is ancient in origin and, at least elements of it, date back to the temple in Jerusalem.  The Freemason ceremony apparently also derives from the same ceremony of the temple in Jerusalem.

So, we are dealing with two ceremonies with the same ancient origin.

What can we deduce?

OF COURSE there are similarities between the two!  I would be more disturbed if there were no similarities between the two.  The similarities just show the modern temple ceremony is a restoration of the ancient ceremony.

Also, if God wanted Joseph to restore the temple ceremony in the latter days, and an imperfect version existed with the Freemasons, doesn't it make sense that God would nudge Joseph towards observing this imperfect version apparently practiced by the Masons, just to see sort of how some parts are supposed to look and feel?

There have been thousands of Mormons in America who have been Freemasons and have experienced both ceremonies.  (At one point I wanted to join the Freemasons because I was curious, but no one would ever invite me in.  Those elitists.).  They have not all discovered mass fraud.  There has not been some mass resignation from the Church.  It is understood that the ceremonies are similar in some respects because they both derived from the ancient ordinances in the Temple in Jerusalem, not that Joseph ripped off the Freemasons.

Now, the temple is highly sacred, and I am not going to get into more of this.  But let this help your mind be put at ease about this stuff, and put Mr. Hauth in the trash.

Edited April 8, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[yjacket]

22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Just a friendly reminder (and I realize English is probably your second language, so it isn't intended as condemnation)--in English, the term "fag" is highly derogatory and isn't generally used in polite society; even amongst conservatives and/or Church members who oppose gay marriage.

Yeah but it didn't used to be that way, it's only not used in polite society now b/c of a PC culture-i.e. the homosexuals didn't like the term and got everyone else to buy into not using it.

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Yeah but it didn't used to be that way, it's only not used in polite society now b/c of a PC culture-i.e. the homosexuals didn't like the term and got everyone else to buy into not using it.

I would agree with you that political correctness often boils down to a power trip indulged by trolling minorities who get their kicks and giggles by exerting control over the majority and forcing the majority to pointlessly jump through bizarre hoops.

On the other hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with voluntarily avoiding dismissive or hurtful labels; which--let's face it--is what "fag" is.

And more to the point: if a non-native English speaker wants to successfully negotiate modern American society, (s)he's going to have to be able to carry on a conversation without inadvertently violating social taboos.  Those taboos may be right or they may be wrong; but the bottom line is--they exist.  

Edited April 8, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[person0]

3 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

And, he has established a link between the Endowment and the Freemasons, with original quotes from both groups (Freemason, and our Church). It's in my head, and I can not get it out of my head. I think I will fast fast and pray.

There is a link between the Endowment and the Freemasons.  Joseph Smith was Mason.  The problem is not that there is a link, the problem is that the author of this book has led you to believe that the fact that there is a link is a problem.  In actuality this is a non-issue.

Quote

As early as October 1841 some Masons who were members of the Church obtained permission to initiate a Masonic lodge in Nauvoo. Joseph Smith could see advantages in belonging to this fraternal order. Presumably it was felt that other Masons in the state and nation, many of whom held prominent positions, would look more kindly upon the Church. Joseph Smith and many others in Nauvoo were formally introduced into the order in March 1842.  (lds.org)

I would recommend taking a look at the FAIR articles about masonry and the temple.  Hopefully by knowing more of the truth you can come to the understanding for yourself that this is a non-issue.  Here is a link to one of the articles.  Happy studies!! 

[bunnibee]

Bless your heart! Yes, his behavior towards you and the other members is quite troubling.

 

Everyone else seems to have had pretty wonderful advice and responses for you. I'd just also like to add that I'm sorry this happened. As you said, this was your home teacher, so I can only assume you felt close to him. I'll pray for you. You seem to be hurting.

 

Also, please try to keep in mind that his behavior and attitude towards you and the church actually have nothing to do with your or the church. He's going through what no doubt is the crescendo of a most likely years long battle. It's a reflection of his own struggles and decisions, not Heavenly Father's church or its kind members.

 

The same can be said for the anti-LDS "literature." It's written to be mean spirited and only reflects someone else's personal problem. Cling tight to your testimony and take gentle care.

[JohnsonJones]

There's the easy way and the hard way.  Neither is the wrong way, just different paths.  The easy way is what people have proposed already.

The hard way is to treat this individual as you would want to be treated if positions were switched.  Or, to simply love the individual whether you agree with their actions or not.  You do not have to accept their actions or what things that may be sin.  You can reject the sin, but love the sinner.

That can be a very hard thing to do, especially if they become antagonistic.  If the individual is male and dating another male and doing things that are romantically involved with that person, be glad for him.  You should not celebrate the sin, but be glad if he is out of the church because he has chosen the path he wants to go and hopefully is happy with it.  If he is bothering members about this type of choice, it could be that outwardly he has chosen, but inwardly he is still struggling.  These things he is doing to you and others could be signs that he is still trying to prove to himself that the path he has chosen is the right one...but something inside is still bugging him enough that he may think he has chosen the wrong one.

If he is truly happy with his choice, then be happy for him, but NOT for his sin.  Love him because he is a child of our Father just as each of us are.

This is a very tough path to follow, and the other path suggested may be the easier and better path.  The other path suggested above may even be the right path to choose in this instance.  However, if we can love those who have fallen away, or even moreso, those that hate us or despise us,  I think we can grow closer to the Lord and understanding how he can love us, even when we are involved with sin.

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

If he is truly happy with his choice, then be happy for him, but NOT for his sin.

This makes absolutely no sense. Be happy for someone that they are happy committing sin??

I'm an adulterer that finds happiness is having multiple women besides my wife.  You should be happy b/c I'm happy.

Nope. . . this is just more of the modern, political correctness claptrap that has infected society.  This is just insanity that makes no sense.  You don't have to hate them and yell at them when you see them, but to "be happy" for them b/c they are happy with their sin is just wrong.

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

This makes absolutely no sense. Be happy for someone that they are happy committing sin??

I'm an adulterer that finds happiness is having multiple women besides my wife.  You should be happy b/c I'm happy.

Nope. . . this is just more of the modern, political correctness claptrap that has infected society.  This is just insanity that makes no sense.  You don't have to hate them and yell at them when you see them, but to "be happy" for them b/c they are happy with their sin is just wrong.

As I said, there are two paths, one is the easy way which many have stated above, the other is the harder path.

The goal in this life is to have joy.  We do no one any good by trying to tear them down by noticing their sins and pointing them out.  We each have enough sins on our own. 

We can be happy for someone else when they are happy.  That does not mean we condone their sins, but if they are more at peace or happier with their choices, we should not try to destroy that happiness simply because we want them to be unhappy.  Think of the Lord in the New Testament.  Even those involved in the gravest of sins who were brought before him were not condemned, but at the same time he did not condone what they were doing.  Our goal is to be more like him.  We are not to go around trying to make the world a miserable place, or lose our patience with those who would assail us.  The Lord almost always remained calm, collected, and loving towards others in the New Testament.  When he did react, it was calculated (such as in the temple) and in regards to violations towards more holy subjects.

The easy way is more the Law of Moses, which is perfectly fine in how to choose to react..  The harder way is the beatitudes and the example the Lord set.

In your example, I'm going to stay out of that situation and commenting on it unless I'm your ecclesiastical authority.  I will be neither happy nor unhappy about what you are doing, as time will eventually bring about a state of unhappiness from what you are doing.

HOWEVER, if you are then excommunicated, or leave the church, and your wife divorces you and you continue living a style of fornication and are happy, my response would be different.  If you are happy in the lifestyle you have chosen, I'll be happy that you have finally found a way to do what you wish without destroying your marriage (now that you are divorced) or trying to wrestle with the church from the inside out.  I'll feel that your choice of lifestyle is not in accordance with the way the Lord has chosen, and is in fact the wrong way to conduct yourself, but as you are my friend, and no longer part of the church itself, then you must make the choice for yourself whether to once again follow the Lord or go your own way.

All I can do is try to present myself in a good example and try to follow the Lord in the hopes that some day you may feel a desire to return to him as well.  You've already made it clear what way you want to go before that when you chose a lifestyle that would get you excommunicated.  You already know what is right and what is wrong.  Me, condemning you over that is NOT going to change anything except maybe make you angry at me, and eventually make it so you decide we are NOT friends.  As a friend, I should love you as a friend and remain happy for you in moments when you can find happiness.  The best thing I could do is to try to remain your friend.  Being sour and hating on you because I don't approve your actions is not going to help a friendship, be a good example you can reflect on, or do anything that would bring you back to the church with most people I have known in that type of situation.

[yjacket]

And God has told us that wickedness never was happiness.  Either it is true or it isn't.  There is no middle ground. So for us as LDS members to be happy for someone who is living in sin is stupid.  

You have bought into one of the lies of modern society.  We see that when 2 homosexuals get married.  Members of the church, saying "oh I'm so happy for you".  What have we gone mad.  I'm happy that you are entering into a life of sin, totally against God's will??

When you express happiness at others who live their live in sin directly contrary to God's will that is not being a good example. We don't have to be jerks, but at the same time we don't have to condone it-and yes saying you are happy that they are happy is condoning it. 

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

As a friend, I should love you as a friend and remain happy for you in moments when you can find happiness.  

No.  That isn't a friend that is an enabler!!!  My friend wants to jump off a bridge b/c he thinks it will bring happiness.  "Welp, I'm happy that you are happy with that decision".  Come on, that is dumb. 

I true friend warns, uplifts and says, I don't agree with this decision, it will not bring you true happiness; if that is what you wish to do-it is your life, but I will not rejoice in your "happiness" and I won't enable you.  I will still be here as a friend-but I ain't gonna cheer you on in this.

And quite frankly this is exactly the problem, b/c too many members of the Church really don't believe that homosexual behavior is sin or xyz and it is being pushed that "well there is nothing we can do, so we should just be happy for them".  This world has gone mad.

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

The harder way is the beatitudes and the example the Lord set.

Please tell me where in the beatitudes is this attitude you speak of being happy for those who are "happy" in their sin.

3. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Nope not here)

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Nope not here)

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (Nope not here)

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (Definitely not here)

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Nope not here)

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (Nope not here)

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Nope not here)

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Nope not here)

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.(Nope not here)

I don't think you know what you are talking about.  Yes I am a little cranky tonight (war and people-including members rejoicing in it-gets me cranky, I apologize I'll get it out of my system). People think Jesus was all about "love, peace happiness".  He was but only in those things that were righteous and in those instances where people were truly repentant of their sins. He was extremely harsh to those who loved wickedness more than righteousness.

And mercy might be twisted into it, but mercy is the withholding of just condemnation or punishment.  It is not the rejoicing of those who sin, but withholding punishment.  Mercy would be simply saying "okay, you have your decision to make, whatever you choose". Not "I'm happy for you". On a scale there is condemning, mercy (i.e. withholding judgement), and condoning (saying I'm happy for you is condoning it).

Edited April 9, 2017 by yjacket

[Seek]

30 minutes ago, yjacket said:

And God has told us that wickedness never was happiness.  Either it is true or it isn't.  There is no middle ground. So for us as LDS members to be happy for someone who is living in sin is stupid.  

You have bought into one of the lies of modern society.  We see that when 2 homosexuals get married.  Members of the church, saying "oh I'm so happy for you".  What have we gone mad.  I'm happy that you are entering into a life of sin, totally against God's will??

When you express happiness at others who live their live in sin directly contrary to God's will that is not being a good example. We don't have to be jerks, but at the same time we don't have to condone it-and yes saying you are happy that they are happy is condoning it. 

Who isn't living in sin? Let he who hasn't sinned cast the first word.

Why not lend a hand and help them to their feet so to speak (be positive), instead of keeping them down with your open disapproval? 

If you took the log out of your own eye before trying to take the sliver out of theirs, that would be one thing.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Seek

[Blackmarch]

16 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

In my ward, a young man who was excommunicated because of homosexuality and apostasy  Now he calls the members, and tells them that the church is a lie. He has already called me. Last night he stood before my door, with a young man, holding hands and kissing. For me a provocation. I asked him to leave, but he gave me a book, written by an evangelical priest (Rüdiger Hauth), who writes about what is going on in the temple.
I did not want the book, and this morning I found it in the mailbox!
I took the book to my apartment and thrown it into the trash can. The dog (I have a German shepherd and a Poodle), has brought out the book from the trash can, and has given me (the shepherd). I have three questions:
 

1. How should I deal with this former member?
2. Should I read the book or send it back to him (he was my home teacher)? .
3. Can you pray for me so that I am strong enough to make the right decision?

I thank you all!

1) if i were in your shoes id thank the guy and tell him something along this line;

"thank you for your concern, and for your time, and i have your book. However i am where i am because of answers i got from god. I understand you believe that i am in a bad spot and getting swindled by the church.  That is fine I am here because god wants me here furthermore all my experience indicates to me the contrary. Please understand i have gotten your message, however if you really want me to leave then rhe best thing for you to do is to pray to god to give me answers.

As I have gotten your message you do not need to keep contacting me or engaging in behavior towards me that is both disruptive and demeaning ( you may have to be specific on what behaviors)  and i am now requesting you to cease these activities towards me, and if you should choose to continue to do so anytime from here on out it will be harassment to me and I will take legal recourse against it, do you understand?"

If i thought it was bad enough id write out my response and print couple copies and ask him to sign them.

2) no. Not worth it, and im talking from experience. They never have the full truth

3) will do

If he continues afterward, id go to the police and ask what to do about harassment. Also things like him kissing another guy on your doorstep and that sort of thing if you didnt give an invite or an ok to do it towards you or on your property can be considered sexual harassment

especially if he continued to do it after you told him to stop... However the big thing here is that he has to know that it is offensive behavior (and do not assume that he knows), you have to tell him verbally or by letter( but if by letter you need to know if he read it so that way can be difficult), or by having someone else inform him (i would highly recommend the police). Once he knows and then engages in that behavior again you have the means to request a legal injunction of some sort based on being sexually harassed or harassed.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Blackmarch