Relevation & Inspiration...MTC abuse

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Crash said:

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. 

Oh give me a break.  Peoplekind Trudeau doesn't post here.  Oh wait... Prime Minister, is that you?

[Vort]

10 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

"history of embellishment"  Yeah....see zil's post.  All us women knew something like that was coming.  

You're saying it's false? Or you're saying it's irrelevant?

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

I give up.

Was this in response to me?

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Crash said:

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. 

I don't think anything said "bikini" anywhere...but I digress....

It's interesting as a theoretical idea if we apply this to @anatess2's comments... Men are naturally (enemy to God) aggressive (sexually or otherwise), and women are naturally (enemy to God)...um...compassionate (referencing the negative part of this trait). Generally the idea that men curb their natural enemy-to-God imperfect state is acceptable. But often the idea of curbing the natural negative, enemy-to-God state of inward focused compassion (I don't think that's the best word...got to be a better one to express the idea, even though I get what anatess is saying) is considered sexist and uncaring and callous. Women are often viewed as victims of their natural state, whereas men are not. (As seen in suggestions where we stop telling women this good idea or that good idea because they can't/won't understand).

That's sexist.

Neither one are victims of their natural state, and both have the ability and need to put off the natural man. 

[anatess2]

THE DUPE MONSTER IS BACK.

Edited March 27, 2018 by anatess2

[Vort]

10 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Carb, don't you see the irony here.  She says he raped her.  He admits to touching a sister missionaries breasts, and people here say...."but we don't know what happened."  

BUT he claims she made stuff up and it's "Well, see she's just a liar."  Someone else is even accusing some sister he knew during that time...

I have seen no reports that Bishop says she made stuff up. Brother Leavitt, her branch president in 1984, says she made stuff up.

Fondling breasts exposed willingly by an adult woman is deplorable. But it's a far cry from forcible rape, which is her claim. No, this is not a double standard.

[Vort]

9 hours ago, lostinwater said:

i hear this story - i see a woman who has obtained a taped confession from the man who raped her.

Did this happen? Reports I have heard indicate this is not so.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think anything said "bikini" anywhere...but I digress....

It's interesting as a theoretical idea if we apply this to @anatess2's comments... Men are naturally (enemy to God) aggressive (sexually or otherwise), and women are naturally (enemy to God)...um...compassionate (referencing the negative part of this trait). Generally the idea that men curb their natural enemy-to-God imperfect state is acceptable. But often the idea of curbing the natural negative, enemy-to-God state of inward focused compassion (I don't think that's the best word...got to be a better one to express the idea, even though I get what anatess is saying) is considered sexist and uncaring and callous. Women are often viewed as victims of their natural state, whereas men are not. (As seen in suggestions where we stop telling women this good idea or that good idea because they can't/won't understand).

That's sexist.

Neither one are victims of their natural state, and both have the ability and need to put off the natural man. 

And this is why you are somebody special on these forums TFP.  You understood me.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Fondling breasts exposed willingly by an adult woman [you're not married to] is deplorable.

Fixed it.

Probably entirely inappropriate. But fixed, nonetheless.

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Bishop's name is out there, and he is being mercilessly pilloried. The hypocrisy of "journalistic ethics" notwithstanding, I see no reason why his accuser should be granted anonymity that he doesn't get.

Because we do not know that the lady named IS the accuser...  It could be... or it might not...   Would you like your real world name linked to this case just because someone "thought it might be you?"

 

[zil]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Was this in response to me?

I meant I'm done trying to explain what I mean.  If what I've already written is inadequate, so be it.

[Rob Osborn]

38 minutes ago, Crash said:

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. 

Spot on.

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Because we do not know that the lady named IS the accuser...  It could be... or it might not...   Would you like your real world name linked to this case just because someone "thought it might be you?"

 

Just so, @Vort.  As mod staff we’ll have to cross the bridge of whether or not to name the accuser, if and when we get to it.  But for right now, while I very much appreciate @clwnuke‘s added perspective, the simple fact is that we aren’t absolutely positive whether the person (s)he remembers is in fact the accuser.  In the event that the identification is somehow in error, we could get in a lot of trouble for perpetuating that error.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, zil said:

I meant I'm done trying to explain what I mean.  If what I've already written is inadequate, so be it.

I understood what you mean.  It's not inadequate.  I simply see it differently. 

[lostinwater]

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

Did this happen? Reports I have heard indicate this is not so.

Thank-you Sir.

i posted that more as a hypothetical third party perspective of the situation.  

That said, if anyone knows of Bishop - or his son - denying the person being interviewed was in fact Joseph Bishop - definitely please share.  i'll let everyone here analyze the transcript/recording themselves.  

[wenglund]

20 hours ago, zil said:

Like I said, this will sound completely foreign to men - I don't believe they were raised in this world - I don't believe the message was sent in a way that they would perceive it. 

I can personally attest to the truth of this. A little more than a decade ago I was engaged in an online discussion with a number of women, both active and former members, each of whom felt that they had been psychologically damaged by a cupcake analogy used to encourage chastity during a young women's MIA lesson. I attempted to explore their shared reaction from a variety of angles in the hopes of not only correcting what I viewed as a false perception and then help them to heal, but also to understand how they came to the seemingly false perception to begin with. It was a massive fail across the board. They were firm in seeing it one way, and I was firm in seeing it my way, and neither the twin could meet. What was entirely incomprehensible to my male mind seemed completely reasonable to the female minds.

Since then, I have had numerous experiences that reinforced this reality, most particularly with a female friend with whom I have had myriad lengthy verbal exchanges in which we were both speaking English, but it is if we were speaking a foreign language. I would say X, and for whatever reason she would hear not-X, and no amount of talking could convince her otherwise.

So, I have stopped bristling when women say that men wouldn't understand because they are men. It is not that women are saying that men are stupid or clueless or unaware (actually, they often are, but I am trying to be charitable here), but that men's minds lack the capacity to comprehend what is to them incomprehensible.

In a way, this communication disconnect isn't a problem that we men can fix, nor is it necessarily a problem that women view as a problem or want men to fix.

At least that is the way I see it as a man.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Crash]

50 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think anything said "bikini" anywhere...but I digress....

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.

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, wenglund said:

In a way, this communication disconnect isn't a problem that we men can fix, nor is it necessarily a problem that women view as a problem or want men to fix.

Theres a large part of me that states sonething isnt quite right. I strongly feel that this is a perception by the destroyer (Satan). I honestly believe, through the spirit, that men and women can perfectly understand each other. 

[Crash]

55 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Oh give me a break.  Peoplekind Trudeau doesn't post here.  Oh wait... Prime Minister, is that you?

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?

[Vort]

42 minutes ago, zil said:

I meant I'm done trying to explain what I mean.

What are you trying to say here, zil?

[Vort]

23 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you Sir.

i posted that more as a hypothetical third party perspective of the situation.  

That said, if anyone knows of Bishop - or his son - denying the person being interviewed was in fact Joseph Bishop - definitely please share.  i'll let everyone here analyze the transcript/recording themselves.  

Actually, I meant to ask if Bishop confessed to rape. I believe he did not.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Crash said:

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?

I'm guessing that anatess was just being funny and riffing off of what you wrote. She probably agrees with your distinction between "sex" and "gender". I certainly do.

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Crash said:

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.

Um...so this sister missionary was wearing a bikini... in the MTC... .... um ......

Yeah. We clearly have the full details here.

[Crash]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Theres a large part of me that states sonething isnt quite right. I strongly feel that this is a perception by the destroyer (Satan). I honestly believe, through the spirit, that men and women can perfectly understand each other. 

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. 

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, Crash said:

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?

I am sooooo itching to troll you... because you make it so easy.  But I'll engage my compassionate side and let you off the hook to swim in peaceful waters. 

Now, in all seriousness, compelled language is stupid.  Understand what they're saying rather than compelling people to use terms in pedagogical accuracy or political correctness especially if their usage of words is a common cultural usage in the language they employ especially if the distinction is useless in the thought conveyed.