Relevation & Inspiration...MTC abuse

[Guest]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

fixed.

Well, I'd agree that if I were the saintly example of a Christlike individual, that would be true and correct.

If.

[The Folk Prophet]

32 minutes ago, Crash said:

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. 

Wow...it's almost surreal watching someone else have it out with @anatess2.

FWIW, she's pig-headed to a fault, but generally well-intentioned.

I recommend leniency. She's pig-headed, but not a sociopath.  

Edit: Incidentally...I'm well aware of the pot calling the kettle black comments that might follow. So...you know....save it folks.

Edited March 27, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Wow...it's almost surreal watching someone else have it out with @anatess2.

FWIW, she's pig-headed to a fault, but generally well-intentioned.

I recommend leniency. She's pig-headed, but not a sociopath.  

I'd rather be a sociopath than pig-headed.  C'mon... there's just no good way to rock this look!  And I hate Miss Piggy!  I love Yoda though.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

And I hate Miss Piggy!  I love Yoda though.

...who is the same person....hmm.... Never thought about that before now.

[Guest]

Differing accounts are muddying this investigation.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/details-revealed-in-sex-assault-case-involving-ex-mormon-official/

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY — A former Mormon missionary leader under investigation by church officials over sexual assault allegations said he asked the alleged victim to expose herself to him during a 1984 encounter but that he didn’t rape her, a police report reveals.

It is the first public disclosure of Joseph L. Bishop, 85, acknowledging wrongdoing and contradicts his son’s account that the woman exposed her breasts without being asked.

But Craig Vernon, an attorney for the alleged victim, said his client never exposed herself and that Bishop ripped off her blouse and raped her.

Bishop has repeatedly denied raping the woman, but is heard apologizing to her during a December conversation she secretly recorded with him.

I dunno.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Differing accounts are muddying this investigation.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/details-revealed-in-sex-assault-case-involving-ex-mormon-official/

I dunno.

And apparently something about a bikini. 

[Crash]

19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

Here ya go:

That's what you got out of my post that started with "in all seriousness"... which separated the paragraph from the humor before it.  If that's what you got out of it, then there's nothing I can do about it.  That's not a mere misunderstanding.  That's character assassination.  The way I see it, you're like the lion with a thorn on its paw.  You're lashing out from a perceived insult you thought I hurled at you.  Nothing I can do about that.

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. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Crash

[Crash]

19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

Here ya go:

That's what you got out of my post that started with "in all seriousness"... which separated the paragraph from the humor before it.  If that's what you got out of it, then there's nothing I can do about it.  That's not a mere misunderstanding.  That's character assassination.  The way I see it, you're like the lion with a thorn on its paw.  You're lashing out from a perceived insult you thought I hurled at you.  Nothing I can do about that.

Double post 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Crash

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Differing accounts are muddying this investigation.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/details-revealed-in-sex-assault-case-involving-ex-mormon-official/

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY — A former Mormon missionary leader under investigation by church officials over sexual assault allegations said he asked the alleged victim to expose herself to him during a 1984 encounter but that he didn’t rape her, a police report reveals.

It is the first public disclosure of Joseph L. Bishop, 85, acknowledging wrongdoing and contradicts his son’s account that the woman exposed her breasts without being asked.

But Craig Vernon, an attorney for the alleged victim, said his client never exposed herself and that Bishop ripped off her blouse and raped her.

Bishop has repeatedly denied raping the woman, but is heard apologizing to her during a December conversation she secretly recorded with him.

I dunno.

I am inclined to believe Bishop's confession, not because he and I are both men, and not because he was a Church authority. I'm inclined to believe his account because, when I put myself in his shoes, I would do what he's doing. I would openly confess to my perversions, and I would quit trying to hide anything -- because, you know, I'm 85 and I just had heart surgery, and in a matter of a few hundred days, maybe a thousand if I'm lucky, I'm going to be answering to my Creator for what I have done. But I would most certainly not admit to doing something that I didn't do.

Bishop cannot be charged with rape, even if he admits to doing it. What incentive does he have to confess to being a sexual slimeball but then say that he didn't actually rape her? To my ear, his confession rings true. And a man would have to be blackhearted indeed to forcibly rape a woman, which does not appear to be Bishop's particular wickedness.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Crash said:

So, you must've passed over my statement about not knowing when someone here was being humorous or nefarious and the 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. 

Sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong:

Crash, my advice is to forget what anatess said, wash the slate clean, and have another go at things. I think you'll find that anatess is clever, insightful, and overall quite a delight to read. You may not always agree with her, and you may occasionally be at odds with her, but in general you'll find a pleasant conversation companion.

In all seriousness, for what it's worth, I recommend that you simply bury this past exchange, pretending it never happened, and start afresh.

[wenglund]

1 hour 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. 

Evidently, by your own "reasoning" then, you failed to use the Spirit when conversing with @LiterateParakeet abd @zil since there was far less than a perfect understanding.

And, while the Spirit can be of help facilitating understanding between men and women, the gift of tongues is only given to some--which gift includes conversing effectively in the same language. I evidently don't have the gift of tongues when it comes to speaking with women about, or comprehending the way many women think on certain subjects, particularly relationship issues between men and women. And, if this thread is any indication, I am certainly not alone.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Crash said:

So, you must've passed over my statement about not knowing when someone here was being humorous or nefarious and the 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. 

<serious> Free agency means - you don't have to get the likelihood of anybody's innocence if you don't want to. </>  <trollish> I'm just fine with living rent free in your head!  Pig-headed!  Woot woot woot!  Take a bow.  </>

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am inclined to believe Bishop's confession, not because he and I are both men, and not because he was a Church authority. I'm inclined to believe his account because, when I put myself in his shoes, I would do what he's doing. I would openly confess to my perversions, and I would quit trying to hide anything -- because, you know, I'm 85 and I just had heart surgery, and in a matter of a few hundred days, maybe a thousand if I'm lucky, I'm going to be answering to my Creator for what I have done. But I would most certainly not admit to doing something that I didn't do.

Bishop cannot be charged with rape, even if he admits to doing it. What incentive does he have to confess to being a sexual slimeball but then say that he didn't actually rape her? To my ear, his confession rings true. And a man would have to be blackhearted indeed to forcibly rape a woman, which does not appear to be Bishop's particular wickedness.

I have to yet again admit that you have a lot of logic to your post.

[Just_A_Guy]

Two thoughts:

1). This is probably going to a courtroom.  Not a criminal courtroom; but a civil one.  The lady has indicated an intent to sue the Church.

2). @Vort and @anatess2 - I am partially sympathetic to the power dynamic issue, but navigating power imbalances is part and parcel of being an adult. Further, society has a remedy for people who are unable to hold their own in such situations:  we label them as “children” or “incompetent”; deny them the rights to contract, vote, and marry; and assign a legal guardian to protect them and manage their affairs.  Victorian society infantilized women based largely on the presumption that women, as potential targets of sexual exploitation, could not independently manage those power imbalances; whereas first- and second-wave feminism were dedicated to the proposition that grown women could cope with these sorts of issues just fine. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Two thoughts:

1). This is probably going to ancoirtroo.  Not a criminal courtroom; but a civil one.  The lady has indicated an intent to sue the Church.

Gee, what could possibly be the motivation there?

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2). @Vort and @anatess2 - I am partially sympathetic to the power dynamic issue, but navigating power imbalances is part and parcel of being an adult. Further, society has a remedy for people who are unable to hold their own in such situations:  we label them as “children”; deny them the rights to contract, vote, and marry; and assign a legal guardian to protect them and manage their affairs.  Victorian society was based on the presumption that women could not independently manage those power imbalances; whereas first- and second-wave feminism were dedicated to the proposition that grown women could handle those imbalances just fine. 

That is quite inciteful insightful.

[Crash]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

<serious> Free agency means - you don't have to get the likelihood of anybody's innocence if you don't want to. </>  <trollish> I'm just fine with living rent free in your head!  Pig-headed!  Woot woot woot!  Take a bow.  </>

 

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.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Crash said:

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. 

Not that anyone asked for my opinion here, but I'll give it anyway because it's a public forum.

Anatess makes her statements and sticks to them.  If that means she gets into a fight with anyone regardless of understanding or lack thereof, she'll dig in deep.  Or to use the vernacular from the other side of the pond, like an English Bulldog, she clamps on and doesn't let go.

When another thread begins, she holds no grudges and begins anew on a new thread as if we're all friends again.  So, Vort's advice is sound.  Just let it go and when another thread comes up then you can be friends again... as far as she's concerned.

And speaking of opinions: Those shoes don't match those pants!!!

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2). @Vort and @anatess2 - I am partially sympathetic to the power dynamic issue, but navigating power imbalances is part and parcel of being an adult. Further, society has a remedy for people who are unable to hold their own in such situations:  we label them as “children” or “incompetent”; deny them the rights to contract, vote, and marry; and assign a legal guardian to protect them and manage their affairs.  Victorian society was based on the presumption that women could not independently manage those power imbalances; whereas first- and second-wave feminism were dedicated to the proposition that grown women could cope with these sorts of issues just fine. 

This is absolutely correct in principle.  I don't know how it plays out in practical assignment of guilt.  Yes, the grown woman should be able to cope with these sorts of power imbalance.  But, if she fails in that, that's not exculpatory, right?  And yes, we're focusing on the woman being a victim but this also applies if the man was the victim.

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think you'll find that anatess is ... a delight to read.

Well now that's a bit of a stretch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Crash said:

Stop the passive aggressiveness and grow up.

Hey Crash, there's a beam in your eye.  smh.

 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well now that's a bit of a stretch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Take the internet away from this guy.  He's abusing dancing bananas.

[Rob Osborn]

22 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Evidently, by your own "reasoning" then, you failed to use the Spirit when conversing with @LiterateParakeet abd @zil since there was far less than a perfect understanding.

And, while the Spirit can be of help facilitating understanding between men and women, the gift of tongues is only given to some--which gift includes conversing effectively in the same language. I evidently don't have the gift of tongues when it comes to speaking with women about, or comprehending the way many women think on certain subjects, particularly relationship issues between men and women. And, if this thread is any indication, I am certainly not alone.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think theres one big factor in all this. When one political view clashes with another (in this case its feminism vs. Traditional christianity) you are going to get people who "supposedly" dont undrrstand each other. The big issue with feminism is that they dont wish to conform to natural roles according to their sex. Thus they want to create this "equality". But, this equality doesnt solve their problems. Its misled. For instance- they dont want men to lead, they want that job or at least want an equal part in it. They somehow think that if men werent in charge all the problems with rape go away.  They believe that men intentionally place themselves in leadership roles to take advantage of women. When you try to debate issues such as rape its suddenly "men dont understand women". Its false, a lie. A blatant feminist tactic. If that was really the truth then it would be impossible for Christ, who is male, to atone for women. I imagine that at some point feminists will seek to make Christ genderless or even a woman. They already are praying to our Mother in heaven and giving blessings to each other without authority.

The truth is I perfectly understand my wife and she understands me. The difference in this forum is some of tge people in this debate are feminists.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Anatess makes her statements and sticks to them.  If that means she gets into a fight with anyone regardless of understanding or lack thereof, she'll dig in deep.  Or to use the vernacular from the other side of the pond, like an English Bulldog, she clamps on and doesn't let go.

Great, now I'm a pig-headed english bulldog.  There's no way I can find a proper image for that!

 

[Just_A_Guy]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is absolutely correct in principle.  I don't know how it plays out in practical assignment of guilt.  Yes, the grown woman should be able to cope with these sorts of power imbalance.  But, if she fails in that, that's not exculpatory, right?  And yes, we're focusing on the woman being a victim but this also applies if the man was the victim.

Morally, of course it’s not exculpatory as to the perpetrator.  As Church members we have community standards; and our community has mechanisms for enforcing those standards on those who violate them (including ecclesiastical discipline and public shaming).  

But as a matter of law, the presumption is that an eighteen-year-old woman can hold her own against a priest, a professor, or a president.  Teenaged girls need to be taught and prepared to meet this expectation; and if they can’t meet it by the “age of majority” then we probably need to look into changing that age and/or improving the way we teach young women to handle the demands of adulthood. 

By the way:  for some reason I keep thinking of Cary Grant’s line from “Operation Petticoat”:  

“Lieutenant, when a woman is under 21 she’s protected by law.  When she’s over 65 she’s protected by nature.  Anywhere in between:  fair game.  Look out.”

Edited March 27, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

But, if she fails in that, that's not exculpatory, right?

Are we talking about rape or consensual activity? If the former, then no, a woman's failure to successfully navigate social situations does not exculpate her rapist. If the latter, then yes, if an adult woman (or a man) is too stupid to know how to act in a social situation and allows herself (himself) to be drawn into a sexual relationship that s/he doesn't want, then the other person is legally justified.

(I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet. But I do have an IQ north of 90 coupled with the ability to apply common sense to various hypothetical situations.)