|
Post by burdenofproof on Feb 3, 2011 19:30:26 GMT -5
The end result was that even with all the evidence presented to them (and it was much more than just this incident), the worker was moved to a new field and the most action taken was against those that brought the issue to the attention of other overseers. What did you mean by this, Scott? Were the victims/accusers punished or made to feel guilty? .....as in...."shoot the messenger"? This thing that you and Scott bring up is part of why people are either reluctant or afraid to "speak up" against wrong doings. Because, unfortunately, what has happened in some of these types of situations is that rather than address the most pressing problem or address the problem that the "messenger" brings to light, they turn on the messenger and find that it if far easier to dismiss said problem if they can somehow "discredit" the person tying to bring a problem to the the attention.fwiw-bop
|
|
|
Post by emy on Feb 3, 2011 19:40:10 GMT -5
If you have a benevolent/loving/Godly overseer then the Lord's people prosper. But, if one has a tyranical overseer who enjoys the power for power's sake, then the Lord's people suffer. And as TS has learned from speaking with over 21 of them, some of them are kind and some of them are not so kind. But NONE seemed to indicate that they had any authority beyond their own fiefdom. And so it should be. Each one should be accountable to God for his actions in his area of responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 3, 2011 19:52:46 GMT -5
If you have a benevolent/loving/Godly overseer then the Lord's people prosper. But, if one has a tyranical overseer who enjoys the power for power's sake, then the Lord's people suffer. And as TS has learned from speaking with over 21 of them, some of them are kind and some of them are not so kind. But NONE seemed to indicate that they had any authority beyond their own fiefdom. And so it should be. Each one should be accountable to God for his actions in his area of responsibility. I would beg to disagree, emy. Because of such an attitude we find there are different teachings and rulings. Instead of a spirit of cooperation and unity some stronger minded men have been allowed to develop their own interpretations and rules and other overseers have not dared to step up to point out something different. Now if such men have (and they often do) a leaning towards abusing their position they are almost in an untouchable position. The word 'fiefdom' in such a case would be a fair description.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Feb 3, 2011 21:38:20 GMT -5
And so it should be. Each one should be accountable to God for his actions in his area of responsibility. I would beg to disagree, emy. Because of such an attitude we find there are different teachings and rulings. Instead of a spirit of cooperation and unity some stronger minded men have been allowed to develop their own interpretations and rules and other overseers have not dared to step up to point out something different. Now if such men have (and they often do) a leaning towards abusing their position they are almost in an untouchable position. The word 'fiefdom' in such a case would be a fair description. To the best of my knowledge, these men who are overseers get together often, albeit in small groups usually, and have discussions about various topics. There may be things they don't come to an agreement on, but I'm OK with letting God work that out in His time. Anyone know how long the priesthood was corrupt before God raised up Samuel?
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Feb 3, 2011 21:39:32 GMT -5
I would beg to disagree, emy. Because of such an attitude we find there are different teachings and rulings. Instead of a spirit of cooperation and unity some stronger minded men have been allowed to develop their own interpretations and rules and other overseers have not dared to step up to point out something different. Now if such men have (and they often do) a leaning towards abusing their position they are almost in an untouchable position. The word 'fiefdom' in such a case would be a fair description. To the best of my knowledge, these men who are overseers get together often, albeit in small groups usually, and have discussions about various topics. There may be things they don't come to an agreement on, but I'm OK with letting God work that out in His time. Anyone know how long the priesthood was corrupt before God raised up Samuel? Maybe TS is Samuel. I know of two overseers that protect each other. One was moved to a new state after the husband complained about the man's behavior around his wife. The husband was VERY upset about the incident. This is a different case then the other case that I had written about with ANOTHER overseer that has a history of such behavior and keeps getting moved around. Did you know that some of the victims, Emy, your professing sisters in Christ read this board and are CHEERING TS on. Someone is finally giving them a voice. The workers told them not to speak on the matter- and one professing lady because she dared to "disobey" and spoke out, she was told to stop taking part in meeting because she spoke of the incident. These are professing people. Your sisters in Christ that are getting mistreated and muzzled. It is the muzzling of the sheep and the mistreatment of the sheep FOR THE WORKERS SINS that disturbs me.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 3, 2011 21:41:31 GMT -5
And so it should be. Each one should be accountable to God for his actions in his area of responsibility. I would beg to disagree, emy. Because of such an attitude we find there are different teachings and rulings. Instead of a spirit of cooperation and unity some stronger minded men have been allowed to develop their own interpretations and rules and other overseers have not dared to step up to point out something different. Now if such men have (and they often do) a leaning towards abusing their position they are almost in an untouchable position. The word 'fiefdom' in such a case would be a fair description. Fiefdom is surely relatively proper with all the elbows stuck out that is a warning to any peer or any person really trying to step into "my place, my field, my people, my workers". But this kind of possessiveness is not just within the workership....you can find it probably most any place where there are a number of employees together....sometimes it becomes just a political arena that one doesn't know when it's safe to step into a new area or not....someone is going to have their arms all around that area and declaring with their elbows "Don't you dare touch this, IT'S MINE!"
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 3, 2011 21:58:36 GMT -5
To the best of my knowledge, these men who are overseers get together often, albeit in small groups usually, and have discussions about various topics. There may be things they don't come to an agreement on, but I'm OK with letting God work that out in His time. Anyone know how long the priesthood was corrupt before God raised up Samuel? Do you think it would be possible for them to come to an agreement on sexual immorality? If their gospel doesn't give people power over the sin of sexual promiscuity (as well as child sexual abuse) then why bother preaching it? Or am I old-fashioned?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 4, 2011 0:22:41 GMT -5
If this quote can be believed, and there is no reason to doubt it, it would appear that TS's crusade if not driven by any deep seated belief but more because when he brought his first complaint to the overseer he did not get what he wanted/expected.
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Feb 4, 2011 3:25:53 GMT -5
I can only imagine how difficult it would be for a younger worker to approach a senior with a problem of abuse particularly if the senior worker was close friends with the abuser.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 4, 2011 19:57:17 GMT -5
I can only imagine how difficult it would be for a younger worker to approach a senior with a problem of abuse particularly if the senior worker was close friends with the abuser. Shushy, you've hit on the very belly-button of the sexual misconduct to include CSA! Those involved either as perpatrator or as cover-upper are of similar age and have gone through years of the work as good and dear friends...most of them realizing their ultimate accomplishment of the work being made overseer near to about the same time of perhaps a few years difference. IT IS very difficult to turn your friend in or to demote him. Perhaps we should look at all of this over amount of sexual misconduct as a "sign of the age"....ummmm, most fall within Pres. Clinton's age bracket and that is the "Woodstock age" isn't it? Free sex was a sign of that particular age group wasn't it? Perhaps to a lot of people that age, sex outside of marriage means very little but a temporary release. Also, that age group of people also have come from the mindset that "ambitious men" tend to have an overbearing sex drive as well.....or at least what some have said when Clinton's sexual misconduct became a public disgrace! lah!!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 4, 2011 20:38:56 GMT -5
... On the other have, if the worker is abusing/molesting women the place to bring the complaint is not to the workers but to the authorities. ... I was once approached by a very senior worker / overseer with sexual intent. This was after I was out of the work some years. I stopped him after he got as far as unfastening my belt. It never even occurred to me to contact authorities. I don't think I would have had a supportable case. How far does one have to let the offender go before having enough of a case to report it to the authorities? The reason I bring this up is that I'm not sure the women this worker harassed ever let it get past the harassment stage -- and if they did not, could they report it to authorities, file charges and have something stick? I doubt it, but I'm not familiar with the law on that topic.... But they should certainly report it to the the church!!
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Feb 4, 2011 21:04:58 GMT -5
It is my understanding that many times the victim blames themselves for what transpired. This is why nothing is said because they feel ashamed and humiliated.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Feb 4, 2011 22:14:01 GMT -5
... I was once approached by a very senior worker / overseer with sexual intent. This was after I was out of the work some years. I stopped him after he got as far as unfastening my belt.... I recently read that this approach was also used by a "non-victim" victim of the overseer currently being castigated for his immorality. For one adult dealing with another adult, it seems a good route to take, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 4, 2011 22:21:58 GMT -5
... I was once approached by a very senior worker / overseer with sexual intent. This was after I was out of the work some years. I stopped him after he got as far as unfastening my belt.... I recently read that this approach was also used by a "non-victim" victim of the overseer currently being castigated for his immorality. For one adult dealing with another adult, it seems a good route to take, imo. Yes, but.... If the strange man around the corner is doing such things (with adults), then yes, the adults should stop him before it gets far enough to be criminal. But if a SENIOR WORKER is doing it, he should be kicked out of the work with no ceremony and no mercy! Period! Incidentally, I did report this worker a few years later. I heard through the grapevine that a worker might have talked to him about it, but I the WIQ never contacted me again, and I had no formal response from the worker to whom I reported it. Ah, well... poor old coot. He's dead now.
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Feb 4, 2011 22:51:23 GMT -5
If the strange man around the corner is doing such things (with adults), then yes, the adults should stop him before it gets far enough to be criminal. But if a SENIOR WORKER is doing it, he should be kicked out of the work with no ceremony and no mercy! Period! Worker: Gene, thanks for bringing this to our attention. But that man is an overseer in another state. I have no jurisdiction. But I will check into it quietly and see where it goes. We trust the Lord's leading in these matters.
But I am concerned for your soul, Gene. Have you been to Gospel meeting? You have?! Good, good. What's that you say? The overseer tried to force himself upon you AFTER the gospel meeting? Oh, I see. But, we really do feel that gospel meetings are the best place for you now. We all have failings. We aren't perfect. We would appreciate it if you didn't talk about this with anyone. We don't want to hurt any that might be weak in faith.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Feb 4, 2011 23:44:44 GMT -5
If this quote can be believed, and there is no reason to doubt it, it would appear that TS's crusade if not driven by any deep seated belief but more because when he brought his first complaint to the overseer he did not get what he wanted/expected. That is one possible scenario. But that is not true. The truth is that there were obvious lies on the part of the overseers. They tried to put a full stop where there was a big question mark. Now, the worker they were hiding has had to admit to not only the sexual affairs that he had denied but also CSA. There was enough known evidence and witnesses to get him out of the work AT LEAST two years ago. His CSA was known WELL before January 2011, when he was put out of the work. Duane Hopkins kept him in the work for at least 3 months and even had him on convention rounds. If you had previously trusted this worker and you had children, what would you feel if this worker had been in your home during those three months and had spent time alone with your children? Would you be concerned? Who would be liable if anything had happened? Duane would have to take responsibility for that one. How are we going to be assured that this will not happen again if we cannot confront overseers? They are sovereign in their realms. If they did it, it must be the best thing to do whether it looks like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 5, 2011 3:11:28 GMT -5
I recently read that this approach was also used by a "non-victim" victim of the overseer currently being castigated for his immorality. For one adult dealing with another adult, it seems a good route to take, imo. Yes, but.... If the strange man around the corner is doing such things (with adults), then yes, the adults should stop him before it gets far enough to be criminal. But if a SENIOR WORKER is doing it, he should be kicked out of the work with no ceremony and no mercy! Period! Incidentally, I did report this worker a few years later. I heard through the grapevine that a worker might have talked to him about it, but I the WIQ never contacted me again, and I had no formal response from the worker to whom I reported it. Ah, well... poor old coot. He's dead now. If the strange man around the corner is doing such things its what we were taught to expect from "the world". Things have changed, and we now need to teach our chldren and young people to expect it from "very responsible servants of God". Our young people must learn to be firm with these poor creatures preachers. And figure out how to do it nicely so they don't get denied baptism and having a part in meeting.
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Feb 5, 2011 5:43:22 GMT -5
I can only imagine how difficult it would be for a younger worker to approach a senior with a problem of abuse particularly if the senior worker was close friends with the abuser. Shushy, you've hit on the very belly-button of the sexual misconduct to include CSA! Those involved either as perpatrator or as cover-upper are of similar age and have gone through years of the work as good and dear friends...most of them realizing their ultimate accomplishment of the work being made overseer near to about the same time of perhaps a few years difference. IT IS very difficult to turn your friend in or to demote him. Perhaps we should look at all of this over amount of sexual misconduct as a "sign of the age"....ummmm, most fall within Pres. Clinton's age bracket and that is the "Woodstock age" isn't it? Free sex was a sign of that particular age group wasn't it? Perhaps to a lot of people that age, sex outside of marriage means very little but a temporary release. Also, that age group of people also have come from the mindset that "ambitious men" tend to have an overbearing sex drive as well.....or at least what some have said when Clinton's sexual misconduct became a public disgrace! lah!! Today there is a lot of sexual advertising everywhere you go in a modern city. There was a program on TV here recently with a sex therapist @ a conference. I found it interesting that a mans sex drive as they get older steps up unless there is CA or prostate problems and other things compared to an aging female who is winding down or the majority are apparently. I doubt that has anything to do with an abuser, I would think if someone is abusing they have possibly been doing it a long time.
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Feb 5, 2011 5:45:32 GMT -5
I recently read that this approach was also used by a "non-victim" victim of the overseer currently being castigated for his immorality. For one adult dealing with another adult, it seems a good route to take, imo. Yes, but.... If the strange man around the corner is doing such things (with adults), then yes, the adults should stop him before it gets far enough to be criminal. But if a SENIOR WORKER is doing it, he should be kicked out of the work with no ceremony and no mercy! Period! Incidentally, I did report this worker a few years later. I heard through the grapevine that a worker might have talked to him about it, but I the WIQ never contacted me again, and I had no formal response from the worker to whom I reported it. Ah, well... poor old coot. He's dead now. Gene, you should have punched his lights out for starters!!!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 5, 2011 6:35:27 GMT -5
Yes, but.... If the strange man around the corner is doing such things (with adults), then yes, the adults should stop him before it gets far enough to be criminal. But if a SENIOR WORKER is doing it, he should be kicked out of the work with no ceremony and no mercy! Period! Incidentally, I did report this worker a few years later. I heard through the grapevine that a worker might have talked to him about it, but I the WIQ never contacted me again, and I had no formal response from the worker to whom I reported it. Ah, well... poor old coot. He's dead now. If the strange man around the corner is doing such things its what we were taught to expect from "the world". Things have changed, and we now need to teach our chldren and young people to expect it from "very responsible servants of God". No, things haven't changed. The workers have always been just people. And, as such, should be as suspect as any other adult that has close contact with children. We do need to educate people regarding CSA. Report criminal activities, or suspicion of criminal activity, to the proper authorities.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Feb 5, 2011 7:54:37 GMT -5
I recently read that this approach was also used by a "non-victim" victim of the overseer currently being castigated for his immorality. For one adult dealing with another adult, it seems a good route to take, imo. Yes, but.... If the strange man around the corner is doing such things (with adults), then yes, the adults should stop him before it gets far enough to be criminal. But if a SENIOR WORKER is doing it, he should be kicked out of the work with no ceremony and no mercy! Period! Incidentally, I did report this worker a few years later. I heard through the grapevine that a worker might have talked to him about it, but I the WIQ never contacted me again, and I had no formal response from the worker to whom I reported it. Ah, well... poor old coot. He's dead now. Well, you were probably the only one that that ever happened to, so it was probably no big deal. Just a once off lapse of judgment. His actions towards you cannot undo all the good he did for the kingdom. .....Something like that. That is the standard response.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 5, 2011 8:02:07 GMT -5
Yes, but.... If the strange man around the corner is doing such things (with adults), then yes, the adults should stop him before it gets far enough to be criminal. But if a SENIOR WORKER is doing it, he should be kicked out of the work with no ceremony and no mercy! Period! Incidentally, I did report this worker a few years later. I heard through the grapevine that a worker might have talked to him about it, but I the WIQ never contacted me again, and I had no formal response from the worker to whom I reported it. Ah, well... poor old coot. He's dead now. Gene, you should have punched his lights out for starters!!! He was 80 or 85 years old at the time -- I couldn't strike an old man like that! Besides, he was someone I looked up to greatly, which is why I was alone with him in his room in the owner's house at the convention grounds in the first place! An hour later he was leading the afternoon meeting from the convention platform. I felt like I had walked through a worm hole into an alternate universe. Truly bizarre!
|
|
|
Post by ts on Feb 5, 2011 8:09:00 GMT -5
Gene, you should have punched his lights out for starters!!! He was 80 or 85 years old at the time -- I couldn't strike an old man like that! Besides, he was someone I looked up to greatly, which is why I was alone with him in his room in the owner's house at the convention grounds in the first place! An hour later he was leading the afternoon meeting from the convention platform. I felt like I had walked through a worm hole into an alternate universe. Truly bizarre! And he was the overseer? When the friends hear a story like yours, they think it is rare. I have been hearing these stories from all over the world.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 5, 2011 8:44:30 GMT -5
He was 80 or 85 years old at the time -- I couldn't strike an old man like that! Besides, he was someone I looked up to greatly, which is why I was alone with him in his room in the owner's house at the convention grounds in the first place! An hour later he was leading the afternoon meeting from the convention platform. I felt like I had walked through a worm hole into an alternate universe. Truly bizarre! And he was the overseer? When the friends hear a story like yours, they think it is rare. I have been hearing these stories from all over the world. He was a visiting worker at Independence, Kansas USA that year (1995 or 1996, I think). He had been an overseer for a number of years in various places, but I think by that time he was entering semi-retirement and was no longer an overseer.
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Feb 5, 2011 10:35:16 GMT -5
The picture that's being formed in my mind is that the world has been divided up into 'fields', each with an overseer who is responsible for the goings on in his 'field'. Communication and interaction between overseers is limited and marginal and authority over overseers doesn't exist. Once an overseer becomes established in a 'field' it is rare that he is ever moved to another field. Hence, he feels that he owns that 'field' and can do with it as he likes.
Problems within the 'field' were quite easily contained within the 'field' for many years because 'field' to 'field' movement of professing folks was quite rare. Written communication was slow and cumbersome and telephone communication long-distance extremely expensive. For that reason overseer abuse and overseer miss-governance could also be quite easily contained.
Some on this thread have referred to these 'fields' as 'fiefdoms'. Others have agreed that this might be an accurate description.
What I am thinking is that history is actually repeating itself. Are we not in a similar situation to that of the time of the 'Judges'? Is it about time for the professing people to start asking for a 'King'?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 5, 2011 10:48:23 GMT -5
The picture that's being formed in my mind is that the world has been divided up into 'fields', each with an overseer who is responsible for the goings on in his 'field'. Communication and interaction between overseers is limited and marginal and authority over overseers doesn't exist. Once an overseer becomes established in a 'field' it is rare that he is ever moved to another field. Hence, he feels that he owns that 'field' and can do with it as he likes. Problems within the 'field' were quite easily contained within the 'field' for many years because 'field' to 'field' movement of professing folks was quite rare. Written communication was slow and cumbersome and telephone communication long-distance extremely expensive. For that reason overseer abuse and overseer miss-governance could also be quite easily contained. Some on this thread have referred to these 'fields' as 'fiefdoms'. Others have agreed that this might be an accurate description. What I am thinking is that history is actually repeating itself. Are we not in a similar situation to that of the time of the 'Judges'? Is it about time for the professing people to start asking for a 'King'? Yes, it is time....the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Prince of peace! Just putting people where people should be and not idolizing any of them! Learning that is to worship in spirit and truth....keeping our eyes on Jesus and not mortal man! Demoting those we've put on pedestals of honor and walk BESIDE them not bowing BEFORE them.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 5, 2011 14:29:34 GMT -5
Communication and interaction between overseers is limited and marginal and authority over overseers doesn't exist. Interestingly overseers can communicate well enough to co-ordinate all the comings and goings of workers around the world. They can communicate enough to forbid an ex-worker in New Zealand from having fellowship because he fell out with overseers in the USA. They can communicate enough to sanction a couple in Australia because of their status in Canada. They only have communication difficulties when it comes to immorality amongst their closest friends.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Feb 5, 2011 14:44:24 GMT -5
Communication and interaction between overseers is limited and marginal and authority over overseers doesn't exist. Interestingly overseers can communicate well enough to co-ordinate all the comings and goings of workers around the world. They can communicate enough to forbid an ex-worker in New Zealand from having fellowship because he fell out with overseers in the USA. They can communicate enough to sanction a couple in Australia because of their status in Canada. They only have communication difficulties when it comes to immorality amongst their closest friends. true.
|
|