Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2008 12:36:59 GMT -5
I don't know what your job was, but if you ran into a case that involved those kinds of judgements involving this religion, would you have to recuse yourself?
I think you will find that before I would do anything of substance I would have the writer and others involved in the matter properly interviewed in order to establish the facts and circumstances, or see if others had already undertaken that process. I think if you re-read this thread I have alluded to this several times.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 11, 2008 13:12:52 GMT -5
Reply to WHAT's post #61 Clearday wrote about the account published by VOT that it:
"was later edited to expand the church in the story and thereby provide some kind of indictment against the church.
Only the VOT editors know for sure. The VOT is clearly an anti-2x2 site so this kind of editorial adjustment or encouragement of such would not be unthinkable. Frankly, I think the survivor is being victimized again by her writings being used in anti-2x2 politics."
The accusation that VOT has altered any account is simply yellow journalism, and indicates the lengths that some will go to distract attention from the real issues. VOT did not edit this account, nor any other. It is so ironic that further down the thread, Clearday quipsIt appears you would like us to believe that VOT has added to the account without providing any information to substantiate that suspicion. The above quote from what appears to be a VOT member, although not dealing specifically with the header or footer suggests, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that you are merely clutching at straws. This type of tactic makes YOU what you are attempting to accuse VOT of. I have no idea what you're talking about here. I assume "YOU" is supposed to be me since this post follows mine. I've not read everything clearday wrote, so if you have something to say to clearday, then speak to him. If you have something to say to me, then please reference my quotes. I have NEVER accused VOT of altering the story.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 11, 2008 13:17:16 GMT -5
I don't know what your job was, but if you ran into a case that involved those kinds of judgements involving this religion, would you have to recuse yourself? I think you will find that before I would do anything of substance I would have the writer and others involved in the matter properly interviewed in order to establish the facts and circumstances, or see if others had already undertaken that process. I think if you re-read this thread I have alluded to this several times. The point I'm making is that there are areas in anyone's life where impartial professionalism does not apply. I don't know what your job was, but I don't know why whatever standards you adhered to there, would apply on TMB, or even why they should apply here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2008 13:25:26 GMT -5
Reply to WHAT's post #61 Clearday wrote about the account published by VOT that it:
"was later edited to expand the church in the story and thereby provide some kind of indictment against the church.
Only the VOT editors know for sure. The VOT is clearly an anti-2x2 site so this kind of editorial adjustment or encouragement of such would not be unthinkable. Frankly, I think the survivor is being victimized again by her writings being used in anti-2x2 politics."
The accusation that VOT has altered any account is simply yellow journalism, and indicates the lengths that some will go to distract attention from the real issues. VOT did not edit this account, nor any other. It is so ironic that further down the thread, Clearday quipsIt appears you would like us to believe that VOT has added to the account without providing any information to substantiate that suspicion. The above quote from what appears to be a VOT member, although not dealing specifically with the header or footer suggests, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that you are merely clutching at straws. This type of tactic makes YOU what you are attempting to accuse VOT of. I have no idea what you're talking about here. I assume "YOU" is supposed to be me since this post follows mine. I've not read everything clearday wrote, so if you have something to say to clearday, then speak to him. If you have something to say to me, then please reference my quotes. I have NEVER accused VOT of altering the story. It is a reply to your post #81 ! I am not addressing Clearday. Sorry for not being clearer. I am addressing your implications that VOT added headers and footers. I am counteracting that with VOT'S own words. See second blue paragraph.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2008 13:41:51 GMT -5
I don't know what your job was, but if you ran into a case that involved those kinds of judgements involving this religion, would you have to recuse yourself? I think you will find that before I would do anything of substance I would have the writer and others involved in the matter properly interviewed in order to establish the facts and circumstances, or see if others had already undertaken that process. I think if you re-read this thread I have alluded to this several times. The point I'm making is that there are areas in anyone's life where impartial professionalism does not apply. I don't know what your job was, but I don't know why whatever standards you adhered to there, would apply on TMB, or even why they should apply here. I believe in fairness to all sides. That should apply in most areas of life, even TMB. FWIW I have in the past vigorously defended Workers when I have thought them to be unfairly accused in some cases. As far as this board is concerned I agree the account published here has not been properly established. That does not mean the account, including headers and footers, is not a true account in its fullness. It requires investigation to establish its verity, unless that has already been done. I admit I have not read the full account, but there are similarities to other cases that I am aware of and which for me, are established fact. At this stage I have gut-feelings the preachings and mindset of the sect could have been a considerable influence in these events, albeit not a deliberate one. This is of course not fact, but my opinion. In short, to establish matters one way or another this matter would need to be properly examined. Ultimately, whilst these cases should stand or fall on their own merits, support for establishing a proper conclusion can often be drawn from facts and circumstances in other similar cases which show similar characteristics.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 11, 2008 14:08:49 GMT -5
The point I'm making is that there are areas in anyone's life where impartial professionalism does not apply. I don't know what your job was, but I don't know why whatever standards you adhered to there, would apply on TMB, or even why they should apply here. I believe in fairness to all sides. That should apply in most areas of life, even TMB. FWIW I have in the past vigorously defended Workers when I have thought them to be unfairly accused in some cases. As far as this board is concerned I agree the account published here has not been properly established. That does not mean the account, including headers and footers, is not a true account in its fullness. It requires investigation to establish its verity, unless that has already been done. I admit I have not read the full account, but there are similarities to other cases that I am aware of and which for me, are established fact. At this stage I have gut-feelings the preachings and mindset of the sect could have been a considerable influence in these events, albeit not a deliberate one. This is of course not fact, but my opinion. In short, to establish matters one way or another this matter would need to be properly examined. Ultimately, whilst these cases should stand or fall on their own merits, support for establishing a proper conclusion can often be drawn from facts and circumstances in other similar cases which show similar characteristics. First, to be perfectly clear, I'm not accusing VOT of deception. There is no reason for anyone to think that the footer was authored by the writer of the story. To my mind, it rather looks like an editorial after-thought inserted by the editor. That's merely an observation not an accusation. But whether the comment's origin is the editor or the writer it clearly has little connection to the rest of the article. As far as the story being a 'true' or objective account, I actually don't see your point. It is what it is, a first person account, with all the vagaries, weaknesses and strengths that such an account entails. To write this case up as an objective story would be very difficult, and probably not worth doing. I like your last paragraph. I'm not disagreeing here with the general viewpoint that the editors or other posters are trying to promulgate. I think that the connection between the story and the more general platform of the editor (see earlier post she made) is not even strong enough to be considered tenuous. Part of that disagreement is rooted in a strong sense of individual responsibility versus the function of any religion or social group. To draw a ridiculous parallel, why would we blame the father's religion for this behaviour any more than we would blame his bowling league? The answer is that a religion obviously has more of an influence on individual behaviour than a bowling league does. But I personally believe that the individual is supremely accountable for his or her behaviour and if there is culpability in a given situation I think it should stay with the individual who is responsible. I read an account like this and have to ask, what in the world does this have to do with me?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2008 14:40:12 GMT -5
As far as the story being a 'true' or objective account, I actually don't see your point. It is what it is, a first person account, with all the vagaries, weaknesses and strengths that such an account entails. To write this case up as an objective story would be very difficult, and probably not worth doing.
Okay, let's try again. Without prejudice to the writer's account, until the matter has been properly investigated, it is merely a list of unproven accusations. This does not mean the writer is not telling the truth.
Establishing the truth of the matter may be gained by interviewing other persons who had knowledge or experience of the circumstances, including even the father if necessary. This could be extended to medical practitioners, psychologists, counsellors, church members, etc, etc, etc.
The association of the church with the family and any inferred influences in the unfortunate events can be enquired into, to establish things like
1) any knowledge the church members or workers had that such events had occurred, or were occurring
2) Was any of the church's teachings, practices or beliefs influential in the unfortunate series of events
3) Did these teachings and beliefs have any psychological influence on the perpetrator ? If so, what, how and why ?
4) Are there other similar cases, related or unrelated, where other people have behaved similarly.
5) Does this sect attract a high proportion of disturbed people
6) Is it possible that the beliefs, teachings and practices of this sect cause people to become disturbed. Were these people normal prior to joining the sect.
7) Importantly, what is it the sect actually believes, teaches and practices ? Until precise details are known, any conclusions are possible.
8) How does the sect react to accusations and criticisms
9) Are the "witnesses" credible and reliable ?
10) What is the reaction of the church and members to any substantiated accusations ?
"What," I can go on and on listing things a thorough investigation would enquire into. These things very often become cans of worms. I'm sure there will be some who are reading through the above list, who formerly disassociated these events from the sect will now be a little uncomfortable. I say this without prejudice, but fully aware of the potential for links either direct or indirect.
I should also add, what is the relationship with the church leaders to the members and howare they viewed by the laity. Questions become progressive. Answers often provoke a new round of questions.
Get the tin opener out !
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 11, 2008 16:08:30 GMT -5
Those are all interesting questions. In fact, they constitute an ongoing inquiry with which we are all concerned and should be concerned, on an ongoing basis. Personally, such questions do not make me uncomfortable. I don't think that the editors of VOT, from what I have seen, would be capable of such an inquiry, certainly not at an academic level. And certainly not with respect to issues of privacy and ethics that such an inquiry would entail.
I do understand what you are saying. Where we come apart is that I personally think that if you wanted to engage in such a general inquiry this article would bear little fruit.
The inquiry with which you seem to be concerned, I think, is as to how much the church as a group, is culpable, in the brutality of this man.
Let's look at these questions a little more:
1) any knowledge the church members or workers had that such events had occurred, or were occurring
Compare also to the witness of teachers, medical personnel, neighbours and other professionals that had dealings with the family. But what obligation do church members have in such a case - in any church I mean, not just the 2x2?
2) Was any of the church's teachings, practices or beliefs influential in the unfortunate series of events
You mean, to explain the actions of the father? Where could you possibly go with this?
3) Did these teachings and beliefs have any psychological influence on the perpetrator ? If so, what, how and why ?
Are we going to use, as a control, the positive influence of these teachings and beliefs as well.
4) Are there other similar cases, related or unrelated, where other people have behaved similarly.
If we look at a particular teaching are we going to examine all possible outcomes of that teaching to evaluate its efficacy?
5) Does this sect attract a high proportion of disturbed people
What are you going to use as a control here? The population as a whole. How large a sample size? Do you have access to hospital records. How will you identify members?
6) Is it possible that the beliefs, teachings and practices of this sect cause people to become disturbed. Were these people normal prior to joining the sect?
That's pretty weird, Ram. I think we're talking about a faith group that meets for an hour twice a week, aren't we? How much influence do you think it is possible to have on an individual's mental health in that time.
7) Importantly, what is it the sect actually believes, teaches and practices ? Until precise details are known, any conclusions are possible.
If there are 100,000 members you need 100,000 members' input to get precise details.
...
"What," I can go on and on listing things a thorough investigation would enquire into. These things very often become cans of worms. I'm sure there will be some who are reading through the above list, who formerly disassociated these events from the sect will now be a little uncomfortable. I say this without prejudice, but fully aware of the potential for links either direct or indirect.
I should also add, what is the relationship with the church leaders to the members and how are they viewed by the laity. Questions become progressive. Answers often provoke a new round of questions.
Personally, I don't think you can think of this movement as a homogenous, centralized, organized force. It's a very loose affiliation of individuals who have as common goal to live a Christ-centred life. If you are looking for the causes of abuse suffered by any individual within the group, this has to be done at a transactional level. Such issues always comes down to which individuals are responsible. Are there questions or issues of group behaviour at stake here? Sure there are, but such an inquiry as you're suggesting is entirely untenable within a scientific or objective line of thinking. It's untenable because its impossible to measure because of privacy and sampling issues. But even further, there are so many other factors that affect people's behaviour; how would you isolate them? Let me take an example. If we followed your line of inquiry with the "Chain Breakers Prison Ministry" what would you find? How would you develop a control to isolate other factors in the mental development of the individuals in the group. It's very clear that those inquiries which have been pursued by VOT and other individuals are very much within an ideological framework, not a scientific or academic one. To an outsider, this material reads like that of warring factions within the Christian religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2008 17:00:07 GMT -5
It seems that my posts have been twisted to indicate that I "accused" the VOT of unilaterally altering this document. It is simply not true and the record shows as such. That idea never entered my mind until Byron decided to defend the site for such. Byron truncated my post to make it appear that I had made that accusation, and that makes me even less confident of what is on the VOT.
If the editors of the VOT will edit my posts for their own purposes there's no telling what they will do to anyone's writings.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 11, 2008 17:51:21 GMT -5
Thanks Jesse, we appreciate your endorsement. Over 21,000 visits in 54 countries have attested to the fact that there is something terribly wrong with this bunch. I have witnessed all my life the ferocity that 2x2's exhibit when their beliefs are questioned.
I am struck by the zeal of defending the indefensible.
Ah, but that is why it is a cult. Byron, If you read about how the ClustrMaps counter works the same 70 people visiting every day in the last 300 or so days could make the ClustrMaps counter show 21000 "visitors". If I visit today and tomorrow that counts as two visitors per ClustrMaps "1-visit-per-IP-per-day policy". ( www.clustrmaps.com/faq.htm#updatedefn ) The number can be inflated by having the ClustrMaps counter on more than just an entry page which is the case on VOT. ( www.clustrmaps.com/faq.htm#forum ) It looks like the 185 members of VOT alone could have easily generated 21000 visits since VOT went online, in fact if all 185 visited once per day that would show up as 55,000 visitors according to ClustrMaps "1-visit-per-IP-per-day policy ". So it looks like you should be very careful with the visitors number before extrapolating it into a conclusion like the one above. take care, Jesse
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Dec 11, 2008 17:58:17 GMT -5
Precisely. "Hurting people" is a phrase that does not refer to any physical pain or injury, but rather to an emotional state; a mental condition of mind. It is these sorts of people who contribute the material to the VOT. It does not require a great leap to see that a population of contributors that each have negative experiences - or percieved negative experiences - are going to violently slew the perspective presented on the VOT.
My concern is that it is a form of propaganda, and that if one immerses themselves very deeply in it for a long period of time, one begins to adopt the same harsh, negative, slewed perspective of the world as the material that is being presented. It has been said, "If you fight dragons for too long, one becomes a dragon oneself. And if you look into the abyss, the abyss eventually looks back into you."
I am reminded of a time that I became interested in ex-Mormons and their testimonies. I read virtually everything on ex-mormon.com because it fascinated me. I knew very little about Mormonism of course. Because of my reading, I came to view the Mormon religion as the worst thing that ever existed; a sick and twisted cult that encouraged child-abuse, family-abuse, wife-beating, etc, etc, etc. But then I decided to confront the Mormons with this information. What I found when I started to dialogue with them was quite different from my slewed perspective - I got to know a Mormon English Professor who taught at a university (and is a fairly famous romance novelist). I actually met a few.
My point is, we can make the mistake of heaping bad experiences in one lump and seeing that as the reality. Balance and truth requires the courage to look at the other side of the story as well - the positive side. We don't often think that it requires strength of character or courage do we, to turn the coin overleaf and see the alternatives. However, the reward is that we gain a more balanced insight; a more "godly" perspective; a truthful perspective.
Your statement, Byron, is simply powerless - because it is not founded in the "whole truth" - and is informed by a lack of real courage to see the other side. I say it again: from where you and the other VOT editors are standing, you are living in fear. You are frightened to leave the comforting territory of absolute condemnation, and utter repudiation, and start venturing down that road less travelled: balance.
I wonder over how many years these 21,000 visitors came to your website? It translates to 388 people per country, which is not an awful lot when you think about it. And I wonder how many are repeat visitors - surely a good many of them. If the number of the Church has been estimated at 200,000 worldwide, then 21,000 amounts to 10.5% - a sizable chunk, I grant you. But if one generously reduces the figure by 5,000 visitors as "curious, repeaters, Friends checking out the site etc", this figure suddenly ceases to be quite so impressive.
Statistics can be made to show anything!
And for as long as you persist in such a view, you will remain powerless and shackled. If you cannot see things fairly from those of us who find solace in the Church, and who have found the Lord through its preaching, then you will indeed be the metaphysical equivalent of the one hand clapping.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Dec 11, 2008 17:59:38 GMT -5
Thanks Jesse, we appreciate your endorsement. Over 21,000 visits in 54 countries have attested to the fact that there is something terribly wrong with this bunch. I have witnessed all my life the ferocity that 2x2's exhibit when their beliefs are questioned.
I am struck by the zeal of defending the indefensible.
Ah, but that is why it is a cult. Byron, If you read about how the ClustrMaps counter works the same 70 people visiting every day in the last 300 or so days could make the ClustrMaps counter show 21000 "vistors". If I visit today and tomorrow that counts as two visitors per ClustrMaps "1-visit-per-IP-per-day policy". ( www.clustrmaps.com/faq.htm#updatedefn ) The number can be inflated by having the ClustrMaps counter on more than just an entry page which is the case on VOT. ( www.clustrmaps.com/faq.htm#forum ) It looks like the 185 members of VOT alone could have easily generated 21000 visits since VOT went online, in fact if all 185 visited once per day that would show up as 55,000 visitors according to ClustrMaps "1-visit-per-IP-per-day policy ". So it looks like you should be very careful with the visitors number before extrapolating it into a conclusion like the one above. take care, Jesse I was thinking the same thing Jesse. Amen to your post!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2008 18:11:33 GMT -5
Those are all interesting questions. In fact, they constitute an ongoing inquiry with which we are all concerned and should be concerned, on an ongoing basis. Personally, such questions do not make me uncomfortable. I don't think that the editors of VOT, from what I have seen, would be capable of such an inquiry, certainly not at an academic level. And certainly not with respect to issues of privacy and ethics that such an inquiry would entail. I do understand what you are saying. Where we come apart is that I personally think that if you wanted to engage in such a general inquiry this article would bear little fruit. The inquiry with which you seem to be concerned, I think, is as to how much the church as a group, is culpable, in the brutality of this man. Let's look at these questions a little more: 1) any knowledge the church members or workers had that such events had occurred, or were occurring
Compare also to the witness of teachers, medical personnel, neighbours and other professionals that had dealings with the family. But what obligation do church members have in such a case - in any church I mean, not just the 2x2? 2) Was any of the church's teachings, practices or beliefs influential in the unfortunate series of events
You mean, to explain the actions of the father? Where could you possibly go with this? 3) Did these teachings and beliefs have any psychological influence on the perpetrator ? If so, what, how and why ?Are we going to use, as a control, the positive influence of these teachings and beliefs as well. 4) Are there other similar cases, related or unrelated, where other people have behaved similarly. If we look at a particular teaching are we going to examine all possible outcomes of that teaching to evaluate its efficacy? 5) Does this sect attract a high proportion of disturbed peopleWhat are you going to use as a control here? The population as a whole. How large a sample size? Do you have access to hospital records. How will you identify members? 6) Is it possible that the beliefs, teachings and practices of this sect cause people to become disturbed. Were these people normal prior to joining the sect?That's pretty weird, Ram. I think we're talking about a faith group that meets for an hour twice a week, aren't we? How much influence do you think it is possible to have on an individual's mental health in that time. 7) Importantly, what is it the sect actually believes, teaches and practices ? Until precise details are known, any conclusions are possible.If there are 100,000 members you need 100,000 members' input to get precise details. ... "What," I can go on and on listing things a thorough investigation would enquire into. These things very often become cans of worms. I'm sure there will be some who are reading through the above list, who formerly disassociated these events from the sect will now be a little uncomfortable. I say this without prejudice, but fully aware of the potential for links either direct or indirect.
I should also add, what is the relationship with the church leaders to the members and how are they viewed by the laity. Questions become progressive. Answers often provoke a new round of questions.
Personally, I don't think you can think of this movement as a homogenous, centralized, organized force. It's a very loose affiliation of individuals who have as common goal to live a Christ-centred life. If you are looking for the causes of abuse suffered by any individual within the group, this has to be done at a transactional level. Such issues always comes down to which individuals are responsible. Are there questions or issues of group behaviour at stake here? Sure there are, but such an inquiry as you're suggesting is entirely untenable within a scientific or objective line of thinking. It's untenable because its impossible to measure because of privacy and sampling issues. But even further, there are so many other factors that affect people's behaviour; how would you isolate them? Let me take an example. If we followed your line of inquiry with the "Chain Breakers Prison Ministry" what would you find? How would you develop a control to isolate other factors in the mental development of the individuals in the group. It's very clear that those inquiries which have been pursued by VOT and other individuals are very much within an ideological framework, not a scientific or academic one. To an outsider, this material reads like that of warring factions within the Christian religion. "What," in view of the catalogue of alleged criminal acts I would not consider VOT the appropriate body to investigate this. I know we're late in the day for this consideration, but the approprite bodies are the law enforcement and social works agencies. Such a matter would demand a prolonged in depth investigation to get to the bottom of things. It would be far reaching. What the end result would be is highly speculative. However, when matters such as these are investigated properly, they are rarely confined to the initial matters in question. Whole cans of worms are usually opened, with the worms squirming in many directions. You do realise the questions I listed were off the top of my head and only a sample of the type of things that would be asked. Irrespective of the outcome of each question they would have to be asked and if appropriate the answers acted upon. You raise questions with my own. 1) Any person who may be able to provide evidence would need to be interviewed. We don't know what might come to light during this process. Members of the church including workers who had contact with the family would be important witnesses and potentially open to criticism, or worse, depending on the circumstances. 2)Investigations not only look for "who" did something, but "why ?" Surely the possibilities here are self explanatory ? 3) We are dealing with negative circumstances. It is possible negative causes we would be concerning ourselves with. Any positive circumstances may be noted, but it would largely be criminal and abusive acts that would be under investigation and the causes sought. 4) No. An investigation would be looking for the factors which resulted in, or caused, or influences which caused the offensive behaviour. Good, healthy behaviour needs not a physician. 5) I would have thought this a self explanatory question. A small, unknown, church body which may have a higher than usual incidence of disturbed persons or abusive behaviour. For its size it would only need two or three cases over a reasonably small area or time period, for further questions to be asked. To many to start a list here. 6) It's not weird at all. Are you sure you are professing ? Professing is a 24/7 x 365 thing. Members are under its control at all times. 7) No, you just need an absence of doctrine, clear teachings, lack of formalised structure, inability to answer questions correctly, etc, and you have investigators starting of thinking "this group sounds weird." Suspicions are aroused straight away. However, that is not proof of anything. In my country, such a perpetrator as described in the writer's account would likely be ordered to be examined by psychiatrists in order to obtain psychiatric reports. This would go some way towards establishing if this man's condition was independent of his membership of the church, or if in fact the preachings and teachings of the church were a factor in him behaving the way he did. Social background reports would also go some way towards establishing any contribution his church membership may have had.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 11, 2008 22:10:54 GMT -5
Those are all interesting questions. In fact, they constitute an ongoing inquiry with which we are all concerned and should be concerned, on an ongoing basis. Personally, such questions do not make me uncomfortable. I don't think that the editors of VOT, from what I have seen, would be capable of such an inquiry, certainly not at an academic level. And certainly not with respect to issues of privacy and ethics that such an inquiry would entail. I do understand what you are saying. Where we come apart is that I personally think that if you wanted to engage in such a general inquiry this article would bear little fruit. The inquiry with which you seem to be concerned, I think, is as to how much the church as a group, is culpable, in the brutality of this man. Let's look at these questions a little more: 1) any knowledge the church members or workers had that such events had occurred, or were occurring
Compare also to the witness of teachers, medical personnel, neighbours and other professionals that had dealings with the family. But what obligation do church members have in such a case - in any church I mean, not just the 2x2? 2) Was any of the church's teachings, practices or beliefs influential in the unfortunate series of events
You mean, to explain the actions of the father? Where could you possibly go with this? 3) Did these teachings and beliefs have any psychological influence on the perpetrator ? If so, what, how and why ?Are we going to use, as a control, the positive influence of these teachings and beliefs as well. 4) Are there other similar cases, related or unrelated, where other people have behaved similarly. If we look at a particular teaching are we going to examine all possible outcomes of that teaching to evaluate its efficacy? 5) Does this sect attract a high proportion of disturbed peopleWhat are you going to use as a control here? The population as a whole. How large a sample size? Do you have access to hospital records. How will you identify members? 6) Is it possible that the beliefs, teachings and practices of this sect cause people to become disturbed. Were these people normal prior to joining the sect?That's pretty weird, Ram. I think we're talking about a faith group that meets for an hour twice a week, aren't we? How much influence do you think it is possible to have on an individual's mental health in that time. 7) Importantly, what is it the sect actually believes, teaches and practices ? Until precise details are known, any conclusions are possible.If there are 100,000 members you need 100,000 members' input to get precise details. ... "What," I can go on and on listing things a thorough investigation would enquire into. These things very often become cans of worms. I'm sure there will be some who are reading through the above list, who formerly disassociated these events from the sect will now be a little uncomfortable. I say this without prejudice, but fully aware of the potential for links either direct or indirect.
I should also add, what is the relationship with the church leaders to the members and how are they viewed by the laity. Questions become progressive. Answers often provoke a new round of questions.
Personally, I don't think you can think of this movement as a homogenous, centralized, organized force. It's a very loose affiliation of individuals who have as common goal to live a Christ-centred life. If you are looking for the causes of abuse suffered by any individual within the group, this has to be done at a transactional level. Such issues always comes down to which individuals are responsible. Are there questions or issues of group behaviour at stake here? Sure there are, but such an inquiry as you're suggesting is entirely untenable within a scientific or objective line of thinking. It's untenable because its impossible to measure because of privacy and sampling issues. But even further, there are so many other factors that affect people's behaviour; how would you isolate them? Let me take an example. If we followed your line of inquiry with the "Chain Breakers Prison Ministry" what would you find? How would you develop a control to isolate other factors in the mental development of the individuals in the group. It's very clear that those inquiries which have been pursued by VOT and other individuals are very much within an ideological framework, not a scientific or academic one. To an outsider, this material reads like that of warring factions within the Christian religion. "What," in view of the catalogue of alleged criminal acts I would not consider VOT the appropriate body to investigate this. I know we're late in the day for this consideration, but the approprite bodies are the law enforcement and social works agencies. Such a matter would demand a prolonged in depth investigation to get to the bottom of things. It would be far reaching. What the end result would be is highly speculative. However, when matters such as these are investigated properly, they are rarely confined to the initial matters in question. Whole cans of worms are usually opened, with the worms squirming in many directions. You do realise the questions I listed were off the top of my head and only a sample of the type of things that would be asked. Irrespective of the outcome of each question they would have to be asked and if appropriate the answers acted upon. You raise questions with my own. 1) Any person who may be able to provide evidence would need to be interviewed. We don't know what might come to light during this process. Members of the church including workers who had contact with the family would be important witnesses and potentially open to criticism, or worse, depending on the circumstances. 2)Investigations not only look for "who" did something, but "why ?" Surely the possibilities here are self explanatory ? 3) We are dealing with negative circumstances. It is possible negative causes we would be concerning ourselves with. Any positive circumstances may be noted, but it would largely be criminal and abusive acts that would be under investigation and the causes sought. 4) No. An investigation would be looking for the factors which resulted in, or caused, or influences which caused the offensive behaviour. Good, healthy behaviour needs not a physician. 5) I would have thought this a self explanatory question. A small, unknown, church body which may have a higher than usual incidence of disturbed persons or abusive behaviour. For its size it would only need two or three cases over a reasonably small area or time period, for further questions to be asked. To many to start a list here. 6) It's not weird at all. Are you sure you are professing ? Professing is a 24/7 x 365 thing. Members are under its control at all times. 7) No, you just need an absence of doctrine, clear teachings, lack of formalised structure, inability to answer questions correctly, etc, and you have investigators starting of thinking "this group sounds weird." Suspicions are aroused straight away. However, that is not proof of anything. In my country, such a perpetrator as described in the writer's account would likely be ordered to be examined by psychiatrists in order to obtain psychiatric reports. This would go some way towards establishing if this man's condition was independent of his membership of the church, or if in fact the preachings and teachings of the church were a factor in him behaving the way he did. Social background reports would also go some way towards establishing any contribution his church membership may have had. I thought we were discussing a line of fruitless academic inquiry. But now you are talking about some kind of criminal investigation involving the church. Of what, dare I even ask? I even re-read the article as I only skimmed it the first time. The only question that emerged, that I can see, is why the guidance counselor named in the article, or any of the other counselors, did not report the physical abuse to the authorities.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 11, 2008 22:18:51 GMT -5
Precisely. "Hurting people" is a phrase that does not refer to any physical pain or injury, but rather to an emotional state; a mental condition of mind. It is these sorts of people who contribute the material to the VOT. It does not require a great leap to see that a population of contributors that each have negative experiences - or percieved negative experiences - are going to violently slew the perspective presented on the VOT. My concern is that it is a form of propaganda, and that if one immerses themselves very deeply in it for a long period of time, one begins to adopt the same harsh, negative, slewed perspective of the world as the material that is being presented. It has been said, "If you fight dragons for too long, one becomes a dragon oneself. And if you look into the abyss, the abyss eventually looks back into you." I am reminded of a time that I became interested in ex-Mormons and their testimonies. I read virtually everything on ex-mormon.com because it fascinated me. I knew very little about Mormonism of course. Because of my reading, I came to view the Mormon religion as the worst thing that ever existed; a sick and twisted cult that encouraged child-abuse, family-abuse, wife-beating, etc, etc, etc. But then I decided to confront the Mormons with this information. What I found when I started to dialogue with them was quite different from my slewed perspective - I got to know a Mormon English Professor who taught at a university (and is a fairly famous romance novelist). I actually met a few. My point is, we can make the mistake of heaping bad experiences in one lump and seeing that as the reality. Balance and truth requires the courage to look at the other side of the story as well - the positive side. We don't often think that it requires strength of character or courage do we, to turn the coin overleaf and see the alternatives. However, the reward is that we gain a more balanced insight; a more "godly" perspective; a truthful perspective. Your statement, Byron, is simply powerless - because it is not founded in the "whole truth" - and is informed by a lack of real courage to see the other side. I say it again: from where you and the other VOT editors are standing, you are living in fear. You are frightened to leave the comforting territory of absolute condemnation, and utter repudiation, and start venturing down that road less travelled: balance. I wonder over how many years these 21,000 visitors came to your website? It translates to 388 people per country, which is not an awful lot when you think about it. And I wonder how many are repeat visitors - surely a good many of them. If the number of the Church has been estimated at 200,000 worldwide, then 21,000 amounts to 10.5% - a sizable chunk, I grant you. But if one generously reduces the figure by 5,000 visitors as "curious, repeaters, Friends checking out the site etc", this figure suddenly ceases to be quite so impressive. Statistics can be made to show anything! And for as long as you persist in such a view, you will remain powerless and shackled. If you cannot see things fairly from those of us who find solace in the Church, and who have found the Lord through its preaching, then you will indeed be the metaphysical equivalent of the one hand clapping. Great post, GIC. Are you familiar with the prop 8 question in California? One group is claiming that the Mormons lobbied on the question, and thus should lose their tax-exempt status under U.S. law. It's clear that there is a strong anti-Mormon lobby, especially strong in Utah. In fact, almost every religious group today has strident detractors working against them. IMO, it's just one manifestation of a broad victim mentality and sense of self-entitlement that has crept into society. Many individuals today are simply seeking to lay blame on others for their problems, instead of taking control of their lives.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 11, 2008 22:52:42 GMT -5
Just a comment. Although Ilylo's style doesn't appeal to me, I will read his posts because they are to the point. Because of the length of some posts, (perhaps the foregoing are an example) they beg to be ignored and so I don't read them. Perhaps if I had the time and energy........or perhaps if I didn't have the feeling that the posters took themselves too seriously. So ... should we be concerned about this? Like, what's your point?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Dec 12, 2008 1:49:32 GMT -5
If the editors of the VOT will edit my posts for their own purposes there's no telling what they will do to anyone's writings. Hello Clearday, I’m sure you had your suspicions, but I can confirm that those on the VOT forum will openly lie about things that others have said and even delete posts if they think it necessary to hide the truth. For that reason I am reluctant to be too honest with them (as crazy as that is) because I’m sure they would rather continue to deceive, and it is a bit hard to do that if people are in there throwing the truth around. I also didn’t read through this whole story of abuse but scanned enough to get a good picture. I could be wrong, but I must admit that, like a few others, I also was left with the feeling that this story was added to slightly in an attempt to give the impression that the abuse had something to do with this group of friends. The epilogue at the end does seem very much outside the rest of the story as epilogues generally are. An actor usually gives an epilogue after the play has finished, and when they are no longer in character, to give the audience more information that couldn’t be portrayed by the play. You can bet that this is why there had to be an epilogue given in this case, because you certainly couldn’t read that story by itself and make any association between the actions of this abusive man and what is typical of God’s people. The author by her own admission said that her father drifted in and out of God’s way, yet somehow despite that, the blame for this was laid on the “2x2’s”. This man visited the pub and probably drank alcohol seeing that’s why people go to those places, and it also seems like he was good at swearing. Two of the more common things that cause people to associate a male with the “2x2” is that he doesn’t drink and doesn’t swear, and very quickly the make the connection with that “group”. This man therefore is clearly not one of that group, and hence the need to add an epilogue to this story to make an association with a group that can not otherwise be made by the story itself. The fact that this story is on the Anti-Christ VOT website is in itself an attempt to make that association, which is typical of the type of deception that Cherrie Kropp used through her book, where she has made associations despite that fact that she has admitted that she hasn’t confirmed if it was true. For some reason we can’t quote Sherrie’s book, but to give you an example, it would be like me saying “Back in 1952, sometime towards the end of summer, Cherrie Kropp may have killed her neighbour’s cat, but I haven’t confirmed if this is true”. Well of course it isn’t true, but if you didn’t know this was an example, suddenly you might be thinking… Gee this Sherrie must be a nasty person, when yet she is probably the nicest girl around. Anyway, as others has said, there was plenty of opportunity for counsellors and other involved parties to take this to the appropriate authorities if they thought it necessary. Hmmm… I wonder why they didn’t if it was as bad as what it sounds? Maybe the victim made it sound worse than what it was, not that we’ll ever know because as the story says, there is no documentary proof. Somehow it wasn’t bad enough for this man to end up in jail, but even if it was (and it sure sounds like it is), why would it be the responsibility of the workers for the fact that he wasn’t locked away? As far as I know they don’t have the necessary authority to put people in jail, because they are really there to preach the gospel, which is quite a different role. Leave the jailing to the chaps with guns and handcuffs.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Dec 12, 2008 3:27:21 GMT -5
If the editors of the VOT will edit my posts for their own purposes there's no telling what they will do to anyone's writings. Hello Clearday, I’m sure you had your suspicions, but I can confirm that those on the VOT forum will openly lie about things that others have said and even delete posts if they think it necessary to hide the truth. For that reason I am reluctant to be too honest with them (as crazy as that is) because I’m sure they would rather continue to deceive, and it is a bit hard to do that if people are in there throwing the truth around. I also didn’t read through this whole story of abuse but scanned enough to get a good picture. I could be wrong, but I must admit that, like a few others, I also was left with the feeling that this story was added to slightly in an attempt to give the impression that the abuse had something to do with this group of friends. The epilogue at the end does seem very much outside the rest of the story as epilogues generally are. An actor usually gives an epilogue after the play has finished, and when they are no longer in character, to give the audience more information that couldn’t be portrayed by the play. You can bet that this is why there had to be an epilogue given in this case, because you certainly couldn’t read that story by itself and make any association between the actions of this abusive man and what is typical of God’s people. The author by her own admission said that her father drifted in and out of God’s way, yet somehow despite that, the blame for this was laid on the “2x2’s”. This man visited the pub and probably drank alcohol seeing that’s why people go to those places, and it also seems like he was good at swearing. Two of the more common things that cause people to associate a male with the “2x2” is that he doesn’t drink and doesn’t swear, and very quickly the make the connection with that “group”. This man therefore is clearly not one of that group, and hence the need to add an epilogue to this story to make an association with a group that can not otherwise be made by the story itself. The fact that this story is on the Anti-Christ VOT website is in itself an attempt to make that association, which is typical of the type of deception that Cherrie Kropp used through her book, where she has made associations despite that fact that she has admitted that she hasn’t confirmed if it was true. For some reason we can’t quote Sherrie’s book, but to give you an example, it would be like me saying “Back in 1952, sometime towards the end of summer, Cherrie Kropp may have killed her neighbour’s cat, but I haven’t confirmed if this is true”. Well of course it isn’t true, but if you didn’t know this was an example, suddenly you might be thinking… Gee this Sherrie must be a nasty person, when yet she is probably the nicest girl around. Anyway, as others has said, there was plenty of opportunity for counsellors and other involved parties to take this to the appropriate authorities if they thought it necessary. Hmmm… I wonder why they didn’t if it was as bad as what it sounds? Maybe the victim made it sound worse than what it was, not that we’ll ever know because as the story says, there is no documentary proof. Somehow it wasn’t bad enough for this man to end up in jail, but even if it was (and it sure sounds like it is), why would it be the responsibility of the workers for the fact that he wasn’t locked away? As far as I know they don’t have the necessary authority to put people in jail, because they are really there to preach the gospel, which is quite a different role. Leave the jailing to the chaps with guns and handcuffs. Hi Todd! I enjoyed your inaugural post here on the TMB. I confess that what I do not like about the large body of "ex" materials is that most of it is highly subjective (and I speak of "ex" Mormon, Roman Catholic, and even "ex-Christian" materials here as well). It seems that much of it is based on anecdotes, and that the anecdotes are sourced from people who have a clear negative bias (whether rightly or wrongly - I am prepared to accept that in some cases some people may have been treated less-than-charitably). Because these anecdotes, by their nature, are subject to interpretation, extrapolation, and the colouring of time, I do tend to think that many of them - perhaps most - are not very reliable accounts. I have come to believe that so many exes are in bondage to their hatred which is founded on a lie. Rather than admitting that some of us (perhaps most of us) are happy, most of us are content, and that this state is not brought about though self-deceit, or through manipulation, or through any external agency, but is a genuine experience, all too often we have the NEGATIVE lifted up as as the DEFINITIVE. This is neither healthy, nor truthful, and it leads to a real psychological condition of servitude to "the cause". Some exes (not all) spend hours in a mad scramble to "free the captives" as they see them, and to "unbrainwash" the believers. They collect tragic stories and tell us that we are stupid, ignorant, or evil for remaining in Fellowship with our beloved brethren and God. I think much of this is motivated by fear. There is a certain comfort to be had in believing something to be evil incarnate; to be foul and fetid; to repudiate it beyond measure. It reminds me of a cartoon I once saw from the Cold War era. An American politician is chastising his compatriots, saying, "The Soviet Union now has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world eight times over, whereas we only have enough to destroy the world four times over!" I feel that something similar is at play with the VOT. They paint us beyond measure as a vermin most foul! They obliterate any positive mention - why? Because it is essential to hold it at bay. If we had to be balanced and admit that the Fellowship is not all evil, and its members are generally decent, good and honest folks, then some worldviews - I am sure - would soon crumble like a house of cards in the wind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 5:25:50 GMT -5
"What," in view of the catalogue of alleged criminal acts I would not consider VOT the appropriate body to investigate this. I know we're late in the day for this consideration, but the approprite bodies are the law enforcement and social works agencies. Such a matter would demand a prolonged in depth investigation to get to the bottom of things. It would be far reaching. What the end result would be is highly speculative. However, when matters such as these are investigated properly, they are rarely confined to the initial matters in question. Whole cans of worms are usually opened, with the worms squirming in many directions. You do realise the questions I listed were off the top of my head and only a sample of the type of things that would be asked. Irrespective of the outcome of each question they would have to be asked and if appropriate the answers acted upon. You raise questions with my own. 1) Any person who may be able to provide evidence would need to be interviewed. We don't know what might come to light during this process. Members of the church including workers who had contact with the family would be important witnesses and potentially open to criticism, or worse, depending on the circumstances. 2)Investigations not only look for "who" did something, but "why ?" Surely the possibilities here are self explanatory ? 3) We are dealing with negative circumstances. It is possible negative causes we would be concerning ourselves with. Any positive circumstances may be noted, but it would largely be criminal and abusive acts that would be under investigation and the causes sought. 4) No. An investigation would be looking for the factors which resulted in, or caused, or influences which caused the offensive behaviour. Good, healthy behaviour needs not a physician. 5) I would have thought this a self explanatory question. A small, unknown, church body which may have a higher than usual incidence of disturbed persons or abusive behaviour. For its size it would only need two or three cases over a reasonably small area or time period, for further questions to be asked. To many to start a list here. 6) It's not weird at all. Are you sure you are professing ? Professing is a 24/7 x 365 thing. Members are under its control at all times. 7) No, you just need an absence of doctrine, clear teachings, lack of formalised structure, inability to answer questions correctly, etc, and you have investigators starting of thinking "this group sounds weird." Suspicions are aroused straight away. However, that is not proof of anything. In my country, such a perpetrator as described in the writer's account would likely be ordered to be examined by psychiatrists in order to obtain psychiatric reports. This would go some way towards establishing if this man's condition was independent of his membership of the church, or if in fact the preachings and teachings of the church were a factor in him behaving the way he did. Social background reports would also go some way towards establishing any contribution his church membership may have had. I thought we were discussing a line of fruitless academic inquiry. But now you are talking about some kind of criminal investigation involving the church. Of what, dare I even ask? I even re-read the article as I only skimmed it the first time. The only question that emerged, that I can see, is why the guidance counselor named in the article, or any of the other counselors, did not report the physical abuse to the authorities. The counselor is a potential witness who would have to be spoken to. They would have to give their reasons for whatever course of action they chose to make. Maybe their advice was not heeded. In any case I'm sure you will agree the allegations are a long series of criminal behaviour ? What better way to get to the truth of the matter than for it to be investigated by the proper authorities ? At least we could have confidence in it being approached in a fair and impartial way, where the importance is put of properly established facts and circumstances in order to arrive at the right conclusion and the correct course of action. It would begin with a fair approach to the writer's account. Although it is a harrowing account of abuse against "both" parents, not just the father, albeit he is the main perpetrator, with both parents having been members of the church. Both parents are implicated and both are under suspicion. Nevertheless, at this stage the writer's account is as yet an uncorroborated long-standing series of accusations of abuse and criminal conduct against both of her parents, none of which has as yet been proved. Please note I am looking at the account in isolation and am completely unaware of any other pertinent facts and circumstances that may exist, e.g. has the sister provided a version ? Anyway, that's where we stand on the writer's account. It may well be a very true account of her experiences and recollections but it begs proper investigation to substantiate it, particularly in view of the alleged criminal acts. As for its appearance on VOT. One of their representatives has stated the account has not been altered in any way, except perhaps for spelling, etc. At the moment the full account, including headers and footers, must be taken at face value and understood as having been presented on the website with the full knowledge and agreement of the writer. There is much mud-slinging here at VOT, a group that I am largely ignorant about. It may be that some or all of that mud-slinging is justified, but so far not one fact has been presented to show that the account has been twisted or altered in any devious way, or which shows the character of the full article is not what it is so far presented to be. Any perceived previous misconduct or poor practices by VOT may give rise to justifiable caution and suspicion but they do not in themselves overturn the position at the moment that this may indeed be a full and frank account of a very unfortunate matter. The agenda of VOT may be questionable, but we must be careful that any accusations made against them must be substantiated. This case stands on its own merits, not on the good or bad practices of other cases, or perceived motives and reputations of the presenters. A proper fair investigation by the appropriate bodies would establish as far as possible the important facts. It is right that an investigator should be made aware of any concerns about VOT, but these in themself do not alter the truth of the matter one little bit. However, accusers should beware. Proper investigations very often turn things on their heads. Be careful of what you accuse, you might end up being accused of "what are you hiding, what are you trying to protect, you're attempting to put investigators of the scent" and so on. In summing up we have two main things. 1) a tragic story of serious child abuse occurring over a period of years, involving "both" parents who belong to a religious sect, which "may" be implicated either directly or indirectly in the causes of that abuse. The allegations as far as is known have not been substantiated (proven). Neverthess, this may be a true account in its entirety. There is no evidence at present to suggest otherwise. On what has so far been presented, it remains an "open" case. 2) Despite the numerous suspicions and allegations made against VOT on this thread, so far nothing of any substance has been presented to show that on this occasion the article has not been presented with the consent and full understanding of the writer. One must at least until shown otherwise, assume the writer has seen the article on the website and is in agreement with the manner of its presentation. Meanwhile, the expressed concerns about VOT suggest a cautious approach. FWIW this is an attempt at a fair and impartial approach to this matter.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Dec 12, 2008 8:24:04 GMT -5
Very clearly stated and to the point, Ram. Couldn't have been said better!
|
|
|
Post by learnedaboutgrace on Dec 12, 2008 9:58:05 GMT -5
Wow, so 2x2's don't swear or drink alcohol...very interesting. I grew up in a staunch 2x2 home. Meeting in our home. Dad did and still does swear. Not just "soft swears" either. As for the drinking, many people I was quite close to not only drank but went to bars and drank to excess and showed up in meetings Wed/Sun and took part every meeting. I think it is very weak to use those as criteria as whether someone is "in" or "out". If the editors of the VOT will edit my posts for their own purposes there's no telling what they will do to anyone's writings. Hello Clearday, I’m sure you had your suspicions, but I can confirm that those on the VOT forum will openly lie about things that others have said and even delete posts if they think it necessary to hide the truth. For that reason I am reluctant to be too honest with them (as crazy as that is) because I’m sure they would rather continue to deceive, and it is a bit hard to do that if people are in there throwing the truth around. I also didn’t read through this whole story of abuse but scanned enough to get a good picture. I could be wrong, but I must admit that, like a few others, I also was left with the feeling that this story was added to slightly in an attempt to give the impression that the abuse had something to do with this group of friends. The epilogue at the end does seem very much outside the rest of the story as epilogues generally are. An actor usually gives an epilogue after the play has finished, and when they are no longer in character, to give the audience more information that couldn’t be portrayed by the play. You can bet that this is why there had to be an epilogue given in this case, because you certainly couldn’t read that story by itself and make any association between the actions of this abusive man and what is typical of God’s people. The author by her own admission said that her father drifted in and out of God’s way, yet somehow despite that, the blame for this was laid on the “2x2’s”. This man visited the pub and probably drank alcohol seeing that’s why people go to those places, and it also seems like he was good at swearing. Two of the more common things that cause people to associate a male with the “2x2” is that he doesn’t drink and doesn’t swear, and very quickly the make the connection with that “group”. This man therefore is clearly not one of that group, and hence the need to add an epilogue to this story to make an association with a group that can not otherwise be made by the story itself. The fact that this story is on the Anti-Christ VOT website is in itself an attempt to make that association, which is typical of the type of deception that Cherrie Kropp used through her book, where she has made associations despite that fact that she has admitted that she hasn’t confirmed if it was true. For some reason we can’t quote Sherrie’s book, but to give you an example, it would be like me saying “Back in 1952, sometime towards the end of summer, Cherrie Kropp may have killed her neighbour’s cat, but I haven’t confirmed if this is true”. Well of course it isn’t true, but if you didn’t know this was an example, suddenly you might be thinking… Gee this Sherrie must be a nasty person, when yet she is probably the nicest girl around. Anyway, as others has said, there was plenty of opportunity for counsellors and other involved parties to take this to the appropriate authorities if they thought it necessary. Hmmm… I wonder why they didn’t if it was as bad as what it sounds? Maybe the victim made it sound worse than what it was, not that we’ll ever know because as the story says, there is no documentary proof. Somehow it wasn’t bad enough for this man to end up in jail, but even if it was (and it sure sounds like it is), why would it be the responsibility of the workers for the fact that he wasn’t locked away? As far as I know they don’t have the necessary authority to put people in jail, because they are really there to preach the gospel, which is quite a different role. Leave the jailing to the chaps with guns and handcuffs.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Dec 12, 2008 10:11:36 GMT -5
I think it is very weak to use those as criteria as whether someone is "in" or "out". Amen LAG
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 10:45:06 GMT -5
Todd, I'm not about to characterize the VOT as the "anti-Christ", because anti-2x2 is not exactly anti-Christ.
I did have a quick look at the forum there and note that they seem to have liberally deleted your posts, which all seem to be pleasant and well thought out even I don't always agree with the statements. Regardless, any reasonable person would agree that deletion of your posts indicates something very wrong with the VOT.
Sandi, the originator of the VOT who has been out of it for years now, was not like that at all. I enjoyed spending a considerable amount of time sitting down with her and discussing the issues. Too bad she moved on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 10:52:59 GMT -5
Ram, I believe you are attempting to make a fair assessment of this situation, but you are getting buried in the details.
The big picture is this:
This is a story of a sick abusive man and an abused family. Any connection to the 2x2 church is purely peripheral and tenuous at best.
So what is it doing on a virulent anti-2x2 site as its poster child?
Thank goodness this victim is anonymous because she is being victimized again because the VOT is using her story for their own interests, not hers.
Remember, the 2x2 church did not abuse this girl, nor did anyone in it except the "In and out" father who "bastardized" the 2x2 teachings. Yet the story is being used to smear the church.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2008 11:09:07 GMT -5
Wow, so 2x2's don't swear or drink alcohol...very interesting. I grew up in a staunch 2x2 home. Meeting in our home. Dad did and still does swear. Not just "soft swears" either. As for the drinking, many people I was quite close to not only drank but went to bars and drank to excess and showed up in meetings Wed/Sun and took part every meeting. I think it is very weak to use those as criteria as whether someone is "in" or "out". Well, now we know why you're out. You were never in. Neither were your parents. Guess what, this is not a typical experience, although it does happen. Ask my kids; ask all their friends.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2008 11:25:10 GMT -5
I thought we were discussing a line of fruitless academic inquiry. But now you are talking about some kind of criminal investigation involving the church. Of what, dare I even ask? I even re-read the article as I only skimmed it the first time. The only question that emerged, that I can see, is why the guidance counselor named in the article, or any of the other counselors, did not report the physical abuse to the authorities. The counselor is a potential witness who would have to be spoken to. They would have to give their reasons for whatever course of action they chose to make. Maybe their advice was not heeded. In any case I'm sure you will agree the allegations are a long series of criminal behaviour ? What better way to get to the truth of the matter than for it to be investigated by the proper authorities ? At least we could have confidence in it being approached in a fair and impartial way, where the importance is put of properly established facts and circumstances in order to arrive at the right conclusion and the correct course of action. It would begin with a fair approach to the writer's account. Although it is a harrowing account of abuse against "both" parents, not just the father, albeit he is the main perpetrator, with both parents having been members of the church. Both parents are implicated and both are under suspicion. Nevertheless, at this stage the writer's account is as yet an uncorroborated long-standing series of accusations of abuse and criminal conduct against both of her parents, none of which has as yet been proved. Please note I am looking at the account in isolation and am completely unaware of any other pertinent facts and circumstances that may exist, e.g. has the sister provided a version ? Anyway, that's where we stand on the writer's account. It may well be a very true account of her experiences and recollections but it begs proper investigation to substantiate it, particularly in view of the alleged criminal acts. As for its appearance on VOT. One of their representatives has stated the account has not been altered in any way, except perhaps for spelling, etc. At the moment the full account, including headers and footers, must be taken at face value and understood as having been presented on the website with the full knowledge and agreement of the writer. There is much mud-slinging here at VOT, a group that I am largely ignorant about. It may be that some or all of that mud-slinging is justified, but so far not one fact has been presented to show that the account has been twisted or altered in any devious way, or which shows the character of the full article is not what it is so far presented to be. Any perceived previous misconduct or poor practices by VOT may give rise to justifiable caution and suspicion but they do not in themselves overturn the position at the moment that this may indeed be a full and frank account of a very unfortunate matter. The agenda of VOT may be questionable, but we must be careful that any accusations made against them must be substantiated. This case stands on its own merits, not on the good or bad practices of other cases, or perceived motives and reputations of the presenters. A proper fair investigation by the appropriate bodies would establish as far as possible the important facts. It is right that an investigator should be made aware of any concerns about VOT, but these in themself do not alter the truth of the matter one little bit. However, accusers should beware. Proper investigations very often turn things on their heads. Be careful of what you accuse, you might end up being accused of "what are you hiding, what are you trying to protect, you're attempting to put investigators of the scent" and so on. In summing up we have two main things. 1) a tragic story of serious child abuse occurring over a period of years, involving "both" parents who belong to a religious sect, which "may" be implicated either directly or indirectly in the causes of that abuse. The allegations as far as is known have not been substantiated (proven). Neverthess, this may be a true account in its entirety. There is no evidence at present to suggest otherwise. On what has so far been presented, it remains an "open" case. 2) Despite the numerous suspicions and allegations made against VOT on this thread, so far nothing of any substance has been presented to show that on this occasion the article has not been presented with the consent and full understanding of the writer. One must at least until shown otherwise, assume the writer has seen the article on the website and is in agreement with the manner of its presentation. Meanwhile, the expressed concerns about VOT suggest a cautious approach. FWIW this is an attempt at a fair and impartial approach to this matter. We're clearly speaking at cross purposes here. There is no criminal investigation and anything one would offer about whether there could be one, and how it might go is conjecture. Speculate on it if you wish. What is at question is the association between this girl's story, as presented, and the function of the VOT site. We are not "mud slinging", that is, making false accusations or suggestions. The story is on the site, plain to see. I don't see any dispute about the story itself, so why do you act as if there is? What is at dispute is the relevance of this story to the editorial purpose of the VOT site. We know what the site is there for - to discredit the fellowship. And there is a term for the technique that VOT is using called "association fallacy". It goes like this: A is a child abuser. A is a member of the fellowship. Thus all members of the fellowship are child abusers. It can be a very successful technique as history has shown. I feel sorry for this girl to have been victimized once, and now once again, as a poster child for such a reprehensible group of villains.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 11:28:44 GMT -5
Clearday, you raise valid concerns. However, the truth of the matter IS IN the details. I am not doubting anything you are saying here but we have to be careful that any prejudices or perceptions do not cloud a fair and practical approach to things. If things are as you say, they would come out in the washing, no doubt about that. Any malice or devious practices or motives would also come to light.
VOT may be the worst thing going. It may be using this girl and her sorry story to some devious ends, but let's be professional about this and accept that what this girl says may be true in its fullness.
Be careful too about latching onto terms such as "bastardized." That has been used in a highly emotive way. Let's remember, something caused that bastardized version. We don't know what that was yet. It may be his own mental make-up. It may even have been his perception of what he has listened to in meetings etc. Don't rule this out. How many things are satisfactorily explained ?
On what we have so far, we only have a foundation to work on. Rule nothing out. If I was enquiring into this matter, the parents would be the main subjects of suspicion. As a matter of course the sect would be in the frame as well, at least until they were cleared through the investigative process.
As I said everything you raise would be covered by a proper investigation an a lot more. The proper thing to do is stick to the facts and circumstances as they are known. It is only right to have concerns and suspicions if you have good reasons for them. However, don't let these become facts until they are established facts.
I am not saying we should believe all or part of this girl's account. I am not saying we should believe its portrayal on VOT to be a genuine matter. What I am saying is that so far this girl's account ""may be genuine, even within its full portrayal on VOT. We should bear this in mind until we have hard facts to the contrary.
You mention the author (girl) and say she is being victimized again by VOT using her story for their own interests, not hers. From this I'm assuming you have information that shows the girl is against her story having been put on VOT ? If this is the case it is indeed tragic. Are you able to enlighten us with the details without disclosing the girl's identity ?
Rest assured I am now not oblivious to the concerns others have about what VOT's motives may be. I may be a little rusty these days, but am still long in the tooth.
FWIW I could open up a whole new avenue here in respect of this case, but right now I don't have the head for it. The principles of it would likely favour VOT more than anybody, but it would be a tiresome journey for me. Let's keep this case in isolation and consider it on the merits of the known facts and circumstances, affording due caution where appropriate. We owe it to this girl to keep all potential factors in until such time as they can safely be ruled out.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2008 11:34:45 GMT -5
Ram,
The point of the posters here is that the publication of the story is a 'smear tactic' by VOT. Do you agree or disagree? You haven't committed yourself on this point.
|
|