|
Post by jphillips on Aug 3, 2009 7:50:59 GMT -5
... have to re-profess?
For all the lies are the Russian twins permanently ex-communicated from the faith?
Who would ever DARE want to call them a 'friend' (especially if a male) or even risk sitting next to them in a meeting.
Would the gals have been 'STONED' (not drug taking) if they lived in a Middle Eastern culture? Not one-or-two lies, but a relentless litany of hundreds where there was a collusion of collaboration, at a minimum, between the two!
They at least had their 'Moment of FAME!'
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 3, 2009 8:28:45 GMT -5
Why would they have to 're-profess'? If everyone that told a lie had to 're-profess', the only people left sitting during the last verse of the last song of the last meeting are those that never professed in the first place..... I know a lot of professing folks that have told a lot of lies and they never had to 're-profess'..... As far as I know, none of them were ever ex-communicated anyhow..... Scott
|
|
|
Post by jphillips on Aug 3, 2009 11:16:20 GMT -5
Why would they have to 're-profess'? If everyone that told a lie had to 're-profess', the only people left sitting during the last verse of the last song of the last meeting are those that never professed in the first place..... I know a lot of professing folks that have told a lot of lies and they never had to 're-profess'..... As far as I know, none of them were ever ex-communicated anyhow..... Scott I believe it was noted that the ex-sister Workers had discontinued meetings, so I assumed the same for the twins. The MAGNITUDE of the twins blatant tales for me is a predominate issue and is by far more deserving of ex-ing than others who have felt the stinging kicks of the Workers boots from the faith's fold. Sexual abuse should always be reported to the authorities, but this single incident will set back the conscientious reporting of such cases within the faith's ranks by prompting second thoughts of 'is it true' suspicions. The damages from this case will resound for years whenever there is an accusation, without evidence, of "REMEMBER Michigan."But there's an interesting question: Is there such a thing as missing meetings and fellowship in the Faith for a period 3-4-5-6-7- ... months that automatically mandates one's re-professing commitment?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 3, 2009 11:35:12 GMT -5
Sexual abuse should always be reported to the authorities, but this single incident will set back the conscientious reporting of such cases within the faith's ranks by prompting second thoughts of 'is it true' suspicions. The damages from this case will resound for years whenever there is an accusation, without evidence, of "REMEMBER Michigan."Actually, I have seen an increase in the reporting of issues. I think the lesson learned from following what has gone on in Michigan is to report to the authorities, and then let them do their jobs without interference, and also the need to refrain from taking sides in the issue until the authorities have completed their investigation. There is rarely 'evidence' in many of these types of cases, and that is why it is important to report as soon as possible whenever there is a case of suspected abuse. The authorities are trained to investigate these types of issues. By not reporting, it also is unfair to those that are innocent of any wrongdoing, as until they are cleared by the authorities, the rumors will continue to be whispered about. But there's an interesting question: Is there such a thing as missing meetings and fellowship in the Faith for a period 3-4-5-6-7- ... months that automatically mandates one's re-professing commitmentNot sure why missing meetings for any reason would mean one would have to re-profess. There are many things that would keep someone away from meetings. such as illness, incarceration for some type of offense etc. Probably all up to the local worker or overseer I would imagine. And that of course brings up the question as to just who are you professing to..... Man or God.... ? Scott
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 29, 2009 19:34:59 GMT -5
I think the "issue" of the "professing" part or reprofessing part would simply be a moot point, when the whole family has been excluded, and true partly in accordance to a court ruling that the younger children were not to have anything to do with the f&W's of that area.
|
|