Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2012 0:11:19 GMT -5
Not necessarily equivocation. All ministries have members who have different functions of ministry. Some may have a family ministry, some may have a ministry to the poor. Some may have an introductory ministry (like the friends) and others have a teaching ministry (like the workers). Remember, the letter was signed "minister'' and that is all that Mr.Lessing was addressing. The fact that he may have a different ministry than other believers is not germane to the argument. as was pointed out, workers take minister discounts and the friends do not. That is because they are more than just those sort of people who minister at convention by showing up at preps and vacuuming rugs. They are clergy type ministers, the workers are. They know it. IN FACT, all the friends and workers used to know it before this case came up. They knew the distinction. The friends minister to the physical needs of the workers and the workers minister to the spiritual needs of the friends. The workers, therefore, are clergy. I remember in the work telling people that the ministry is foundation of the church. I did not come up with that on my own. It is fundamental and the workers are separated unto the work of the gospel. They are, in fact, clergy. It appears that the workers think that the law was written for "false preachers" only and not for God's true servants. Hey there ts, focus on the issue. Mr.Lessing was responding to the letter signed "minister", nothing more, nothing less. It's not his job to draw lines connecting the word "minister" to "clergy". He simply pointed out that all believers are ministers of the word.....and strictly speaking, he is right.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 9, 2012 0:32:20 GMT -5
as was pointed out, workers take minister discounts and the friends do not. That is because they are more than just those sort of people who minister at convention by showing up at preps and vacuuming rugs. They are clergy type ministers, the workers are. They know it. IN FACT, all the friends and workers used to know it before this case came up. They knew the distinction. The friends minister to the physical needs of the workers and the workers minister to the spiritual needs of the friends. The workers, therefore, are clergy. I remember in the work telling people that the ministry is foundation of the church. I did not come up with that on my own. It is fundamental and the workers are separated unto the work of the gospel. They are, in fact, clergy. It appears that the workers think that the law was written for "false preachers" only and not for God's true servants. Hey there ts, focus on the issue. Mr.Lessing was responding to the letter signed "minister", nothing more, nothing less. It's not his job to draw lines connecting the word "minister" to "clergy". He simply pointed out that all believers are ministers of the word.....and strictly speaking, he is right. I am focusing on the issue. Everyone is a minister of the word. The issue is that Jerome is one of the clergy of the meetings. Mr Lessing was focusing on the myriad definitions of the word "minister" and trying to use that as smoke and mirrors to get the focus off of Jerome's clergy role in the meeting. Aside from the court case and back to upholding a standard of truth, Jerome let his lawyer try to muddy the waters. There is never a time when the workers put the friends on equal terms of "ministering the word" as themselves. NEVER. Not even when the friends might every few decades be allowed to speak in a gospel meeting somewhere in the world. That is because the friends are not clergy. They are fill ins in extenuating circumstances at best. If Jerome had proven in court that everyone were like him and gotten the case dismissed, you would not see ANYTHING change in that regard. The friends would still be just the friends and not take gospel meetings and the workers would still be the clergy who ministered the word to the friends.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 9, 2012 0:51:06 GMT -5
How many of the fiends sign their letters with "minister"? It is their right to sign "president", as Mr Lessing pointed out. But that does not make them president.
Jerome, however, signed his name with "Minister" by it because he is clergy. He was being truthful. Mr Lessing was making Jerome out to be either a liar or a pompous and inflated dolt or a lunatic akin to one who thinks he is Napoleon.
Not a really good way to build up the credibility of your client when it comes time for the actual trial. But that is Jerome's prerogative to destroy his own credibility with lies and obfuscation.
Mr Lessing might as well have said, "Folks, my client has this disorder and it helps his self esteem if he can sign letters with inflated titles like 'minister' even though we all recognize that all of us could sign the same title on our names if we wanted and be truthful. Let's just indulge him in this little idiosyncrasy and recognize that it really doesn't mean anything when he uses that title for himself."
All Jerome would have to do is drool a bit and wet his pants and put a silly grin on his face and the ruse would be complete. The judge would think he was a lunatic and see that he clearly was not a clergy and dismiss the case. Then Jerome, Ray Hoffman and Barry Barkley could high five one another over a steak dinner at a fancy restaurant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2012 3:31:16 GMT -5
The fact is that every active professing person is a "minister of the word." Does anyone have a precise definition, preferably a legal one, as to what a minister of the word is?
Aside from the profession of Minister of Religion, within a few short minutes I lost count of the number of other professions where those who have the same professional title actually have quite varied and different roles. This in no way affects their basic professional title.
Therefore I would suggest that when applying a term such as "minister of the word" to a group of lay individuals then we should understand its use in a loose and broad manner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2012 4:01:33 GMT -5
This issue can be bandied about until eternity passes, and there is one simple fact remaining. Jerome was charged with a crime, and he will be found one of two ways. Not guilty, which means that the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, or guilty. He will not ever be found innocent. That is just the way the system works. People think that not guilty means innocent, but it absolutely does not. It does not mean that a person may be innocent, but they are not found, "innocent". When a person is charged with a criminal offence the law presumes them to be "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." This in no way is a statement of actual innocence but is purely a legal principle employed in the interests of observing the accused person's legal right to a fair trial. It is the responsibility of the prosecution (the accuser) to prove their case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The defence does NOT have to prove their client did not commit the offence. Once a person is suspected or charged with a criminal offence their position in law changes. They have additional rights which protect their new status before the law. In this they differ greatly from an ordinary innocent person. They retain this position until the matter has been concluded in court or otherwise disposed of. If the investigating authorities do not properly observe the accused's rights during any dealings with the accused the whole case may fold, or at very least be compromised in some measure. Therefore although the process of law presumes an accused person innocent until proven guilty it also recognises the status of that person as a suspect and jealously protects their rights which are not afforded to an ordinary innocent person. One example of difference between an ordinary innocent person and an accused in court is that usually the former can be legally forced to attend court to give evidence whereas the latter cannot in a case against themselves. The term "Not Guilty" simply means "Not Guilty as charged." To actually understand what the person has been found not guilty of you need to see the details of the charge. A person may be found not guilty due to a poorly presented case, good work by the defence, insufficient evidence, or a wide range of other factors which prevent a guilty verdict being declared. In some cases it is successfully shown or implied that the accused did not or could not have committed the crime. An accused will get the benefit of any reasonable doubt throughout the process of law. It is uncommon for a person to walk away from court truly innocent of any wrongdoing. It is most usually down to a case of the prosecution, for one reason or another, having failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence. Again the defence are under no obligation to show their client did not commit the offence or was otherwise involved in any wrongdoing. It is the prosecution who accuse the person of having committed an offence and are responsible for bringing them before the court. It is up to the prosecution to prove their accusations.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 9, 2012 4:47:29 GMT -5
Have the overseers stopped ordaining ministers at convention like they used to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2012 5:45:21 GMT -5
JO Be very careful that doesn't get into the wrong hands, especially the prosecutor in the JF case!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 9, 2012 9:36:30 GMT -5
How many of the fiends sign their letters with "minister"? It is their right to sign "president", as Mr Lessing pointed out. But that does not make them president. Jerome, however, signed his name with "Minister" by it because he is clergy. He was being truthful. Mr Lessing was making Jerome out to be either a liar or a pompous and inflated dolt or a lunatic akin to one who thinks he is Napoleon. Not a really good way to build up the credibility of your client when it comes time for the actual trial. But that is Jerome's prerogative to destroy his own credibility with lies and obfuscation. Mr Lessing might as well have said, "Folks, my client has this disorder and it helps his self esteem if he can sign letters with inflated titles like 'minister' even though we all recognize that all of us could sign the same title on our names if we wanted and be truthful. Let's just indulge him in this little idiosyncrasy and recognize that it really doesn't mean anything when he uses that title for himself." All Jerome would have to do is drool a bit and wet his pants and put a silly grin on his face and the ruse would be complete. The judge would think he was a lunatic and see that he clearly was not a clergy and dismiss the case. Then Jerome, Ray Hoffman and Barry Barkley could high five one another over a steak dinner at a fancy restaurant. Hopefully after a pit stop for JF, eh?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 9, 2012 9:41:30 GMT -5
JO Be very careful that doesn't get into the wrong hands, especially the prosecutor in the JF case! It is the same as done by being on TMB! I think the ordination perhaps comes simply by the "acceptance" of a new worker to the ranks of workership! I believe that the beginning workers preferred more of an ordination ceremony then they use today, as I've noted from several "new workers" that when they are "assigned to an older companion", they are considered a full-time worker!
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Apr 9, 2012 10:13:38 GMT -5
How many of the fiends sign their letters with "minister"? It is their right to sign "president", as Mr Lessing pointed out. But that does not make them president. I'm probably considered a professing fiend, but I still haven't signed a letter with "minister." However, if it's decided that I am a minister, I'm going to plan on doing some "ministering."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2012 10:14:57 GMT -5
How many of the fiends sign their letters with "minister"? It is their right to sign "president", as Mr Lessing pointed out. But that does not make them president. I'm probably considered a professing fiend, but I still haven't signed a letter with "minister." However, if it's decided that I am a minister, I'm going to plan on doing some "ministering." That all sounds pretty fiendish.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 9, 2012 10:36:25 GMT -5
I'm probably considered a professing fiend, but I still haven't signed a letter with "minister." However, if it's decided that I am a minister, I'm going to plan on doing some "ministering." That all sounds pretty fiendish. That sounds like a Feudian slip. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 9, 2012 11:32:32 GMT -5
That all sounds pretty fiendish. That sounds like a Feudian slip. ;D Oh, poor tads! They can't say the r's!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 9, 2012 11:34:36 GMT -5
As far as friends preaching at gospel meetings, I have never seen it in my half century+, nor do I personally know anyone who has done so. I have seen situations many years ago where there was only one worker and he asked a few friends to participate in prayer and give their personal testimonies from the crowd.....but they never preached either from the crowd or up at the front. I think we are talking about an occurrence that is so rare that it is effectively non-existent. It has happened on 2 or 3 occasions in the last couple of years. I don't want to go too far down this road, as I agree that friends are not ministers in the manner put forth by Mr. Lessing. But it's interesting to consider, whether ministry work performed by the workers compared to the friends is different in kind or only in degree. And further whether the implied hierarchy of worker over friend has a Biblical basis.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 9, 2012 11:48:02 GMT -5
I have. I even have electronic copies. I think that is called the opening statement. It tells what he intends to prove. No one has ever said it had to be the truth. And if it is not - there is no fault. Are we arguing about something? I've lost track. I was only saying that a lawyer's opening and closing statements are not testimony in court. Whether they are hearsay or not is of no matter.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 9, 2012 11:51:13 GMT -5
As far as friends preaching at gospel meetings, I have never seen it in my half century+, nor do I personally know anyone who has done so. I have seen situations many years ago where there was only one worker and he asked a few friends to participate in prayer and give their personal testimonies from the crowd.....but they never preached either from the crowd or up at the front. I think we are talking about an occurrence that is so rare that it is effectively non-existent. It has happened on 2 or 3 occasions in the last couple of years. I don't want to go too far down this road, as I agree that friends are not ministers in the manner put forth by Mr. Lessing. But it's interesting to consider, whether ministry work performed by the workers compared to the friends is different in kind or only in degree. And further whether the implied hierarchy of worker over friend has a Biblical basis. And leads to the fact that IF Jerome is considered to be clergy (by legal terms) then elders most likely will fall into that same category. In the same manner others in the state of Michigan might very well also be added, even though at the moment they are NOT considered mandated reporters. This would be people in the unregulated day care industry, coaches of kids sports, Scout leaders and all sorts of others (under the 'teacher' category). Here once again is the information regarding Mandated Reporters in Michigan, and the law which Jerome is charged under: www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,4562,7-124-5452_7119_44443-157836--,00.html Mandated Reporters What Is a Mandated Reporter? The Michigan Child Protection Law requires certain professionals to report their suspicions of child abuse or neglect to Children's Protective Services (CPS) at the Department of Human Services (DHS). These people are mandated reporters and have established relationships with children based on their profession.
Mandated reporters include:
Physicians. Dentists. Physician's assistants. Registered dental hygienists. Medical examiners. Nurses. Licensed emergency medical care providers. Audiologists. Psychologists. Marriage and family therapists. Licensed professional counselors. Social workers. Licensed master's social workers. Licensed bachelor's social workers. Registered social service technicians. Social service technicians. Persons employed in a professional capacity in any office of the Friend of the Court. School administrators. School counselors. Teachers. Law enforcement officers. Members of the clergy. Regulated child care providers. Employees of an organization or entity that, as a result of federal funding statutes, regulations, or contracts, would be prohibited from reporting in the absence of a state mandate or court order (e.g., domestic violence provider). Specific staff members of the Department of Human Services also have a legal mandate to report suspected child abuse or neglect. These staff members include:
Eligibility specialists. Family independence manager or specialists. Social services specialists. Social work specialists. Social work specialist managers. Welfare services specialists. How To Make A Report of Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect
Mandated reporters are required to make an immediate verbal report to CPS and a written report within 72 hours when the mandated reporter suspects child abuse or neglect. Mandated reporters must also notify the head of their organization of the report. Reporting the suspected allegations of child abuse and/or neglect to the head of the organization does not fulfill the requirement to report directly to DHS.
The verbal report can be completed by calling toll free (800) 942-4357 or calling the local county DHS children's protective services unit.
The individual who had contact with the child must complete the call and provide as much detail as possible about the following information:
The child's primary caretaker, including name and address. Names and birth dates for all members of the household. Name and birth date of the alleged perpetrator(s). Whether the alleged perpetrator lives with the child. Address where the alleged abuse or neglect occurred. What makes the mandated reporter suspect the child is being abused or neglected. The Child Protection Law requires that the written report include the following information:
Name of child. Description of abuse or neglect. Names and addresses of child's parents/guardians. The persons with whom the child resides. Child's age. Other information available to the reporting person that might establish the cause of the abuse or neglect, and the manner in which the abuse or neglect occurred. DHS encourages the use of the Report of Actual or Suspected Child Abuse or Neglect (DHS-3200) form when filing the written report, which includes all the information required under the law.
Confidentiality of a Mandated Reporter's Identity
The identity of a reporting person is confidential under the Child Protection Law. The identity of a reporting person is subject to disclosure only with the consent of that person, by judicial process or to those listed under Section 5 of the Child Protection Law (MCL 722.625).
Civil and Criminal Liability
Mandated reporters, who fail to file a report of suspected child abuse or neglect, will be subject to both civil and criminal liability. In a civil action, the mandated reporter may be held liable for all damages that any person suffers due to the mandated reporter's failure to file a report. In a criminal action, the mandated reporter may be found guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to 93 days and a fine of $500.
A person making a good faith report is protected from civil and criminal prosecution and cannot be penalized for making the report or cooperating with a CPS investigation.
Mandated Reporter Hotline
If a mandated reporter is dissatisfied with the response by DHS, the mandated reporter may contact the Mandated Reporter Hotline at (877) 277-2585. Prior to calling the hotline, the mandated reporter must first attempt to talk with the local DHS office director about their concerns.
Mandated Reporter ' s Resource Guide
View the Mandated Reporter's Resource Guide for more detailed information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2012 11:51:52 GMT -5
As far as friends preaching at gospel meetings, I have never seen it in my half century+, nor do I personally know anyone who has done so. I have seen situations many years ago where there was only one worker and he asked a few friends to participate in prayer and give their personal testimonies from the crowd.....but they never preached either from the crowd or up at the front. I think we are talking about an occurrence that is so rare that it is effectively non-existent. It has happened on 2 or 3 occasions in the last couple of years. I don't want to go too far down this road, as I agree that friends are not ministers in the manner put forth by Mr. Lessing. But it's interesting to consider, whether ministry work performed by the workers compared to the friends is different in kind or only in degree. And further whether the implied hierarchy of worker over friend has a Biblical basis. What could be important here though is that if this has happened multiple times in the last couple of years, it may be the beginning a new trend. Can you share some more details? Were there any workers in the gospel meeting? Was it conducted in the same format as a regular gospel meeting? Was it one friend preaching or was it several? Was it from the crowd or was it up in the front facing the people? Is there any reason to believe that this could become a common occurrence in the future?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 9, 2012 11:52:46 GMT -5
No, it doesn't change anything. Jerome wasn't the one that was researching this. It doesn't change anything that has happened in court, I was just pointing out that it was researched. I don't see anything wrong with contesting the legal definition of clergy actually. If the law is to be followed, then it is reasonable to ask for clarification as to what the law actually is. That said, I feel that workers in all states (and countries) should report suspected CSA. As I usually say, we simply need to let the court system deal with this issue. Whatever comes out of the court ruling is what has to be accepted or appealed to a higher court. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. TS does not like to be tied down by definitions and legal matters. It is easier for him to simply state things without having to actually provide support for his claims. Not sure how TS differs from JF in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 9, 2012 11:54:11 GMT -5
And Bill Denk should actually be the one that is being charged in this regard........ Not Jerome.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Apr 9, 2012 11:54:40 GMT -5
I, too, have seen 'fiends' give their testimonies from the front of the class where workers stand. Those instances were at gospel mtgs. in which one of the workers could not attend and the attending worker wanted someone else to take up a little slack. I don't know if the speaker was forewarned. The events elevated some of the speakers' standings as well as their egos.
When did it happen? I can't recall specifically (eighties to early nineties). But I remembered it after reading Foggynight's post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2012 11:56:37 GMT -5
Thanks Scott. As I have stated privately before, I think this Motion for Dismissal outcome is a landmark case and has more ramifications to the fellowship than any possible outcome of Mr.Frandle's upcoming trial.
Once a legal profession of clergy is defined and assigned to the workers and possibly the elders, then the issue of liability opens up. Because the group is not registered as a limited liability society, it may expose all workers and elders to civil liabilities from people who claim damages from their experience in the meetings.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 9, 2012 11:59:57 GMT -5
I also think that the friends should be able to talk openly to the workers about what they expect of them and the workers comply with that like true servants and not lords over the friends. But we know that that is not the case. That is why this matter has gone to court. This matter has gone to court because someone filed a complaint with the state and the state pressed charges.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 9, 2012 12:07:39 GMT -5
I also think that the friends should be able to talk openly to the workers about what they expect of them and the workers comply with that like true servants and not lords over the friends. But we know that that is not the case. That is why this matter has gone to court. This matter has gone to court because someone filed a complaint with the state and the state pressed charges. The complaintant might have thought going to the workers would be of little help, so they went to the proper authorities.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 9, 2012 12:09:37 GMT -5
It has happened on 2 or 3 occasions in the last couple of years. I don't want to go too far down this road, as I agree that friends are not ministers in the manner put forth by Mr. Lessing. But it's interesting to consider, whether ministry work performed by the workers compared to the friends is different in kind or only in degree. And further whether the implied hierarchy of worker over friend has a Biblical basis. What could be important here though is that if this has happened multiple times in the last couple of years, it may be the beginning a new trend. Can you share some more details? Were there any workers in the gospel meeting? Was it conducted in the same format as a regular gospel meeting? Was it one friend preaching or was it several? Was it from the crowd or was it up in the front facing the people? Is there any reason to believe that this could become a common occurrence in the future? You probably often have open gospel meetings also, correct? The cases I know of, and I wasn't there, involved a friend replacing an absent worker. In all respects the sermon was given the same way a worker would present it. I don't know if this will be more common or not. It happened a few years ago, and more recently, and in the 25 years prior I know of no similar case.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 9, 2012 12:13:17 GMT -5
No, it doesn't change anything. Jerome wasn't the one that was researching this. It doesn't change anything that has happened in court, I was just pointing out that it was researched. I don't see anything wrong with contesting the legal definition of clergy actually. If the law is to be followed, then it is reasonable to ask for clarification as to what the law actually is. That said, I feel that workers in all states (and countries) should report suspected CSA. As I usually say, we simply need to let the court system deal with this issue. Whatever comes out of the court ruling is what has to be accepted or appealed to a higher court. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. TS does not like to be tied down by definitions and legal matters. It is easier for him to simply state things without having to actually provide support for his claims. Not sure how TS differs from JF in many ways. And Jerome's ministry and defense in court, while legal, are not guided by the fear of God. I am not sure that Jerome differs from Rational in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 9, 2012 12:13:43 GMT -5
This matter has gone to court because someone filed a complaint with the state and the state pressed charges. The complaintant might have thought going to the workers would be of little help, so they went to the proper authorities. This matter has gone to court because someone filed a complaint with the state and the state pressed charges.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 9, 2012 12:15:12 GMT -5
TS does not like to be tied down by definitions and legal matters. It is easier for him to simply state things without having to actually provide support for his claims. Not sure how TS differs from JF in many ways. And Jerome's ministry and defense in court, while legal, are not guided by the fear of God. I am not sure that Jerome differs from Rational in many ways. Do you have anything to support your claim that JF is not acting because he is afraid of god?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2012 12:15:33 GMT -5
What could be important here though is that if this has happened multiple times in the last couple of years, it may be the beginning a new trend. Can you share some more details? Were there any workers in the gospel meeting? Was it conducted in the same format as a regular gospel meeting? Was it one friend preaching or was it several? Was it from the crowd or was it up in the front facing the people? Is there any reason to believe that this could become a common occurrence in the future? You probably often have open gospel meetings also, correct? The cases I know if, and I wasn't there, involved a friend replacing an absent worker. In all respects the sermon was given the same way a worker would present it. I don't know if this will be more common or not. It happened a few years ago, and more recently, and in the 25 years prior I know of no similar case. I don't know what you mean by "open" gospel meetings. GM's are open to the public, but closed for participation by anyone except workers. We don't have any gospel meetings that are more like, say, a special meeting format with the congregation participating. The idea of a friend standing up in front of the crowd and delivering a sermon is totally foreign to me. That's not saying anything is wrong with it.....in fact it is probably a good thing. Personally, I suspect this may have to develop in the future should workers numbers face a decline which demographics suggest will happen over the next few years.
|
|