Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 15:27:53 GMT -5
The Court of the state of Michigan: "And with regard to Mr. Frandle's role, based on the testimony of Ms.Koning, the Court finds that Mr.Frandle is, in fact, a member of the clergy of the organization testified to by Ms.Koning. Ms.Koning testified, again, at some length and in significant detail about a clear hierarchical structure with a division of duties and different authorities that rest with various members of this organization. It appears as though the organization referred to as The Faith or if that's not correct, it is simply an organization, which the Court finds is, in fact, a religious organization based on the testimony of Ms.Koning who, in fact, has testified that she's been a member for basically all of her life. The organization conducts apparently baptisms and other religious activities. It is involved in preaching the gospel and conducting special meetings and conventions and other various activities, which again, the Court finds to be activities that are part of a recognized religious body or organization. And I find that this is or that there is a recognized religious body or organization that exists to which Mr.Frandle is a member-----and specifically a member of that clergy. And I find that his particular function is that of a minister or other religious practitioner or similar functionary, again, based on the detailed testimony of Ms.Koning." I think that literally every reader here who has read Ms.Koning's testimony knows that she spoke honestly and forthrightly with regard to the facts of the organization, its hierarchy, and its ministry. Her testimony was the basis of the ruling. The defense had an opportunity to call witnesses to refute it, did not, and declined to further "beat a dead horse", in the defense lawyer's words. This clarifies something quite significant. It establishes that workers in Michigan are considered by the laws of Michigan to be part of a religious organization and are mandated reporters as clergy. While it is not a ruling for other states, it does set down a ruling which may be referred to support other cases where the law is not more specific than Michigan which would clearly exempt workers for some reason. What is the date for this statement? If this has been determined, is there a trial date set? February 10, 2012. Trial date tentatively set for April 24, 2012.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 15:29:15 GMT -5
A transcript of the entire case to date would sure be useful. Is it online somewhere?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 15:33:19 GMT -5
The staunch 2x2s are conspicuously absent from the discussions about the transcript. Where are the Noelses, Berts, Todds, Emys, Linfordbledsoes and Hberrys? Is Jerome representative of your ministry? Is Barry Barkley, who is certainly aware of what is going on, representative of your ministry? Is Ray Hoffman, who apparently has been in every court hearing with Jerome, representative of your ministry and the ministry of Jesus Christ? They are all in agreement. Are you in agreement with them? At least they are going 2x2 and having meetings in homes. If they were not, we would have no way of knowing they were preaching the true gospel. I think they're prepared to let the court do its work, as opposed to the kangaroo court being held here. I thought someone was posting up some news here today, and now I found out this was something said two months ago, by an associate of an ex-lawyer about a pre-trial motion to determine the status of the defendant. (Although it still sounds like quite a silly argument to me, all the same.) I'm not sure what kangaroo court you are talking about. No one here is even discussing Mr Frandle's guilt or innocence regarding his charge. All discussion has been on the ruling that he is a member of the clergy as per MCL622.722(l) which is the basis for his status as a member of the clergy and mandated reporter. The discussion has mostly focused on the deceptive defense to convince the court that Mr.Frandle is not a member of the clergy. He was found a member of the clergy both functionally and by his elevated status in the organized group. I'm sure there will be much more discussion after the trial.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 15:40:42 GMT -5
I think they're prepared to let the court do its work, as opposed to the kangaroo court being held here. I thought someone was posting up some news here today, and now I found out this was something said two months ago, by an associate of an ex-lawyer about a pre-trial motion to determine the status of the defendant. (Although it still sounds like quite a silly argument to me, all the same.) I'm not sure what kangaroo court you are talking about. No one here is even discussing Mr Frandle's guilt or innocence regarding his charge. All discussion has been on the ruling that he is a member of the clergy as per MCL622.722(l) which is the basis for his status as a member of the clergy. The discussion has mostly focused on the deceptive defense to convince the court that Mr.Frandle is not a member of the clergy. He was found a member of the clergy both functionally and by his elevated status in the organized group. I'm sure there will be much more discussion after the trial. Mr. Frandle is being called a liar, when, as far as I can tell, he hasn't actually said anything yet. Would you like me to dig up some quotes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 15:48:19 GMT -5
I'm not sure what kangaroo court you are talking about. No one here is even discussing Mr Frandle's guilt or innocence regarding his charge. All discussion has been on the ruling that he is a member of the clergy as per MCL622.722(l) which is the basis for his status as a member of the clergy. The discussion has mostly focused on the deceptive defense to convince the court that Mr.Frandle is not a member of the clergy. He was found a member of the clergy both functionally and by his elevated status in the organized group. I'm sure there will be much more discussion after the trial. Mr. Frandle is being called a liar, when, as far as I can tell, he hasn't actually said anything yet. Would you like me to dig up some quotes. The defense has been deceptive on numerous levels. I hardly know where to start. Will post some quotes when I get a chance but some have been quoted already on these threads.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 15:57:34 GMT -5
Mr. Frandle is being called a liar, when, as far as I can tell, he hasn't actually said anything yet. Would you like me to dig up some quotes. The defense has been deceptive on numerous levels. I hardly know where to start. Will post some quotes when I get a chance but some have been quoted already on these threads. Yeah, I know that the words of the "defence" are deceptive. It's there in the OP. I want you to provide evidence of Jerome Frandle being deceptive. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, or that he hasn't been deceptive, but I've not seen any evidence of it posted. It looks like the defence lawyer just got the "party line" on a bunch of stuff, and presented it as if it was reality. I've heard that kind of thinking from many of the friends, not just Jerome Frandle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 16:13:43 GMT -5
The defense has been deceptive on numerous levels. I hardly know where to start. Will post some quotes when I get a chance but some have been quoted already on these threads. Yeah, I know that the words of the "defence" are deceptive. It's there in the OP. I want you to provide evidence of Jerome Frandle being deceptive. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, or that he hasn't been deceptive, but I've not seen any evidence of it posted. It looks like the defence lawyer just got the "party line" on a bunch of stuff, and presented it as if it was reality. I've heard that kind of thinking from many of the friends, not just Jerome Frandle. I think you presented your own evidence. The lawyer presented the non-reality party line, and where did he get that? The lawyer may not have been intentionally deceptive but it would be almost impossible to see through it so I don't give him any respect for being truthful overall. He had some fair points which were truthful and worthy of consideration. Here are a few: 1.Does not perform marriages, and 2.Does not have formal clerical education degree. 3.Not registered as a tax exempt church I would have had some respect for the defense had they stuck to the facts in their favour such as the above and let the judge decide. The deception is systemic with regard to a number of these issues.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 1, 2012 16:22:37 GMT -5
Yeah, I know that the words of the "defence" are deceptive. It's there in the OP. I want you to provide evidence of Jerome Frandle being deceptive. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, or that he hasn't been deceptive, but I've not seen any evidence of it posted. It looks like the defence lawyer just got the "party line" on a bunch of stuff, and presented it as if it was reality. I've heard that kind of thinking from many of the friends, not just Jerome Frandle. I think you presented your own evidence. The lawyer presented the non-reality party line, and where did he get that? The lawyer may not have been intentionally deceptive but it would be almost impossible to see through it so I don't give him any respect for being truthful overall. He had some fair points which were truthful and worthy of consideration. Here are a few: 1.Does not perform marriages, and 2.Does not have formal clerical education degree. 3.Not registered as a tax exempt church I would have had some respect for the defense had they stuck to the facts in their favour such as the above and let the judge decide. I noticed the same thing and agree. Where Jerome's defense went off track was by being peevish about obituary notices in newspapers where Mr. Frandle was listed as having presided over. Too much time was also taken trying to explain away the word "minister". The defense made it out to be like it was just "hear say" from the internet and Google searches that Jerome actually presided over funerals. Evidently he doesn't understand (or didn't want to say) that searching the News section of Google returns actual newspaper articles. This is hardly internet or Google "hearsay". And I guess the following newspaper ad from The Daily News of Middlesboro, KY is also just more internet or Google hearsay where Jerome Frandle and Glenn Gasser are listed as "Ministers". You know, the title that Jerome's attorney kept trying to distance Jerome from. Evidently, at one time, Jerome didn't have an issue with having the title of "Minister".
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 1, 2012 16:29:06 GMT -5
Yes, I saw that comment about "...water under the bridge." That is the same as the typical worker speak in these situations where a worker is FINALLY caught and dragged out by the abused person after a LABOURIOUS process against a stonefaced and unrepentant worker in power. The end result is that the friends and worker just want to forget it happened and not make any connections between the actions of an individual leader of the faith and the doctrine of the faith. "Just get over it". "Move on." "it is in the past." are all typical responses. And the friends and workers generally seem content to let this happen over and over without addressing the deeper issues of the worker power structure and abuse systems in place. Yep, just deal with this one issue quietly and everything is ok. It isn't JF or IH or DB causing the problems. It is all those folks who want to keep making it public. What do your really think of the spiritual leader, JF, Emy. Would you welcome him as your overseer?
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on Apr 1, 2012 16:33:55 GMT -5
Yeah, I know that the words of the "defence" are deceptive. It's there in the OP. I want you to provide evidence of Jerome Frandle being deceptive. So Jesus could have just got himself a good defence lawyer and it wasn't him lying just his defence lawyer, so he could have got off and avoided the cross. But where would that have left you Mr What? You KNOW it would have been deceptive for Jesus to allow that and he would never have done it. It's the same deceptive for Mr Frandle, but he DOES allow it. Hmmm? Does Mr Frandle ever preach on following the example of Christ? If he ever did, he never can from now forward.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 1, 2012 16:36:56 GMT -5
The defense has been deceptive on numerous levels. I hardly know where to start. Will post some quotes when I get a chance but some have been quoted already on these threads. Yeah, I know that the words of the "defence" are deceptive. It's there in the OP. I want you to provide evidence of Jerome Frandle being deceptive. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, or that he hasn't been deceptive, but I've not seen any evidence of it posted. It looks like the defence lawyer just got the "party line" on a bunch of stuff, and presented it as if it was reality. I've heard that kind of thinking from many of the friends, not just Jerome Frandle. It seems like you are making out that Jerome is the victim in this and that he is powerless because he has a lawyer. His lawyer would have asked him if he wanted to plead guilty or wanted to defend the charge. The lawyer would have also advised him. Jerome has given the lawyer the information that they are not organised etc or how else could the lawyer have known these things unless they came from Jerome. Many people plead guilty inspite of having a lawyer who can get them off. Next abusers will be using the line that my lawyer said it not me when they deny the sexual abuse.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 16:57:45 GMT -5
I think you presented your own evidence. The lawyer presented the non-reality party line, and where did he get that? The lawyer may not have been intentionally deceptive but it would be almost impossible to see through it so I don't give him any respect for being truthful overall. He had some fair points which were truthful and worthy of consideration. Here are a few: 1.Does not perform marriages, and 2.Does not have formal clerical education degree. 3.Not registered as a tax exempt church I would have had some respect for the defense had they stuck to the facts in their favour such as the above and let the judge decide. I noticed the same thing and agree. Where Jerome's defense went off track was by being peevish about obituary notices in newspapers where Mr. Frandle was listed as having presided over. Too much time was also taken trying to explain away the word "minister". The defense made it out to be like it was just "hear say" from the internet and Google searches that Jerome actually presided over funerals. Evidently he doesn't understand (or didn't want to say) that searching the News section of Google returns actual newspaper articles. This is hardly internet or Google "hear say". And I guess the following newspaper ad from The Daily News of Middlesboro, KY is also just more internet or Google hearsay where Jerome Frandle and Glenn Gasser are listed as "Ministers". You know, the title that Jerome's attorney kept trying to distance Jerome from. Evidently, at one time, Jerome didn't have an issue with having the title of "Minister".That part does sound like an unprepared defence ... that is, to try and say that JF presiding over funerals was hearsay.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 17:03:37 GMT -5
Yeah, I know that the words of the "defence" are deceptive. It's there in the OP. I want you to provide evidence of Jerome Frandle being deceptive. So Jesus could have just got himself a good defence lawyer and it wasn't him lying just his defence lawyer, so he could have got off and avoided the cross. But where would that have left you Mr What? You KNOW it would have been deceptive for Jesus to allow that and he would never have done it. It's the same deceptive for Mr Frandle, but he DOES allow it. Hmmm? Does Mr Frandle ever preach on following the example of Christ? If he ever did, he never can from now forward. Only Jesus would be willing to be crucified knowing he was innocent.
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on Apr 1, 2012 17:10:42 GMT -5
A sad business, the Henderson children. I became good friends with their cousins soon after that tragedy. I had seen EJs statement before but this brought back some memories. Nirvana and Kurt Cobain seemed to be a large influence on them also and it was not long after Cobain took his life that the children did so too. Very sad... Was the young girl a victim of child abuse on the convention ground in Victoria where we now know a predator was at work? From her suicide note (VOT): "When I die, let me be a devil or demon and destroy everyone who hurt me." From the report on VOT, the coroner said "the children's prime motivation was their fear of attending a religious camp".
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 17:12:48 GMT -5
Yeah, I know that the words of the "defence" are deceptive. It's there in the OP. I want you to provide evidence of Jerome Frandle being deceptive. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, or that he hasn't been deceptive, but I've not seen any evidence of it posted. It looks like the defence lawyer just got the "party line" on a bunch of stuff, and presented it as if it was reality. I've heard that kind of thinking from many of the friends, not just Jerome Frandle. It seems like you are making out that Jerome is the victim in this and that he is powerless because he has a lawyer. His lawyer would have asked him if he wanted to plead guilty or wanted to defend the charge. The lawyer would have also advised him. Jerome has given the lawyer the information that they are not organised etc or how else could the lawyer have known these things unless they came from Jerome. Many people plead guilty inspite of having a lawyer who can get them off. Next abusers will be using the line that my lawyer said it not me when they deny the sexual abuse. I'm not commenting on the findings of the court, but on the findings of this thread. I have much more confidence in the court than I do in ts, happyfeet, et al. But of course the defence was making statements based on JF's advice. I don't deny that. But in the kangaroo court we are holding here today, I haven't seen much to go on. (The kangaroo court is trying to determine whether JF is of sound character, or a liar). I still think the OP comments by the defence are more a reflection of the religion as a whole than one single person within it.
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on Apr 1, 2012 17:16:27 GMT -5
Only Jesus would be willing to be crucified knowing he was innocent. So in your world everyone else is excused and can act unChrist like? You defend Mr Frandle allowing his lawyer to TRY and deceive the court of law, just to save Mr Frandle's skin? Jesus in Matthew 5: “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison."
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 1, 2012 17:18:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 1, 2012 17:22:54 GMT -5
A sad business, the Henderson children. I became good friends with their cousins soon after that tragedy. I had seen EJs statement before but this brought back some memories. Nirvana and Kurt Cobain seemed to be a large influence on them also and it was not long after Cobain took his life that the children did so too. Very sad... Was the young girl a victim of child abuse on the convention ground in Victoria where we now know a predator was at work? From her suicide note (VOT): "When I die, let me be a devil or demon and destroy everyone who hurt me." From the report on VOT, the coroner said "the children's prime motivation was their fear of attending a religious camp". Knowing what we now know about child sexual abuse it would not surprise me at all if CSA was behind these suicides.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 17:25:28 GMT -5
Ask Bill Denk why he and Jerome's names are on a list. And Jerome's name is at the TOP of the list. Wings has a list for 2006 when Greg Harger and Darren Briggs were on the same name-Jeromes name was on TOP. What would JF say about the list in court? And the worker photo has names...Carsonville, Vanderbilt and Alma.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 17:53:52 GMT -5
Only Jesus would be willing to be crucified knowing he was innocent. So in your world everyone else is excused and can act unChrist like? You defend Mr Frandle allowing his lawyer to TRY and deceive the court of law, just to save Mr Frandle's skin? Jesus in Matthew 5: “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison." I think I have a clearer explanation of what's going on, on the other thread. I think the deception is systemic, not overt.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 1, 2012 17:54:28 GMT -5
Yes, I saw that comment about "...water under the bridge." That is the same as the typical worker speak in these situations where a worker is FINALLY caught and dragged out by the abused person after a LABOURIOUS process against a stonefaced and unrepentant worker in power. The end result is that the friends and worker just want to forget it happened and not make any connections between the actions of an individual leader of the faith and the doctrine of the faith. "Just get over it". "Move on." "it is in the past." are all typical responses. And the friends and workers generally seem content to let this happen over and over without addressing the deeper issues of the worker power structure and abuse systems in place. Yep, just deal with this one issue quietly and everything is ok. It isn't JF or IH or DB causing the problems. It is all those folks who want to keep making it public. What do your really think of the spiritual leader, JF, Emy. Would you welcome him as your overseer? I have not seen anyone saying any of those things in this thread. I certainly was not implying that when I made my comment. Rather, I was implying that the process is still in motion, but the part of it that posters were presently commenting on happened some time ago. The bad presentation by the defense lawyer might even be why Jerome has a different lawyer now. I sure don't know. I prefer to side in with what What said here:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 18:04:24 GMT -5
So in your world everyone else is excused and can act unChrist like? You defend Mr Frandle allowing his lawyer to TRY and deceive the court of law, just to save Mr Frandle's skin? Jesus in Matthew 5: “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison." I think I have a clearer explanation of what's going on, on the other thread. I think the deception is systemic, not overt. You also have to consider that there are some new ideas introduced here which would indicate that it is not all systemic. For example, the idea that the term "minister" is applicable to all friends and workers is quite new in the F&W context. It is something that has been advocated here on the TMB but it is by no means part of the F&W narrative, quite the opposite actually. I don't know of any friends who are considered authorized to preach the gospel and admit new members to the meeting. The question remains whether or not the idea was conjured up by Mr. Lessing or if he got the idea from Mr.Frandle. If it came from Mr.Frandle, it is an outright falsehood as representing a common belief among F&Ws.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 1, 2012 18:33:46 GMT -5
Was the young girl a victim of child abuse on the convention ground in Victoria where we now know a predator was at work? From her suicide note (VOT): "When I die, let me be a devil or demon and destroy everyone who hurt me." From the report on VOT, the coroner said "the children's prime motivation was their fear of attending a religious camp". Knowing what we now know about child sexual abuse it would not surprise me at all if CSA was behind these suicides. This never even crossed my mind up until this point. Holy cow. It's way past time for these offenses to be taken seriously and dealt with clearly and unequivocably by the F&W leadership.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 1, 2012 18:35:46 GMT -5
I think I have a clearer explanation of what's going on, on the other thread. I think the deception is systemic, not overt. Yeah, perhaps. Is deception not deception, though, regardless if it is systemic or overt? Say, if you were waiting for the Hale-Bopp comet and the space craft following it. Perhaps you sincerely believe it and teach it to your followers? Just because you personally believe it, does it make it any less deceptive? Now, I know that is taking things to an extreme. But, say, you were part of a religious group that you truly believed had no hierarchy. If plenty of evidence exists to the contrary and you willfully ignore it, is that still not deceptive, no matter what you believe? 1. de•cep•tive/diˈseptiv/ Adjective: Giving an appearance or impression different from the true one; misleading. (Wiki)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 18:45:33 GMT -5
I think I have a clearer explanation of what's going on, on the other thread. I think the deception is systemic, not overt. You also have to consider that there are some new ideas introduced here which would indicate that it is not all systemic. For example, the idea that the term "minister" is applicable to all friends and workers is quite new in the F&W context. It is something that has been advocated here on the TMB but it is by no means part of the F&W narrative, quite the opposite actually. I don't know of any friends who are considered authorized to preach the gospel and admit new members to the meeting. The question remains whether or not the idea was conjured up by Mr. Lessing or if he got the idea from Mr.Frandle. If it came from Mr.Frandle, it is an outright falsehood as representing a common belief among F&Ws. I have now read the entire transcript. It was very clear that Mr. Lessing was winging it at that point, and introduced the idea of anyone baptizing or anyone ministering on his own. He had no idea Bonnie Koning would be called as a witness and no chance to prepare a response, or to confer with JF on his cross examination of Bonnie Koning. There is no way you can take anything Lessing said in that cross examination as representative of JF's point of view. Note the OP was not part of the cross examination so we can take that as coming on JF's advice. A lot was left out that could have been said, had Lessing been prepared. But here is the essence of Mr. Lessing's argument from the transcript: I want to clarify something. Mr. Frandle's not saying that he doesn't consider himself a minister. He does consider himself a minister at the Bible considers all of us ministers of the word of God. We're not trying to step away from that. He's not, as a matter of convenience, sometimes calling himself a minister and sometimes not. The question becomes, is that the definition that fits within the statute. And clearly it does not. .. He's not holding himself out as a member of the clergy, which is required under the statute. I don't think that the court ever got into the definition of clergy as defined by the statute. I believe as I have said from the start that the writers of the statute had something else in mind than workers when they wrote the statute. They had in mind professionals who know how to work with children and issues of CSA. Mr. Lessing drew a very good parallel when he asked if a nun should be responsible under the statute. I thought the judge made a snap decision on a very important question.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 18:52:43 GMT -5
Only Jesus would be willing to be crucified knowing he was innocent. So in your world everyone else is excused and can act unChrist like? You defend Mr Frandle allowing his lawyer to TRY and deceive the court of law, just to save Mr Frandle's skin? Jesus in Matthew 5: “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison." Now that I've read the entire transcript I see no intent to deceive on the defence's part. There were errors of fact, and the one paragraph in the OP is out of context of the overall drift of the defence. The defence never stated that JF was not a minister in the ordinary sense of the word, or in a Biblical sense, but was trying to show that JF was not clergy as defined or intended by the statute. Now that being said, the case as he made it was not very strong. Partly that was because of springing a surprise witness.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 1, 2012 19:05:08 GMT -5
So Jesus could have just got himself a good defence lawyer and it wasn't him lying just his defence lawyer, so he could have got off and avoided the cross. But where would that have left you Mr What? You KNOW it would have been deceptive for Jesus to allow that and he would never have done it. It's the same deceptive for Mr Frandle, but he DOES allow it. Hmmm? Does Mr Frandle ever preach on following the example of Christ? If he ever did, he never can from now forward. Only Jesus would be willing to be crucified knowing he was innocent. I strongly disagree. There are MANY people willing to die for the truth and many have died for truth. Hirelings are not willing to lay their lives down for the sheep.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 19:09:08 GMT -5
I think I have a clearer explanation of what's going on, on the other thread. I think the deception is systemic, not overt. Yeah, perhaps. Is deception not deception, though, regardless if it is systemic or overt? Say, if you were waiting for the Hale-Bopp comet and the space craft following it. Perhaps you sincerely believe it and teach it to your followers? Just because you personally believe it, does it make it any less deceptive? Now, I know that is taking things to an extreme. But, say, you were part of a religious group that you truly believed had no hierarchy. If plenty of evidence exists to the contrary and you willfully ignore it, is that still not deceptive, no matter what you believe? 1. de•cep•tive/diˈseptiv/ Adjective: Giving an appearance or impression different from the true one; misleading. (Wiki) It's certainly equally harmful, perhaps more harmful because it's difficult to combat. There is ongoing deception within the friends' fellowship because there is no open news. I'll bet you and I know way more about what's going on than any member of the fellowship. I've spoken with relatives of head workers, and elders and others, and they clearly have no idea about the extent of CSA in the fellowship. They generally know of a case or two within their purview. So that's "deception" or rather self-delusion, and it's very harmful. The problem with this self-delusion is that it's very difficult for sensible remedies to gain any traction. It's like having a swimming pool that people keep falling in and drowning and no one wants to put up a fence around it because they've been told that the deceased moved to another town. The friends are about 10 years behind on this issue, and unfortunately now are caught full force by the regulations that have grown up around them. But no I don't think Jerome Frandel is knowingly trying to deceive anyone because I understand the antiquated mindset.
|
|