|
Post by ts on Apr 1, 2012 19:11:41 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: The only kangaroo court that has gone on is the one that Jerome and the other overseers have set up when they pronounce themselves judge and jury when they excommunicate people or move child molesters around and pressure the victims and their parents to keep quiet. Now they are suffering the consequences both in court and from those who are speaking out in anger and disgust at their years of misconduct and coldheartedness. Now it is public. The lawyer that Jermone had, Mr Lessing, uses the same tactics of bullying and twisting the truth that the workers use. Where are all the honest workers? Who is protesting publicly about what they see Jerome doing? They are all standing by and giving their consent just as Paul did when he watched Stephen and others get stoned to death. Righteous men and women are being persecuted by these wolves and no one is standing up to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 19:12:42 GMT -5
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. 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'm not so sure of that. I think it would be pretty risky for a trial lawyer to start winging it. In fact, it is apparently a good practice that trial lawyer never even asks a question to which he does not already know the answer. To start flailing away with lies and deceptions presents a lot of risks. I have no doubt in my mind that he and Mr.Frandle discussed the situation of title "minister" on the written document. This is clearly a problematic matter that had to be addressed. He would be remiss and incompetent to not discuss it, particularly when this is the defense's motion. That's the problem here. The statute does not define it. I had a look. The Court then set its own standards which were quite logical: functionality was a big one: ie did Mr Frandle perform the duties that are typically performed by a member of the clergy? The other was his elevated position in the organization. Another element was "is this an organization?" There could be more but in all three of those elements, the ruling was "yes" based on Ms.Koning's testimony. You should read the nun reference again. Mr.Lessing was referring to a former nun, his mother. He talked about how his mother as a former nun would talk to people about faith matters and should in no way be responsible to report under the mandated reporter law. He is right, but I suspect that an active nun would be a mandated reporter....would have to look into that. Regardless, Mr.Frandle's position is nothing near resembling the position of a former nun. The statutes definitely had people like the workers in mind when written. I expect that the coverups of priest offenders is one of the big ones, where the legislation is design to root them out instead of allowing churches to cover them up. Also, ministers have a unique position of knowledge of abuses with their spiritual counseling so there is another significant area where abusers can be rooted out. Some legislation specifically mentions that Catholic confession is not off-limits for mandated reporting so in that, you can get a glimpse of what legislators are trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on Apr 1, 2012 19:15:25 GMT -5
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. A surprise witness who told the truth about our church and its system. (which - agreed - is a turn of events that may have taken Mr Frandle by surprise) Mr Frandle should at all times have had the moral strength to exercise control over the lawyer he had hired to defend him. It's always expected that a lawyer acts as directed by his client, even in the real time of the courtroom. He wants to be a minister lording over all and sundry when it suits him, and according to his defence in that court, at other times he will argue that we're all ministers on equal footing with him. Ha!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 19:23:22 GMT -5
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: The only kangaroo court that has gone on is the one that Jerome and the other overseers have set up when they pronounce themselves judge and jury when they excommunicate people or move child molesters around and pressure the victims and their parents to keep quiet. Now they are suffering the consequences both in court and from those who are speaking out in anger and disgust at their years of misconduct and coldheartedness. Now it is public. The lawyer that Jermone had, Mr Lessing, uses the same tactics of bullying and twisting the truth that the workers use. Where are all the honest workers? Who is protesting publicly about what they see Jerome doing? They are all standing by and giving their consent just as Paul did when he watched Stephen and others get stoned to death. Righteous men and women are being persecuted by these wolves and no one is standing up to them. I sorta missed the rants when you weren't here. Welcome back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 19:28:22 GMT -5
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. A surprise witness who told the truth about our church and its system. (which - agreed - is a turn of events that may have taken Mr Frandle by surprise) Mr Frandle should at all times have had the moral strength to exercise control over the lawyer he had hired to defend him. It's always expected that a lawyer acts as directed by his client, even in the real time of the courtroom. He wants to be a minister lording over all and sundry when it suits him, and according to his defence in that court, at other times he will argue that we're all ministers on equal footing with him. Ha! Interestingly, the "surprise" witness came at the goading of Mr.Lessing. Then when Mr.Lessing was invited to call his own witness to refute Ms.Koning's testimony, he refused, claiming not being prepared to do it. In reality, he knew Ms.Koning's testimony was accurate and he would bury his client deeper if he had called Mr.Denk or had Mr.Frandle chose to refute Ms.Koning herself. You are completely right. Mr.Frandle should have had control of his lawyer....his lawyer is hired to do his bidding and present his case, presumably honestly. The world of worker justice is quite different. If you want to see a real kangaroo court in full action, try viewing a worker judgment against one of the friends or an overseer against a worker. The Marg Magowan case was perfectly kangaroo-style. The judgment was made before the trial. I have witnessed this personally and heard of numerous other cases that were also kangaroo-style. It is a world that is disconnected from the principles of fairness and justice.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 1, 2012 19:31:43 GMT -5
The world of worker justice is quite different. If you want to see a real kangaroo court in full action, try viewing a worker judgment against one of the friends or an overseer against a worker. The Marg Magowan case was perfectly kangaroo-style. The judgment was made before the trial. I have witnessed this personally and heard of numerous other cases that were also kangaroo-style. It is a world that is disconnected from the principles of fairness and justice. Exactly. The thought that keeps coming to mind regarding the court transcript is this- if the workers are willing to allow reality twisted this much in PUBLIC to protect their turf how much more are they doing in PRIVATE to protect their turf?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 1, 2012 19:32:45 GMT -5
"If God hasn't told Dennis this directly, Dennis can only be expressing personal opinion (his or someone else's), because I am betting that this is not written down in any 2x2 preaching manual." -Todd on another thread(Todd's Wheat Analogy)
Wow, this statement sound strikingly like the lawyer, Mr Lessing, who cross examined Mrs Koning. The use of the word "manual" is a very sarcastic one. People who have grown up in meetings know all the rules and that they are not written down. They know the hierarchy though it is not written down.
There is an effort to make those who simply state the doctrine of the meetings look like liars.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 19:39:12 GMT -5
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. 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'm not so sure of that. I think it would be pretty risky for a trial lawyer to start winging it. In fact, it is apparently a good practice that trial lawyer never even asks a question to which he does not already know the answer. To start flailing away with lies and deceptions presents a lot of risks. He had to wing it when Bonnie Koning took the stand. He had no idea this would happen, and he said as much a few times. He even said he wasn't good at winging it, at one point. Remember this wasn't trial, but a pre-trial motion. I think the judge wanted closure on it that day. I agree. The first statement was prepared and researched. It was later that he had to wing it. They never got into the overall sense of what a mandated reporter is, and why the occupations are listed that are listed. For example (and if I remember) licenced day care providers are listed, but unlicenced ones are not. Why? At what point do you include or not include religious people of one stripe or another? Catholic hierarchy who don't report misdeeds of priests is an interesting one. I had the idea that these statutes were more along the line of defining professional responsibilities for those who work with children. Not unlike factory supervisors who are criminally responsible for safety infractions under their supervision. I thought the purpose of "mandated reporting" is to define a professional level of conduct for those who work directly with children and come into knowledge of CSA. Does it cover reporting from the supervisors of those who find out about CSA committed by their charges?
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Apr 1, 2012 19:39:17 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. Let me be crystal clear on this: No suggestion of CSA was ever made or inferred. Much was made of the children's 'adoration' of Cobain and Nirvana, and given Cobain's apparent struggle with religion and depression, and subsequent suicide, it would be safer to suggest that influence than to try to link them to something else.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 19:43:39 GMT -5
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. A surprise witness who told the truth about our church and its system. (which - agreed - is a turn of events that may have taken Mr Frandle by surprise) Mr Frandle should at all times have had the moral strength to exercise control over the lawyer he had hired to defend him. It's always expected that a lawyer acts as directed by his client, even in the real time of the courtroom. He wants to be a minister lording over all and sundry when it suits him, and according to his defence in that court, at other times he will argue that we're all ministers on equal footing with him. Ha! It took the lawyer by surprise. Mr. Frandle's reaction doesn't really matter. There was no great moral issue with anything Mr. Lessing said that I can see from the transcript. He was just making an argument.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 19:50:09 GMT -5
A surprise witness who told the truth about our church and its system. (which - agreed - is a turn of events that may have taken Mr Frandle by surprise) Mr Frandle should at all times have had the moral strength to exercise control over the lawyer he had hired to defend him. It's always expected that a lawyer acts as directed by his client, even in the real time of the courtroom. He wants to be a minister lording over all and sundry when it suits him, and according to his defence in that court, at other times he will argue that we're all ministers on equal footing with him. Ha! Interestingly, the "surprise" witness came at the goading of Mr.Lessing. Then when Mr.Lessing was invited to call his own witness to refute Ms.Koning's testimony, he refused, claiming not being prepared to do it. In reality, he knew Ms.Koning's testimony was accurate and he would bury his client deeper if he had called Mr.Denk or had Mr.Frandle chose to refute Ms.Koning herself. You are completely right. Mr.Frandle should have had control of his lawyer....his lawyer is hired to do his bidding and present his case, presumably honestly. The world of worker justice is quite different. If you want to see a real kangaroo court in full action, try viewing a worker judgment against one of the friends or an overseer against a worker. The Marg Magowan case was perfectly kangaroo-style. The judgment was made before the trial. I have witnessed this personally and heard of numerous other cases that were also kangaroo-style. It is a world that is disconnected from the principles of fairness and justice. Mr. Lessing made quite clear that he was proceeding on an argument of what makes a minister or clergy that was at odds with how Mr. Frandle would define a minister. I quoted that above or perhaps on the other thread.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 19:51:47 GMT -5
A surprise witness who told the truth about our church and its system. (which - agreed - is a turn of events that may have taken Mr Frandle by surprise) Mr Frandle should at all times have had the moral strength to exercise control over the lawyer he had hired to defend him. It's always expected that a lawyer acts as directed by his client, even in the real time of the courtroom. He wants to be a minister lording over all and sundry when it suits him, and according to his defence in that court, at other times he will argue that we're all ministers on equal footing with him. Ha! Interestingly, the "surprise" witness came at the goading of Mr.Lessing. Then when Mr.Lessing was invited to call his own witness to refute Ms.Koning's testimony, he refused, claiming not being prepared to do it. In reality, he knew Ms.Koning's testimony was accurate and he would bury his client deeper if he had called Mr.Denk or had Mr.Frandle chose to refute Ms.Koning herself. You are completely right. Mr.Frandle should have had control of his lawyer....his lawyer is hired to do his bidding and present his case, presumably honestly. The world of worker justice is quite different. If you want to see a real kangaroo court in full action, try viewing a worker judgment against one of the friends or an overseer against a worker. The Marg Magowan case was perfectly kangaroo-style. The judgment was made before the trial. I have witnessed this personally and heard of numerous other cases that were also kangaroo-style. It is a world that is disconnected from the principles of fairness and justice.So tell me about it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 20:14:05 GMT -5
"If God hasn't told Dennis this directly, Dennis can only be expressing personal opinion (his or someone else's), because I am betting that this is not written down in any 2x2 preaching manual." -Todd on another thread(Todd's Wheat Analogy) Wow, this statement sound strikingly like the lawyer, Mr Lessing, who cross examined Mrs Koning. The use of the word "manual" is a very sarcastic one. People who have grown up in meetings know all the rules and that they are not written down. They know the hierarchy though it is not written down. There is an effort to make those who simply state the doctrine of the meetings look like liars. I believe she made quite a few comments on which she may not have had personal knowledge. For example, I believe in regional overseers and pow-wows etc as reported here on TMB but have no personal knowledge of them. This is where Mr. Lessing was going and whether it was a good point or not, it was a reasonable line of inquiry to establish exactly what came out of her experience and what did not. I noted also that the funeral notices and so on were ruled inadmissible hearsay. I have no idea why, but that's why we have lawyers.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 1, 2012 20:25:12 GMT -5
No. The judge found that he's a member of the clergy. He stated that he's leaving it to the jury to decide whether JF is a mandated reporter, if I read it correctly. Okay, and if they decide that he is, then the case would proceed to trial? Is there a transcript or factual account of the trial around anywhere? UHHHH, What! If a jury has decided whether JF is a mandated reporter then the case is in trial, right? The trial is not yet...JF has changed his attorneys like some people change their underwear and the last attorney had to ask the judge for more time so he can catch up to what JF is all about!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 20:32:22 GMT -5
Okay, and if they decide that he is, then the case would proceed to trial? Is there a transcript or factual account of the trial around anywhere? UHHHH, What! If a jury has decided whether JF is a mandated reporter then the case is in trial, right? The trial is not yet...JF has changed his attorneys like some people change their underwear and the last attorney had to ask the judge for more time so he can catch up to what JF is all about! It's not clear if the judge decided that JF was a mandated reporter. The defence attorney was not clear on it either. There might be some question about that yet. But the motion to dismiss was not granted.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 1, 2012 20:39:25 GMT -5
Mr Leesing said that his aunt was a EX nun. Not currently a nun. However, she still would go and have Bible studies or prayer with people. She was not functioning in a nun capacity. She would presumably not be subject to the same accountability as a nun.
The judge determined that Jerome was NOT an ex nun. Nor was he an ex worker or ex minister. He was not just some guy who happen to not have a job whom people trusted to speak at their funerals, baptize them and guide them spiritually in other tasks in the church. The court determined that Jerome is, in fact, (much to the apparent surprise of apparently most of the friends and workers in the entire Eastern USA) a minister with authority and responsibilities within the church.
I suppose there is a good reason that most of the friends are funding an effort to prove that Jerome is not a minister.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 1, 2012 20:40:26 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.[/quote] If it had been most any other church's minister in JF's shoes they would NEVER be allowed to minister in that church ever again. One would think that JF's days are over as a minister with all of this deceptive allowances in the face of the legal arena, but apparently he is continuing "his gospel mtgs." while facing the courts' charge. I would LIKE to think that the people in the fellowship would have enough guts and seeking TRUE righteous that would kindly ask Mr. JF to retire as a worker and not set foot in their church again....but according to what was mentioned in the last mtg. where JF's 3rd lawyer asked for continuance but NO, the friends exited the courtroom patting JF on the back and smiling as loony as anyone who doesn't know the truth even if it bit them on the backside! This is a horrible testimony for those friends sitting there in blind devotion as long as JF remains their worker/overseer! This is the thing that leads outsiders to call the fellowship a "cult"....and yes, it is derogatory as what says it is meant to be. Why do the friends allow the legal arena the "right" to call them a "cult" by sticking behind an overseer who is fighting a misdeamor charge as IF it was a murder charge or even a CSA charge?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 1, 2012 20:44:13 GMT -5
UHHHH, What! If a jury has decided whether JF is a mandated reporter then the case is in trial, right? The trial is not yet...JF has changed his attorneys like some people change their underwear and the last attorney had to ask the judge for more time so he can catch up to what JF is all about! It's not clear if the judge decided that JF was a mandated reporter. The defence attorney was not clear on it either. There might be some question about that yet. But the motion to dismiss was not granted. This portion of the trial was apparently never intended to determine if Jerome was a mandated reporter or not. I think it was just a pre trial hearing and that is where the defense can move to have the trial dismissed. They have to come up with a good enough reason to merit a dismissal and they chose the "non minister" defense. Now that Jerome has been pronounced a minister by a court of law, They can now proceed to determine if he is responsible enough to be a mandated reporter.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 1, 2012 20:45:20 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. Worker's Lists for several years and convention speakers, funerals and special mtg. visitations/speakers were handed to the judge during the preliminary questioning of BK or that's what I got from reading the transcripts because JF's lawyer wanted to object to them being a court item because he had not seen them as well, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 20:51:35 GMT -5
UHHHH, What! If a jury has decided whether JF is a mandated reporter then the case is in trial, right? The trial is not yet...JF has changed his attorneys like some people change their underwear and the last attorney had to ask the judge for more time so he can catch up to what JF is all about! It's not clear if the judge decided that JF was a mandated reporter. The defence attorney was not clear on it either. There might be some question about that yet. But the motion to dismiss was not granted. There is no lack of clarity based on what the judge said after the defense lawyer was confused. Mr.Frandle is a member of the clergy under MCL722.622(l). 100% clear. Everyone who falls under that definition is a mandated reporter under MCL722.623. That Mr.Frandle is a mandated reporter will not be an issue at trial. What will be an issue is for the jury to decide if his mandate included reporting Mr.Briggs. Prosecution will have to draw a line between Mr.Briggs and Mr.Frandle. Mr.Briggs was also ruled to be a member of the clergy which is also significant in this case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 20:56:44 GMT -5
Interestingly, the "surprise" witness came at the goading of Mr.Lessing. Then when Mr.Lessing was invited to call his own witness to refute Ms.Koning's testimony, he refused, claiming not being prepared to do it. In reality, he knew Ms.Koning's testimony was accurate and he would bury his client deeper if he had called Mr.Denk or had Mr.Frandle chose to refute Ms.Koning herself. You are completely right. Mr.Frandle should have had control of his lawyer....his lawyer is hired to do his bidding and present his case, presumably honestly. The world of worker justice is quite different. If you want to see a real kangaroo court in full action, try viewing a worker judgment against one of the friends or an overseer against a worker. The Marg Magowan case was perfectly kangaroo-style. The judgment was made before the trial. I have witnessed this personally and heard of numerous other cases that were also kangaroo-style. It is a world that is disconnected from the principles of fairness and justice.So tell me about it. The Marg Magowan case is available to be viewed. The excommunication of the Jordan's is available. You personally know someone who was judged ineligible for Union mtg and Wed mtg rotation. That's just a start. I have numerous others which are not particularly public. There are no trials in the F&W justice system. Decisions are made behind closed doors and it is common that all evidence is not heard, nor representations made by others on behalf of the accused. When that decision is arrived at, the member is summoned and has no influence over the decision.....and is often not heard even after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 1, 2012 21:09:17 GMT -5
This is why WINGS is in existence, and why many professing people come here to read on the TMB.
I do think that there are many who DO know now about the extent of CSA issues. I know that I have been contacted by quite a few folks ranging in age from teens to 70's about what they have read about on WINGS and the TMB, and many of them have shared what they learn with others.
I also think it is pretty sad that these people cannot approach their local workers with their questions, and even sadder that many of the local workers also do not know what has been happening within the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 1, 2012 21:16:33 GMT -5
When workers come onto the TMB and wings, do they believe what they read about the extent of the CSA? Noels was on TMB for a while and is a worker. Does he help tell people about the extent of CSA in the fellowship? You have worker friends, Scott, who read on TMB and you are personally in touch with them. Do they make a point to inform people of the extent of CSA happening within the work? If so, how do they talk about the issue with the friends? Openly in meeting or do they make a point to speak in the homes about it?....that is, if you know.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 1, 2012 21:19:46 GMT -5
I also think it is pretty sad that these people cannot approach their local workers with their questions, and even sadder that many of the local workers also do not know what has been happening within the fellowship. It's probably hard for system-minded people to see right now, but real accountability is probably the best thing that could happen to this fellowship. The "descending order of submission" doctrine has led us into a downward spiral. ====================================================================== John 3:20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 1, 2012 21:21:25 GMT -5
This is why WINGS is in existence, and why many professing people come here to read on the TMB. I do think that there are many who DO know now about the extent of CSA issues. I know that I have been contacted by quite a few folks ranging in age from teens to 70's about what they have read about on WINGS and the TMB, and many of them have shared what they learn with others. I also think it is pretty sad that these people cannot approach their local workers with their questions, and even sadder that many of the local workers also do not know what has been happening within the fellowship. I'm having trouble discerning just what the extent of CSA in the fellowship is. How shall we measure it? Convictions? Accusations? Any false accusations? Do we get to hear about those? Can you give me some idea of your perception, Scott?
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 1, 2012 21:22:18 GMT -5
The "descending order of submission" doctrine has led us into a downward spiral. Where else would you expect something called the "Descending Order of Submission" to lead us other than into a downward spiral?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 1, 2012 21:22:20 GMT -5
TS, I think you know that IF there are any workers and friends that want to work with the victims or even to educate the parents of today, they will have to be much more into subterfuge then many of their overseers....I think it wise to pray for those who are doing their best to present themselves before their Saviour as honest people who ARE working as well as they can under subterfuge...or behind the scenes....this has to be in order that they can remain in a position to help victims and educate others!
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 1, 2012 21:36:39 GMT -5
TS, I think you know that IF there are any workers and friends that want to work with the victims or even to educate the parents of today, they will have to be much more into subterfuge then many of their overseers....I think it wise to pray for those who are doing their best to present themselves before their Saviour as honest people who ARE working as well as they can under subterfuge...or behind the scenes....this has to be in order that they can remain in a position to help victims and educate others! It is a crying shame that honest people have to work in fear "behind the scenes" in "the only truth and way". One would think that the evil ones would have to be the ones working behind the scenes. It appears as though they are the ones out front making policy. I am sure that many of the honest ones in meeting do not even know what is going on because of the false doctrine the leaders have gradually introduced over the years. The doctrine that says it is righteous to keep quiet and let God handle it has led to complacency among the honest friends and workers. Their honesty is hid under a bushel while the evil runs rampant. The evil is as apparent as whited sepulchers. The complacent ones see only the nice white walls and not the death they contain.
|
|