|
Post by sharonw on Jul 14, 2012 19:07:44 GMT -5
A few workers lately have renounced the overseer position. Too much stress I guess. Charles is a great guy to be around, as I remember. Very talented and funny. I don't believe he or Rob would be involved with anything immoral. That being said, I do not think that workers dating or marrying is immoral. I am also not suggesting that either of them are dating or married. I am saying that celibacy IS one of the major stresses of the work. Looking for a prospective wife is not at all abnormal. But TS, I'm still of the old school, IF a worker is in the work and is looking for a spouse, does he need to try them all on before settling on the one who he wants to marry? That puts women in the category of something like shoes, trying to get the best fit before buying the permanent possession! Otherwords, pre-marital sex out of a worker is not actually staying turn to the "celibate" promise, now is it? I know the bible says that if a young man has not been correct in his behaviour with his virgin let them marry, they have not sinned....however when workers have sex with multiple women just because they want to get married is not the right way...If they want to live a life of great sex only, then they need to leave the work and probably leave the fellowship, for they are apt to run out of candidates for "great sex only".
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 14, 2012 19:20:00 GMT -5
Charles is a great guy to be around, as I remember. Very talented and funny. I don't believe he or Rob would be involved with anything immoral. That being said, I do not think that workers dating or marrying is immoral. I am also not suggesting that either of them are dating or married. I am saying that celibacy IS one of the major stresses of the work. Looking for a prospective wife is not at all abnormal. But TS, I'm still of the old school, IF a worker is in the work and is looking for a spouse, does he need to try them all on before settling on the one who he wants to marry? That puts women in the category of something like shoes, trying to get the best fit before buying the permanent possession! Otherwords, pre-marital sex out of a worker is not actually staying turn to the "celibate" promise, now is it? I know the bible says that if a young man has not been correct in his behaviour with his virgin let them marry, they have not sinned....however when workers have sex with multiple women just because they want to get married is not the right way...If they want to live a life of great sex only, then they need to leave the work and probably leave the fellowship, for they are apt to run out of candidates for "great sex only". Having sex introduces a whole other category. I said "dating", not having sex. Some of the overseers feel that if a worker has consensual sex, there is really nothing they can do about it. It is between them and God. Some overseers will even use the term, "it takes two" meaning that both were in consent. If it is NOT consensual, then it is a legal matter that needs to be taken to the law. Either way, the overseers don't like to get their hands dirty with it. Some workers have found that they can frustrate the legal system by carrying on their urge for immorality overseas in third world countries. It is hard to believe that workers could be that systematic and premeditated except when you realize that, in all ways, workers are just as human as even the basest of men. Some workers will even use the friends' money to fly across country for the purpose of having sex under the guise of "counseling".
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 14, 2012 19:40:43 GMT -5
"Cpunseling" from a worker? This shows that people in the fellowship are remiss with their expectations of a "counselor", don't you think? Workers have NO training to be "counselors" and thus this very thought should throw up a red flag to those who are "paying" for that plane trip to give "counseling"...BTW, why would one worker have to fly miles to give counseling when usually there are almost always at least 2 workers closer that can give as good counseling as the one who is not trained but is flying with friends' money to give counseling? Where is the dumbbell in all of this...isn't it time the friends ought to wake up and start ringing their objections on that dumbbell?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 14, 2012 22:57:41 GMT -5
"Cpunseling" from a worker? This shows that people in the fellowship are remiss with their expectations of a "counselor", don't you think? Workers have NO training to be "counselors" and thus this very thought should throw up a red flag to those who are "paying" for that plane trip to give "counseling"...BTW, why would one worker have to fly miles to give counseling when usually there are almost always at least 2 workers closer that can give as good counseling as the one who is not trained but is flying with friends' money to give counseling? Where is the dumbbell in all of this...isn't it time the friends ought to wake up and start ringing their objections on that dumbbell? I think the bell isn't ringing because presently a lie supports the system better than the truth does. If the bell is ringing, they are dull of hearing. It is easier to make excuses for the system than to change it(or do away with it altogether). Basically, it is hard for the workers and friends to do what they preach to "the world" to do in order to be a part of "the truth".
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 15, 2012 0:08:55 GMT -5
But TS, I'm still of the old school, IF a worker is in the work and is looking for a spouse, does he need to try them all on before settling on the one who he wants to marry? That puts women in the category of something like shoes, trying to get the best fit before buying the permanent possession! Otherwords, pre-marital sex out of a worker is not actually staying turn to the "celibate" promise, now is it? I know the bible says that if a young man has not been correct in his behaviour with his virgin let them marry, they have not sinned....however when workers have sex with multiple women just because they want to get married is not the right way...If they want to live a life of great sex only, then they need to leave the work and probably leave the fellowship, for they are apt to run out of candidates for "great sex only". Usually when this is going on there is a woman involved as well. You seem to be only addressing the males.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 15, 2012 5:53:15 GMT -5
But TS, I'm still of the old school, IF a worker is in the work and is looking for a spouse, does he need to try them all on before settling on the one who he wants to marry? That puts women in the category of something like shoes, trying to get the best fit before buying the permanent possession! Otherwords, pre-marital sex out of a worker is not actually staying turn to the "celibate" promise, now is it? I know the bible says that if a young man has not been correct in his behaviour with his virgin let them marry, they have not sinned....however when workers have sex with multiple women just because they want to get married is not the right way...If they want to live a life of great sex only, then they need to leave the work and probably leave the fellowship, for they are apt to run out of candidates for "great sex only". Having sex introduces a whole other category. I said "dating", not having sex. Some of the overseers feel that if a worker has consensual sex, there is really nothing they can do about it. It is between them and God. Some overseers will even use the term, "it takes two" meaning that both were in consent. If it is NOT consensual, then it is a legal matter that needs to be taken to the law. Either way, the overseers don't like to get their hands dirty with it. Some workers have found that they can frustrate the legal system by carrying on their urge for immorality overseas in third world countries. It is hard to believe that workers could be that systematic and premeditated except when you realize that, in all ways, workers are just as human as even the basest of men. Some workers will even use the friends' money to fly across country for the purpose of having sex under the guise of "counseling". I don't believe ALL workers are like this. However, they will all be tarred with the same brush if they don't make a definite stand against immorality. The good workers are being dragged down to the level of the immoral workers.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 15, 2012 5:55:21 GMT -5
But TS, I'm still of the old school, IF a worker is in the work and is looking for a spouse, does he need to try them all on before settling on the one who he wants to marry? That puts women in the category of something like shoes, trying to get the best fit before buying the permanent possession! Otherwords, pre-marital sex out of a worker is not actually staying turn to the "celibate" promise, now is it? I know the bible says that if a young man has not been correct in his behaviour with his virgin let them marry, they have not sinned....however when workers have sex with multiple women just because they want to get married is not the right way...If they want to live a life of great sex only, then they need to leave the work and probably leave the fellowship, for they are apt to run out of candidates for "great sex only". Usually when this is going on there is a woman involved as well. You seem to be only addressing the males. Can you not see there is a power imbalance?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 15, 2012 7:58:10 GMT -5
I don't believe ALL workers are like this. However, they will all be tarred with the same brush if they don't make a definite stand against immorality. The good workers are being dragged down to the level of the immoral workers. Who is doing the dragging? Who is doing the tarring? The people who speculate on what may or may not have happened, based on rumors and gossip? Isn't it a sad state of affairs when people are condemned without proof?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 15, 2012 9:43:05 GMT -5
Having sex introduces a whole other category. I said "dating", not having sex. Some of the overseers feel that if a worker has consensual sex, there is really nothing they can do about it. It is between them and God. Some overseers will even use the term, "it takes two" meaning that both were in consent. If it is NOT consensual, then it is a legal matter that needs to be taken to the law. Either way, the overseers don't like to get their hands dirty with it. Some workers have found that they can frustrate the legal system by carrying on their urge for immorality overseas in third world countries. It is hard to believe that workers could be that systematic and premeditated except when you realize that, in all ways, workers are just as human as even the basest of men. Some workers will even use the friends' money to fly across country for the purpose of having sex under the guise of "counseling". I don't believe ALL workers are like this. However, they will all be tarred with the same brush if they don't make a definite stand against immorality. The good workers are being dragged down to the level of the immoral workers. That was what I was referring to in the case of counseling going on within the workers.....they need to start objecting as well as the friends , so that the dumbbell is ringing and the wrong action is curtailed, eh?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 15, 2012 9:46:55 GMT -5
Usually when this is going on there is a woman involved as well. You seem to be only addressing the males. Can you not see there is a power imbalance? I seem to remember someone shared an article written about sex between ministers and members of the church....that the minister has some control over that members just by the place in the church, and thus it would not really be "consensual sex"....I can se that but at the same time I think that ministers often find themselve in such positions as bosses do over their working staff...but still there are times the temptation is too strong and they do fall into the thinking that the deed is "consensual" thought there has been a period of seduction before that, and I'm not saying that the minister/boss is the one doing the seducing or flirting....it's just something that creates a problem for all others who have to be around such a relationship.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 15, 2012 16:14:01 GMT -5
Usually when this is going on there is a woman involved as well. You seem to be only addressing the males. RAT, you seem to be ignoring the whole issue of power imbalance. You might find the following helpful: ......................... ............................. ........................... ..................... Excerpts from AACC Christian Counseling Code of Ethics 1-112 Action Regarding Clients Harmed by Other HelpersChristian counselors take proper action against the harmful behavior of other counselors and pastors. We will act assertively to challenge or expose abusers and protect clients against harm wherever it is found, taking care to honor and support client decision-making regarding curative action against violators. 1-130 Sexual Misconduct ForbiddenAll forms of sexual misconduct, and every kind of sexual exploitation, deception, abuse, or harassment in pastoral, professional or lay relationships are unethical. This includes relations where the sexual involvement is invited or informed consent presumably exists—such apparent consent is illusory and illegitimate. Forbidden sexual activities and deceptions include, but are not limited to, direct sexual touch or contact; seductive sexual speech or non-verbal behavior; solicitation of sexual or romantic relations; erotic contact or behavior as a response to the sexual invitation or seductive behavior of clients; unnecessary questioning and/or excessive probing into the client’s sexual history and practices; advocacy of the healing value of counselor-client sexual relations; secretive sexual communications and anonymous virtual interaction via the Internet or other electronic means; sexual harassment by comments, touch, or promises/threats of special action; and sexual misconduct as defined by all applicable laws, ethics, and church, organizational, or practice policies. 1-131 Sexual Relations with Former Clients ForbiddenAll sexual relations as defined in 1-130 above with former clients are unethical. Furthermore, we do not terminate and refer clients or parishioners, even at first contact, in order to pursue sexual or romantic relations.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 15, 2012 16:28:59 GMT -5
Usually when this is going on there is a woman involved as well. You seem to be only addressing the males. RAT, you seem to be ignoring the whole issue of power imbalance. You might find the following helpful: ......................... ............................. ........................... ..................... Excerpts from AACC Christian Counseling Code of Ethics 1-112 Action Regarding Clients Harmed by Other HelpersChristian counselors take proper action against the harmful behavior of other counselors and pastors. We will act assertively to challenge or expose abusers and protect clients against harm wherever it is found, taking care to honor and support client decision-making regarding curative action against violators. 1-130 Sexual Misconduct ForbiddenAll forms of sexual misconduct, and every kind of sexual exploitation, deception, abuse, or harassment in pastoral, professional or lay relationships are unethical. This includes relations where the sexual involvement is invited or informed consent presumably exists—such apparent consent is illusory and illegitimate. Forbidden sexual activities and deceptions include, but are not limited to, direct sexual touch or contact; seductive sexual speech or non-verbal behavior; solicitation of sexual or romantic relations; erotic contact or behavior as a response to the sexual invitation or seductive behavior of clients; unnecessary questioning and/or excessive probing into the client’s sexual history and practices; advocacy of the healing value of counselor-client sexual relations; secretive sexual communications and anonymous virtual interaction via the Internet or other electronic means; sexual harassment by comments, touch, or promises/threats of special action; and sexual misconduct as defined by all applicable laws, ethics, and church, organizational, or practice policies. 1-131 Sexual Relations with Former Clients ForbiddenAll sexual relations as defined in 1-130 above with former clients are unethical. Furthermore, we do not terminate and refer clients or parishioners, even at first contact, in order to pursue sexual or romantic relations. This is excellent rules within the Christian Community...but it seems that many are not even aware of such reccommendations and surely some even ignore those reccommendations!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 15, 2012 16:35:03 GMT -5
RAT, you seem to be ignoring the whole issue of power imbalance. You might find the following helpful: Thanks. I think that most, especially those who have worked in this field, have a good grasp on what is ethical and what is not. We are not talking about professional individuals in this case. There is no case history. There are no past clients. In some cases there is force applied but there are also cases where the attraction and actions are mutual. You might argue that when one of the actors is over the other there can be no mutual consent but I think most people know that is nonsense. TS has described an incident where his sister-in-law carried on with a worker for years. You could argue that she was forced but it would be a difficult story to make stick. This type of thing happens in most fields. I have seen it in the medical field with both male and female doctors being involved with the support staff. I have seen it in large and small businesses and in many cases there is little force or fear of losing ones job. I am not saying that it does not happen but I know that it also happens by mutual consent/attraction.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 15, 2012 18:05:32 GMT -5
We are not talking about professional individuals in this case. There is no case history. There are no past clients. Where you have a case of an overseer and a sister worker there's a power imbalance when viewed as either: 1. A clergy/parishioner relationship. 2. An employer/employee relationship. If there is a threat expressed or implied of being forced from the work or from the church for refusing sexual favors or exposing impropriety, its about as far away from the nature of Christ as one can get.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2012 19:01:29 GMT -5
RAT, you seem to be ignoring the whole issue of power imbalance. You might find the following helpful: Thanks. I think that most, especially those who have worked in this field, have a good grasp on what is ethical and what is not. We are not talking about professional individuals in this case. There is no case history. There are no past clients. In some cases there is force applied but there are also cases where the attraction and actions are mutual. You might argue that when one of the actors is over the other there can be no mutual consent but I think most people know that is nonsense. TS has described an incident where his sister-in-law carried on with a worker for years. You could argue that she was forced but it would be a difficult story to make stick. This type of thing happens in most fields. I have seen it in the medical field with both male and female doctors being involved with the support staff. I have seen it in large and small businesses and in many cases there is little force or fear of losing ones job. I am not saying that it does not happen but I know that it also happens by mutual consent/attraction.This is where you are at odds with the ethics policy JO listed: "This includes relations where the sexual involvement is invited or informed consent presumably exists—such apparent consent is illusory and illegitimate."Until you can recognize that such apparent "consent" is not consent, you will continue to struggle understand why most people are alarmed at alleged sexual escapades between workers and friends, and between senior workers and junior workers or friends. You see this as nonsense but in fact it is abuse in action.
|
|
eh?
Senior Member
Posts: 714
|
Post by eh? on Jul 15, 2012 19:24:16 GMT -5
I know the bible says that if a young man has not been correct in his behaviour with his virgin let them marry, they have not sinned.... Really, where ?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 15, 2012 20:31:12 GMT -5
RAT, you seem to be ignoring the whole issue of power imbalance. You might find the following helpful: Thanks. I think that most, especially those who have worked in this field, have a good grasp on what is ethical and what is not. We are not talking about professional individuals in this case. There is no case history. There are no past clients. In some cases there is force applied but there are also cases where the attraction and actions are mutual. You might argue that when one of the actors is over the other there can be no mutual consent but I think most people know that is nonsense. TS has described an incident where his sister-in-law carried on with a worker for years. You could argue that she was forced but it would be a difficult story to make stick. This type of thing happens in most fields. I have seen it in the medical field with both male and female doctors being involved with the support staff. I have seen it in large and small businesses and in many cases there is little force or fear of losing ones job. I am not saying that it does not happen but I know that it also happens by mutual consent/attraction. Yes, the relationship between JM and my SIL was definitely consensual. There was no abuse there. Abuse was never an issue. The double standard was the issue. At one time I thought that the overseers would be more than glad to get rid of JM because of not only acting immorally by their supposed standards but also directly disobeying orders to stop the relationship. As it turns out, the overseers involved had their own relationships to cover up, so they did not want to end a good thing for themselves. Not that overseers having sex is illegal. There is nothing illegal about them dating and carrying their relationships to the legal limit with all consent. You can find such goings on in bars(and elsewhere) around the world. If they think that this is fine, exemplary behaviour of ministers of the gospel, I highly recommend that they say so. At least it will let people know definitely what spirit they are listening to when they hear their fine sermons in gospel meetings and at convention. At least one overseer told me that it sounded like the relationship was consensual, so there was nothing that they could do about it. By not making a stand they are actually implicating themselves in that same moral standard. Consenting to work along side those who do and approve of and hide and reward such behaviour. The workers were fine with LW preaching in gospel meetings, special meetings and even was scheduled for convention rounds this year. The overseers knew of LW's past behaviour and the NUMEROUS problems that had surfaced. They only took action against him when it was evident that it was a legal matter. The fact is, the law of the land is the righteousness of the overseers.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 15, 2012 21:05:22 GMT -5
At least one overseer told me that it sounded like the relationship was consensual, so there was nothing that they could do about it. I understand your repulsion TS. If overseers feel unable to deal with sexual immorality on their staff they should put the question to the friends: "Are you prepared to support workers who are in consensual sexual relationships?" That would be the fair and honest way to deal with the issue IMO.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 16, 2012 9:18:25 GMT -5
Thanks. I think that most, especially those who have worked in this field, have a good grasp on what is ethical and what is not. We are not talking about professional individuals in this case. There is no case history. There are no past clients. In some cases there is force applied but there are also cases where the attraction and actions are mutual. You might argue that when one of the actors is over the other there can be no mutual consent but I think most people know that is nonsense. TS has described an incident where his sister-in-law carried on with a worker for years. You could argue that she was forced but it would be a difficult story to make stick. This type of thing happens in most fields. I have seen it in the medical field with both male and female doctors being involved with the support staff. I have seen it in large and small businesses and in many cases there is little force or fear of losing ones job. I am not saying that it does not happen but I know that it also happens by mutual consent/attraction. Yes, the relationship between JM and my SIL was definitely consensual. There was no abuse there. Abuse was never an issue. The double standard was the issue. At one time I thought that the overseers would be more than glad to get rid of JM because of not only acting immorally by their supposed standards but also directly disobeying orders to stop the relationship. As it turns out, the overseers involved had their own relationships to cover up, so they did not want to end a good thing for themselves. Not that overseers having sex is illegal. There is nothing illegal about them dating and carrying their relationships to the legal limit with all consent. You can find such goings on in bars(and elsewhere) around the world. If they think that this is fine, exemplary behaviour of ministers of the gospel, I highly recommend that they say so. At least it will let people know definitely what spirit they are listening to when they hear their fine sermons in gospel meetings and at convention. At least one overseer told me that it sounded like the relationship was consensual, so there was nothing that they could do about it. By not making a stand they are actually implicating themselves in that same moral standard. Consenting to work along side those who do and approve of and hide and reward such behaviour. The workers were fine with LW preaching in gospel meetings, special meetings and even was scheduled for convention rounds this year. The overseers knew of LW's past behaviour and the NUMEROUS problems that had surfaced. They only took action against him when it was evident that it was a legal matter. The fact is, the law of the land is the righteousness of the overseers. Yeah. I'm all thrilled to be professing and know that any money I give to overseers can be appropriated for traveling and hosting their affairs. Wonderful stuff.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 16, 2012 9:33:51 GMT -5
Yeah. I'm all thrilled to be professing and know that any money I give to overseers can be appropriated for traveling and hosting their affairs. Wonderful stuff. You should ask the organization to set up a directed purpose gift program where you can allocate your money as you see fit rather than the people you are 'giving' it to.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 16, 2012 9:57:08 GMT -5
I know the bible says that if a young man has not been correct in his behaviour with his virgin let them marry, they have not sinned.... Really, where ? 1Cr 7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of [her] age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 16, 2012 10:01:15 GMT -5
Thanks. I think that most, especially those who have worked in this field, have a good grasp on what is ethical and what is not. We are not talking about professional individuals in this case. There is no case history. There are no past clients. In some cases there is force applied but there are also cases where the attraction and actions are mutual. You might argue that when one of the actors is over the other there can be no mutual consent but I think most people know that is nonsense. TS has described an incident where his sister-in-law carried on with a worker for years. You could argue that she was forced but it would be a difficult story to make stick. This type of thing happens in most fields. I have seen it in the medical field with both male and female doctors being involved with the support staff. I have seen it in large and small businesses and in many cases there is little force or fear of losing ones job. I am not saying that it does not happen but I know that it also happens by mutual consent/attraction. Yes, the relationship between JM and my SIL was definitely consensual. There was no abuse there. Abuse was never an issue. The double standard was the issue. At one time I thought that the overseers would be more than glad to get rid of JM because of not only acting immorally by their supposed standards but also directly disobeying orders to stop the relationship. As it turns out, the overseers involved had their own relationships to cover up, so they did not want to end a good thing for themselves. Not that overseers having sex is illegal. There is nothing illegal about them dating and carrying their relationships to the legal limit with all consent. You can find such goings on in bars(and elsewhere) around the world. If they think that this is fine, exemplary behaviour of ministers of the gospel, I highly recommend that they say so. At least it will let people know definitely what spirit they are listening to when they hear their fine sermons in gospel meetings and at convention. At least one overseer told me that it sounded like the relationship was consensual, so there was nothing that they could do about it. By not making a stand they are actually implicating themselves in that same moral standard. Consenting to work along side those who do and approve of and hide and reward such behaviour. The workers were fine with LW preaching in gospel meetings, special meetings and even was scheduled for convention rounds this year. The overseers knew of LW's past behaviour and the NUMEROUS problems that had surfaced. They only took action against him when it was evident that it was a legal matter. The fact is, the law of the land is the righteousness of the overseers. TS, you keep saying that the law of the land is the righteousness of the overseers/workers....what aare you really meaning? Are you saying the workers ARE obedient to the law of the land? Or are you saying that the workers only righteousness is what the law of the land makes them do?
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 16, 2012 10:06:21 GMT -5
Yes, the relationship between JM and my SIL was definitely consensual. There was no abuse there. Abuse was never an issue. The double standard was the issue. At one time I thought that the overseers would be more than glad to get rid of JM because of not only acting immorally by their supposed standards but also directly disobeying orders to stop the relationship. As it turns out, the overseers involved had their own relationships to cover up, so they did not want to end a good thing for themselves. Not that overseers having sex is illegal. There is nothing illegal about them dating and carrying their relationships to the legal limit with all consent. You can find such goings on in bars(and elsewhere) around the world. If they think that this is fine, exemplary behaviour of ministers of the gospel, I highly recommend that they say so. At least it will let people know definitely what spirit they are listening to when they hear their fine sermons in gospel meetings and at convention. At least one overseer told me that it sounded like the relationship was consensual, so there was nothing that they could do about it. By not making a stand they are actually implicating themselves in that same moral standard. Consenting to work along side those who do and approve of and hide and reward such behaviour. The workers were fine with LW preaching in gospel meetings, special meetings and even was scheduled for convention rounds this year. The overseers knew of LW's past behaviour and the NUMEROUS problems that had surfaced. They only took action against him when it was evident that it was a legal matter. The fact is, the law of the land is the righteousness of the overseers. TS, you keep saying that the law of the land is the righteousness of the overseers/workers....what aare you really meaning? Are you saying the workers ARE obedient to the law of the land? Or are you saying that the workers only righteousness is what the law of the land makes them do? saying what you mean is not always meaning what you say.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 16, 2012 11:06:14 GMT -5
Yes, the relationship between JM and my SIL was definitely consensual. There was no abuse there. Abuse was never an issue. The double standard was the issue. At one time I thought that the overseers would be more than glad to get rid of JM because of not only acting immorally by their supposed standards but also directly disobeying orders to stop the relationship. As it turns out, the overseers involved had their own relationships to cover up, so they did not want to end a good thing for themselves. Not that overseers having sex is illegal. There is nothing illegal about them dating and carrying their relationships to the legal limit with all consent. You can find such goings on in bars(and elsewhere) around the world. If they think that this is fine, exemplary behaviour of ministers of the gospel, I highly recommend that they say so. At least it will let people know definitely what spirit they are listening to when they hear their fine sermons in gospel meetings and at convention. At least one overseer told me that it sounded like the relationship was consensual, so there was nothing that they could do about it. By not making a stand they are actually implicating themselves in that same moral standard. Consenting to work along side those who do and approve of and hide and reward such behaviour. The workers were fine with LW preaching in gospel meetings, special meetings and even was scheduled for convention rounds this year. The overseers knew of LW's past behaviour and the NUMEROUS problems that had surfaced. They only took action against him when it was evident that it was a legal matter. The fact is, the law of the land is the righteousness of the overseers. TS, you keep saying that the law of the land is the righteousness of the overseers/workers....what aare you really meaning? Are you saying the workers ARE obedient to the law of the land? Or are you saying that the workers only righteousness is what the law of the land makes them do? I am saying that the overseers are harping on those verses to be obedient to the laws of the land and make it look like they are both following scripture and following the law of the land. Looks really righteous, doesn't it? However, if they had really been following scripture, they would have had fewer problems. They claimed to be following scripture when they did not end LW's compromised ministry with the other numerous reports and relegated them to "he said, she said" rather than having spiritual discernment. They even claim to be following scripture by "forgiving" these men and allowing them to continue in the ministry and condemning the victims or anyone else as "unforgiving" if they protest. Looks righteous, doesn't it? Spiritual discernment is not what is required by the law of the land and a judge will not likely call them into question about that. Same thing happened with Johan Marais. Only when a legal issue came up that would put the overseers on the spot did they do something about it. The consideration of the overseers is not how many souls a prominent person like LW or JM can damage. The overseers are very careful to keep the law. They can even use the full range of legal arguments to challenge how they fit into the definition of clergy. That is their legal right. Hiring an expensive lawyer rather than taking the court appointed lawyer that most "poor" people have is their legal right. Nothing wrong with keeping the law, in most instances. But that has become the full extent of their righteousness. If it complies with the law, it must be right before God. They are essentially saying that God requires no more than the law does. God requires no more than what they can negotiate with the best lawyer they can afford with the friends' money.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 16, 2012 14:07:03 GMT -5
We are not talking about professional individuals in this case. There is no case history. There are no past clients. Where you have a case of an overseer and a sister worker there's a power imbalance when viewed as either: 1. A clergy/parishioner relationship. 2. An employer/employee relationship. If there is a threat expressed or implied of being forced from the work or from the church for refusing sexual favors or exposing impropriety, its about as far away from the nature of Christ as one can get. This reminded me of some neurological patients we had years ago, there were about 4 of them before we got through the ordeal anyway....all four had some neurological disease processes in their heads....but to cut it short they all four had become so out-of-bounds of normal behaviours in that they were over sexed actually, sex was their only thought and action....and prior to this coming all all 4 had been very reticent type of people in that no one would have known if they had a thought about sex other then it being part of their marriage. And these were older people, as well....and no, I'm not saying old people shouldn't have sex or not want to have sex...but usually they're usually a bit more discreet in that. We've got a lady here in the retirement center that has shown some odd mental processes in comparison to what she had been for the last 3 years or so. She'd had bilateral mastectomies 18 yrs. ago and never really thought a whole lot about it....she also has had 3 shoulder joint replacements in the last 2 years....but all of a sudden a very reserved lady is seen to be walking down about 10 apartments and she'd sit out there with this single man way up into the night....then both would sleep til noon. She usually had her little grandson in her apartment and just left him there...he's about 4 y/o. All of a sudden, the old man is moving in with the lady. she's moving in furniture(nearly new) to replace what she doesn't want of her own. And all in this time she sets herself up for breast augmentation! Which will involve repeated surgeries to get her to whatever size she so well wants...then on top of all of this she goes and buys a bright red sports convertible! I didn't think too much of each of the instances of her odd behaviour, but adding them all up says to me that something seems to have snapped with this lady....does she have metastatic cancer of the brain? Is her psychological being compromised somehow with chemical imbalance? All of these things came so fast and furious she acts like she is in another world every few mins. lah! I'm just glad it is her! These are just examples of people who get so out of ordinary behaviour esp. involving sexual things...I know some alzheimer patients are much into sex in some different levels of their alzheimer's disease....I know the nursing home just down the street has a locked area where they keep their dementia patients and they're always having to take people out of other people's bed and yes, the other person is in there as well. I know the Supreme Court Judge Ruth Ginsberg, went through hell with her own husband who go so bad, he no longer recognized her as his wife, but he fell in love with another alzheimer's patient in the nursing home...That had to have hurt, but Ruth and her children worked through all of that and they all said that the person they knew as their husband and father was no longer in that body that had been his body, but psychologically he was someone else entirely.....this brought some comfort. There has to be something horribly wrong with an overseer who has to either have sex so bad he rapes one of his staff with promises that if she tells she is a goner......this is not of Christ, but could it be of a bad growing disease? Yes, I know we've talked about sociopath.....
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 16, 2012 14:36:42 GMT -5
She usually had her little grandson in her apartment and just left him there...he's about 4 y/o. This is a form of abuse - neglect/child endangerment. Aren't you a mandated reporter? Adrenal gland malfunctioning or cancer can cause increased libido. Or sometimes taking one or more of the following drugs: Diethylstilbestrol Stilphostrol Etonogestrel Implanon Honvol Who knows what else is in play.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 16, 2012 15:18:05 GMT -5
Where you have a case of an overseer and a sister worker there's a power imbalance when viewed as either: 1. A clergy/parishioner relationship. 2. An employer/employee relationship. If there is a threat expressed or implied of being forced from the work or from the church for refusing sexual favors or exposing impropriety, its about as far away from the nature of Christ as one can get. This reminded me of some neurological patients we had years ago, there were about 4 of them before we got through the ordeal anyway....all four had some neurological disease processes in their heads....but to cut it short they all four had become so out-of-bounds of normal behaviours in that they were over sexed actually, sex was their only thought and action....and prior to this coming all all 4 had been very reticent type of people in that no one would have known if they had a thought about sex other then it being part of their marriage. And these were older people, as well....and no, I'm not saying old people shouldn't have sex or not want to have sex...but usually they're usually a bit more discreet in that. We've got a lady here in the retirement center that has shown some odd mental processes in comparison to what she had been for the last 3 years or so. She'd had bilateral mastectomies 18 yrs. ago and never really thought a whole lot about it....she also has had 3 shoulder joint replacements in the last 2 years....but all of a sudden a very reserved lady is seen to be walking down about 10 apartments and she'd sit out there with this single man way up into the night....then both would sleep til noon. She usually had her little grandson in her apartment and just left him there...he's about 4 y/o. All of a sudden, the old man is moving in with the lady. she's moving in furniture(nearly new) to replace what she doesn't want of her own. And all in this time she sets herself up for breast augmentation! Which will involve repeated surgeries to get her to whatever size she so well wants...then on top of all of this she goes and buys a bright red sports convertible! I didn't think too much of each of the instances of her odd behaviour, but adding them all up says to me that something seems to have snapped with this lady....does she have metastatic cancer of the brain? Is her psychological being compromised somehow with chemical imbalance? All of these things came so fast and furious she acts like she is in another world every few mins. lah! I'm just glad it is her! These are just examples of people who get so out of ordinary behaviour esp. involving sexual things...I know some alzheimer patients are much into sex in some different levels of their alzheimer's disease....I know the nursing home just down the street has a locked area where they keep their dementia patients and they're always having to take people out of other people's bed and yes, the other person is in there as well. I know the Supreme Court Judge Ruth Ginsberg, went through hell with her own husband who go so bad, he no longer recognized her as his wife, but he fell in love with another alzheimer's patient in the nursing home...That had to have hurt, but Ruth and her children worked through all of that and they all said that the person they knew as their husband and father was no longer in that body that had been his body, but psychologically he was someone else entirely.....this brought some comfort. There has to be something horribly wrong with an overseer who has to either have sex so bad he rapes one of his staff with promises that if she tells she is a goner......this is not of Christ, but could it be of a bad growing disease? Yes, I know we've talked about sociopath..... How many of those patients you are referring to were able to speak for an hour at a time two or three times at a convention, make plane arrangements, handle large sums of money and be invited to planning meetings of overseers to do major planning for the whole country's conventions? How many of them were recognized as capable of leading and keeping up with a whole staff of workers and the friends of a whole state? Were any of these patients able to serve any comparable capacity in their professions while they were acting so erratically sexually? If they were in those positions of power, do you think that their erratic decisions would have affected more than their sex lives? Do you think that LW's apparent "erratic behaviour in his old age" has affected his preaching negatively? If so, I would like to know what LW might have said during these past few years that have thrown up any red flags that there might be something amiss mentally or spiritually. Surely the leadership would have picked up on that as they, presumably, are spiritually discerning and would not want the friends exposed to falseness. Wasn't LW scheduled for convention rounds at the moment he was asked to leave the work?
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 16, 2012 16:51:50 GMT -5
Yeah. I'm all thrilled to be professing and know that any money I give to overseers can be appropriated for traveling and hosting their affairs. Wonderful stuff. You should ask the organization to set up a directed purpose gift program where you can allocate your money as you see fit rather than the people you are 'giving' it to. Oh, that would be wonderful. Also, having the overseers release financial reports to all of the friends on a quarterly basis per year - showing trust fund amounts, and all expenses. Terrific idea, rational. Thanks for posting.
|
|