|
Post by openingact34 on Mar 19, 2014 18:36:22 GMT -5
If a mother such as arwen89 discovered that the administration at her children's school was covering up CSA and helping offenders avoid justice, I suspect she would be taking very similar action. Possibly pulling her children out of that school to remove them from a potentially dangerous situation, and demanding change and safeguards to prevent future incidents before letting them return. Hopefully if a mother discovered that there was CSA at her children's school and it was being covered up the action would first be to report it the authorities and once the situation had been investigated then take the action to insure that it could not happen in the future. Pulling her children out of the school does not solve the problem. I agree that immediate reporting is essential. But going to the authorities does not mean that the danger is instantly gone. It does not absolve you from the responsibility to take appropriate precautions while justice is pursued (potentially a long time, particularly when coverups and organizational corruption are present). In the Jerry Sandusky case, the initial report and investigation by the authorities was in 1998, a second one was opened in 2008, and charges were finally filed in 2011. Whatever else is going on, parents have to protect their children, and controlling who has access to them is one safeguard. My point in bringing up the school analogy is only that some posters were implying that closing your home to overnight worker visits and circulating a petition were unreasonable and attacks on the fellowship. I recognize that no analogy is perfect. But as an exercise: - change workers to teachers - change overseers to principals/administrators - change closing your home to moving your child out of a school - public petition, letters, etc remains the same. Are the actions viewed as an unwarranted attack on the educational system and educators? Or are they simply a natural response to the problem and situation?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 19, 2014 20:25:27 GMT -5
Are the actions viewed as an unwarranted attack on the educational system and educators? Or are they simply a natural response to the problem and situation? You are correct. Reporting to the authorities does, at times, fail but the occasional failure should not discourage people from reporting. In cases like Penn State, the well known and popular people involved add to the difficulty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 8:25:39 GMT -5
Hopefully if a mother discovered that there was CSA at her children's school and it was being covered up the action would first be to report it the authorities and once the situation had been investigated then take the action to insure that it could not happen in the future. Pulling her children out of the school does not solve the problem. I agree that immediate reporting is essential. But going to the authorities does not mean that the danger is instantly gone. It does not absolve you from the responsibility to take appropriate precautions while justice is pursued (potentially a long time, particularly when coverups and organizational corruption are present). In the Jerry Sandusky case, the initial report and investigation by the authorities was in 1998, a second one was opened in 2008, and charges were finally filed in 2011. Whatever else is going on, parents have to protect their children, and controlling who has access to them is one safeguard. My point in bringing up the school analogy is only that some posters were implying that closing your home to overnight worker visits and circulating a petition were unreasonable and attacks on the fellowship. I recognize that no analogy is perfect. But as an exercise: - change workers to teachers - change overseers to principals/administrators - change closing your home to moving your child out of a school - public petition, letters, etc remains the same. Are the actions viewed as an unwarranted attack on the educational system and educators? Or are they simply a natural response to the problem and situation? Very well written and right on. When we live in the real world,we know that reporting does not "solve the problem" immediately (Jerry Sandusky is a great example) and any parent who knew what JS did would be extremely irresponsible, if not criminally abusive to let their child continue to be "helped" by him just because a complaint has been registered with authorities. Reporting sometimes never "solves the problem", that happens far too often and not always the fault of the investigative process. While it is the responsibility of the parent to report criminal activity, it is not their responsibility to solve the problems of the institutions their children attend, it is their responsibility to protect their child, pure and simple. If there are known elevated risks for a child in any particular situation, they should definitely pull their child out of it no matter where the matter sits with the authorities. There is no other rational, responsible action. If you have an institution like a school that is very lax with child protection policies and procedures, you pull your kid out and find one that cares about the safety of your child. If you see workers who care more about the reputation of their ministry than the safety of your child, you have to take action. It could be in the form of a petition, it could be to keep workers from staying in your home while your children are minors, it could mean following your children around the house while workers are staying. Whatever you do, you can't stop your vigilance around people who have demonstrated from their chequered history and current responses to the issue that they don't care enough about the safety of your children.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Mar 20, 2014 8:48:31 GMT -5
Arwin89 I've been thinking about this and want to run this by you. I think the psychological dynamics of documents like the petition, the letter to 43 overseers, the petition Sharon referred to, all too often put the recipients on the defensive instead of the offensive. In the case of the petition Sharon referred to that is exactly what happened - management went on the offensive to defend themselves. Since that is a danger in the psychological dynamics of unilateral statements like petitions it pays to pay attention to the tone. Will the tone put the reader on the defensive? If so those defensive readers are not going to get on board. The same goes for TMB, watch how often people are put on the unproductive defensive instead of being inspired to go on a productive offensive by the constant negative and broad brushing tone of posts. Here’s something to think about. What would happen if you re-invited your workers into your home, admitted what you did put them on the defensive instead of the offensive, and simply said what clearday said: "yes we all want to protect our children and let's do it!" then ask "what can I do to help?" What that does is let the workers know that what you really want to do is help, not put them on the defensive. This is important because people on the defensive will be more concerned about defending themselves instead of fixing the problem. It’s a natural human reaction. What would be productive now is de-escalation instead of further escalation. I know escalation feels better but it isn’t effective unless war is the endgame. I don’t think anyone in the fellowship really wants war within the fellowship over issues like CSA.
Here’s a real life example of how teamwork can work in a positive way. My wife and I were able to work with a few workers and a few friends to put this site up - www.csa-help.com - about five years ago. The evaluation quotes for D2L are from a worker. The word documents were from a worker. The idea was to have a site that workers could recommend to other workers and friends, a site that contained simple objective truth about CSA and sexual abuse without emotional content. Keeping emotion out of it was the goal of an abuse survivor we worked with. The site gets more than 1500 visits per month, I’m sure they’re not all from the fellowship. Anyway it would never have happened if any of the friends and workers we worked with were constantly on the defensive. It was a true team effort.
This is all I have time for now. I agree with what others have said, obviously your heart is in the right place, if you prefer to continue this conversation in private messages that’s fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 20, 2014 12:07:07 GMT -5
Actually the issue that the petition was about was extremely trivial. I don’t even remember what it was, but something of the caliber of changing something in the cafeteria. (I was not involved, did not sign the petition – as usual, I was working too hard ) If I had been trying to effect that sort of change, I would have simply chatted my way up the management chain – starting with the person who managed the cafeteria. I was shocked at the huge push-back from management. (These were extremely reasonable people, not at all autocratic.) The message that I kind of absorbed in the aftermath was “This is not the way we do things”. THAT was their main problem, not WHAT was asked in the petition. When I first noticed this thread, I did not even look at the petition. It was kind of the thought “This is going nowhere – that is not the way they do things.” When I glanced at some of the posts on the thread, I thought that me signing the petition would hurt, rather than help – so I went on my way. (I have since reconsidered – have signed the petition – not because I think it will do anything – but out of respect for the courage of the originator of the petition – and out of respect for the really good people who I saw had signed it.) Kinda like “The Drunkard’s Walk” take-home: You just keep trying and trying. Or to put it in a Biblical context “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.” I have not yet been able to dedicate the time to peruse this entire thread. But, in passing, I noticed Marie’s post : I think sometimes that they should hire Marie as a consultant, if they were truly serious at solving this problem. But, I am still waiting for Jesse. Because, I think (whether he knows it yet or not) he has the solution – a balanced one. The other extreme – to move a solution forward – is to contact the media. In the end (and I know I will be consigned to hell for this one), it was the negative press coverage that finally got movement from the RCC. Interesting reaction (and reason for it) on that petition Sharon. Something for all to consider, and along the lines of what I have been saying. Thanks for your vote of confidence on my ability to have a balanced solution. It seems a lot here would disagree with you. I did put the petition in a word doc and will see if I have time and gumption to re-write it as an example of what I'm talking about. Clearday, I like the tone and simplicity of your petition: "yes we all want to protect our children and let's do it!" Actually as I reread Sharon's post and subsequent posting therein...to confront a worker within your home is probably going to go a possibility of 2 ways. IF WORKERS do willingly engage speaking about CSA and are willing to do whatever they can to keep CSA out of the fellowship as well the workership are probably the only workers one can engage such a discussion. The other possibility is a worker that is confronted in someone's home about discussing CSA issues, etc and has NO intention of changing anything or bending to the will of authority even are simply those workers who cannot be instructed, confronted, discussed etc. They may be a perp themselves or they know they have no authority in order to report and give away a fellow worker plus they heartily feel that IF a perp has "repented" that he/she should always be welcomed back into whatever fellowship that is available. They don't even want to keep those admitted or convicted perps out of mtgs. where children might be. Now here's a scenario with another type of legal offender, let's look at someone who has stolen things and has accosted someone and hurt them but luckily did not kill them but would have killed them if at all possible. These offender receive a sentence that is common to their offenses....however they can be let out of prison early due to good behavior, etc.....NOW comes the time for this offender to go back into the mtgs. How many of such offenders really receive a heaty welcome after having been convicted of several major crimes? I have known of some offenders that are released early and they try to go back to their mtgs. that they may not be shut the door on, but the attitude around them really is confusing to them and feels very unwelcome to them.......so why would we expect CSA perps to be accepted right back into fellowship? After people who have offended the law in serious crimes, other people are going to be reserved and not welcoming them....though it is that they've proven worthy of early release to changing into good behaviours and that which brings release from a sentence. So one would expend people to react to convicted/admitted CSA perps as if they shouldn't be there! And are easily upset due to not being asked if it was ok for said perp to be in their fellowship, instead of some ruling worker saying the perp had repented and should be allowed back into all fellowships! I think this "repenting" needs perhaps a deeper bible study on it........and yes, I know God has forgiven many wrongs and sins of people.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 0:48:30 GMT -5
I have signed this petition but was sad to see that there are only 91 up to date that have signed it ? I have also send it to workers and friends that I know. How about everybody sending it to the workers and friends that they know ? This is a very reasonable petition to protect the children in the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 23, 2014 23:04:29 GMT -5
Is my concern legitimate that, if I sign the petition that it could actually weaken or harm the good intent and purpose of the petition? The concern is that it could be easier to "dismiss " the message when the leaders see names of people they might view as "bitter", "unwilling" "enemies of the truth" etc?? Alvin
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 24, 2014 1:15:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 24, 2014 17:33:55 GMT -5
Is my concern legitimate that, if I sign the petition that it could actually weaken or harm the good intent and purpose of the petition? The concern is that it could be easier to "dismiss " the message when the leaders see names of people they might view as "bitter", "unwilling" "enemies of the truth" etc?? Alvin If you really think about it, it shouldn't. In fact it would look extremely bad imo if the workers looked at it that way because it just means that everyone cares, old, new and ex members. This isn't about them. It's about the children. Are they that self centered that it's about them?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 25, 2014 9:00:19 GMT -5
I was signer number 96 on the petition. Thanks for your efforts. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 25, 2014 10:14:32 GMT -5
Are the actions viewed as an unwarranted attack on the educational system and educators? Or are they simply a natural response to the problem and situation? You are correct. Reporting to the authorities does, at times, fail but the occasional failure should not discourage people from reporting. In cases like Penn State, the well known and popular people involved add to the difficulty. I have to wonder if this issue had been reported to the authorities if it would have been any more investigated then it was? I think at that time the victims likely would not have wanted to say anything, besides finding out if and who the victims were! I do not understand why the coaches were so hard hit about the issue....when they had reported up the chain as their employee guidelines told them to.....I mean after all, CSA has just begun to be really prosecuted in the last 10-15 years! I think it was wrong to penalize the whole school, the sport players that had won their spot in the limelight by honest means....these students that passed through that university's athletic program are the ones most penalized esp. in the light that the rewards were stripped from the university, etc I don't think Paterno should have been hit so hard since the coach who reported to him wasn't hit hard....I mean where does this stop? The authorities of the universitial athletics got into the investigation and penalizing in a way they should not have done, IMO I don't believe in supporting someone who is blatantly guilty of things, but IMO the sentencing for the coaches should not have gone the way it did.....the authorities of the athletic divisions belong perhaps to similar groups who may be as guilty as anyone else "for not reporting"....it just was Paterno's darn luck to be the one who was so brought out....fame is great until the fame becomes a scandal, eh?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 25, 2014 10:19:56 GMT -5
If you really think about it, it shouldn't. In fact it would look extremely bad imo if the workers looked at it that way because it just means that everyone cares, old, new and ex members. This isn't about them. It's about the children. Are they that self centered that it's about them? Discussion at the next Head Worker get together in <insert location>...Agenda Item 39 - Developing a Child Protection Policy and Code of ConductHead Worker 1: I'm really concerned about this point. If we develop a Child Protection Policy and Code of Conduct then it might indicate that we have a problem, don't you think... Head Worker 2: Yes, that's my concern too... Head Worker 3: But we have had some problems and some have criticised us for not doing enough. And Jerome Frandle got caught up in all that mess in Michigan... Head Worker 4: I think we should develop a policy but doesn't that make us potentially liable if some don't abide by the policy... Head Worker 3: But if we don't have a policy at all doesn't it make us look more inept. It's a pretty standard thing for churches today and we don't have anything in place. If a person searching for the truth asks us why we don't have these things in place we will look a little bit silly... Head Worker 1: Ah, but we aren't like other churches, we have the Truth and people searching for the Truth won't be interested in such things. Head Worker 2: Yes, I think that's right. Head Worker 3: (with a slightly more urgent tone)...But just because we are the truth doesn't mean we are exempt from the laws of the land. Head Worker 4: That's right - but I'm still worried about the potential liability Head Worker 5: And most of those people that are raising the issue are simply enemies of the truth....they have an axe to grind Head Worker 3: (in an exasperated tone) ...but there are genuine victims who have been abused by workers Head Worker 1: Sadly yes, but it shouldn't be amongst us. We shouldn't create policies and the like because it shouldn't be amongst us....and I tell people we have no other literature but the Bible. Head Worker 2: That's right - the policy will get out and we'll just confuse the friends. Those exes will post it on the internet and more of our people will be tempted to look at it - it's just not right. We'll make our friends think that they should be wary of the workers whereas at the moment they really appreciate what we do and value our sacrifice. Head Worker 3: But many are already wary of the workers and criticise the fact that we have done nothing... Head Worker 1: Really - I haven't heard that. Head Worker 2: I haven't heard it either - the friends always appreciate what we do for them. Head Worker 3: So what do you want to do - develop some clear guidelines and code of conduct for our ministers or do nothing? Head Worker 1: Well why don't we pray about it and think about what is good for us, the workers generally, the friends and of course, the good of the Kingdom. And when we get together again next year, we can talk about it again. Head Worker 3: But we've done that for a few years now... Head Worker 1: That's right. God doesn't want us to rush into these things.It might be just a storm in a teacup after all. Let's just wait and see. Head Worker 3: Well I think I will have to issue some guidelines to my staff. Head Worker 1: Well of course you are free to do that - it's your territory and we won't interfere. You can let us know how it goes next year but I won't do anything. We'll just wait and see. I think the friends in my state are just all settled and I wouldn't want to disrupt their spirit. Why don't we just pray about it now. The worker 2 should have said, "Well, you know the bible says the effectual fervent prayer of a mighty man availeth much!"
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 25, 2014 10:23:12 GMT -5
Is my concern legitimate that, if I sign the petition that it could actually weaken or harm the good intent and purpose of the petition? The concern is that it could be easier to "dismiss " the message when the leaders see names of people they might view as "bitter", "unwilling" "enemies of the truth" etc?? Alvin If you really think about it, it shouldn't. In fact it would look extremely bad imo if the workers looked at it that way because it just means that everyone cares, old, new and ex members. This isn't about them. It's about the children. Are they that self centered that it's about them? I thought this was decided from day one that exes would not sign the petition in order to keep the workers from having a right to say it is from the exes who have an axe to grind!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2014 10:24:24 GMT -5
The thing is, in mediation issues, confrontation rarely works. To be proactive people need to find a common ground with the workers and go from there working together in a common cause to make lasting effective changes. I know people are angry and I understand that. But until the anger can be put away and you meet with the workers on a common ground, nothing will get done. It is human nature to protect when we feel attacked. Coming at the issue from the stance "we know this is as troubling to you as it is to us, and we would like to know how we can help, work together to resolve this issue that I'm sure we all want to resolve". Find a common ground with your local workers. Don't attack, be supportive of what has been done and go the next step together.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 15:49:26 GMT -5
I love all the people on here who have not spoken to a worker in decades and yet they have all the answers on to how to deal with life changing issues. If standing up to the workers was easy don't you think someones approach would have positive results by NOW? There are a lot of intelligent people who have tried to make the workers understand the folly of their ways! If you are so smart and so concerned, do it your self, and then come back and tell us all how it went!!! IF EVERY PERSON ON THIS BOARD THAT HAS HAD SOMETHING TO WRITE HAD TAKEN THE TIME TO GO SPEAK TO THE OVERSEER OF YOUR AREA MANY THINGS WOULD BE DIFFERENT. MOST OF YOU HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME FOR THIS, BUT YOURSELVES. YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT CROOKED WORKERS.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 25, 2014 18:04:55 GMT -5
The thing is, in mediation issues, confrontation rarely works. To be proactive people need to find a common ground with the workers and go from there working together in a common cause to make lasting effective changes. I know people are angry and I understand that. But until the anger can be put away and you meet with the workers on a common ground, nothing will get done. It is human nature to protect when we feel attacked. Coming at the issue from the stance "we know this is as troubling to you as it is to us, and we would like to know how we can help, work together to resolve this issue that I'm sure we all want to resolve". Find a common ground with your local workers. Don't attack, be supportive of what has been done and go the next step together. Snow, what you say is great in theory and in an ideal world that's how it would work. The 2x2 church is not a democracy, and concerned church members are not on the same level as the workers. The very fact that they have concerns means their "heartiness" and loyalty is highly suspect. Peaceful protests did not work in Syria, Iran and several other places. The "disturbed ones" in Alberta tried to reason with the overseers 15 years ago. Graham Thompson tried to reason with the overseers over a decade ago. The Texas couple tried to reason with the overseers last year. Dale Shultz, who is still very much one of the top leaders, wrote the following: How can anyone reason with that???
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 25, 2014 18:51:55 GMT -5
The following post is applicable here I think: Thankful, I very much appreciate your ability and willingness to talk about your experience. No doubt your insight is valuable to those who are trying to expose these charlatans who hide behind religious groups. I'd like to see them all exposed, and the whole church working to protect all children and support all those who have suffered this great evil. Fixit, I honestly don't believe my insight is good for anything, really. You see, I went to the workers, and the overseers, about him and was told that since he re-professed he was a new man and was given a new chance (though they were aware of the Molestation and rape cases). They themselves had to learn this wasn't a matter of second chances, because he started messing with children again, and stole thousands of dollars with of goods from the friends. He was told not to return to meeting, or convention, and ended up back in prison, and he has not returned ... My prayer in this all is that God will help us to make a stand when evil seems to prevail, I was told had my family been a more prominent family, our voices most likely would have been heard, and something done. a hmmm.. Sad, really. Thankfull. professing.proboards.com/thread/8661/gay-ex-workers-board?page=6&scrollTo=580066
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 25, 2014 19:41:19 GMT -5
Fixit and friends, I admit I do think my family's place has impacted the response. I think if it was a convention owner, or a family who had the monetary ability to make a stand, something would have been done. ah owe er, we are just a plain ole family. I hope the rest of you keep close watch on your children, because my family was vigilant about my safety, and still I. Was harmed. Thankful, here's what overseers can do when their behavior is questioned by convention ground owners and lower ranking workers: However, these convention ground owners were later held up as an example by Dale Shultz:
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2014 22:05:12 GMT -5
The thing is, in mediation issues, confrontation rarely works. To be proactive people need to find a common ground with the workers and go from there working together in a common cause to make lasting effective changes. I know people are angry and I understand that. But until the anger can be put away and you meet with the workers on a common ground, nothing will get done. It is human nature to protect when we feel attacked. Coming at the issue from the stance "we know this is as troubling to you as it is to us, and we would like to know how we can help, work together to resolve this issue that I'm sure we all want to resolve". Find a common ground with your local workers. Don't attack, be supportive of what has been done and go the next step together. Snow, what you say is great in theory and in an ideal world that's how it would work. The 2x2 church is not a democracy, and concerned church members are not on the same level as the workers. The very fact that they have concerns means their "heartiness" and loyalty is highly suspect. Peaceful protests did not work in Syria, Iran and several other places. The "disturbed ones" in Alberta tried to reason with the overseers 15 years ago. Graham Thompson tried to reason with the overseers over a decade ago. The Texas couple tried to reason with the overseers last year. Dale Shultz, who is still very much one of the top leaders, wrote the following: How can anyone reason with that??? Well, then the only thing people have left to do is leave. I certainly have never understood how people can be so unhappy with the church they are a part of and still stay. If you can't reason with them, how likely is it that they have anything worthwhile to say or offer you in a spiritual sense. If they are as bad as people say, leave it behind. There are plenty of other churches out there and some of them are home fellowship ones without the political bs and leaders that are dictators instead of spiritual guides. I'm not saying they are like that, just responding to what people seem to think they are and say about them. Just leave. It works.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 25, 2014 22:41:45 GMT -5
Snow, what you say is great in theory and in an ideal world that's how it would work. The 2x2 church is not a democracy, and concerned church members are not on the same level as the workers. The very fact that they have concerns means their "heartiness" and loyalty is highly suspect. Peaceful protests did not work in Syria, Iran and several other places. The "disturbed ones" in Alberta tried to reason with the overseers 15 years ago. Graham Thompson tried to reason with the overseers over a decade ago. The Texas couple tried to reason with the overseers last year. Dale Shultz, who is still very much one of the top leaders, wrote the following: How can anyone reason with that??? Well, then the only thing people have left to do is leave. I certainly have never understood how people can be so unhappy with the church they are a part of and still stay. If you can't reason with them, how likely is it that they have anything worthwhile to say or offer you in a spiritual sense. If they are as bad as people say, leave it behind. There are plenty of other churches out there and some of them are home fellowship ones without the political bs and leaders that are dictators instead of spiritual guides. I'm not saying they are like that, just responding to what people seem to think they are and say about them. Just leave. It works. That's exactly what people have been doing. It's sad though, that people feel their only option is to leave the church they were raised in.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 26, 2014 9:17:27 GMT -5
Well, then the only thing people have left to do is leave. I certainly have never understood how people can be so unhappy with the church they are a part of and still stay. If you can't reason with them, how likely is it that they have anything worthwhile to say or offer you in a spiritual sense. If they are as bad as people say, leave it behind. There are plenty of other churches out there and some of them are home fellowship ones without the political bs and leaders that are dictators instead of spiritual guides. I'm not saying they are like that, just responding to what people seem to think they are and say about them. Just leave. It works. That's exactly what people have been doing. It's sad though, that people feel their only option is to leave the church they were raised in. Yes it is sad. I agree. But it's something people need to do if they feel so strongly about something. If you cannot reason with someone, and it means so much to you, you must leave it behind. I had to and I have never regretted it. It's opened up so many new horizons for me. I of course went farther than most of you would want to, but that's always your choice. There are some very good churches out there and some are home fellowships. Make a new 'family' if the old one is bringing you too much sadness. There are a few on here that do just that. Have their own home churches. Maybe they can help those who do want to go this route, get set up. If there are other friends in your area that feel the same as you do, that's maybe where you can start. Start your own meetings separate from the truthers group?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 9:39:20 GMT -5
That's exactly what people have been doing. It's sad though, that people feel their only option is to leave the church they were raised in. Yes it is sad. I agree. But it's something people need to do if they feel so strongly about something. If you cannot reason with someone, and it means so much to you, you must leave it behind. I had to and I have never regretted it. It's opened up so many new horizons for me. I of course went farther than most of you would want to, but that's always your choice. There are some very good churches out there and some are home fellowships. Make a new 'family' if the old one is bringing you too much sadness. There are a few on here that do just that. Have their own home churches. Maybe they can help those who do want to go this route, get set up. If there are other friends in your area that feel the same as you do, that's maybe where you can start. Start your own meetings separate from the truthers group? There was once a time when there was a lot of paranoia among F&Ws that "dissenters" wanted to start their own church. At least that is what was said about people who raised concerns. Of course, nobody wanted to build a repeat of their experience so no one that I know of ever suggested starting a copycat group.....far from it. The destination of people leaving the meetings seems as varied as the people themselves, but few seem to want to start up something similar.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 26, 2014 9:56:31 GMT -5
Awww, you got it, Ross! "The Mighty man", eh?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 26, 2014 10:06:56 GMT -5
I love all the people on here who have not spoken to a worker in decades and yet they have all the answers on to how to deal with life changing issues. If standing up to the workers was easy don't you think someones approach would have positive results by NOW? There are a lot of intelligent people who have tried to make the workers understand the folly of their ways! If you are so smart and so concerned, do it your self, and then come back and tell us all how it went!!! IF EVERY PERSON ON THIS BOARD THAT HAS HAD SOMETHING TO WRITE HAD TAKEN THE TIME TO GO SPEAK TO THE OVERSEER OF YOUR AREA MANY THINGS WOULD BE DIFFERENT.MOST OF YOU HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME FOR THIS, BUT YOURSELVES. YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT CROOKED WORKERS. As sure as the sun comes up in the east, things would be very different.,...likely there'd be more people voting with their feet! We've had the evidence of at least 2 different overseers who are perhaps considered the more liberal and up-to-date overseers say such things that tell us that all the overseers agree pretty much on the general things of the fellowship at hand. I DID speak kindly to an overseer who decided to inform me that he was well aware that I had my convictions and he wasn't going to try and change MY mind, but he ALSO was NOT going to let me change his! I'd say that puts him pretty much in line with the other overseers. The other overseer who has been quite willing to consider ways to stop the CSA issue in the workership/fellowship, also has proven he's in line with his overseer peers when he wrote to BM and told him that he didn't value or understand what the fellowship/workership held to be the utmost right and that was the 2x2 itinerant ministry and the meetings in the home! I'm not saying that either of those are wrong, but that it shows the mindset is well set that ONLY the workers hold the "secret" to salvation! They are the bearers of the "only true way." When thinking about this, I always wonder why they don't consider what John saw in heaven that is recorded in Revelations...John saw 144,000 remnant of the children of Israel and he also saw an "innumerable number of people in white robes"......which was told him that they were those who had washed their robes in the Lamb's blood...otherwords those who are saved by the blood of Jesus, or grace if you will. There IS no answer when they are asked why this verse really denies that the 2x2 religion is the "only true way" for the most at any one time has been an approximate of 200,000 people....which many are exiting and/or dying....the number of friends and workers these days probably are nearly half that amount....probably because the established countries' workers are not into true evangelicizing but are into pastoral care only!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 26, 2014 10:13:32 GMT -5
Well, then the only thing people have left to do is leave. I certainly have never understood how people can be so unhappy with the church they are a part of and still stay. If you can't reason with them, how likely is it that they have anything worthwhile to say or offer you in a spiritual sense. If they are as bad as people say, leave it behind. There are plenty of other churches out there and some of them are home fellowship ones without the political bs and leaders that are dictators instead of spiritual guides. I'm not saying they are like that, just responding to what people seem to think they are and say about them. Just leave. It works. That's exactly what people have been doing. It's sad though, that people feel their only option is to leave the church they were raised in. It's heartrending when a person finds out their church has been built up on false claims! If something has come up and been successful even in a minor way and all of that was done with a potent lie, then it is no wonder people leave the church "they were brought up in." People can't blame the generations before us because to really find out the truth was nearly impossible for most people....it takes time and strength to do as the "Secret Sect" author did and what Cherie still is doing.....I'd have to say that likely there was time a time all of Cherie's spare time was in researching the "facts"...we can thank her for that but until these 2 dedicated-for-the-truth people stood up and counted the cost with the facts, there was little help for many of us, we were bound to "believe" those who perpetuated that lie, eh?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 26, 2014 16:48:35 GMT -5
Yes it is sad. I agree. But it's something people need to do if they feel so strongly about something. If you cannot reason with someone, and it means so much to you, you must leave it behind. I had to and I have never regretted it. It's opened up so many new horizons for me. I of course went farther than most of you would want to, but that's always your choice. There are some very good churches out there and some are home fellowships. Make a new 'family' if the old one is bringing you too much sadness. There are a few on here that do just that. Have their own home churches. Maybe they can help those who do want to go this route, get set up. If there are other friends in your area that feel the same as you do, that's maybe where you can start. Start your own meetings separate from the truthers group? There was once a time when there was a lot of paranoia among F&Ws that "dissenters" wanted to start their own church. At least that is what was said about people who raised concerns. Of course, nobody wanted to build a repeat of their experience so no one that I know of ever suggested starting a copycat group.....far from it. The destination of people leaving the meetings seems as varied as the people themselves, but few seem to want to start up something similar. However those that are unhappy have claimed they stay in only because of family and friends and the meeting in the home. If you could have a meeting in the home with family and friends that decide to leave with you, it is very doable. Then you wouldn't need to worry about the workers anymore and CSA
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 17:29:16 GMT -5
There was once a time when there was a lot of paranoia among F&Ws that "dissenters" wanted to start their own church. At least that is what was said about people who raised concerns. Of course, nobody wanted to build a repeat of their experience so no one that I know of ever suggested starting a copycat group.....far from it. The destination of people leaving the meetings seems as varied as the people themselves, but few seem to want to start up something similar. However those that are unhappy have claimed they stay in only because of family and friends and the meeting in the home. If you could have a meeting in the home with family and friends that decide to leave with you, it is very doable. Then you wouldn't need to worry about the workers anymore and CSA From what I can determine from people who have concerns and have left or are considering leaving, the meeting in the home is simply a positive aspect of their 2x2 experience, but not essential. Since it is not essential, not many are prepared for the substantial commitment that is required for what may be a marginal benefit. I think the only reason why the meeting in the home exists is because the system is operated by those who feel it is essential so they are motivated to do it. That's rather ironic that non-exclusive people would enjoy something that exists mainly due to exclusive thinking.....it's complicated! There have been a few circumstances where full meetings did carry on for (such as the Cooneyites in Australia) but it is rare for enough people in close proximity to leave at once for that sort of opportunity to arise it would be impractical even if someone wanted to commit to it. It happened in Alberta for a couple of meetings in the aftermath of the excommunications but as far as I know, those meetings were more of a transitional meeting due to the suddenness of the excommunications and didn't carry on. People usually leave the meetings over a period of time, one by one so that's another reason why a new independent meeting doesn't get formed. Interestingly, it is believed that there are more exes in the world than innies so I suppose there is some opportunity to reconstitute a meeting system but because people have tended to go in different directions from going to mainstream churches, or to a preference for no organized church, or to non-belief, I would expect that the idea of reconstituting an independent home fellowship is unlikely to have sufficient numbers from exes. At this point, our Vietnamese friends seem to be an exception, more along the Cooneyites who continued home fellowship for decades, with one worker, Eddie Cooney until he passed away.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 26, 2014 19:07:55 GMT -5
However those that are unhappy have claimed they stay in only because of family and friends and the meeting in the home. If you could have a meeting in the home with family and friends that decide to leave with you, it is very doable. Then you wouldn't need to worry about the workers anymore and CSA From what I can determine from people who have concerns and have left or are considering leaving, the meeting in the home is simply a positive aspect of their 2x2 experience, but not essential. Since it is not essential, not many are prepared for the substantial commitment that is required for what may be a marginal benefit. I think the only reason why the meeting in the home exists is because the system is operated by those who feel it is essential so they are motivated to do it. That's rather ironic that non-exclusive people would enjoy something that exists mainly due to exclusive thinking.....it's complicated! There have been a few circumstances where full meetings did carry on for (such as the Cooneyites in Australia) but it is rare for enough people in close proximity to leave at once for that sort of opportunity to arise it would be impractical even if someone wanted to commit to it. It happened in Alberta for a couple of meetings in the aftermath of the excommunications but as far as I know, those meetings were more of a transitional meeting due to the suddenness of the excommunications and didn't carry on. People usually leave the meetings over a period of time, one by one so that's another reason why a new independent meeting doesn't get formed. Interestingly, it is believed that there are more exes in the world than innies so I suppose there is some opportunity to reconstitute a meeting system but because people have tended to go in different directions from going to mainstream churches, or to a preference for no organized church, or to non-belief, I would expect that the idea of reconstituting an independent home fellowship is unlikely to have sufficient numbers from exes. At this point, our Vietnamese friends seem to be an exception, more along the Cooneyites who continued home fellowship for decades, with one worker, Eddie Cooney until he passed away. There is a young woman and her family that have started a home meeting/bible study with like minded Christians, not necessarily ex 2x2's though. She seems to really like it, it's informal with lots of young families like her own and they have potluck after sometimes. Sounds very nice actually. You could really do what you wanted with them. They don't have to resemble the ones you are used to if the meeting in the home is what you like, make it even better!
|
|