Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 12:42:19 GMT -5
Technically, the military term is apparently "second in command" while the civilian term is "second in charge". Same thing though. We did have an elder given an "honourable discharge" one time so maybe we should go with the military option! To continue the military parallels, a premium is placed on loyalty and to honoring the chain of command. Disloyalty and insubordination are punished severely. Dishonorable discharge in the U.S. blocks a former soldier's eligibility for veterans benefits. Interestingly, they seem to think this way. We have seen recently here of the subtle warning given to the Golden Friends that they would get cut off the worldwide fellowship. Presumably there are benefits involved for which they would be ineligble.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 5, 2014 13:26:05 GMT -5
Technically, the military term is apparently "second in command" while the civilian term is "second in charge". Same thing though. We did have an elder given an "honourable discharge" one time so maybe we should go with the military option! To continue the military parallels, a premium is placed on loyalty and to honoring the chain of command. Disloyalty and insubordination are punished severely. Dishonorable discharge in the U.S. blocks a former soldier's eligibility for veterans benefits. So this is pretty much what happened to Dennis then? He hurt himself while a worker, they decided he was not 'one of them', so got rid of him. Now he has no 'benefits' because in their eyes, he was given a 'dishonorable discharge'? Personally I think that's pretty sad. Maybe instead of being called 'servants of God', they should be called 'soldiers for God'.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Feb 5, 2014 13:33:56 GMT -5
To continue the military parallels, a premium is placed on loyalty and to honoring the chain of command. Disloyalty and insubordination are punished severely. Dishonorable discharge in the U.S. blocks a former soldier's eligibility for veterans benefits. So this is pretty much what happened to Dennis then? He hurt himself while a worker, they decided he was not 'one of them', so got rid of him. Now he has no 'benefits' because in their eyes, he was given a 'dishonorable discharge'? Personally I think that's pretty sad. Maybe instead of being called 'servants of God', they should be called 'soldiers for God'. Bear in mind that I will sometimes brainstorm/speculate wildly! So let me clearly label it as speculation. I don't really know.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 5, 2014 14:47:14 GMT -5
So this is pretty much what happened to Dennis then? He hurt himself while a worker, they decided he was not 'one of them', so got rid of him. Now he has no 'benefits' because in their eyes, he was given a 'dishonorable discharge'? Personally I think that's pretty sad. Maybe instead of being called 'servants of God', they should be called 'soldiers for God'. Bear in mind that I will sometimes brainstorm/speculate wildly! So let me clearly label it as speculation. I don't really know. lol okay I will keep that in mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 14:48:02 GMT -5
I've been thinking of some of the shameful acts and spoken words that have occurred amongst the F and W. In the Waikato, New Zealand area a young professing father xxxxxxxx, a front row chap, raped his baby sitter who was also from a professing family. Years later that woman had the courage to make a complaint to the police against him. He was convicted for the crime. The shame is not only that the crime was committed but how the families, friends and workers then treated the woman. I was told that she should have got over it, she's caused more trouble than it was worth and so on. I was deeply disturbed to hear these comments, I used to meet with these people in meetings every week. No wonder I and others have doubts about what rock the church is built on.
The name listed has been removed. The individual was tried and convicted, but we have no publicly available information concerning this issue.
Thanks for sharing this, but without 'proof', individuals cannot be named here on the board. Scott
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 5, 2014 14:53:51 GMT -5
I've been thinking of some of the shameful acts and spoken words that have occurred amongst the F and W. In the Waikato, New Zealand area a young professing father xxxxxxxxxx, a front row chap, raped his baby sitter who was also from a professing family. Years later that woman had the courage to make a complaint to the police against him. He was convicted for the crime. The shame is not only that the crime was committed but how the families, friends and workers then treated the woman. I was told that she should have got over it, she's caused more trouble than it was worth and so on. I was deeply disturbed to hear these comments, I used to meet with these people in meetings every week. No wonder I and others have doubts about what rock the church is built on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 14:57:24 GMT -5
I've been thinking of some of the shameful acts and spoken words that have occurred amongst the F and W. In the Waikato, New Zealand area a young professing father xxxxxxxxxx, a front row chap, raped his baby sitter who was also from a professing family. Years later that woman had the courage to make a complaint to the police against him. He was convicted for the crime. The shame is not only that the crime was committed but how the families, friends and workers then treated the woman. I was told that she should have got over it, she's caused more trouble than it was worth and so on. I was deeply disturbed to hear these comments, I used to meet with these people in meetings every week. No wonder I and others have doubts about what rock the church is built on. My guess is that a proper study would show that most of these offenders are "front row chaps".
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 5, 2014 14:58:51 GMT -5
that certainly wasn't the attitude of the friends that I know. they we're disgusted and so pleased that she had the courage to come forward. you will always get people in life that don't have the right attitude at in this case I didn't meet one person that thought like that. that was my experience anyway.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Feb 5, 2014 15:02:17 GMT -5
My guess is that a proper study would show that most of these offenders are "front row chaps". I wonder. George Scandalis in the U.S. was a front row guy. (Maybe he still is.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 15:10:50 GMT -5
My guess is that a proper study would show that most of these offenders are "front row chaps". I wonder. George Scandalis in the U.S. was a front row guy. (Maybe he still is.) It's a good mask.
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 5, 2014 15:21:27 GMT -5
wobblycat I should clarify myself. I'm not doubting that there was that attitude amongst the friends you met with and that is very sad but I just wanted to say as I saw it, it wasn't the general attitude
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 15:33:51 GMT -5
that certainly wasn't the attitude of the friends that I know. they we're disgusted and so pleased that she had the courage to come forward. you will always get people in life that don't have the right attitude at in this case I didn't meet one person that thought like that. that was my experience anyway. The problem is, you don't know what your friends are like until they encounter one of those situations where the offender is highly respected or popular. How much credibility would your friends have given her if she identified someone like AR as the offender? Probably about zero from most people. People you had full confidence in to be fair and kind can appear to change in an instant, given the right circumstances. That said, I believe you when you suggest that there were supportive friends of this gal too,or at least glad she came out and reported.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 15:42:17 GMT -5
R an T. I am pleased if that is the case. When I was professing I met with both the criminal and the victim sometimes in the same meeting. To be fair there was a mixture of disgust with xxxx, but also as much sympathy for him as for the victim. I remember Isobel Honeycombe speaking about forgiveness back in the 90's She mentioned that a dog buries a bone but then returns to dig it up and have a gnaw of it again. She then spoke of the need for true forgiveness. xxxxx and the victim were both there. Was this a plea and a very public one in a Gospel meeting for the victim to have true forgiveness for xxxxx. The trouble with that is that it allows the criminal to perhaps repeat his offence against some other young girl. Hence the need for reporting to the police, not the workers, of crime.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 5, 2014 16:22:34 GMT -5
R an T. I am pleased if that is the case. When I was professing I met with both the criminal and the victim sometimes in the same meeting. To be fair there was a mixture of disgust with xxxx, but also as much sympathy for him as for the victim. I remember Isobel Honeycombe speaking about forgiveness back in the 90's She mentioned that a dog buries a bone but then returns to dig it up and have a gnaw of it again. She then spoke of the need for true forgiveness. xxxxx and the victim were both there. Was this a plea and a very public one in a Gospel meeting for the victim to have true forgiveness for xxxxx. The trouble with that is that it allows the criminal to perhaps repeat his offence against some other young girl. Hence the need for reporting to the police, not the workers, of crime. I agree with the need to report to the police. In this case, it did happen, as he was tried and convicted. As far as forgiveness, that is important for the forgiver, and not so much so for the forgiven. It releases the forgiver from resentments and bitterness, and releases them from the power the other one has over them because of that resentment and bitterness. The one being forgiven still has to face the consequences of their actions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 16:28:18 GMT -5
I like your thoughts on forgiveness.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 5, 2014 17:39:25 GMT -5
My guess is that a proper study would show that most of these offenders are "front row chaps". Probably. The only one I know about was an elder of high up with a lot of respect and the brother of a worker. When my friend came to me when we were 14 I was shocked and didn't know what to say or how to handle it. I said nothing and she didn't either. I guess she just needed to tell someone and since I was an 'outsider' insider she picked me because I would be the least likely to pass it on to someone. But I do remember how it effected her and how hopeless she felt to get it to stop. I would have never thought that of him if she hadn't been open with me about what was happening to her. So yes, the one I knew was really high up and respected.
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 5, 2014 20:48:16 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, if the accused was someone I highly respected (or didn't for that matter) I would like to try and neither believe or disbelieve before it had been before the court. In NZ there is a massive problem (according to the police) of people making false accusations of CSA.Now with so many broken homes and mixed up families, accusation can be used as a threat, or as a way to ensure a partner has no access to the children etc etc. So we need to be so careful that we don't hear something and instantly condemn the person involved. Imagine if YOU were falsely accused of sexually abusing your own child and it was completely false AND people just believed the accusation.
That is another reason why it must go before the courts or at least to the police for the protection of both the victim and the accused.
There are of course cases when several victims come forward which does make it harder to stay impartial but it must still go the courts where it can be dealt with correctly as in the case Wobblycat quoted.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 6, 2014 1:05:10 GMT -5
My guess is that a proper study would show that most of these offenders are "front row chaps". One caution though, please, not all "front row chaps" are suspect. I know you aren't meaning it that way. Just saying.
My husband was in the "front row" because he could not hear well due to years & years of working in a noisy manufacturing job without the company providing ear protection.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 1:26:01 GMT -5
My guess is that a proper study would show that most of these offenders are "front row chaps". One caution though, please, not all "front row chaps" are suspect. I know you aren't meaning it that way. Just saying.
My husband was in the "front row" because he could not hear well due to years & years of working in a noisy manufacturing job without the company providing ear protection.
You're right, of course not. "Front row chaps" are not necessarily sitting in the front rows either nor are all front row sitters "front row chaps". The phrase is a euphemism which does not describe someone who sits in the front row to hear better. They sit in the front rows to be seen better. Only a small percentage of the population are offenders as are only a small percentage of the "front row chaps". These offenders mingle with the "front row chap" people who are exceptionally well disciplined and well behaved which is why it is such a good mask for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 11:09:22 GMT -5
George S. was a "front row chap". I do not believe any worker could miss him.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Feb 6, 2014 18:12:54 GMT -5
George S. was a "front row chap". I do not believe any worker could miss him. He definitely ALWAYS sat in the front row dead and center, 2 feet from the podium.I thought he was kind of creepy even before I knew anything about him. Why would he sit in the front row like that, the guilty creep that he is? Is that so he could put on a farce that he was htt? (holier than thou)
|
|