|
Post by snow on Mar 16, 2015 23:34:09 GMT -5
There is more we don't know than we do, which forces a bunch of speculation. I don't know if that helps at all. Since reading about this a couple years ago I've wondered where the husband fits in. It would be so sad if the dad and/or husband was like the father you describe. Better to become an old maid than hook up with a man like that. But we don't know if that is the case or not. That's why it is hard to pass judgment on the situation - there is way too much we don't know. I agree. We can't know. Just wanted to put another perspective out there regarding how the woman might have felt seeing as people were speculating on her behavior.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Mar 16, 2015 23:34:55 GMT -5
On the other hand, what is the responsibility of the victim? These are clearly inappropriate questions. Yet not just one or two questions were answered but at least nine questions that touched on very intimate topics.
Where do you see noted that she actually answered all those questions? No where does it say all of the questions were answered. Perhaps I read too much into the phrase: Upon hearing the details of this conversation, we were sickened, and made a phone call to one of the elders in the Chicago area.which I took as a conversation between the victim and LW. Generally a conversation is in two directions. That coupled with the fact that the people mentioned discussed the interaction between the victim and LW for 5 hours leads one to believe that LW was not just asking questions while the victim sat mute. That would have been a much shorter discussion than 5 hours. From a human standpoint - would there be a progression of questions had there been no answers to the questions asked? While it doesn't say in the information you provided, is it believed that this conversation and the questions just came up out of the blue and there was no response? LW walked into the woman's home and at some point asked "Can your husband get an erection?" There is no answer so the follow-up question is "Did he ejaculate?" Again no answer so, pushing on, the question is "What do you do to excite him?" It seems unlikely that if the questions LW asked went unanswered he would keep asking them. Especially since the questions listed seem to progress as thought there had been some feedback. There is no question that LW's questions were inappropriate. He was totally in the wrong. I am trying to understand why there were so many questions allowed to be asked. I am trying to imagine why the subject of marital sex would ever come up in the first place. Or was this an opportunity LW became aware of in the course of conversation and took advantage of it for his own personal reasons? It may be that LW asked these questions because he suffers from Fith.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 17, 2015 3:00:19 GMT -5
I'd like to step back for a moment. Do you have any wisdom you would be willing to share about how to raise a girl to have a healthy self esteem and good interpersonal boundaries? How about wisdom on how to raise a healthy, self-respecting and respectful boy...also with strong interpersonal boundaries? We know that boys can be at risk as well. I wonder about the same things Rational pointed out. It seems to me there were a lot of common sense interpersonal boundaries crossed by both parties. How does a married woman end up in so intimate a setting she can be asked those questions by a man who is not her husband? There's a LOT of this story being left untold. How was the meet-up arranged? It had to be at least somewhat mutually agreed to. Where was the husband? Like Rational points out there were lots common sense stopping points along the road to and during a conversation that includes those questions. Expecting or trusting the other person to be responsible for all the boundaries isn't always so realistic and it certainly isn't a safe place to put one's self. This is where the proactive individual responsibility to be wise as a serpent comes in. That's what I tried to teach our daughters - and probably sounded somewhat misogynistic in the process. Proactively being wise as a serpent is a way to "trust but verify" and can go a long way to prevent harm to one's self. It can help prevent others from harming themselves too. I am not naive about the need for women to protect themselves. I do not know what motivated this woman to participate at whatever level she participated. As others have already said, I also don't think any compliance or even willingness on the part of the woman lets LW off the hook for his actions and behavior in the capacity of a brother worker even a little bit. This particular situation aside, IMO, in a culture that suggests in myriad ways that women are inferior to men and less valuable as human beings, that women should be subservient to men, that women should keep silent, that women who express opinions or question authority are not to be trusted or supported....one should not be surprised if some number of girls in that culture grow up to be women who make "good targets" for predators. And one should not be surprised if some number of boys grow up feeling entitled to take what they want from women and girls. Add to that the 2x2 culture of not questioning the senior brother workers and you are practically "asking for" the emergence of men like IH and LW and essentially grooming some number of potential victims for them. In asking the questions I asked of rational, I wanted to bring some focus on culture and parenting as factors I believe should not be ignored in this discussion. ==== post script: I see now that snow has eloquently expressed similar ideas above.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 17, 2015 3:12:21 GMT -5
There is more we don't know than we do, which forces a bunch of speculation. I don't know if that helps at all. Since reading about this a couple years ago I've wondered where the husband fits in. It would be so sad if the dad and/or husband was like the father you describe. Better to become an old maid than hook up with a man like that. But we don't know if that is the case or not. That's why it is hard to pass judgment on the situation - there is way too much we don't know. I think it is easy and appropriate to make a judgement that LW is not fit for the role of brother worker.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2015 10:08:04 GMT -5
There is more we don't know than we do, which forces a bunch of speculation. I don't know if that helps at all. Since reading about this a couple years ago I've wondered where the husband fits in. It would be so sad if the dad and/or husband was like the father you describe. Better to become an old maid than hook up with a man like that. But we don't know if that is the case or not. That's why it is hard to pass judgment on the situation - there is way too much we don't know. I think it is easy and appropriate to make a judgement that LW is not fit for the role of brother worker. Assuming the information at hand is accurate a different conclusion would be difficult.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 17, 2015 10:43:21 GMT -5
I'd like to step back for a moment. Do you have any wisdom you would be willing to share about how to raise a girl to have a healthy self esteem and good interpersonal boundaries? How about wisdom on how to raise a healthy, self-respecting and respectful boy...also with strong interpersonal boundaries? We know that boys can be at risk as well. I wonder about the same things Rational pointed out. It seems to me there were a lot of common sense interpersonal boundaries crossed by both parties. How does a married woman end up in so intimate a setting she can be asked those questions by a man who is not her husband? There's a LOT of this story being left untold. How was the meet-up arranged? It had to be at least somewhat mutually agreed to. Where was the husband? Like Rational points out there were lots common sense stopping points along the road to and during a conversation that includes those questions. Expecting or trusting the other person to be responsible for all the boundaries isn't always so realistic and it certainly isn't a safe place to put one's self. This is where the proactive individual responsibility to be wise as a serpent comes in. That's what I tried to teach our daughters - and probably sounded somewhat misogynistic in the process. Proactively being wise as a serpent is a way to "trust but verify" and can go a long way to prevent harm to one's self. It can help prevent others from harming themselves too. I find it disheartening that a member of the church would be questioning the behavior of the alleged victim of sexual harassment, but refrains from saying that the behavior of the minister is inappropriate and warrants removal from the ministry (especially celibate ministry). Also, that such a person would not be asking questions of the ministry as to why LW was allowed to remain in the ministry in spite of many known allegations against him. This is why such things are allowed to keep happening - it is easier and more convenient for people to put the blame on the victim than on the perpetrator if the perpetrator is being protected by the ministry. This particular lady was labeled as "troubled," while LW was sent to yet another field/state, free to keep repeating the same behavior.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 17, 2015 10:49:04 GMT -5
There is more we don't know than we do, which forces a bunch of speculation. I don't know if that helps at all. Since reading about this a couple years ago I've wondered where the husband fits in. It would be so sad if the dad and/or husband was like the father you describe. Better to become an old maid than hook up with a man like that. But we don't know if that is the case or not. That's why it is hard to pass judgment on the situation - there is way too much we don't know. There is nothing known about the lady, and there is no need to know. But there is much known about LW, and that is sufficient. Senior workers have been well aware of this, only their way of dealing with sexual immorality/abuse is not by removing offenders from the ministry, but by moving them to another field.
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Mar 17, 2015 10:55:07 GMT -5
There is more we don't know than we do, which forces a bunch of speculation. I don't know if that helps at all. Since reading about this a couple years ago I've wondered where the husband fits in. It would be so sad if the dad and/or husband was like the father you describe. Better to become an old maid than hook up with a man like that. But we don't know if that is the case or not. That's why it is hard to pass judgment on the situation - there is way too much we don't know. I agree. We can't know. Just wanted to put another perspective out there regarding how the woman might have felt seeing as people were speculating on her behavior. Snow, I appreciate your input on this.
I happen to know one of the women that LW had inappropriate conversations with, and I can assure you that the fault lies with him. Many women, especially of a certain age and older, are taught that their job is to make everyone happy and to be "nice" whatever the cost. This is even more true among the friends, where to speak out is almost always to "have a bad spirit." On top of that, some people fear confrontation anyway. The woman I know was all of these, and had the added complication of a living situation that made it hard for her to say no to a worker, and a family situation that already made her suspect as a potential troublemaker. In her situation, her husband was very much involved, but LW always came when he was out, and was in a position to know when that would be.
When you consider the initial shock, not wanting to rock the boat, wondering if you heard something wrong or if it was somehow your fault, and the wondering and trying to decide what to do for weeks afterwards, it is not hard to imagine 5 hours or more of conversation occurring before a stop was put to it. Yes, she absolutely could have just said no, but that is often easier said in hindsight than done in the moment. The polygamist wives at the YFZ ranch could have said no, and some did, but to place blame on them for their situation is ludicrous. Yes, many were technically adults, but it doesn't take much thinking to realize that the way they were taught and prevented from knowing their rights impaired their ability to give consent. I realize this is an extreme example, but the friends are taught that the workers have an authority given by God (as opposed to elected by man) and that worldly people demand rights, but God expects submission.
Also, if you are ever in this situation, it is very important to talk to other people about it. Going through the proper channels (workers and overseers) may make some changes for you personally, but it won't help future victims. If nothing illegal happened, it's pointless to talk to the authorities. But the lines between illegal and legal are often blurred, and one can lead to the other (for example, how many beers lie between "socially lubricated" and "unable to give consent"?) LW went on to seek a private meeting with another woman that I know, and because of what she heard from the first woman, she refused. She was another perfect target: insecure, already considered "on the edge" because of situations beyond her control. Speaking out about a conversation with LW would have ended her participation in the fellowship, which was of great importance to her.
I wish that fewer conversations about abusers/opportunists and their targets were infiltrated by the "blame the victim" mentality.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 17, 2015 11:48:44 GMT -5
I agree. We can't know. Just wanted to put another perspective out there regarding how the woman might have felt seeing as people were speculating on her behavior. Snow, I appreciate your input on this.
I happen to know one of the women that LW had inappropriate conversations with, and I can assure you that the fault lies with him. Many women, especially of a certain age and older, are taught that their job is to make everyone happy and to be "nice" whatever the cost. This is even more true among the friends, where to speak out is almost always to "have a bad spirit." On top of that, some people fear confrontation anyway. The woman I know was all of these, and had the added complication of a living situation that made it hard for her to say no to a worker, and a family situation that already made her suspect as a potential troublemaker. In her situation, her husband was very much involved, but LW always came when he was out, and was in a position to know when that would be.
When you consider the initial shock, not wanting to rock the boat, wondering if you heard something wrong or if it was somehow your fault, and the wondering and trying to decide what to do for weeks afterwards, it is not hard to imagine 5 hours or more of conversation occurring before a stop was put to it. Yes, she absolutely could have just said no, but that is often easier said in hindsight than done in the moment. The polygamist wives at the YFZ ranch could have said no, and some did, but to place blame on them for their situation is ludicrous. Yes, many were technically adults, but it doesn't take much thinking to realize that the way they were taught and prevented from knowing their rights impaired their ability to give consent. I realize this is an extreme example, but the friends are taught that the workers have an authority given by God (as opposed to elected by man) and that worldly people demand rights, but God expects submission.
Also, if you are ever in this situation, it is very important to talk to other people about it. Going through the proper channels (workers and overseers) may make some changes for you personally, but it won't help future victims. If nothing illegal happened, it's pointless to talk to the authorities. But the lines between illegal and legal are often blurred, and one can lead to the other (for example, how many beers lie between "socially lubricated" and "unable to give consent"?) LW went on to seek a private meeting with another woman that I know, and because of what she heard from the first woman, she refused. She was another perfect target: insecure, already considered "on the edge" because of situations beyond her control. Speaking out about a conversation with LW would have ended her participation in the fellowship, which was of great importance to her.
I wish that fewer conversations about abusers/opportunists and their targets were infiltrated by the "blame the victim" mentality.
It's clear you have an understanding of the mentality that is groomed in many women in certain circles. That is exactly what I meant. She may not have felt capable of stopping the conversation and you explained why much better than I did. I just know how much I have had to reprogram myself over the years to not just automatically see myself as 'wrong'. But it's hard when you have been raised to believe that from your earliest teachings of the roles of men and women. An example of just how much it was a part of my life is when I said I was divorcing my husband because of physical violence my father told me to stay and just try to be more subservient. He felt it was my fault for not being submissive enough and being too strong willed for a woman. He also told my husband the day we married that he needed to use a firm hand with me because I was strong willed. That 'strong will' was something I worked on and it sure came at a price. So I can totally understand how it might have been impossible for that woman to feel she had any rights to say it was inappropriate and end it.
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Mar 17, 2015 12:12:28 GMT -5
Snow, I appreciate your input on this.
I happen to know one of the women that LW had inappropriate conversations with, and I can assure you that the fault lies with him. Many women, especially of a certain age and older, are taught that their job is to make everyone happy and to be "nice" whatever the cost. This is even more true among the friends, where to speak out is almost always to "have a bad spirit." On top of that, some people fear confrontation anyway. The woman I know was all of these, and had the added complication of a living situation that made it hard for her to say no to a worker, and a family situation that already made her suspect as a potential troublemaker. In her situation, her husband was very much involved, but LW always came when he was out, and was in a position to know when that would be.
When you consider the initial shock, not wanting to rock the boat, wondering if you heard something wrong or if it was somehow your fault, and the wondering and trying to decide what to do for weeks afterwards, it is not hard to imagine 5 hours or more of conversation occurring before a stop was put to it. Yes, she absolutely could have just said no, but that is often easier said in hindsight than done in the moment. The polygamist wives at the YFZ ranch could have said no, and some did, but to place blame on them for their situation is ludicrous. Yes, many were technically adults, but it doesn't take much thinking to realize that the way they were taught and prevented from knowing their rights impaired their ability to give consent. I realize this is an extreme example, but the friends are taught that the workers have an authority given by God (as opposed to elected by man) and that worldly people demand rights, but God expects submission.
Also, if you are ever in this situation, it is very important to talk to other people about it. Going through the proper channels (workers and overseers) may make some changes for you personally, but it won't help future victims. If nothing illegal happened, it's pointless to talk to the authorities. But the lines between illegal and legal are often blurred, and one can lead to the other (for example, how many beers lie between "socially lubricated" and "unable to give consent"?) LW went on to seek a private meeting with another woman that I know, and because of what she heard from the first woman, she refused. She was another perfect target: insecure, already considered "on the edge" because of situations beyond her control. Speaking out about a conversation with LW would have ended her participation in the fellowship, which was of great importance to her.
I wish that fewer conversations about abusers/opportunists and their targets were infiltrated by the "blame the victim" mentality.
It's clear you have an understanding of the mentality that is groomed in many women in certain circles. That is exactly what I meant. She may not have felt capable of stopping the conversation and you explained why much better than I did. I just know how much I have had to reprogram myself over the years to not just automatically see myself as 'wrong'. But it's hard when you have been raised to believe that from your earliest teachings of the roles of men and women. An example of just how much it was a part of my life is when I said I was divorcing my husband because of physical violence my father told me to stay and just try to be more subservient. He felt it was my fault for not being submissive enough and being too strong willed for a woman. He also told my husband the day we married that he needed to use a firm hand with me because I was strong willed. That 'strong will' was something I worked on and it sure came at a price. So I can totally understand how it might have been impossible for that woman to feel she had any rights to say it was inappropriate and end it. Yes. I consider myself a strong willed person, and it's still hard for me to break out of that mentality. How much more so for someone who is naturally reticent and uncomfortable with confrontation.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2015 13:42:36 GMT -5
There is nothing known about the lady, and there is no need to know. But there is much known about LW, and that is sufficient. Senior workers have been well aware of this, only their way of dealing with sexual immorality/abuse is not by removing offenders from the ministry, but by moving them to another field. This has frequently been your stance so your response here is no surprise. Any rumor, gossip, or allegations leveled against the workers if sufficient evidence, at least according to what you have posted, to indict and convict yet you are willing to bury your head in the sand concerning the whole situation. You state that " There is nothing known about the lady, and there is no need to know." which might be true unless it turned out she was, for example, a pathological liar. Or if the tale told did not reveal all of the information. Reading what was posted, it is almost certain that we do not know most of the story. Given that the discussions that took place between LW and the victim was discussed for 5 hours after the fact. I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that LW had crossed the line. If the goal is to prevent something like this from happening again the solution is to have as many facts available as possible and not ignore the things that do not support your belief.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2015 14:05:08 GMT -5
I agree. We can't know. Just wanted to put another perspective out there regarding how the woman might have felt seeing as people were speculating on her behavior. Snow, I appreciate your input on this.
I happen to know one of the women that LW had inappropriate conversations with, and I can assure you that the fault lies with him. Many women, especially of a certain age and older, are taught that their job is to make everyone happy and to be "nice" whatever the cost. This is even more true among the friends, where to speak out is almost always to "have a bad spirit." On top of that, some people fear confrontation anyway. The woman I know was all of these, and had the added complication of a living situation that made it hard for her to say no to a worker, and a family situation that already made her suspect as a potential troublemaker. In her situation, her husband was very much involved, but LW always came when he was out, and was in a position to know when that would be. It is clear that you have access to data that has not been made public. These are all valid reasons why the situation developed as far as it did. Regardless of the reasons it still does not eliminate the fact that people are responsible for their actions. In this case, from what you posted above this was not just a single time when LW was alone with the woman and she was surprised by the line of questioning and at a loss for a response at the time but it appears that there were a multiple visits which means there time between the visits for hindsight. It refutes the claim that the answers were the result of answering in the moment. [/p]
I wish that fewer conversations about abusers/opportunists and their targets were infiltrated by the "blame the victim" mentality.
[/quote]Taking responsibility for your actions does not imply blame. In this case responding to the questions does imply action and someone was responsible for that action. It is much like the claim that LW kissed and stuck his tongue down someone's throat against her will. The human bite is over 50 pounds. In this case I do not believe the whole story has been told. Again, it is clear LW was a predator who preyed on vulnerable women. It is also known that there have been women who admired LW. LW should have been removed from his position, not just his location, years ago. But telling only half of the story does little to remedy the overall problem.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Mar 17, 2015 14:23:30 GMT -5
I find it disheartening that a member of the church would be questioning the behavior of the alleged victim of sexual harassment, but refrains from saying that the behavior of the minister is inappropriate and warrants removal from the ministry (especially celibate ministry). Also, that such a person would not be asking questions of the ministry as to why LW was allowed to remain in the ministry in spite of many known allegations against him. This is why such things are allowed to keep happening - it is easier and more convenient for people to put the blame on the victim than on the perpetrator if the perpetrator is being protected by the ministry. This particular lady was labeled as "troubled," while LW was sent to yet another field/state, free to keep repeating the same behavior. What does this mean? "It seems to me there were a lot of common sense interpersonal boundaries crossed by both parties." How successful have you been at changing the behaviors of adults? I've found that changing the behaviors of adults is rarely successful. I don't think you have been very successful at it either. Since changing another adult's behavior is rarely successful I believe in a prevention/education effort directed at empowering individuals. Educated and empowered individuals can prevent the victimization from happening in the first place. I'm not blaming the victim, I'm advocating empowering individuals so they don't become victims. Think circles of prevention; the individual should always be in the center of the circles of prevention. The most effective prevention is at the very center. Placing 100% of the blame on the other entity will never teach empowerment to the individual or help anyone to learn how to not be a victim. Doing that is ignoring the circle of prevention closest to the individual. That is why placing 100% of the blame and responsibility on the aggressor entity is not, and will never be, a root cause cure. Aggressor types have always been with us and will always be with us - so the only logical way to attack the problem at the roots is empower individuals. That's what Sharon means by the power of saying NO! My wife scolded me recently saying that when it comes fixing personal interaction problems "all men want to is analyze and fix things". It was about a situation where I thought more personal responsibility and objective self analysis would be a huge help and would have prevented a lot of problems. I don't know how else to look at these types of situations.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Mar 17, 2015 15:15:19 GMT -5
I wish that fewer conversations about abusers/opportunists and their targets were infiltrated by the "blame the victim" mentality. I can't help saying it, I wish fewer conversations like this were infiltrated with a "victims have no responsibility or prevention power" mentality. Every individual can learn to be the center circle of their prevention circle set, and keep everyone else out of it. When the chips are down the individual is often in that circle alone anyway. In that circle they have the inherent right to equip themselves with all kinds of proactive, effective, prevention power. No woman should ever be taught to give any of this up to the good will or whatever of anyone else. Men who are abusers/opportunists and breech the center circle of prevention don't deserve to merely be blamed, no, they deserve a massive dose of pure unadulterated prevention power.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Mar 17, 2015 15:15:30 GMT -5
Snow, I appreciate your input on this.
I happen to know one of the women that LW had inappropriate conversations with, and I can assure you that the fault lies with him. Many women, especially of a certain age and older, are taught that their job is to make everyone happy and to be "nice" whatever the cost. This is even more true among the friends, where to speak out is almost always to "have a bad spirit." On top of that, some people fear confrontation anyway. The woman I know was all of these, and had the added complication of a living situation that made it hard for her to say no to a worker, and a family situation that already made her suspect as a potential troublemaker. In her situation, her husband was very much involved, but LW always came when he was out, and was in a position to know when that would be. It is clear that you have access to data that has not been made public. These are all valid reasons why the situation developed as far as it did. Regardless of the reasons it still does not eliminate the fact that people are responsible for their actions. In this case, from what you posted above this was not just a single time when LW was alone with the woman and she was surprised by the line of questioning and at a loss for a response at the time but it appears that there were a multiple visits which means there time between the visits for hindsight. It refutes the claim that the answers were the result of answering in the moment. [/p]
I wish that fewer conversations about abusers/opportunists and their targets were infiltrated by the "blame the victim" mentality.
[/quote]Taking responsibility for your actions does not imply blame. In this case responding to the questions does imply action and someone was responsible for that action. It is much like the claim that LW kissed and stuck his tongue down someone's throat against her will. The human bite is over 50 pounds. In this case I do not believe the whole story has been told. Again, it is clear LW was a predator who preyed on vulnerable women. It is also known that there have been women who admired LW. LW should have been removed from his position, not just his location, years ago. But telling only half of the story does little to remedy the overall problem.[/quote] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX You do realize that applesandbacon is referring to a different woman don't you? It is much like the claim that LW kissed and stuck his tongue down someone's throat against her will. The human bite is over 50 pounds. In this case I do not believe the whole story has been told.
Kind of like saying that a kid that outweighs an adult should be able to fend off an attack because they are physically stronger? Or a woman that is physically stronger than a rapist should never have been raped? Just because a person can physically respond in an 'appropriate' manner doesn't mean they will in any given circumstance. I have only posted some verifiable facts in this instance. Leslie has a lot of various allegations against him over the years. I have used those which are verified as having been reported and looked into by senior workers, with name of those senior workers if people want to verify those facts for themselves. I too think it is appalling that people want to place blame on the victim and minimize Leslie's actions as being somehow their fault that it happened. Typical responses we have seen here on many occasions.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Mar 17, 2015 15:28:13 GMT -5
I can post other allegations that have come up regarding Leslie. Allegations that are known to senior workers, although never publicized in any way. Ex-sister workers and active sister workers have contacted me concerning Leslie and his actions over the years. Sister workers who have advised other young sister workers to never allow themselves to be alone with Leslie, and to watch out for him.
I can name a couple other ex-overseers in the same category who likewise have been demoted from overseer to regular worker and then eased out of the work when the opportunity came up due to allegations of rape and/or sexual activities.
This isn't some new and isolated incident of corruption/abuse by an overseer. Yeah..... they are just men who fail in their positions, just like men (and women) do in other positions of power who have other jobs. The difference is that these issues concern the fellowship, and as such that is why they are discussed here and on other forums where those who were associated with the fellowship gather to discuss stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Mar 17, 2015 15:40:44 GMT -5
Issue certainly aren't localized in any geographical area of the fellowship. This is a post today concerning what overseer David Leitch has informed a 'alleged' victim of abuse: 5:08am Mar 17 BREAKING NEWS!!!****LET'S WATCH WHAT HAPPENS FROM THIS POST!!****
Yesterday I spoke with David Leitch and he says he gives his permission for all violated victims to speak out - without fear of isolation - without fear of being silenced - without fear of being put out of the Two by Two Faith - he wants ALL victims who feel they have NOT been listened to - by any workers, brethren, families etc., or have been too afraid to speak out - they are not to NOT lodge a report to him (David Leitch) BUT TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE POLICE!!!
So I DID!!!!
IF ONLY DAVID LEITCH WOULD ANNOUNCE THIS IN EVERY MISSION AND FROM EACH CONVENTION PLATFORM - I For one feel we need to 'challenge' DAVID LEITCH as the STATE OVERSEER to SAY THIS PUBLICLY HIMSELF TO EVERYONE - not a 'one little person' as myself to have to be THE VOICE FOR ALL!!
I am NOT IN CHARGE OF THIS STATE BUT I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO SPREAD THESE WORDS FROM DAVID LEITCH!!
Says he wants all the 'muck' cleaned up!!!
So all I can say is: YOU ALL KNOW WHO YOU ARE - PLEASE GET THE SUPPORT YOU NEED TO GET TO THE POLICE - PLEASE !!PLEASE !!!PLEASE!!! I BEG YOU!!!
THIS IS SERIOUS STUFF ABOUT CHILD PROTECTION IN ALL HOMES WITH EVERY WORKER OUT THERE!!!!
THE GLOVES ARE OFF!!! - not for revenge, but for accountability and justice!!!!!
YOUR CASE WILL BE HEARD!!! Great Police Support is out there!!!
NO MORE ROOM FOR LIES, COVER UPS, SWEEPING UNDER THE CARPET, SILENCING, BRAINWASHING, FEAR TACTICS 'THAT YOU WILL GO TO HELL IF YOU SPEAK OUT' or 'You are all against us !!!!! Just get on with your lives!!!!'
We ALL NEED A 'VOICE' AND WE ARE ENTITLED to have a BOICE - no more intimidation, no more bullying, no more ELDERS STOOD DOWN, meetings taken out of homes just because these members wish to expose and support victims - we are not deaf, blind or stupid !!!
DAVID LEITCH INSISTS THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN VICTORIA - but SORRY - WE DO KNOW DIFFERENT !!!I HAVE CHALLENGED DAVID LEITCH ABOUT THIS AND HE SAID START 'NAMING' THEM - that is NOT MY JOB TO FO - YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE - He said he promises none will be 'SILENCED' or STOPPED FROM FELLOWSHIP!! So THIS IS YOUR TIME TO NOW COME FORWARD!!!!
Be ready to SPEAK OUT FROM THIS HOUR - the TRUTH MUST BE TOLD FROM THIS HOUR TO PROVE WE WILL GET 'PROPER ACTION' and NOT JUST WORDS!!!!
WHY SHOULD WE SUFFER WITH OUR HEALTH AND The WICKED and the ABHORRENT TRAUMA ON OUR BODIES, BRAINS, SLEEP PATTERNS, EMOTIONAL, PHYSICAL, MENTAL & SPIRITUAL WELLBEING ANY LONGER!!!! OR FOR ONE MORE DAY!!!In that area of the world, there has been recent charges against a priest for his part in covering up abuse issues. www.theage.com.au/national/catholic-archbishop-of-adelaide-philip-wilson-charged-with-concealing-child-sex-abuse-20150317-1m0ytv.htmlThe Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide, Philip Wilson, has been charged over the alleged cover-up of child sex abuse by the Catholic Church in the Maitland-Newcastle region. The charge relates to the 64-year-old's alleged failure to report child sex abuse carried out by priest James Fletcher during the 1970s. Fletcher died in 2006, a year after he was jailed for at least seven and a half years following his conviction of nine sexual abuse charges relating to a teenager between 1989 and 1991. < p> A special commissioner of inquiry into the alleged cover-up of child sexual abuse by the church in the Hunter region found that Fletcher had an "extensive history of sexually abusing children in the Diocese, exclusively abusing young males and particularly altar boys. "His offending history dates back at least to the 1970s," the inquiry found. Archbishop Wilson is due to appear in Newcastle Local Court on April 30.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Mar 17, 2015 15:47:51 GMT -5
I wish that fewer conversations about abusers/opportunists and their targets were infiltrated by the "blame the victim" mentality. I can't help saying it, I wish fewer conversations like this were infiltrated with a "victims have no responsibility or prevention power" mentality. Every individual can learn to be the center circle of their prevention circle set, and keep everyone else out of it. When the chips are down the individual is often in that circle alone anyway. In that circle they have the inherent right to equip themselves with all kinds of proactive, effective, prevention power. No woman should ever be taught to give any of this up to the good will or whatever of anyone else. Men who are abusers/opportunists and breech the center circle of prevention don't deserve to merely be blamed, no, they deserve a massive dose of pure unadulterated prevention power. I agree that victims often could have prevented abuse from happening. Normally, after something happens, they understand that. However, that does nothing to take care of abuse that has already taken place. Men who are abusers/opportunists and breech the center circle of prevention don't deserve to merely be blamed, no, they deserve a massive dose of pure unadulterated prevention powerSuch as removing them from their position immediately, which prevents them from using that position to abuse others...... Too bad that some people in positions of power to enact that don't feel the same as you do, Jesse.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Mar 17, 2015 16:12:37 GMT -5
Removal does not automatically equal prevention. In fact it might do little in the way of prevention. Removal is dealing with the issue at a level outside the center circle of prevention. The further away from the center less the less effective the prevention will be, that's the inherent reality. Not dealing with the root cause at the lowest will never result in a solid root cause cure. On the other hand a tongue getting bit off... that might be a pretty effective root cause cure. The bit off tongue could not be swept under a rug and ultimately would greatly enhance the verifiability of the fact.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 17, 2015 17:26:43 GMT -5
I wish that fewer conversations about abusers/opportunists and their targets were infiltrated by the "blame the victim" mentality. I can't help saying it, I wish fewer conversations like this were infiltrated with a "victims have no responsibility or prevention power" mentality. Every individual can learn to be the center circle of their prevention circle set, and keep everyone else out of it. When the chips are down the individual is often in that circle alone anyway. In that circle they have the inherent right to equip themselves with all kinds of proactive, effective, prevention power. No woman should ever be taught to give any of this up to the good will or whatever of anyone else. Men who are abusers/opportunists and breech the center circle of prevention don't deserve to merely be blamed, no, they deserve a massive dose of pure unadulterated prevention power. Me too Jesse. Sadly the reason why there are still conversations like that is because women have been groomed to believe they cannot prevent what is happening to them. Fear of speaking up is ingrained in them from a young age, it is a learned thing. They were not lucky enough to have an empowering father like you seem to be. I was strong willed and it was still a huge fight for me to see myself as worthy and it still is to this day. On one level I know I am and that is the level I function from now, but underneath, in the heart, where it hurts, I still am that person who has no say, doesn't want to rock the boat because it always got me punished etc. Not all women can be strong enough to fight the odds of their upbringing. Some men recognize these women and prey on them. They totally know which ones they can manipulate.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2015 17:50:36 GMT -5
You do realize that applesandbacon is referring to a different woman don't you? Regarding the tongue in the throat, yes. Regarding the conversation that took 5 hours to discuss - no. No, it means a closed mouth makes it difficult to put your tongue in someone's mouth. And if it is there uninvited 50 pounds of force will make it clear that it is time to leave. If someone decides to greet or say good bye to someone with a platonic kiss do you start with an open mouth? The story doesn't, as they say, have legs. I don't think anyone is saying that LW has not acted inappropriately many times over a long period of time. I am not sure who is trying to blame anyone. It is a matter of taking responsibility for one's actions. LW visited a married woman multiple times and carried on explicit sexual conversations. If it happened one time the explanation that the victim was taken off guard and, in the spur of the moment, responded. But that argument doesn't work when there were multiple visits with contemplation time between the visits. And somehow LW knew when the husband was not going to be home. Do you think LW had a copy of the husband's calendar? How many people would have known when the husband was going to be away? No one has mentioned how LW was found out? The wife told the husband? The husband returned home early? This type of abuse does not happen in a vacuum. As mentioned, LW called at least a women to try to set up a meeting. To stop issues like this from happening over and over more has identifying an offender and, after years, moving/demoting/etc. the person. Removing IH, for example, did not eliminate sexual abuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 17:54:30 GMT -5
Reading through these posts I get an impression that within the fellowship sexual abuse and fornication get a far lower rating than divorce and remarriage by those in authority; and yet the scriptures speak out against both sins. Am I correct or am I missing something? Is divorce and remarriage far more offensive than all other forms of sexual abuse including CSA.? Enlighten me please.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2015 17:56:45 GMT -5
Reading through these posts I get an impression that within the fellowship sexual abuse and fornication get a far lower rating than divorce and remarriage by those in authority; and yet the scriptures speak out against both sins. Am I correct or am I missing something? Is divorce and remarriage far more offensive than all other forms of sexual abuse including CSA.? Enlighten me please. Unfortunately, the bible is pretty quiet on child abuse of any kind.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Mar 17, 2015 18:13:15 GMT -5
Reading through these posts I get an impression that within the fellowship sexual abuse and fornication get a far lower rating than divorce and remarriage by those in authority; and yet the scriptures speak out against both sins. Am I correct or am I missing something? Is divorce and remarriage far more offensive than all other forms of sexual abuse including CSA.? Enlighten me please. You make an interesting point. Divorce and remarriage are certainly acted on with a decisiveness that we have yet to see in matters of CSA within the fellowship. However, forget what scripture (or any one's interpretation of it) says for a minute. CSA is clearly against the law in my country, for example. Divorce and remarriage are not. That should help put both matters into perspective for anyone who is not clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 18:15:58 GMT -5
Reading through these posts I get an impression that within the fellowship sexual abuse and fornication get a far lower rating than divorce and remarriage by those in authority; and yet the scriptures speak out against both sins. Am I correct or am I missing something? Is divorce and remarriage far more offensive than all other forms of sexual abuse including CSA.? Enlighten me please. Unfortunately, the bible is pretty quiet on child abuse of any kind. Yep, I must agree here with you, and yet Jesus was very fond of children.Matth 19:13-14 suffer little children and forbid them not, to come to me, for such is the kingdom of heaven.When Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him and Peter said yes, Jesus said to him feed my sheep and feed my lambs.I am sure that that instruction did not include abusing them but it was not verbalized and made Very clear, so maybe there is a loophole, there, eh!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 18:21:03 GMT -5
Reading through these posts I get an impression that within the fellowship sexual abuse and fornication get a far lower rating than divorce and remarriage by those in authority; and yet the scriptures speak out against both sins. Am I correct or am I missing something? Is divorce and remarriage far more offensive than all other forms of sexual abuse including CSA.? Enlighten me please. You make an interesting point. Divorce and remarriage are certainly acted on with a decisiveness that we have yet to see in matters of CSA within the fellowship. However, forget what scripture (or any one's interpretation of it) says for a minute. CSA is clearly against the law in my country, for example. Divorce and remarriage are not. That should help put both matters into perspective for anyone who is not clear. Yes that thought did occur to me after posting and it is an extremely valid and important point to take into consideration; thank you for pointing it out. Here is an example where they are not rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's nor are they rendering unto God the things that are God's.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Mar 17, 2015 19:17:29 GMT -5
Reading through these posts I get an impression that within the fellowship sexual abuse and fornication get a far lower rating than divorce and remarriage by those in authority; and yet the scriptures speak out against both sins. Am I correct or am I missing something? Is divorce and remarriage far more offensive than all other forms of sexual abuse including CSA.? Enlighten me please. Remarriage to another after divorce is seen by some/many in the fellowship as a constant and willful and unrepentant state of sin.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 17, 2015 22:32:31 GMT -5
There is nothing known about the lady, and there is no need to know. But there is much known about LW, and that is sufficient. Senior workers have been well aware of this, only their way of dealing with sexual immorality/abuse is not by removing offenders from the ministry, but by moving them to another field. This has frequently been your stance so your response here is no surprise. Any rumor, gossip, or allegations leveled against the workers if sufficient evidence, at least according to what you have posted, to indict and convict yet you are willing to bury your head in the sand concerning the whole situation. You state that " There is nothing known about the lady, and there is no need to know." which might be true unless it turned out she was, for example, a pathological liar. Or if the tale told did not reveal all of the information. Reading what was posted, it is almost certain that we do not know most of the story. Given that the discussions that took place between LW and the victim was discussed for 5 hours after the fact. I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that LW had crossed the line. If the goal is to prevent something like this from happening again the solution is to have as many facts available as possible and not ignore the things that do not support your belief. I am not talking about 'rumors.' I have talked personally to the couple in Chicago who wrote the letter to verify what transpired there and have talked to a senior worker who himself confirmed some things, corrected one thing on the list of reported offences posted by Scott (it wasn't 5 but 2 SW's who complained to LS about LW) and even told us the details of one offence we weren't aware of. Also, several people have told me of members of their family or close friends who were either in an inappropriate relationship with LW or who were harassed by him. This is a small fellowship and it isn't hard to find out at least some facts if one puts an effort into it. Oh, and I personally know two (alleged) victims of LW. Again, it's a small world, and even smaller fellowship.
|
|