|
Post by Get off of TMB on Sept 30, 2019 19:16:20 GMT -5
When the leaders keep their operations secret from its members, it makes you wonder, doesn't it!
|
|
|
Post by speak on Sept 30, 2019 20:15:17 GMT -5
When the leaders keep their operations secret from its members, it makes you wonder, doesn't it! Does it? only if you are nosey.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Sept 30, 2019 21:01:56 GMT -5
Maybe it should!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 30, 2019 23:24:32 GMT -5
When the leaders keep their operations secret from its members, it makes you wonder, doesn't it! Does it? only if you are nosey. Nosy people know when they're being screwed over. But then, religions thrive on people's non-curiosity . . . called "faith".
|
|
|
Post by speak on Sept 30, 2019 23:51:52 GMT -5
Does it? only if you are nosey. Nosy people know when they're being screwed over. But then, religions thrive on people's non-curiosity . . . called "faith". Actually it is trust, were'd be a pretty miserable people if we didn't trust.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 1, 2019 0:10:49 GMT -5
Nosy people know when they're being screwed over. But then, religions thrive on people's non-curiosity . . . called "faith".Actually it is trust, were'd be a pretty miserable people if we didn't trust. Except that if there has been evidence in the past that a "person" OR a "deity" has NOT keep their word; -then you would be MORE miserable, -and foolish as well if you continue to put your "trust" in them!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 1, 2019 1:34:02 GMT -5
Nosy people know when they're being screwed over. But then, religions thrive on people's non-curiosity . . . called "faith". Actually it is trust, were'd be a pretty miserable people if we didn't trust. Trust should come before faith. The trust of individuals in their ministry is only trust in humans. The nosy are only miserable when they try to keep faith in humans they can't trust.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 1, 2019 13:34:25 GMT -5
Nosy people know when they're being screwed over. But then, religions thrive on people's non-curiosity . . . called "faith". Actually it is trust, were'd be a pretty miserable people if we didn't trust. I agree trust is important, but I think we should actually be able to discern when trust is wise. Not everyone is trust worthy.
|
|
|
Post by speak on Oct 1, 2019 21:42:32 GMT -5
Actually it is trust, were'd be a pretty miserable people if we didn't trust. I agree trust is important, but I think we should actually be able to discern when trust is wise. Not everyone is trust worthy. Most find out if someone is not worthy of their trust as an after fact. How does one know for sure unless someone tells them so and then how does one know that that person is trust worthy also?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 1, 2019 22:11:23 GMT -5
I agree trust is important, but I think we should actually be able to discern when trust is wise. Not everyone is trust worthy. Most find out if someone is not worthy of their trust as an after fact. How does one know for sure unless someone tells them so and then how does one know that that person is trust worthy also? You ask questions. I was visiting with a Sunni Imam about going to his mosque before I actually attended. I asked him what his association is with Louis Farrakhan, and he said absolutely none. I told a Farrakhan follower that I went to the Sunni mosque, and he told me I was his brother. I was inclined to trust the Sunni Imam.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 2, 2019 12:28:56 GMT -5
I agree trust is important, but I think we should actually be able to discern when trust is wise. Not everyone is trust worthy. Most find out if someone is not worthy of their trust as an after fact. How does one know for sure unless someone tells them so and then how does one know that that person is trust worthy also? Well that is a problem of course. But what I usually do is weigh what is being said and who says it. If it's already someone I trust that is telling me something then I will be more likely to try and investigate the other more thoroughly before rejecting the claim outright. If someone I know is usually been trustworthy, not just saying things without having given it some thought themselves, then it makes sense for me to take what they say into consideration. It's been proven that the people that were trusted in the church just weren't worthy of that trust, CSA is a good example. So to just reject a claim about someone that is 'supposed' to be trustworthy isn't always a wise choice. When the subject is as serious as CSA for example, it's important to not reject it just because of who it's about. You don't need to be nasty, but it makes sense to use caution regarding that person until there is finally some proof that they are worthy of trust. Don't you think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 14:09:35 GMT -5
My experiences with workers and friends is that they do not outright lie. They lied by omission. They did this by withholding information about situations that were wrong or dangerous. Like not telling parents about know pedophiles amongst the workers and friends.
We were ask by workers to report some parents in our meeting to the department of children and family for abuse of the their children. The workers had filed a report but needed us to file a report also to give more information that we knew first hand. After the report was done and the parents were investigated the workers allowed everyone to believe that we were the reporters without ever admitting that we were doing what they had ask us to do. They never admitted to filing a report themselves. I told them that I felt betrayed by them. They refused to apologise and told me to get over it. This was done with the blessing of the overseer and his underling sister workers.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 3, 2019 12:49:46 GMT -5
My experiences with workers and friends is that they do not outright lie. They lied by omission. They did this by withholding information about situations that were wrong or dangerous. Like not telling parents about know pedophiles amongst the workers and friends. We were ask by workers to report some parents in our meeting to the department of children and family for abuse of the their children. The workers had filed a report but needed us to file a report also to give more information that we knew first hand. After the report was done and the parents were investigated the workers allowed everyone to believe that we were the reporters without ever admitting that we were doing what they had ask us to do. They never admitted to filing a report themselves. I told them that I felt betrayed by them. They refused to apologise and told me to get over it. This was done with the blessing of the overseer and his underling sister workers. That is just the type of thing that is going to be the demise of the religion. The more often it happens, more and more people are going to feel betrayed and they are going to leave. They are cutting their own throats by not standing by doing the right thing and not standing behind people that are doing the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by Get off of TMB on Oct 3, 2019 18:20:02 GMT -5
All groups, clubs, churches etc.. need transparency. Healthy groups HAVE transparency.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 3, 2019 18:41:27 GMT -5
Get off of TMB . Then why don't you set the example and post your image and real name?
|
|
|
Post by speak on Oct 3, 2019 18:44:41 GMT -5
Get off of TMB . Then why don't you set the example and post your image and real name? He can't because that would expose himself to the groups he filches the photos and info from.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 3, 2019 18:57:28 GMT -5
speak . I honestly cannot understand how people do not engage in a moment of self-reflection to first determine if they are about to accuse others of doing Exactly as they do themselves.
|
|
|
Post by speak on Oct 3, 2019 19:59:37 GMT -5
speak . I honestly cannot understand how people do not engage in a moment of self-reflection to first determine if they are about to accuse others of doing Exactly as they do themselves. Just a human thing to do, makes some feel better about themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Oct 3, 2019 22:58:26 GMT -5
Many churches do not openly engage in transparency, although a large number will provide answers if required.
In my business, there are things that I do not share with staff or contractors, and if they were to ask certain questions I would consider that being nosey. Some things have to operate in the sphere of management, otherwise it would be just a circus.
However if I asked a church that enjoys tax-free status, to give me as a member, an answer regarding donations to, say Red Cross, then I would think it should be able to provide an answer. If I asked, what is so and so's stipend, then I would expect to be told where to go.
I think the word transparency probably needs more definition.
|
|
|
Post by Get off of TMB on Oct 4, 2019 16:15:18 GMT -5
I know some things have to be kept private. Yet there has to be openness. But when a group covers up abusive behavior just to make the way seem perfect, then something isn't right. The friends don't even know where their money goes. it is their money and somewhat their business to know.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 4, 2019 19:43:17 GMT -5
Get off of TMB . Awwww come on Gill, don't be so shy. Why are you hiding your identity?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Oct 4, 2019 20:38:12 GMT -5
Get off of TMB . Awwww come on Gill, don't be so shy. Why are you hiding your identity? Don't be a goat!
|
|
janj
Senior Member
Posts: 470
|
Post by janj on Oct 5, 2019 21:18:23 GMT -5
I know some things have to be kept private. Yet there has to be openness. But when a group covers up abusive behavior just to make the way seem perfect, then something isn't right. The friends don't even know where their money goes. it is their money and somewhat their business to know. Abuse should not be covered and I think the new policy of take it to the police not the workers will fix that. As for money and accountability-if the members dont like the current practice of non accountability, they don't have to give anything-pretty simple solution really.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 6, 2019 12:45:27 GMT -5
I know some things have to be kept private. Yet there has to be openness. But when a group covers up abusive behavior just to make the way seem perfect, then something isn't right. The friends don't even know where their money goes. it is their money and somewhat their business to know. Abuse should not be covered and I think the new policy of take it to the police not the workers will fix that. As for money and accountability-if the members dont like the current practice of non accountability, they don't have to give anything-pretty simple solution really. I have to agree with this. CSA must never be hidden. But if the friends aren't concerned about how the workers use their money, why should we be concerned? It's their money. If it's illegal enough and they are caught they will have to deal with the tax people and the law. Otherwise, people should be allowed to do what they want with their money. It's not mandatory to give money to the workers is it? I always thought it was voluntary. I suppose there is always the possibility that those who don't give might be given a lessor status with the workers than those who can afford to give a lot, but again, if people don't like that, they can always leave. I do realize it's not as black and white as I'm making it here because of the many emotions and things people have been taught, but if it's thought about clearly without the belief of going to hell if you leave, that is certainly a very good option if you are being ostracized for not giving or not giving enough.
|
|
janj
Senior Member
Posts: 470
|
Post by janj on Oct 9, 2019 18:56:41 GMT -5
Abuse should not be covered and I think the new policy of take it to the police not the workers will fix that. As for money and accountability-if the members dont like the current practice of non accountability, they don't have to give anything-pretty simple solution really. I have to agree with this. CSA must never be hidden. But if the friends aren't concerned about how the workers use their money, why should we be concerned? It's their money. If it's illegal enough and they are caught they will have to deal with the tax people and the law. Otherwise, people should be allowed to do what they want with their money. It's not mandatory to give money to the workers is it? I always thought it was voluntary. I suppose there is always the possibility that those who don't give might be given a lessor status with the workers than those who can afford to give a lot, but again, if people don't like that, they can always leave. I do realize it's not as black and white as I'm making it here because of the many emotions and things people have been taught, but if it's thought about clearly without the belief of going to hell if you leave, that is certainly a very good option if you are being ostracized for not giving or not giving enough. No I dont think people are ostracized for not giving some people give to the overseas workers, some to the overseer and some to their local workers so who is going to know who gives what.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 10, 2019 12:51:57 GMT -5
I have to agree with this. CSA must never be hidden. But if the friends aren't concerned about how the workers use their money, why should we be concerned? It's their money. If it's illegal enough and they are caught they will have to deal with the tax people and the law. Otherwise, people should be allowed to do what they want with their money. It's not mandatory to give money to the workers is it? I always thought it was voluntary. I suppose there is always the possibility that those who don't give might be given a lessor status with the workers than those who can afford to give a lot, but again, if people don't like that, they can always leave. I do realize it's not as black and white as I'm making it here because of the many emotions and things people have been taught, but if it's thought about clearly without the belief of going to hell if you leave, that is certainly a very good option if you are being ostracized for not giving or not giving enough. No I dont think people are ostracized for not giving some people give to the overseas workers, some to the overseer and some to their local workers so who is going to know who gives what. Well it was clear in our area that one family definitely gave more than others to the workers and they pretty much lived full time with them. They gave them a car, they stayed with them all the time, they were richer so had a nice home with a pool etc. Everyone knows that they were favored. Not saying they shouldn't have been, because they were truly lovely genuine people that cared. But it was also known that the widow that professed in the later years of her life didn't have as much to offer and some of the friends (not all by any means) did look down on her. I remember as a kid thinking that was very unfair. So to say that no one knows what gets given is only true to a certain extent. Otherwise I don't have a problem with how the money gets distributed. It's up to the friends what they want to do with their money and if they are okay with the system, then it's really no one else's business unless the tax people get involved of course.
|
|
|
Post by Get off of TMB on Oct 10, 2019 19:18:49 GMT -5
In Michigan 2012-13, I wonder how many friends knew their money was being spent on legal fees?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 11, 2019 13:13:45 GMT -5
In Michigan 2012-13, I wonder how many friends knew their money was being spent on legal fees? Well that's the part that I feel shouldn't be hidden because it comes under the heading of CSA and that just shouldn't be hidden imo.
|
|