|
Post by wa1nate on Aug 28, 2007 14:14:39 GMT -5
This whole issue with the worker in Minnesota has me wondering what is in place to prevent "bad candidates" from entering the work.
I know that there are not enough safeguards in the world to prevent all problems. However, due diligence says that everything reasonable must be done.
Do workers have to fill out background checks? Take personality tests?
What is done to try to prevent "problem children" from entering the work?
|
|
|
Post by Encourage on Aug 28, 2007 14:24:17 GMT -5
I was wondering the same thing. I would certainly think there would be background checks.
|
|
|
Post by as I c it on Aug 28, 2007 15:12:19 GMT -5
Child molesters are extremely skilled in the art of deception. A background check would only reveal those who have been caught and charged--and not those who haven't been.
The only recourse a parent has is to ensure THEY do everything possible to protect their children at all times. And the head workers need to install certain policies that will ensure "all hands on the table" (visible at all times) whenever any child is around.
(Predators need their hands to commit their secret deeds. And the fact that there are others present doesn't mean those dirty deeds aren't still able to take place...even in the presence of others--which is why I urge all hands visible and accountable for any time anyone is around a child).
The head-workers can't screen them out. All they can do is enact policies that cut down on there being any possibility--opportunity--for it to take place. And then ensure the rats know that they will get known--by all--and turned over to the proper authorities for investigation and punishment.
That knowledge should help screen the bad ones (who are bad in this area) out.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan9 to on Aug 28, 2007 15:55:49 GMT -5
1) This whole issue with the worker in Minnesota has me wondering what is in place to prevent "bad candidates" from entering the work.
~~~ I believe the oveseers will pay more attention on new candidates family history backgrounds because the abused will do it to others because what others had done to him/her.
|
|
3
Senior Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by 3 on Aug 28, 2007 16:13:34 GMT -5
It's not like the head worker takes someone from off the streets & lets him/her go into the work at a moments notice!
Worker candidates are well known in the 2x2 church. More than likely, their family is involved in the church, too.
Most worker candidates 'offer' for the work and have to wait awhile before being accepted. This is their 'proving' time. Certainly, if someone in the field suspected something undesireable about that candidate, he would contact the workers & express his concern.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 28, 2007 16:20:35 GMT -5
The question the workers asked my brother before he was allowed to enter the work was: "Do you have a good suitcase?"
Great background check, huh?
I heard that long time ago the criteria was to take a bro. worker out behind the barn and get him to sing a hymn. If he could carry a tune, he was accepted in the work.
|
|
|
Post by wa1nate on Aug 28, 2007 19:35:13 GMT -5
Child molesters are extremely skilled in the art of deception. A background check would only reveal those who have been caught and charged--and not those who haven't been.
Like I said earlier, background checks aren't foolproof. If you read my post, you'll see that I asked what due diligence is done. Are background checks done? Anything else? Even in my community service organization, we do background checks. Is nothing done to check on someone when they enter the work? Background checks will weed some of the undesirables. There must be some type of screening right?
I believe the oveseers will pay more attention on new candidates family history backgrounds because the abused will do it to others because what others had done to him/her.
Again, I'd like to know if any efforts are being made (ex-workers feel free to chime in) BEFORE workers are accepted to check into their backgrounds or their propensity to do this?
It's not like the head worker takes someone from off the streets & lets him/her go into the work at a moments notice! Worker candidates are well known in the 2x2 church. More than likely, their family is involved in the church, too.
That kind of sounds like a "good old boy" system. That kind of "reference" sure wouldn't fly in most companies or service organizations. "Because you came from a good family" (perception anyway) is not qualifications to be put in a position of trust.
I heard that long time ago the criteria was to take a bro. worker out behind the barn and get him to sing a hymn. If he could carry a tune, he was accepted in the work.
The question is what the criteria is to get into the work now... not a long time ago.
Thanks,
Kevin
|
|
|
Post by jmo on Aug 28, 2007 21:27:43 GMT -5
If they had been following the Scripture in the first place instead of making all the decisions themselves much of this might ahve been prevented.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Aug 28, 2007 22:04:30 GMT -5
Matthew 18:8 Perhaps this would be foolproof. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ditto on Aug 28, 2007 22:06:11 GMT -5
It isn't only workers-there have been a plenty of elders that became inappropriately handy.
Ditto for some plain old saint men.
|
|
|
Post by as i c it on Aug 28, 2007 22:16:51 GMT -5
ithascome, By Jove, I think you've got it!!!
|
|
|
Post by Nancy on Aug 28, 2007 22:26:01 GMT -5
Nobody knows the answer to wa1nate's question? I am quite curious too about the screening process for workers.
|
|
|
Post by to NAte on Aug 29, 2007 0:39:32 GMT -5
1) This whole issue with the worker in Minnesota has me wondering what is in place to prevent "bad candidates" from entering the work. ~~~ I believe the oveseers will pay more attention on new candidates family history backgrounds because the abused will do it to others because what others had done to him/her.I can't believe this posts from Nathan. Blaming the victim again. Saying the abused will do ti to others because of what others have done to them. No, Nathan most people who have been sexually abused DO NOT go on to abuse. Get your facts right. Of those who do abuse, a good number have been abused but most who have been abused do not go on to abuse. So the workers knew the family history of your family before you went into the work Nathan? Did you go into the work in America or Vietnam? Were yoru parents living in the USA when you wnet into the work for the workers to talk to them?
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Aug 29, 2007 0:55:28 GMT -5
A good start would be ending forever the process of moving "problem" workers to different areas. There should be unity within the church on this issue. Workers who are "kicked out" in one area shouldn't be allowed to go into a different overseers area and start over... this includes the foreign fields.
|
|
|
Post by to Nate on Aug 29, 2007 1:28:09 GMT -5
1) To nate wrote: I can't believe this posts from Nathan. Blaming the victim again. Saying the abused will do ti to others because of what others have done to them. No, Nathan most people who have been sexually abused DO NOT go on to abuse. Get your facts right. Of those who do abuse, a good number have been abused but most who have been abused do not go on to abuse. So the workers knew the family history of your family before you went into the work Nathan? Did you go into the work in America or Vietnam? Were your parents living in the USA when you went into the work for the workers to talk to them? ~~~ Believe it or not it's up to you but the above post is from me. You asked too many personal questions when you yourself hide in the dark. so you can't answer Nathan whether the workers did a family church on you when they probably do not even live in the country and they were never in meetings. No I don't believe that you or anyone could make such a statement that those who abuse will go on to abuse. That is re victimizing the victims by claiming they will be abusers. You say you will write up something to give workers about sexual abuse in the church when you have no knowledge or understanding of the issue of sexual abuse.
|
|
|
Post by to Nate on Aug 29, 2007 1:32:22 GMT -5
1) To nate wrote: I can't believe this posts from Nathan. Blaming the victim again. Saying the abused will do ti to others because of what others have done to them. No, Nathan most people who have been sexually abused DO NOT go on to abuse. Get your facts right. Of those who do abuse, a good number have been abused but most who have been abused do not go on to abuse. So the workers knew the family history of your family before you went into the work Nathan? Did you go into the work in America or Vietnam? Were your parents living in the USA when you went into the work for the workers to talk to them? ~~~ Believe it or not it's up to you but the above post is from me. You asked too many personal questions when you yourself hide in the dark. so you can't answer Nathan whether the workers did a family church on you when they probably do not even live in the country and they were never in meetings. No I don't believe that you or anyone could make such a statement that those who abuse will go on to abuse. That is re victimizing the victims by claiming they will be abusers. You say you will write up something to give workers about sexual abuse in the church when you have no knowledge or understanding of the issue of sexual abuse. meant to be family search - not church - blame the spell check for not reading my mind.... so the workers did a background check on you although your parents live in Vietnam. The things you say NAthan sometimes show your ignorance about the group. YOu seem to write what you would like to happen rather than what does happen.
|
|
|
Post by so what on Aug 29, 2007 7:48:47 GMT -5
You write thing about me which you know so little of it. You write and say thing which you don't know much about, anonymous. Considering how often you do the same thing to others around here, you have no room to complain. Thou hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by Stefan on Aug 29, 2007 10:52:01 GMT -5
So it appears to me as if no background checks are done for those who enter the work.
"Knowing their family" or "knowing their testimony" just doesn't cut it. The problem with that second criteria is that you are assuming that their testimony is sincere. Knowing that there have been "bad apples" in the work proves that not all testimonies of those entering the work are sincere.
This lack of background checking seems woefully insufficient to me. Due diligence is not being completed. It looks to me as if the 2x2 leaders are opening themselves up to obvious liability for not doing what could be reasonably expected.
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Aug 29, 2007 10:59:48 GMT -5
A background check might weed out some but what about the ones who dont have a bad history, family or otherwise, and who go into the work and use their newfound power and control to prey on the weak? There has to be "dual controls". In other words, a background check before and if one strike and your out policy when youre "in". However you know that would never happen because the workers are "called by God" and why would God choose a pedophile to preach his gospel?? In fact many workers who we thought sat on the right hand of God himself proved to be nothing but liars, fiddlers and control freaks. The answer to everything according to F&W is: "its all in the Lord's hands".
|
|
|
Post by Stefan on Aug 29, 2007 11:23:54 GMT -5
A background check might weed out some but what about the ones who dont have a bad history, family or otherwise, and who go into the work and use their newfound power and control to prey on the weak? There has to be "dual controls". In other words, a background check before and if one strike and your out policy when youre "in". However you know that would never happen because the workers are "called by God" and why would God choose a pedophile to preach his gospel?? In fact many workers who we thought sat on the right hand of God himself proved to be nothing but liars, fiddlers and control freaks. The answer to everything according to F&W is: "its all in the Lord's hands". I agree that there needs to be background checks. I agree that any verified transgression involving a youth should result in immediate expulsion. The overseers need to realize that even if workers are called by God, there have been several molestation incidents that prove that to not be a foolproof system! If a system is broke, it must be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by laws on Aug 29, 2007 13:30:07 GMT -5
So it appears to me as if no background checks are done for those who enter the work. "Knowing their family" or "knowing their testimony" just doesn't cut it. The problem with that second criteria is that you are assuming that their testimony is sincere. Knowing that there have been "bad apples" in the work proves that not all testimonies of those entering the work are sincere. This lack of background checking seems woefully insufficient to me. Due diligence is not being completed. It looks to me as if the 2x2 leaders are opening themselves up to obvious liability for not doing what could be reasonably expected. Churches in our state (our Christian Community Church) are required to do background checks with anyone working with Children. Hmmm, maybe we could provide the state authorities with names of overseers of this church society.
|
|
|
Post by Freedom on Aug 29, 2007 14:04:50 GMT -5
A background check might weed out some but what about the ones who dont have a bad history, family or otherwise, and who go into the work and use their newfound power and control to prey on the weak? There has to be "dual controls". In other words, a background check before and if one strike and your out policy when youre "in". However you know that would never happen because the workers are "called by God" and why would God choose a pedophile to preach his gospel?? In fact many workers who we thought sat on the right hand of God himself proved to be nothing but liars, fiddlers and control freaks. The answer to everything according to F&W is: "its all in the Lord's hands". I agree that there needs to be background checks. I agree that any verified transgression involving a youth should result in immediate expulsion. The overseers need to realize that even if workers are called by God, there have been several molestation incidents that prove that to not be a foolproof system! If a system is broke, it must be fixed. How can you fix something that is corrupt at the core? Just get out!
|
|
|
Post by Stefan on Aug 29, 2007 14:43:21 GMT -5
How can you fix something that is corrupt at the core? Just get out! If you did believe that it was corrupt at the core, I think you'd still care about other kids who could be molested. I don't think that throwing our hands up helps anyone. Personally, I don't think that the "Truth" is corrupt. Like any system, it has problems. IMO, the lack of checking, oversight and education of workers and children of the friends is the biggest problem. Hard to believe that none of Tim's companions didn't see a sign of trouble at some point that they might have wanted to report to the overseer.
|
|
|
Post by dont assume on Aug 29, 2007 15:40:29 GMT -5
Hard to believe that none of Tim's companions didn't see a sign of trouble at some point that they might have wanted to report to the overseer. How do you know they didn't?
|
|
|
Post by Stefan on Aug 29, 2007 15:54:14 GMT -5
Hard to believe that none of Tim's companions didn't see a sign of trouble at some point that they might have wanted to report to the overseer. How do you know they didn't? I don't. That was my whole point. It sounds as if there needs to be a lot of education put into place, including procedures for when a worker suspects that a companion may show signs of being a child molester.
|
|