|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 21, 2010 18:52:54 GMT -5
Also the fellowship has this fiery indoctrination that the workers are to be trusted, they are perfect, they are unreproachable...they are as God on earth for they've given up ALL. This indoctrination, even though it is never written, needs to stop. I agree, sharon, but it does seem like normal religion to me. Elevating the opinions of someone else to be representative of God Himself. Seems to me half of the people on this board are no different, acting like the words & opinions of some ancient writers are just as unreproachable. |
|
Byron
Senior Member
VIA Admin
Posts: 220
|
Post by Byron on Jul 21, 2010 18:53:04 GMT -5
Though all this pontification, there is this deafening silence concerning the culpability of the perpetrator.
I have seen this tactic emerge on countless threads, and it results in the same thing!
The worker was the person who committed the crime, and his leaders are the ones who covered it up!
It is very simple, but I do see but a few voices who condemn it.
This same thing occurred on a thread on another board talking about Leslie White, and all the #*!* he has pulled. There was page after page speculating whether his having oldtimers caused his transgressions. What a pile of crap!
When will the people in the 2x2 church stand up and put a stop to this nonsense??
And people get tiffy when we call it a cult??
|
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Jul 21, 2010 18:58:34 GMT -5
The chapter for our Wed eve Bible study a month or so ago contained this passage. While there were no workers present at the study I attended, this subject was covered as an absolute, no whys or wherefores issue by one of the older, more strict attendees. What is interesting is the reasoning that in the future the Lord's people will judge the earth and how are they to do this if they cannot take care of judging amongst themselves in the present. Even more interesting is the last where it indicates it would be better to be defrauded than to go to a worldly court for justice. In case this is of interest, I'll quote the passage in 1 Cor 6. Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded? Thank you, Ronhall for posting this! Jesus gave us the way to deal with these things within the church, but the fellowship doesn't often use it...or at least I've haven't heard of them using it! Mt. 18 are the instructions....however are we not also told to obey the laws of the land? So in order to do that when a real crime is committed then we have to turn it over to the laws of the land and those in authority of those laws, do we not? One thing I didn't mention is that I attempted to explain the difference between criminal law and tort law and that the verses in the study would be more directed to how to handle tort offenses and law rather than criminal law. This explanation or interpretation was not very well received. This is understandable since my wife and I have never been considered in the mainstream of F&W thinking, i.e., a little "off", for lack of a better term. Throughout this discussion, my observation of how the issues of this thread have been handled is closer to sharonw and Sylvestra, than others. It is also true that my domicile has been mostly on the west coast with just brief periods on the east and south. It is also interesting to read the letter from the sister worker to Tharold Sylvester, the Washington state overseer from the early 60's until the middle to late 90's. In my case I was completely unaware of the situation until now and could only speculate as to a name. My impression of Tharold was one who would not mince around before making a decision -- perhaps almost to a fault! So it is understandable to my way of thinking that he wouldn't need to think twice about how to handle a person under his authority who had committed a crime. On the other hand, since the issue was kept quiet and very few had any knowledge about it, and still don't, the prevailing thinking among those of the friends I know is that 'calling the cops' is never the scriptural way to handle any problem within the fellowship. So, while applying damage control to a situation such as a sexual crime incident is laudable for the purpose of protecting the innocent, when a similar incident occurs at a later time there is no known precedent on how to handle it. The wheel has to be reinvented! |
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 21, 2010 19:31:28 GMT -5
I Also the fellowship has this fiery indoctrination that the workers are to be trusted, they are perfect, they are irreproachable...they are as God on earth for they've given up ALL. This indoctrination, even though it is never written, needs to stop. The workers need to become servants in EVERY ONE'S EYES! JMO We must trust them otherwise we cannot believe what they tell us of Jesus, but we know they are not perfect because they tell us so and it seems by ED ALEXANDERS letter that they can be bought to task for their actions. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 21, 2010 19:42:28 GMT -5
Though all this pontification, there is this deafening silence concerning the culpability of the perpetrator.
I have seen this tactic emerge on countless threads, and it results in the same thing!
The worker was the person who committed the crime, and his leaders are the ones who covered it up!
It is very simple, but I do see but a few voices who condemn it.
This same thing occurred on a thread on another board talking about Leslie White, and all the #*!* he has pulled. There was page after page speculating whether his having oldtimers caused his transgressions. What a pile of crap!
When will the people in the 2x2 church stand up and put a stop to this nonsense??
And people get tiffy when we call it a cult?? Would be nice if you could get of your soap box instead of acting like the big I am/ the big judge and jury and tell us how we can put a stop to individuals doing as they do, we can do no more to those than we can stopping you picking your nose.  |
|
Byron
Senior Member
VIA Admin
Posts: 220
|
Post by Byron on Jul 21, 2010 19:55:22 GMT -5
Though all this pontification, there is this deafening silence concerning the culpability of the perpetrator.
I have seen this tactic emerge on countless threads, and it results in the same thing!
The worker was the person who committed the crime, and his leaders are the ones who covered it up!
It is very simple, but I do see but a few voices who condemn it.
This same thing occurred on a thread on another board talking about Leslie White, and all the #*!* he has pulled. There was page after page speculating whether his having oldtimers caused his transgressions. What a pile of crap!
When will the people in the 2x2 church stand up and put a stop to this nonsense??
And people get tiffy when we call it a cult?? Would be nice if you could get of your soap box instead of acting like the big I am/ the big judge and jury and tell us how we can put a stop to individuals doing as they do, we can do no more to those than we can stopping you picking your nose.
Lastly, if you did not enable deceivers and liars to lead you, they would be powerless. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 21, 2010 20:03:52 GMT -5
Would be nice if you could get of your soap box instead of acting like the big I am/ the big judge and jury and tell us how we can put a stop to individuals doing as they do, we can do no more to those than we can stopping you picking your nose.
Lastly, if you did not enable deceivers and liars to lead you, they would be powerless. Jesus a lair and a deceiver  I really think that you need to be careful  |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 21, 2010 20:06:08 GMT -5
That said, as I've found in adults there are just some personalities that seem to be sitting ducks for people like these perps who somehow, someway, know how to manipulate things in their own favor and the victims are hit unwarily. Personalities do not develop in a vacuum. You should somehow indicate that this is your perception. Others of us, who were also members of the same group, did not have the same indoctrination. And then there is the question of who is providing the indoctrination to the children. I am thinking it is the parents. If indeed it does exist. People just need to come to the realization that the workers are people who have decided to preach the gospel. They are not superhuman nor perfect. That being said, there are those who blame the F&W for all of the wrongs in their lives. In reading the accounts on this and other message boards/web sites about what went on in families it is clear that the families were dysfunctional and the same problems would arise no matter what group they were in. If a parent uses a hammer to correct their children it can hardly be blamed on any religious sect. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2010 20:08:58 GMT -5
Byron, the "deafening silence" about the culpability of the perpetrator is not likely some "tactic" or a sneaky cover. Rather, most readers can read and I expect all accept the culpability of the perpetrator as fact, there's nothing to discuss about it. He did it, he did wrong, there's not a lot to discuss there.
The coverup of the workers is another matter and worthy of discussion and I don't see many "tactics" to divert from that except for the blaming of the parents solely for not pushing for charges to go through. There's too much we don't know about regarding the coverup, but we can be fairly certain that legal charges were not the workers' advice because their solution was an apology. At least they did that much even if it wasn't the proper solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 21, 2010 20:09:15 GMT -5
Though all this pontification, there is this deafening silence concerning the culpability of the perpetrator. The perpetrator was wrong. That is a given. What else is there to say? Then post a few pages stating the worker was wrong. I doubt anyone will disagree. In most states this makes them all criminals. Have you seen anyone say they do not condemn it? Are you just looking for a chorus to restate that this is wrong? No natter what the issue it was wrong. But many posts on this board are based on speculation. Is oldtimers anything like Alzheimer's? There certainly could be some discussion if LW does have Alzheimer's. When will people in any group stop allowing the leaders to cover up the crimes of their members? Not if you are willing to provide your definition of "cult". |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 21, 2010 20:15:41 GMT -5
One thing I didn't mention is that I attempted to explain the difference between criminal law and tort law and that the verses in the study would be more directed to how to handle tort offenses and law rather than criminal law. This explanation or interpretation was not very well received. This is understandable since my wife and I have never been considered in the mainstream of F&W thinking, i.e., a little "off", for lack of a better term. Throughout this discussion, my observation of how the issues of this thread have been handled is closer to sharonw and Sylvestra, than others. It is also true that my domicile has been mostly on the west coast with just brief periods on the east and south. It is also interesting to read the letter from the sister worker to Tharold Sylvester, the Washington state overseer from the early 60's until the middle to late 90's. In my case I was completely unaware of the situation until now and could only speculate as to a name. My impression of Tharold was one who would not mince around before making a decision -- perhaps almost to a fault! So it is understandable to my way of thinking that he wouldn't need to think twice about how to handle a person under his authority who had committed a crime. On the other hand, since the issue was kept quiet and very few had any knowledge about it, and still don't, the prevailing thinking among those of the friends I know is that 'calling the cops' is never the scriptural way to handle any problem within the fellowship. So, while applying damage control to a situation such as a sexual crime incident is laudable for the purpose of protecting the innocent, when a similar incident occurs at a later time there is no known precedent on how to handle it. The wheel has to be reinvented! The ex-Worker's initials in this thread's incident is SR, not Scot Ross! Hey, Scott, I hadn't thought you'd been in the work? Naww, you're not guilty!  |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 21, 2010 20:22:21 GMT -5
[quote author=rational board=general thread=16243 post=352142 time=1279760768Personalities do not develop in a vacuum.
I think you'll have to agree, rational, that it seems there are just some people regardless of effort, become sitting ducks for adverse winds in their lives....I cannot understand the mechanisms of the why's of that, but it sure seems so, don't you think?
You should somehow indicate that this is your perception.
I did!
People just need to come to the realization that the workers are people who have decided to preach the gospel. They are not superhuman nor perfect.
I agree, but it has taken some hard blows for some of us to realize that the fellowship and it's powers are not what perhaps we'd perceived it was or could be?
That being said, there are those who blame the F&W for all of the wrongs in their lives. In reading the accounts on this and other message boards/web sites about what went on in families it is clear that the families were dysfunctional and the same problems would arise no matter what group they were in. If a parent uses a hammer to correct their children it can hardly be blamed on any religious sect.[/quote]
Again, it seems like these "dysfunctional" families or personalities as you call them and I don't agree with that label are the ones who are targeted by the perpatrators....I think we've have this discussion before.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 21, 2010 20:24:03 GMT -5
I Also the fellowship has this fiery indoctrination that the workers are to be trusted, they are perfect, they are irreproachable...they are as God on earth for they've given up ALL. This indoctrination, even though it is never written, needs to stop. The workers need to become servants in EVERY ONE'S EYES! JMO We must trust them otherwise we cannot believe what they tell us of Jesus, but we know they are not perfect because they tell us so and it seems by ED ALEXANDERS letter that they can be bought to task for their actions. Abd that "we MUST trust them" is what has hindered those who could have or should have gone to the authorities. It is much taught that we MUST trust them. It's hard to trust someone explicitly and then turn around and refute their office, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2010 21:49:55 GMT -5
Though all this pontification, there is this deafening silence concerning the culpability of the perpetrator. Thank you Byron. This board has zero tolerance towards child sexual abuse. When it's by workers it's totally abhorrent because of the nature of the system we have grown up in. Any worker or ex worker who has committed such evil acts on children can expect no leniency here. Once a case is proved either by legal decision, or confession, or as in the case at hand by verification beyond reasonable doubt by co-workers or parents or others who have witnessed the behavior, it needs to be brought into the light. Children who are victims of sexual abuse at the hands of an adult are not to blame, or culpable or guilty in anyway. The perpetrator is 100% culpable of what is criminal behavior, and held in disgust by society. If any posts that downplay the culpability of such a perpetrator are brought to my attention, they will be removed. admin |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 21, 2010 21:56:46 GMT -5
Thank you, ADMIN!
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 21, 2010 22:57:04 GMT -5
If any posts that downplay the culpability of such a perpetrator are brought to my attention, they will be removed. admin This is a sad statement. Whether you agree with another's opinion or not is not reason to delete a post. The reports that make their way onto the message boards are often driven by hysteria and supposition and only based loosely on the facts. People are named and falsely implemented and it remains in the record while the original poster simply ignores the facts and moves on leaving the innocent to fend for themselves. For example, recently the parents of a young woman who had been abused in her youth were vilified by the user known as "jhjmr". Although the husband of the victim posted that the accusation was false there was never the mention of an apology nor any mention that the accusation was an error from the poster. Threatening to delete posts that might be posted that defend a person from innuendo means that unless the person mentioned reads and posts here their name is linked to what may well be a false story. Every person who is accused as a child molester is not guilty of the crime. It is censorship and that is never a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2010 23:09:29 GMT -5
Threatening to delete posts that might be posted that defend a person from innuendo means that unless the person mentioned reads and posts here their name is linked to what may well be a false story. Every person who is accused as a child molester is not guilty of the crime. It is censorship and that is never a good thing.
I am very conscious of the rights of those accused, of supposition of innocence until otherwise proved. You are assured, no innocent person, or person who is alleged without proof beyond reasonable doubt to have committed a crime, need fear this board. Their presumed innocence will equally be fearlessly protected (which as in the past has meant deletion of posts or "censorship" as you call it).
You say "censorship" is not a good thing. You can't have it both ways.
admin |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 21, 2010 23:40:52 GMT -5
[quote author=rational board=general thread=16243 post=352142 time=1279760768Personalities do not develop in a vacuum. I think you'll have to agree, rational, that it seems there are just some people regardless of effort, become sitting ducks for adverse winds in their lives....I cannot understand the mechanisms of the why's of that, but it sure seems so, don't you think?Yes, some people are "professional victims". Self-defeating behavior is not that uncommon. Some people have long strings of "unlucky" relationships. Are "unlucky" at work or mistreated by their boss. Every boss. In job after job. I am not saying this is the reason why people are abused nor am I blaming the victim. I am just pointing out that there are many factors in these situations. Remember the post by Jean? In the second paragraph she paints a vivid picture of her home life. Can you really say it was not a dysfunctional family? The third paragraph reveals an appalling lack of parental education. Later on she tells of her father finding her being molested by the worker and blaming her. She tells of running to her grandparents house to avoid being beaten. If you don't like the word dysfunctional how would you characterize this family? While IH was responsible for his behavior and his actions were criminal don't you think that the parents have to also take some of the responsibility? If you push a child into the road and they are hit by a drunk driver you could say the driver is to blame. But would the situation have been different had the child not been pushed into the road? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 21, 2010 23:59:13 GMT -5
You misread, rational. My comments had nothing to do with "innuendo". The situation refers to "Once a case is proved either by legal decision, or confession, or as in the case at hand by verification beyond reasonable doubt..." You should have posted the rest of the sentence: "...verification beyond reasonable doubt by co-workers or parents or others who have witnessed the behavior, it needs to be brought into the light."Without the imprimatur of the legal system this still falls into the category of anecdotal stories, rumors, and gossip. If there is evidence, then it needs to be brought to the attention of the authorities who handle these matters. We have all seen postings claiming to be factual only to be later shown to have been fabricated on the thinnest of evidence and clothed in a story made mostly of whole cloth. I have never been a supporter of deleting any posts. I realize that ProBoards has some requirements and there is the possibility of wronging an innocent person but that is the responsibility of those making the post. If the post is egregious they leave themselves open to legal action. I believe it is best to allow any post to remain and censor the poster. In most cases the information has been seen and, if deleted, there is no opportunity for the defamed, or other interested parties, to correct the misinformation. I have never advocated having it both ways. I believe the posters should be responsible for their actions, not the administration nor ProBoards. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 22, 2010 0:10:09 GMT -5
I believe it is best to allow any post to remain and censor the poster. In most cases the information has been seen and, if deleted, there is no opportunity for the defamed, or other interested parties, to correct the misinformation. I have never advocated having it both ways. I believe the posters should be responsible for their actions, not the administration nor ProBoards. What you are suggesting would be breaking the law, or laws likely in several jurisdictions (ProBoards are based in the UK and subject to their laws). Libel laws hold not just the person posting, but the administration (me) and owners (ProBoards) liable for any libelous actions. Which takes precedence, your views on censorship or state laws on libel? That's rhetorical, by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 22, 2010 1:51:50 GMT -5
What you are suggesting would be breaking the law, or laws likely in several jurisdictions (ProBoards are based in the UK and subject to their laws). I didn't say it was legal, I said it was my opinion. It is also my opinion that ProBoards is based in the US. According to their terms of service, if my memory serves me correctly, they are located in Lake Forest, California. That depends on the country where the legal action is initiated. Your point about the UK is valid because in the UK ProBoards is considered the publisher and the publisher can be held responsible. In the US ProBoards is protected by the Federal Communications Decency Act of 1996. depends on the country you reside in. Being a US resident, my views are in line with the laws - the poster of the material is the one responsible. |
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 22, 2010 8:46:53 GMT -5
Why is this thread pinned to the top of the board? Because it fits the criteria of the admin?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 22, 2010 9:18:13 GMT -5
depends on the country you reside in. Being a US resident, my views are in line with the laws - the poster of the material is the one responsible. Zero censorship was tried on this board before I became admin and the board was shut down by ProBoards. This was because it risked legal action against not just the individual posters but Proboards itself, at least in the UK so I was advised. The ProBoards staff member I was dealing with was Craig Suffolk from England. It was possibly because people from Ireland and UK were potentially being libeled. In any case, the adherence to ProBoards requirements since then has kept us on the right side of all laws and also with the owners, Proboards. I don't intend to move back to free-for-all. Even people who argue against any censorship seem to draw the line somewhere, against child pornography for example. On TMB, the line is ProBoards requirements and adherence to international laws on libel. If unclear, it's the standard that's been in place here the past couple of years. It has served us well. To respond to the last post, the criteria of TMB include zero tolerance of sexual abuse of children. If anyone doesn't like that, they don't need to stick around this board. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 9:27:48 GMT -5
Pure free speech cannot rightly exist in a civil society. The old and common example is that you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
Some words do damage to others.....you can't do that. Sounds simple in theory, and is simple in many instances but there is also plenty of uncertainty when attempting to assess damage or potential damage with some speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 22, 2010 9:30:04 GMT -5
I agree zero tolerance of sexual abuse of children. Lets discuss today and what can be done to educate children.parents,grandparents , everyone. Zero tolerance can't be just in discussion it has to be in deed as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 22, 2010 9:35:00 GMT -5
you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. No, you just play Sousa's Stars and Stripes Forever instead ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 22, 2010 9:36:29 GMT -5
I agree zero tolerance of sexual abuse of children. Lets discuss today and what can be done to educate children.parents,grandparents , everyone. Thanks Lin. Great suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 22, 2010 10:27:30 GMT -5
I agree zero tolerance of sexual abuse of children. Lets discuss today and what can be done to educate children.parents,grandparents , everyone. Thanks Lin. Great suggestion. For the fellowship, this would have to start with those who have the power to gain the memberships' attention! And it should come from the "platform" where ALL hear it! Parents, Children, Single folks AND WORKERS! Of course, it needs to start with the WORKERS IN A WORKERS' MEETING since the problem comes from the workers, mostly! Perhaps IF the raising of children went back to the old fashioned style of children being made aware of "strangers" regardless of their office in life, then that in itself would defeat "some" of the manipulative behaviour that intentional perps have to corner said children. For example, my gram taught us girls to hug or touch a man and this even included uncles, workers, was not "lady-like" behaviour! We would have received a fierce scolding if not a whipping for hugging a worker, particularly the opposite sexed one. I remember being terribly embarassed when a male worker would pick me up and set me on his knee, and I'd try after that to never get within arm's reach of that worker or any other male worker. It helped me I suspect avoid such personal touches even IF unintentional of harm. I've seen teenage girls walk up and hug the young workers and the few workers I've seen receiving said hugs would turn as red as a beet! They did not appreciate being put in that position and I'm sure those of clean heart today would be especially embarrassed...YES, parents tell you children DO NOT HUG THE WORKERS! It puts some of them in a tight spot! |
|
I really think that you need to be careful 
