|
Post by sharonw on Jun 9, 2010 17:38:49 GMT -5
I agree with Scott. By overtly circumventing the law, by not reporting such crimes as determined by an Overseer committee, could expose the Overseers to a multitude of criminal and civil charges like obstruction of justice, conspiracy, co-conspiracies (with elders and other committee Workers) ... if caught. Ignorance of the law is no defense either. Talk about upending a can-of-worms; such a discovered collusion by the faith's hierarchy would be a disaster for the faith. IT IS ALREADY A DISASTER FOR THE FAITH...Now IF this is to be true where elders are told to call an overseer FIRST, so HE CAN do whatever he's always been doing, then that puts the ELDERS IN THE HOT SEAT WITH THE LAW! They better get that knowledge under their belt first.
|
|
shiloh
Senior Member
Posts: 723
|
Post by shiloh on Jun 10, 2010 11:33:47 GMT -5
I remember those side burns that Peter wore. The only brother worker I knew with sideburns.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 10, 2010 12:18:57 GMT -5
Well..... At least one person has heard that there will be meetings with elders rather than a letter, and that the elders are going to be instructed to report abuse issues to the overseer, and then the workers will form a committee to go to the offender to try to get him to straighten up or he will be reported to the authorities. If that is the case, it will be interesting to find out that the overseers are actually instructing the elders to break the law. If true, I sure hope that the elders have more respect for the law and the bible than the overseers do (if in fact that is what happens) I sure hope that the overseers are the ones that get reported to the authorities if this in fact is true...... Scott Is an elder of the fellowship a mandated reporter? I'm thinking if an elder observes abuse or is made aware of it, the proper route wold be to tell the victim or representative to contact authorities directly. Personally, the only time I see need to contact the overseer would be if it involves a worker - and maybe not then. What states' overseers are involved in this agreement? It depends on the state emy. For example, here is North Dakota's mandated reporters: North Dakota
Professionals Required to Report Cent. Code § 50-25.1-03 [Effective August 1, 2007] The following professionals are required to report: • Physicians, nurses, dentists, optometrists, medical examiners or coroners, or any other medical or mental health professionals • Religious practitioners of the healing arts • Schoolteachers, administrators, or school counselors • Addiction counselors, social workers, child care workers, or foster parents • Police or law enforcement officers, juvenile court personnel, probation officers, division of juvenile services employees • Members of the clergy
Reporting by Other Persons Cent. Code § 50-25.1-03 Any other person who has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is abused or neglected may report. Standards for Making a Report Cent. Code § 50-25.1-03 A report is required when a reporter has knowledge of or reasonable cause to suspect that a child is abused or neglected if the knowledge or suspicion is derived from information received by that person in that person’s official or professional capacity.So, an elder is not required to report, BUT once a worker becomes aware of abuse then THEY become a mandated reporter. However, compare that to the list of mandated reporters in Texas: Texas Professionals Required to Report Fam. Code § 261.101 Persons required to report include: • A professional, for purposes of the reporting laws, is an individual who is licensed or certified by the State or who is an employee of a facility licensed, certified, or operated by the State and who, in the normal course of official duties or duties for which a license or certification is required, has direct contact with children. • Professionals include: » Teachers or daycare employees » Nurses, doctors, or employees of a clinic or health-care facility that provides reproductive services » Juvenile probation officers or juvenile detention or correctional officers
Reporting by Other Persons Fam. Code § 261.101 A person who has cause to believe that a child has been adversely affected by abuse or neglect shall immediately make a report.
Standards for Making a Report Fam. Code § 261.101 A report is required when a person has cause to believe that a child has been adversely affected by abuse or neglect.
Privileged Communications
Fam. Code § 261.101 The requirement to report applies without exception to an individual whose personal communications may otherwise be privileged, including an attorney, a member of the clergy, a medical practitioner, a social worker, a mental health professional, and an employee of a clinic or health-care facility that provides reproductive services. Inclusion of Reporter’s Name in Report The reporter is not specifically required by statute to provide his or her name in the report. Disclosure of Reporter Identity Fam. Code §§ 261.101; 261.201 Unless waived in writing by the person making the report, the identity of an individual making a report is confidential and may be disclosed only: • As provided by § 261.201 • To a law enforcement officer for the purposes of conducting a criminal investigation of the report A report of alleged or suspected abuse or neglect and the identity of the person making the report are confidential. A court may order the disclosure of such confidential information, if after a hearing and an in camera review of the requested information, the court determines that the disclosure is: • Essential to the administration of justice • Not likely to endanger the life or safety of a child who is the subject of the report, a person who made the report, or any other person who participates in an investigation of reported abuse or neglect or who provides care for the child The Texas Youth Commission shall release a report of alleged or suspected abuse if the report relates to abuse or neglect involving a child committed to the commission. The commission shall edit any report disclosed under this section to protect the identity of: • A child who is the subject of the report • The person who made the report • Any other person whose life or safety may be endangered by the disclosureSo in Texas, an elder IS a mandated reporter (as is everyone) There is a state-by-state breakdown for everyone to check here: www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/mandaall.pdfThis is a good resource for everyone to use. Now that the workers are going to be discussing this issue with the elders, then it would be good for elders (and workers) to understand what the state laws are where they live. Every state has a provision for reporting, and of course you do not have to fall into the 'mandatory reporter' category to do so. Likewise most reporting can be done anonymously. As far as which state overseers are involved in this, the indication I have gotten was ALL states. However, I do not have verification of that at this time. I know who several of the overseers were that were at Seneca, but I do not have a complet list. It will be interesting to hear just how many elders are actually contacted by state, as that will show just which overseers are willing to address this issue. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 10, 2010 12:20:54 GMT -5
Also, in regard to: I'm thinking if an elder observes abuse or is made aware of it, the proper route wold be to tell the victim or representative to contact authorities directlyYes, that is what should be done. However, if the elder resides in a state in which they are a mandated reporter, they also must contact the authorities or be in violation of the law regardless. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2010 13:07:02 GMT -5
That committee idea, if true, tells me the overseers haven't learned a thing yet. They must think they are a law unto themselves.
Also, the idea of telling the elders to tell the victims to report it could be used as a ploy to protect the workers themselves. "Don't tell us about it, we're mandated reporters, put all the burden back onto the victims".
A church which cares for its needy won't act this way, they will do all they can to help the victim, including attend the authorities with them.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jun 10, 2010 13:57:06 GMT -5
Also, in regard to: I'm thinking if an elder observes abuse or is made aware of it, the proper route wold be to tell the victim or representative to contact authorities directlyYes, that is what should be done. However, if the elder resides in a state in which they are a mandated reporter, they also must contact the authorities or be in violation of the law regardless. Scott Would it not be perhaps helpful if the elder or professional that knows they have to report the alleged abuse TO TELL the victim/significant others that they WERE going to report it and that they advised the victim/significant other to report it from their OWN perspective?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 10, 2010 15:08:24 GMT -5
Also, in regard to: I'm thinking if an elder observes abuse or is made aware of it, the proper route wold be to tell the victim or representative to contact authorities directlyYes, that is what should be done. However, if the elder resides in a state in which they are a mandated reporter, they also must contact the authorities or be in violation of the law regardless. Scott Would it not be perhaps helpful if the elder or professional that knows they have to report the alleged abuse TO TELL the victim/significant others that they WERE going to report it and that they advised the victim/significant other to report it from their OWN perspective? Not always. If for example you suspect a parent of abusing a child, then you wouldn't really want to tell them you were going to report them I wouldn't think. However, if a parent came to an elder and said that someone had abused their child, then the elder SHOULD encourage that individual to report it, as well as reporting it themselves. Scott
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jun 10, 2010 15:13:16 GMT -5
That committee idea, if true, tells me the overseers haven't learned a thing yet. They must think they are a law unto themselves. Also, the idea of telling the elders to tell the victims to report it could be used as a ploy to protect the workers themselves. "Don't tell us about it, we're mandated reporters, put all the burden back onto the victims". A church which cares for its needy won't act this way, they will do all they can to help the victim, including attend the authorities with them. I agree. I guess what really galls me is the Truth, or any religious denomination, that beats their chests as to being Christlike, Christians, ... is that they can't do what is morally right. Period. It seems, for me, looking from the outside of any religious faith the answer is simple and basic. But it appears that the victims and those knowledgeable of such events must fall on their swords for the betterment of their denomination, which is crap. It seems I remember the bible advising us to obey the laws of the land...that said, ir someone(s) think they are above obeying the laws of the land...it sure seems like to me they are not obeying God and thus are as bad as infidels or worse who don't know God's advise? Phew! Those who hold themselves with singular authority over anything are TOO BIG ON THEMSELVES! Regardless who they are! Me included!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 10, 2010 15:24:27 GMT -5
I agree. I guess what really galls me is the Truth, or any religious denomination, that beats their chests as to being Christlike, Christians, ... is that they can't do what is morally right. Period. It seems, for me, looking from the outside of any religious faith the answer is simple and basic. But it appears that the victims and those knowledgeable of such events must fall on their swords for the betterment of their denomination, which is crap. It seems I remember the bible advising us to obey the laws of the land...that said, ir someone(s) think they are above obeying the laws of the land...it sure seems like to me they are not obeying God and thus are as bad as infidels or worse who don't know God's advise? Phew! Those who hold themselves with singular authority over anything are TOO BIG ON THEMSELVES! Regardless who they are! Me included! Some religious folks will try to trot out the verses in 1 Corinthians and claim that is an excuse that keeps them from obeying the law. 1 Corinthians 6
Lawsuits Among Believers 1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers! 7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?A careful reading of those verses will show that this is referring to trivial civil matters and not serious legal matters. SO.... If you ever have a worker/pastor/minister/preach who absolutely insists that they are going to use this passage, make sure that the use it the way the instructions are given: 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!This is for the regular folks to judge trivial matters that people have against each other, and it is very obvious that the judging is to be done by the regular folks in the churh. Not the ministers or even the elders for that matter. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 10, 2010 15:29:15 GMT -5
Here is what the bible says about obeying the laws of the land. These are legal criminal laws as opposed to the civl lawsuits as referenced in 1 Corinthians Romans 13
Submission to the Authorities 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.Sure seems pretty clear now doesn't it? Scott
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jun 11, 2010 11:00:47 GMT -5
If there is abuse, why would any parent even have to think of going to the elder? Are you not going to go directly to the law? The whole things sound like someone is trying to get abuse cases discussed with other people before reporting a crime to the law. Then a person could be convinced to do something different or nothing at all. That is how cover ups, embarrassment, guilty feelings are established against a person that would report a crime. When is it that a person can't think for themselves and have to have a worker think for them? That's a trait that has lived for a long time and no worker wants to lose that authority in member's lives. Who is influencing people's lives? God or workers?
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jun 11, 2010 11:06:10 GMT -5
Wonder what abuse the workers would discuss other than sexual abuse? Maybe how to carry through the abuse of throwing a person from the fellowship. How about the abuse of having the fellowship worship the workers instead of having God direct them! How about the abuse of saying you have a bad spirit if you question a worker about certain actions. I would think that the meeting of 50 or so overseers could bring up lots of abuse cases. Abuse against whom though?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jun 11, 2010 13:42:14 GMT -5
Wonder what abuse the workers would discuss other than sexual abuse? Maybe how to carry through the abuse of throwing a person from the fellowship. How about the abuse of having the fellowship worship the workers instead of having God direct them! How about the abuse of saying you have a bad spirit if you question a worker about certain actions. I would think that the meeting of 50 or so overseers could bring up lots of abuse cases. Abuse against whom though? Is it possible that the great 50 overseer mtg. was more about re-establishing the overseers' powers....did they feel that threatened? Was the mtg. to INFORM them that abuse IS ILLEGAL in all 52 states? Or was it to INFORM them that nothing really has changed except now they're to put the monkey on the elders' backs in case there's legal transactions come up against the overseers for failure to report abuse to the authorites right out of the starting gates?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jun 11, 2010 13:46:50 GMT -5
It seems I remember the bible advising us to obey the laws of the land...that said, ir someone(s) think they are above obeying the laws of the land...it sure seems like to me they are not obeying God and thus are as bad as infidels or worse who don't know God's advise? Phew! Those who hold themselves with singular authority over anything are TOO BIG ON THEMSELVES! Regardless who they are! Me included! Some religious folks will try to trot out the verses in 1 Corinthians and claim that is an excuse that keeps them from obeying the law. 1 Corinthians 6
Lawsuits Among Believers 1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers! 7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?A careful reading of those verses will show that this is referring to trivial civil matters and not serious legal matters. SO.... If you ever have a worker/pastor/minister/preach who absolutely insists that they are going to use this passage, make sure that the use it the way the instructions are given: 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!This is for the regular folks to judge trivial matters that people have against each other, and it is very obvious that the judging is to be done by the regular folks in the churh. Not the ministers or even the elders for that matter. Scott Someone quoted those very verses to me not long ago and all I could say after being speechless for a couple of mins. was that I would say that those verses need to be used for what they specifically speak of or to, NOT issues where a crime has been committed and someone else knows the crime was committed and is afraid to report said crime to the authorities because of the "taking brother tot he law"....jeez!
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jun 13, 2010 18:41:07 GMT -5
So, we have a female friend having a tug of war with an overseer. And poor Barry B. just needs some help!! How interesting. Hope that outside help is invited to Mi. conventions because, it is deeply needed to have sort out all of the problems!! I guess we now know that, God isn't involved in the mire that is knee deep and stinks! Did anyone know the scenario of a female friend that had an overseer, JF, that was a worker, that got deeply imbedded in the Mich. case. She is or will be the wife of a ex-worker from Ky. which is JF's baby. It has been said that he is an ex because of the pressure that he experienced. Did JF apply any pressure I wonder?? And, the new wife , or to be, would not appreciate those incidents. This lady ex worker has been able to bring about the necessary attention to many workers that have abuse under their belt. It has put JF in the hot seat and rightfully deserved. A worker that has any type of deceit in his life, does not need to be a worker. And lying to cover up a misconduct, is not virtues of a worker. Thank goodness many had to step aside from the preaching post because of their own actions. Be interesting to know if that female friend may have some more goods on a certain overseer. Let the games begin!!!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 13, 2010 19:16:18 GMT -5
So, we have a female friend having a tug of war with an overseer. ... Did anyone know the scenario of a female friend that had an overseer, JF, that was a worker, that got deeply imbedded in the Mich. case. ... Be interesting to know if that female friend may have some more goods on a certain overseer. Let the games begin!!! You are barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 13, 2010 19:42:16 GMT -5
So, we have a female friend having a tug of war with an overseer. And poor Barry B. just needs some help!! How interesting. Hope that outside help is invited to Mi. conventions because, it is deeply needed to have sort out all of the problems!! I guess we now know that, God isn't involved in the mire that is knee deep and stinks! Did anyone know the scenario of a female friend that had an overseer, JF, that was a worker, that got deeply imbedded in the Mich. case. She is or will be the wife of a ex-worker from Ky. which is JF's baby. It has been said that he is an ex because of the pressure that he experienced. Did JF apply any pressure I wonder?? And, the new wife , or to be, would not appreciate those incidents. This lady ex worker has been able to bring about the necessary attention to many workers that have abuse under their belt. It has put JF in the hot seat and rightfully deserved. A worker that has any type of deceit in his life, does not need to be a worker. And lying to cover up a misconduct, is not virtues of a worker. Thank goodness many had to step aside from the preaching post because of their own actions. Be interesting to know if that female friend may have some more goods on a certain overseer. Let the games begin!!! JF has a baby? How old is it?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 13, 2010 21:34:15 GMT -5
I agree with Scott. By overtly circumventing the law, by not reporting such crimes as determined by an Overseer committee, could expose the Overseers to a multitude of criminal and civil charges like obstruction of justice, conspiracy, co-conspiracies (with elders and other committee Workers) ... if caught. Ignorance of the law is no defense either. Talk about upending a can-of-worms; such a discovered collusion by the faith's hierarchy would be a disaster for the faith. IT IS ALREADY A DISASTER FOR THE FAITH...Now IF this is to be true where elders are told to call an overseer FIRST, so HE CAN do whatever he's always been doing, then that puts the ELDERS IN THE HOT SEAT WITH THE LAW! They better get that knowledge under their belt first. It also puts the parents of the victims on the line. The focus should not be on the workers but on having the parents of the victims and, if they are at age, the victims reporting abuse to the authorities. While the worker's hiding abuse is wrong, it would have all been a moot point had the parents acted to protect their children.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 13, 2010 22:39:31 GMT -5
So, we have a female friend having a tug of war with an overseer. And poor Barry B. just needs some help!! How interesting. Hope that outside help is invited to Mi. conventions because, it is deeply needed to have sort out all of the problems!! I guess we now know that, God isn't involved in the mire that is knee deep and stinks! Did anyone know the scenario of a female friend that had an overseer, JF, that was a worker, that got deeply imbedded in the Mich. case. She is or will be the wife of a ex-worker from Ky. which is JF's baby. It has been said that he is an ex because of the pressure that he experienced. Did JF apply any pressure I wonder?? And, the new wife , or to be, would not appreciate those incidents. This lady ex worker has been able to bring about the necessary attention to many workers that have abuse under their belt. It has put JF in the hot seat and rightfully deserved. A worker that has any type of deceit in his life, does not need to be a worker. And lying to cover up a misconduct, is not virtues of a worker. Thank goodness many had to step aside from the preaching post because of their own actions. Be interesting to know if that female friend may have some more goods on a certain overseer. Let the games begin!!! JF has a baby? How old is it? <= 1, in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jun 14, 2010 7:34:50 GMT -5
IT IS ALREADY A DISASTER FOR THE FAITH...Now IF this is to be true where elders are told to call an overseer FIRST, so HE CAN do whatever he's always been doing, then that puts the ELDERS IN THE HOT SEAT WITH THE LAW! They better get that knowledge under their belt first. It also puts the parents of the victims on the line. The focus should not be on the workers but on having the parents of the victims and, if they are at age, the victims reporting abuse to the authorities. While the worker's hiding abuse is wrong, it would have all been a moot point had the parents acted to protect their children. Though this seems harsh, it is necessary...in some of these instances I've had to wonder who the parents loved the most...the worker who was abusive OR their children? Though to be fair, it has been known that when a parent did try to do what was right ended up being excommunicated and whispered to be completely of Satan's child. So, one can kind of understand that parents were reluctant to report one of God's apostles to the fleshly authorities and that is simply because of the severe indoctrination most in the fellowship have been indoctrinated with and that is the workers are above reproach and to even THINK they were less was to be committing sins against God. That speaks of behaviour indoctrination that only belongs to something less then desirable! It is plain opression and God hate oppressors as much as He hates liars, according to the bible!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 14, 2010 10:46:13 GMT -5
Hmm. Being referred to as Satan's child must be a fairly common thing. I got called that by a sister worker when I was 11 years old. Shocked the heck out of me. I quit professing soon after.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 14, 2010 11:23:05 GMT -5
Hmm. Being referred to as Satan's child must be a fairly common thing. I got called that by a sister worker when I was 11 years old. Shocked the heck out of me. I quit professing soon after. As balance, this thread was the first I've ever heard of that in my life. Don't know if it can be called a "common thing", I'd say it's uncommon, but no matter the frequency it's an out-of-line thing to say to anyone.
|
|
eh?
Senior Member
Posts: 714
|
Post by eh? on Jun 14, 2010 12:20:09 GMT -5
Oh, yeah, let an Overseer committee determine if a sexual issue should be reported to the authorities! Makes me think of the "foxes protecting the hen house." Why would it take a committee to decide if a crime should be reported? Blanket answer. "YES, crimes MUST be reported. Committee dismissed." Also, unless the overseer is the victim of the crime, why should they have ANY input?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 14, 2010 12:26:52 GMT -5
Also, unless the overseer is the victim of the crime, why should they have ANY input? Because members trust them to advise them on what they should do. Of course the advice that should be given is 'report it to the authorities' In most cases, that would also mean that the overseer would also need to report (in places that they are a mandatory reporter). If they do not, then they have broken the law and can also be charged. This is especially true if they advise others to break the law I would imagine. Scott
|
|
eh?
Senior Member
Posts: 714
|
Post by eh? on Jun 14, 2010 13:11:03 GMT -5
Also, unless the overseer is the victim of the crime, why should they have ANY input? Because members trust them to advise them on what they should do. Abuse is not a religious issue (or should not be) I have to wonder if those same people who ask for advise on criminal issues also ask for advise on investment issues, diet issues, medical issues, etc? It's not about religion, it's about the (criminal) law.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 14, 2010 13:27:47 GMT -5
I totally agree with what you posted. I was simply mentioning that many trust the overseers to advise them of what to do in such a situation. I do not condone reporting abuse issues to the overseer FIRST, although AFTER the issue is reported to the authorities I think that to notify the overseer would be correct if it was dealing with a church member. Scott
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 14, 2010 15:59:42 GMT -5
Hmm. Being referred to as Satan's child must be a fairly common thing. I got called that by a sister worker when I was 11 years old. Shocked the heck out of me. I quit professing soon after. As balance, this thread was the first I've ever heard of that in my life. Don't know if it can be called a "common thing", I'd say it's uncommon, but no matter the frequency it's an out-of-line thing to say to anyone. I was asking questions about the exclusivity issue because it bothered me and other questions. At that point in my life I was quite zealous about understanding my religion so I was asking questions. I was naive at 11 to think they might be unwelcome and not socialized enough to see the warning signs that she was getting rather upset with me I guess. They were likely there, but I didn't think workers got mad. Pretty naive, but I had lived on a farm and pretty isolated from everyone except my parents until we moved into town when I was 11. Boy did I learn fast.... Glad to hear it's not the norm. That really hurt me and actually at that age, it also really scared me because of who said it. I thought it might be true for a very long time.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 14, 2010 17:16:53 GMT -5
Hmm. Being referred to as Satan's child must be a fairly common thing. I got called that by a sister worker when I was 11 years old. Shocked the heck out of me. I quit professing soon after. How cruel, especially coming from a worker. If that would have occurred with a child of mine, at that tender age, for just asking questions, I'd be infuriated. Truth or no Truth. Have heard the phrase 'having the wrong spirit,' but being called 'Satan's child' is an abomination. I suppose you could have asked her if she'd perform an EXORCISM!LOL, I wish I had thought of that now. Was a bit shell shocked at the time though. I rarely am lost for words, but I was then..
|
|