Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 14:42:04 GMT -5
I reckon unrealistic subservience to a spiritually abusive system, no matter how good the sect is, or how well intentioned it may be, can actually make families dysfunctional! Something that may not have been there to start with. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 14:43:59 GMT -5
Snow, these statements do not just affect already dysfunctional families. They can affect normal families too, albeit well indoctrinated ones. The more the parents want to please the workers, the more dangerous it is for a child just expressing it's natural exuberance. I have heard here that there are fewer parents that take their children out of meetings to give a spanking to these days. I hope so because I got some pretty brutal spankings at a very young age and I witnessed other kids getting the same treatment. Kids that were far to young to understand the reason other than their parents were angry and they were bad. You tell a child they are bad enough times and they definitely begin to believe it. This is psychologically scarring. I have had to fight that aspect of myself because I heard it so much. Early conditioning does not go away easily. I believe this is one example of "how to spiritually kill your child." No wonder so many kids when they grow up, do not want to follow in the footsteps of their parents, faith wise. In my view the workers with the assistance of parents have probably spiritually killed off more kids than they have "saved?" |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2013 15:18:32 GMT -5
Possibly
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 28, 2013 15:31:31 GMT -5
Here's an interesting article entitled, "Myths and Misconception about Sex Offenders." I felt it deserved to be entered into this discussion to get a realistic picture of what we are dealing with within society as a whole. oregonsatf.org/about/satf-membership/offender-management-committee/myths-and-misconceptions-about-sex-offenders/ Also, here is another article that came to my attention today that covers the complete spectrum of CSA and sexual assault within America ~ it's not just some isolated cases within some church groups, but the schools and other groups that deal with young children and youth. It's actually starting to resemble something like an epidemic within America due to so many cases coming to the public attention recently which were covered up before. However, the actual numbers convey that its more the horrific nature of CSA within America than the actual numbers of abuse cases. The news media around this elementary school in Los Angeles is just one example of how one person's perverted behavior can affect the reputation of a whole school system due to not being exposed sooner. I'm sure the same premise applies to churches as well where cases are covered-up and go unreported over a period of time until they finally "hit the fan." People in authority finally realized they were dealing with a "hot potato" and quickly tossed it from one person to another to get the spotlight off of the institution where these offenses occurred.
truth-out.org/news/item/7287-codes-of-silence-and-child-abuse-coverups-the-sick-underbelly-of-institutions-in-the-us Thanks Faune, for reminding us that CSA is a crime that deserves focus on its own merits. To lump it in with "spiritual abuse" dilutes it as an issue worthy of special attention. To lump it in with "physical abuse" dilutes it as an issue worthy of special attention. Its a serious crime that afflicts many organisations (not only religious) including the 2x2 church. It would still deserve special attention in the 2x2 church even if there was NO spiritual abuse and NO physical abuse in the church. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 17:57:23 GMT -5
The more the parents want to please the workers, the more dangerous it is for a child just expressing it's natural exuberance. I have heard here that there are fewer parents that take their children out of meetings to give a spanking to these days. I hope so because I got some pretty brutal spankings at a very young age and I witnessed other kids getting the same treatment. Kids that were far to young to understand the reason other than their parents were angry and they were bad. You tell a child they are bad enough times and they definitely begin to believe it. This is psychologically scarring. I have had to fight that aspect of myself because I heard it so much. Early conditioning does not go away easily. I believe this is one example of "how to spiritually kill your child." No wonder so many kids when they grow up, do not want to follow in the footsteps of their parents, faith wise. In my view the workers with the assistance of parents have probably spiritually killed off more kids than they have "saved?" True. Generally, the more "hardliner" friends I know have few if any of their kids in the meetings anymore, in spite of their huge effort to keep them in. The more "softliner" friends have seen a higher frequency of their kids staying in the meetings. It's no coincidence.....there is a cause and effect thing going on. What is fascinating is that the hardliners still have no idea that they drove their kids off....they really do think that their kids are just "unwilling, got offended, stopped praying, chose the world"......and on and on, and don't realize that their own actions is what their kids reacted to. I personally know a few young exes who have opened up to me and the story is much the same in each case......it wasn't the workers directly who were the problem according to them, it was the parents (who were doing what they thought the workers wanted). The workers don't get fingered for the blame. |
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 28, 2013 18:04:22 GMT -5
Snow, these statements do not just affect already dysfunctional families. They can affect normal families too, albeit well indoctrinated ones. The more the parents want to please the workers, the more dangerous it is for a child just expressing it's natural exuberance. I have heard here that there are fewer parents that take their children out of meetings to give a spanking to these days. I hope so because I got some pretty brutal spankings at a very young age and I witnessed other kids getting the same treatment. Kids that were far to young to understand the reason other than their parents were angry and they were bad. You tell a child they are bad enough times and they definitely begin to believe it. This is psychologically scarring. I have had to fight that aspect of myself because I heard it so much. Early conditioning does not go away easily. Snow: If this holds true, anyone that lived at that era is scarred. It was the norm at that time to spank children. I don't think it was isolated to meetings. even in schools a paddling was in store for the wayward. I don't agree with it, but don't feel scarred in anyway. We never did it to our son. What is it that is scarring children today? Crime is a norm, drug use as common as tobacco. jmo |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2013 18:23:14 GMT -5
The more the parents want to please the workers, the more dangerous it is for a child just expressing it's natural exuberance. I have heard here that there are fewer parents that take their children out of meetings to give a spanking to these days. I hope so because I got some pretty brutal spankings at a very young age and I witnessed other kids getting the same treatment. Kids that were far to young to understand the reason other than their parents were angry and they were bad. You tell a child they are bad enough times and they definitely begin to believe it. This is psychologically scarring. I have had to fight that aspect of myself because I heard it so much. Early conditioning does not go away easily. Snow: If this holds true, anyone that lived at that era is scarred. It was the norm at that time to spank children. I don't think it was isolated to meetings. even in schools a paddling was in store for the wayward. I don't agree with it, but don't feel scarred in anyway. We never did it to our son. What is it that is scarring children today? Crime is a norm, drug use as common as tobacco. jmo Good points linford. I was more referring to the scars being emotional from being told we were bad. It the spankings were too out of control then, yes, they did leave an impression on a child. I definitely knew I was not a 'good' child and that I caused my parents a lot of grief. How do I know? I was told so, many many times. I got some pretty bad spankings and sometimes was taken out of meeting several times. I tried to sit still and be quiet but I was an active child and found it very hard. Was petrified of the spankings though. I remember that pretty clearly. Whenever I see a child being taken out of a restaurant screaming at the top of their lungs No Daddy No Daddy, it takes me right back and I feel sick. My heart goes out to that child because I remember being just that terrified! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 2:29:39 GMT -5
I believe this is one example of "how to spiritually kill your child." No wonder so many kids when they grow up, do not want to follow in the footsteps of their parents, faith wise. In my view the workers with the assistance of parents have probably spiritually killed off more kids than they have "saved?" True. Generally, the more "hardliner" friends I know have few if any of their kids in the meetings anymore, in spite of their huge effort to keep them in. The more "softliner" friends have seen a higher frequency of their kids staying in the meetings. It's no coincidence.....there is a cause and effect thing going on. What is fascinating is that the hardliners still have no idea that they drove their kids off....they really do think that their kids are just "unwilling, got offended, stopped praying, chose the world"......and on and on, and don't realize that their own actions is what their kids reacted to. I personally know a few young exes who have opened up to me and the story is much the same in each case......it wasn't the workers directly who were the problem according to them, it was the parents (who were doing what they thought the workers wanted). The workers don't get fingered for the blame. This is very largely true. However, the workers most definitely encourage(d) the hard liners and regard them as examples for the all the others. It is all about pleasing thw workers and getting their kids to profess which drives many of the hardliners to unwise levels of influence. And of course, when you get several of such families in an area, they copy cat one another with the "perfect example!" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 2:34:06 GMT -5
Snow: If this holds true, anyone that lived at that era is scarred. It was the norm at that time to spank children. I don't think it was isolated to meetings. even in schools a paddling was in store for the wayward. I don't agree with it, but don't feel scarred in anyway. We never did it to our son. What is it that is scarring children today? Crime is a norm, drug use as common as tobacco. jmo Good points linford. I was more referring to the scars being emotional from being told we were bad. It the spankings were too out of control then, yes, they did leave an impression on a child. I definitely knew I was not a 'good' child and that I caused my parents a lot of grief. How do I know? I was told so, many many times. I got some pretty bad spankings and sometimes was taken out of meeting several times. I tried to sit still and be quiet but I was an active child and found it very hard. Was petrified of the spankings though. I remember that pretty clearly. Whenever I see a child being taken out of a restaurant screaming at the top of their lungs No Daddy No Daddy, it takes me right back and I feel sick. My heart goes out to that child because I remember being just that terrified! Yes Linford, corporal punishment was the norm and "expected" in society. I think the additional constant negativity in professing homes is/was a huge detrimental factor. Back then in society, in many normal homes, corporal punishment was often accompanied by many positives as incentives or encouragement to be good. A lot of these things were denied professing children. E.g. "If you're good we will take you to the pictures (movies) on Friday,etc."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 2:55:57 GMT -5
Here's an interesting article entitled, "Myths and Misconception about Sex Offenders." I felt it deserved to be entered into this discussion to get a realistic picture of what we are dealing with within society as a whole. oregonsatf.org/about/satf-membership/offender-management-committee/myths-and-misconceptions-about-sex-offenders/ Also, here is another article that came to my attention today that covers the complete spectrum of CSA and sexual assault within America ~ it's not just some isolated cases within some church groups, but the schools and other groups that deal with young children and youth. It's actually starting to resemble something like an epidemic within America due to so many cases coming to the public attention recently which were covered up before. However, the actual numbers convey that its more the horrific nature of CSA within America than the actual numbers of abuse cases. The news media around this elementary school in Los Angeles is just one example of how one person's perverted behavior can affect the reputation of a whole school system due to not being exposed sooner. I'm sure the same premise applies to churches as well where cases are covered-up and go unreported over a period of time until they finally "hit the fan." People in authority finally realized they were dealing with a "hot potato" and quickly tossed it from one person to another to get the spotlight off of the institution where these offenses occurred.
truth-out.org/news/item/7287-codes-of-silence-and-child-abuse-coverups-the-sick-underbelly-of-institutions-in-the-us [font color="e62719" [/font] [/quote]Thanks Faune, for reminding us that CSA is a crime that deserves focus on its own merits. This is astounding good advice! Yet virtually every organisation dealing with CSA approaches all forms of child abuse in a collective manner. Of course there are merits in focusing on CSA with regards to the workers since it is being revealed that it is a prevalent form amongst them (the males), but not to the exclusion of the other forms of child abuse.
To lump it in with "spiritual abuse" dilutes it as an issue worthy of special attention. Yet every organisation that deal with child abuse strongly advises that abuse forms overlap and to watch out for them. The presence of other forms of abuse "aggravates" the abuse, not minimalise it. It would be hard for me to accept that CSA within the worker group was not directly or indirectly accompanied by spiritual abuse in any instance. "Lumping in" CSA with spiritual abuse or indeed an awareness of other abuse forms, presents the reality of the abuse world. This is where the special attention lies, not in picking and choosing our abuse forms to satisfy our incomplete abuse agenda.
Its a serious crime that afflicts many organisations (not only religious) including the 2x2 church. This is correct with child abuse which includes CSA. We need to recognise the overall problem of which CSA is definitely a big player. Follow the ways of better informed organisations in dealing with these matters. The days of cut and pasting our chosen abuse are past. Others have learned from this.It would still deserve special attention in the 2x2 church even if there was NO spiritual abuse and NO physical abuse in the church. All forms of abuse deserve special attention, especially all forms of child abuse. Yes CSA deserves special attention with regards to the workers, but remember that wherever the workers are legally mandated reporters, they themselves do not have the liberty of selecting CSA to give special attention to. Legally speaking they are required to report "all" forms of child abuse. This makes them sort of unwitting spies in the homes of the friends. If your focus is on the workers and designing proper measures for them, then you must factor in their legally mandated responsibilities and provide satisfactory guidance overall, not just for CSA. To do otherwise would be a gross failure. In those countries or states where the workers are legally mandated reporters they are inextricably linked to all forms of child abuse, not just CSA, through their legal responsibilities. There's no point in providing guidance for just CSA and leaving the rest undone. Does any other group or organisation do this? This is a case of "our way" being "the highway!"
The workers need protection too. They need proper guidance, even from a moral, civic duty, or spiritual standpoint. I can well understand feelings over a perceived need to limit approaches to CSA only, but that is only going to severely restrict advice and measures. In society, child abuse is now coming more and more under the banner of "domestic abuse," quite simply because the child abuse is often part of a greater abuse problem in the household and the overall picture has to be addressed in a proper manner.
Keep very much in mind that the workers are supposed to be following the Matt.10 principle of going from house to with their message. This "should" bring them into contact with many unbelieving families where they may be exposed to situations which suggest child physical abuse or neglect, far more readily than CSA. In many states and some countries the workers have a legal duty to report their suspicions. It is only right and fair to make workers aware of the fullness of their legal obligations, not just a part measure. They would have every right to discard something that only applied in part and left them otherwise exposed.
By focusing on CSA only, you are identifying the workers as the problem. By focusing on ALL forms of child abuse you are making the workers part of the solution. Which is the wiser approach? Which is less threatening to the workers? Do we need their co-operation?
[/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 29, 2013 5:17:07 GMT -5
By focusing on CSA only, you are identifying the workers as the problem. By focusing on ALL forms of child abuse you are making the workers part of the solution. Which is the wiser approach? Which is less threatening to the workers? Do we need their co-operation? Many of the CSA perpetrators in the fellowship are not workers. Workers position themselves as leaders in the church yet their efforts to CSA-educate themselves and the congregation are woefully inadequate to date. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 5:50:43 GMT -5
By focusing on CSA only, you are identifying the workers as the problem. By focusing on ALL forms of child abuse you are making the workers part of the solution. Which is the wiser approach? Which is less threatening to the workers? Do we need their co-operation? Many of the CSA perpetrators in the fellowship are not workers. Workers position themselves as leaders in the church yet their efforts to CSA-educate themselves and the congregation are woefully inadequate to date. True on both accounts. But in the main it is the workers who are the focus of CSA perpetration. If workers position themselves as leaders of the church then they have not only a legal responsibility (where it applies), but also a moral, civic and spiritual responsibility to be on the alert for all forms of abuse, including all forms of child abuse, wherever it occurs. |
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 29, 2013 7:29:42 GMT -5
All of this discussion is for the most part true, but it's like remodeling the kitchen of a house from across the street. In order to be effective you have to be in the house.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 7:44:29 GMT -5
Many of the CSA perpetrators in the fellowship are not workers. Workers position themselves as leaders in the church yet their efforts to CSA-educate themselves and the congregation are woefully inadequate to date. True on both accounts. But in the main it is the workers who are the focus of CSA perpetration. If workers position themselves as leaders of the church then they have not only a legal responsibility (where it applies), but also a moral, civic and spiritual responsibility to be on the alert for all forms of abuse, including all forms of child abuse, wherever it occurs. Workers only appear to be the focus from your vantage point. However, it isn't true. There are three reasons that may cause the illusion of their focus. One, their names are used more publicly because they are considered public figures and less likely to be able to claim libel. Secondly, they have far more potential influence to fix the problems, hence more focus on them to take action of any kind. Third, this site has a few participants who experience a degree of schadenfreude when a worker commits a crime or any other error. Severe abuse of any kind will get the focus as victims come forward no matter who is the perpetrator. Rational keeps harping on all the broken ribs and smashed faces which make up a big part of the 90% of the abuse but no one is coming forward.....or they just don't exist to any extent. The latter is more likely to be true. Crime in almost all categories has dropped precipitously in advanced countries over the last 20 years. CSA has not seen the same drop in reports. It will continue to garner attention in society until society indicates that the problem is getting under control. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 29, 2013 7:47:46 GMT -5
All of this discussion is for the most part true, but it's like remodeling the kitchen of a house from across the street. In order to be effective you have to be in the house. Yup. One does not need to be a member of the house, just allowed in. |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 29, 2013 8:39:47 GMT -5
No, I didn't call it minor. I said that in looking at all forms of abuse, sexual abuse was a minor part.It is relevant because out of every 100 cases of abuse, on average, only 10 of them will be sexual abuse, a minor part of the total abuse.It has no effect on CSA at all because it is looking at the number of cases of sexual abuse there are compared to the total number of abuse cases.Again, it is not a comment on CSA other than stating that out of the total number of abuse cases reporter the number of sexual abuse cases is a minor part. Perhaps a little story will help. There are 1,000 people standing in the town square. 900 of them are women and 100 are men. Men are the minor part of the crowd. And then something about...the reason it is focused on is because it involves sex, and sex sells?Exactly but the focus is only on sexual abuse. Some posting claim other types of abuse are negligible within the F&W organization. That is a dangerous situation. I'll throw my hat into that arena as well. Since I'm on the inside and am very aware of what goes on within our fellowship, I can say with confidence that the other types of abuse that you refer to are minimal.
So sorry my typo caused you such confusion. Here is a corrected version: Sexual abuse and physical abuse are both types of abuse. This should not be news to anyone. There are definition of abuse as well as the different types of abuse. I did not create the definitions. But I am using them because they are the commonly used definitions. If you want to apply a new definition please let readers know so everyone is on the same page.
I hope I have cleared up that single letter error. I can see it must have caused you a lot of puzzlement.I look forward to it.Given the difficulty that the single letter typo caused I can see how you would would arrive at that conclusion. Its sounding like you took my confusion personal. I apologize if it came across that way. Its quite funny to me actually. I really was confused thinking that you knew of a word that didn't appear in our dictionary. I was waiting for CD to pipe in and tell me what "noth" abuse meant  . There was no correlation or comparison. Sexual abuse and being struck with an object are both defined as types of abuse. Abuse is abuse. And crime is crime, but we don't lump it all together. For example, we don't lump petty theft in with murder. I didn't write the definition. You may think hitting a child with a belt is OK. nope Even a positive experience. I said for me there were only positive outcomes with no negative lasting affects. I don't.See - child abuse does not always lead to long term problems.You were abused and looking back you do not see it as negative. Which is why we cannot lump it all together as for some reason you seem to want to do. Not all people who have been sexually abused suffer long term problems either. Can you support your statement that someone who has been sexually abused had no lasting damage from the experience? I don't know what positive outcome you feel your abuse resulted in but the important thing is that it did not result in long term damage. As Popeye said..."I am what I am". Pretty balanced. Especially for a 2X2  . There is a wide spectrum of abuse yet the narrow focus is on sexual abuse. Object reality is ignored. Can you support the statement that "the narrow focus is on sexual abuse?". Why is "object reality ignored?"
It really doesn't matter how you say it. There is much less attention given to non-sexual abuse. And because of the lack of attention given to non-sexual abuse it is minimized. So you blame this on the fact that we are narrowly focused on "sexual" abuse...due to "sex sells and gets all the attention?".
|
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 29, 2013 10:17:05 GMT -5
All of this discussion is for the most part true, but it's like remodeling the kitchen of a house from across the street. In order to be effective you have to be in the house. Since we are discussing remodeling a belief system, we are not re-modeling a private home. We are re-modeling a public building. As such, sure - the employees and current customers who're still in the public building have good opinions as to the changes. However, since parts of the public building has collapsed on the heads of past customers, the re-modeling should also include safety lessons that we've learned from the past harm. It's not just about those who are still stepping around the wreckage. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 10:47:46 GMT -5
True on both accounts. But in the main it is the workers who are the focus of CSA perpetration. If workers position themselves as leaders of the church then they have not only a legal responsibility (where it applies), but also a moral, civic and spiritual responsibility to be on the alert for all forms of abuse, including all forms of child abuse, wherever it occurs. Workers only appear to be the focus from your vantage point. However, it isn't true. There are three reasons that may cause the illusion of their focus. One, their names are used more publicly because they are considered public figures and less likely to be able to claim libel. Secondly, they have far more potential influence to fix the problems, hence more focus on them to take action of any kind. Third, this site has a few participants who experience a degree of schadenfreude when a worker commits a crime or any other error. Severe abuse of any kind will get the focus as victims come forward no matter who is the perpetrator. Rational keeps harping on all the broken ribs and smashed faces which make up a big part of the 90% of the abuse but no one is coming forward.....or they just don't exist to any extent. The latter is more likely to be true. Crime in almost all categories has dropped precipitously in advanced countries over the last 20 years. CSA has not seen the same drop in reports. It will continue to garner attention in society until society indicates that the problem is getting under control. I would suggest that workers appear to be the focus for CSA is simply because that is the image conveyed by TMB and other such sites. This is not a perception of the individual but one which these sites generate. I appreciate that behind the scenes things are somewhat different. "Recorded" crime has certainly dropped but it is questionable that actual crime has dropped in any significant way. CSA and other forms of abuse (domestic) are showing an increase because there is more focus of having these matters reported. Also I think using extremes of abuse such as broken ribs and smashed faces skews things a great deal. I think physical abuse within the friendship, not the workers, is very much an unknown factor. There are testimonies to the effect that it does indeed happen, but so far it is a hidden element. It may be much less than society as a whole, but I suspect it will mirror other like denominations and sects. I don't want to read into something which may not be there to any great extent, but likewise I prefer to exercise caution. Twenty years ago I would have been incensed at anyone suggesting that CSA could occur within the F&W's sect. Five years ago things were starting to emerge more publicly and now we are seeing something that at least mirrors other sects and denominations, at least as far as brother workers are concerned. Who knows what may be revealed in the future with regards other forms of abuse within the sect. I do agree though that I think neglect would be minimal, but who really knows? |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 29, 2013 11:08:02 GMT -5
Workers only appear to be the focus from your vantage point. However, it isn't true. There are three reasons that may cause the illusion of their focus. One, their names are used more publicly because they are considered public figures and less likely to be able to claim libel. Secondly, they have far more potential influence to fix the problems, hence more focus on them to take action of any kind. Third, this site has a few participants who experience a degree of schadenfreude when a worker commits a crime or any other error. Severe abuse of any kind will get the focus as victims come forward no matter who is the perpetrator. Rational keeps harping on all the broken ribs and smashed faces which make up a big part of the 90% of the abuse but no one is coming forward.....or they just don't exist to any extent. The latter is more likely to be true. Crime in almost all categories has dropped precipitously in advanced countries over the last 20 years. CSA has not seen the same drop in reports. It will continue to garner attention in society until society indicates that the problem is getting under control. I would suggest that workers appear to be the focus for CSA is simply because that is the image conveyed by TMB and other such sites. This is not a perception of the individual but one which these sites generate. I appreciate that behind the scenes things are somewhat different. "Recorded" crime has certainly dropped but it is questionable that actual crime has dropped in any significant way. CSA and other forms of abuse (domestic) are showing an increase because there is more focus of having these matters reported. Also I think using extremes of abuse such as broken ribs and smashed faces skews things a great deal. I think physical abuse within the friendship, not the workers, is very much an unknown factor. There are testimonies to the effect that it does indeed happen, but so far it is a hidden element. It may be much less than society as a whole, but I suspect it will mirror other like denominations and sects. I don't want to read into something which may not be there to any great extent, but likewise I prefer to exercise caution. Twenty years ago I would have been incensed at anyone suggesting that CSA could occur within the F&W's sect. Five years ago things were starting to emerge more publicly and now we are seeing something that at least mirrors other sects and denominations, at least as far as brother workers are concerned. Who knows what may be revealed in the future with regards other forms of abuse within the sect. I do agree though that I think neglect would be minimal, but who really knows? One of the most difficult hurdles will be in defining "abuse". I am not aware of anyone professing today that uses a belt, paddle, wooden spoon, or anything else that would leave a lasting mark. I'm sure that there are no broken bones as explained by Rational. We would surely wonder, and at the least hear an explanation of how the child fell on his/her bicycle. Then there is the psychological abuse/spiritual abuse that you keep mentioning over and over. Do you think that awareness needs to be made of this? Do you think that action needs to be taken on it? Do you believe it's a legal issue? How do you define "spiritual abuse"? Perhaps you can clarify your thoughts on this. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2013 11:16:29 GMT -5
Many of the CSA perpetrators in the fellowship are not workers. In fact, they are likely in the minority. (Now before anyone goes crazy - this is not to say that the crimes of the workers are minor only that out of the total number of cases of CSA within the F&W the workers are likely only responsible for the minority of the cases.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 11:19:58 GMT -5
Workers only appear to be the focus from your vantage point. However, it isn't true. There are three reasons that may cause the illusion of their focus. One, their names are used more publicly because they are considered public figures and less likely to be able to claim libel. Secondly, they have far more potential influence to fix the problems, hence more focus on them to take action of any kind. Third, this site has a few participants who experience a degree of schadenfreude when a worker commits a crime or any other error. Severe abuse of any kind will get the focus as victims come forward no matter who is the perpetrator. Rational keeps harping on all the broken ribs and smashed faces which make up a big part of the 90% of the abuse but no one is coming forward.....or they just don't exist to any extent. The latter is more likely to be true. Crime in almost all categories has dropped precipitously in advanced countries over the last 20 years. CSA has not seen the same drop in reports. It will continue to garner attention in society until society indicates that the problem is getting under control. I would suggest that workers appear to be the focus for CSA is simply because that is the image conveyed by TMB and other such sites. This is not a perception of the individual but one which these sites generate. I appreciate that behind the scenes things are somewhat different. Of course, to argue against myself, the workers are definitely a focal point of the fellowship so it is consistent they they would be a focal point for bad behaviour. www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/07/economist-explains-16While most crimes have dropped precipitously, CSA remains statistically high. It is possible though that we have entered a new era over the last 20 years of reporting these crimes. The whole concept of mandated reporting is relatively new and will have been the impetus for a completely new wave of reporting, but not necessarily due to an increase in the real crime rate. Caution is good, but when there are very few reports of physical abuse and a significant number of reports of CSA, the only logical explanation is that physical abuse is not only small, but far lower than the general population. There are a huge number of exes out there today who would have no inhibition about speaking out about physical abuse if they had experienced it and felt is was a widespread problem among F&Ws. It think it is quite fair to have confidence that few reports = few incidents. We all have our personal experiences and observations. CSA among F&Ws has been known to me for 40 years, nor did I believe that it was minimal. Physical abuse 40-50 was not uncommon but other than corporal punishment, it was probably well under the average. Corporal punishment would have been well over the average. As far as neglect goes, I suppose I have just known too many young kids brought up in professing homes without any sign of neglect. As I have stated before, any abuse would have been the opposite: too much micromanaging and control of kids' lives. The typical abuse that is high among F&Ws has been from parents who withdrew affection towards children who didn't profess. I have seen tons of that over the years. That was a big problem then, and still a big problem, but lessening. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 11:46:12 GMT -5
I would suggest that workers appear to be the focus for CSA is simply because that is the image conveyed by TMB and other such sites. This is not a perception of the individual but one which these sites generate. I appreciate that behind the scenes things are somewhat different. "Recorded" crime has certainly dropped but it is questionable that actual crime has dropped in any significant way. CSA and other forms of abuse (domestic) are showing an increase because there is more focus of having these matters reported. Also I think using extremes of abuse such as broken ribs and smashed faces skews things a great deal. I think physical abuse within the friendship, not the workers, is very much an unknown factor. There are testimonies to the effect that it does indeed happen, but so far it is a hidden element. It may be much less than society as a whole, but I suspect it will mirror other like denominations and sects. I don't want to read into something which may not be there to any great extent, but likewise I prefer to exercise caution. Twenty years ago I would have been incensed at anyone suggesting that CSA could occur within the F&W's sect. Five years ago things were starting to emerge more publicly and now we are seeing something that at least mirrors other sects and denominations, at least as far as brother workers are concerned. Who knows what may be revealed in the future with regards other forms of abuse within the sect. I do agree though that I think neglect would be minimal, but who really knows? One of the most difficult hurdles will be in defining "abuse". I agree! Even today in the UK a parent is allowed to exercise physical chastisement of a child as long as no physical harm is caused. It is not outlawed. Often physical abuse is determined by the presence of injuries, or actions likely to result in physical injuries, etc., at least from the angle of making a legal case of it. It can be very much a case by case consideration.I am not aware of anyone professing today that uses a belt, paddle, wooden spoon, or anything else that would leave a lasting mark. I'm sure that there are no broken bones as explained by Rational. We would surely wonder, and at the least hear an explanation of how the child fell on his/her bicycle. I don't know about nowadays, but there are testimonies out there about unacceptable levels of physical abuse on children. One thing to keep very much in mind is that often what happens behind closed doors, stays behind closed doors, especially with cases of domestic and child abuse. Thankfully nowadays things are more likely to be exposed, but that is far from being a guarantee. I am guarded about the possible levels of other forms of abuse within the fellowship, simply because I know these things can be well hidden, but also because I was proved seriously wrong about levels of CSA amongst male workers. My original feelings based upon my experiences of being connected with the sect for many years suggested to myself that such incidents were very rare! I keep an open mind until I am satisfied one way or the other.
Then there is the psychological abuse/spiritual abuse that you keep mentioning over and over. Do you think that awareness needs to be made of this? Do you think that action needs to be taken on it? Do you believe it's a legal issue? How do you define "spiritual abuse"? Perhaps you can clarify your thoughts on this. I have provided several links which explain spiritual abuse far better than I can. There are numerous websites and some very informative books. Spiritual abuse can and does, according to some researchers, lead to legal issues such as CSA, physical and emotional abuse. However, let me say this. I believe that virtually everyone connected with the F&W's sect is, or has been a victim of, as well as a perpetrator of, spiritual abuse to some degree. It can be found in the culture and mindset. It is also very much a copy cat behaviour.
The way to approach this in my view is through raising awareness across the board in order to reduce/eradicate it. It is a very unhealthy aspect in a group which has much to commend it. Education is very much key with this one. I do not blame Dale Schultz for his infamous "spiritual abuse" letter. The letter proves he is both a victim and perpetrator of spiritual abuse. Everyone needs to be made aware of it.
Spiritual abuse is not something unique to the F&W's sect. It is something which can be found in most denominations and sects. In fact the authors of the many articles and books written about the subject most likely have never heard of the F&W's sect, let alone had them in mind when compiling their works. However, when you start to read these works you hardly get to the second paragraph before you identify the writings with the F&W's sect, and with some of them you could be forgiven for thinking that they were written specifically for the F&W's sect.
I would suggest displaying these articles and advertising one or two of the books for people to read. People should be made aware of the dangers and unhealthiness of spiritual abuse.
Understanding spiritual abuse would very quickly remove the gulf or barriers which exists between many innies and exes. There are some on this board who regard the likes of Dennis Jacobsen and Edgar Massey as extreme with their views against the sect they once were an integral part of. A huge gulf exists. Now I personally see these two characters as very much still suffering from the spiritual abuse that they suffered and still suffer. If I am right and if their opponents could see this, surely they would be prone to extending empathy and understanding rather than condemnation? Rather than turning the screw with these mens' injuries, they would be keen to offer balm?
Reading up on spiritual abuse can raise awareness and create understanding for those who have been affected by it. It can make a tremendous difference to relationships as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 12:03:16 GMT -5
CD wrote:
Caution is good, but when there are very few reports of physical abuse and a significant number of reports of CSA, the only logical explanation is that physical abuse is not only small, but far lower than the general population. There are a huge number of exes out there today who would have no inhibition about speaking out about physical abuse if they had experienced it and felt is was a widespread problem among F&Ws. It think it is quite fair to have confidence that few reports = few incidents.
I do not share your confidence with your analysis. I can assure you that often the levels of crimes or abuses are not known and sometimes appear insignificant until someone makes specific enquiries into the subject. In my area, and I can speak for most of the UK as well, we did not have a significant illegal drugs problem until special units were formed to enquire into it. Very suddenly our knowledge about the extent of the issue was at least tenfold. The same occurred with domestic abuse, wildlife crime, etc. Once a dept is created to look into a particular crime, the level of the crime increases greatly, not so much through actual occurrence, but through intelligence and knowledge. Giving crimes a high public profile also leads to far greater reporting and recording, not necessarily a genuine increase in the crime itself.
The actual incidence of child physical abuse etc within the lay fellowship has not been explored. It is an unknown quantity. I do suspect levels will be less than the general public, but nevertheless suspect they will be at levels which justify concern. There are testimonies out there which suggest this to be the case. However, I do hope that you are right, i.e, few incidents!
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2013 12:18:25 GMT -5
One of the most difficult hurdles will be in defining "abuse". Really? Here are some definitions: US state:
Department of Children and Families Regulations (110 CMR, section 2.00):
Abuse: the non-accidental commission of any act by a caretaker upon a child under age 18 which causes, or creates a substantial risk of, physical or emotional injury; or constitutes a sexual offense under the laws of the Commonwealth; or any sexual contact between a caretaker and a child under the care of that individual. This definition is not dependent upon location.The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g), as amended by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:
Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.And, surprisingly, the various types of abuse are also defined. Well, that's a relief! I wonder what some of the children in homes will write about their home life in 20 years. You are sure? None at all. Wow!Yeah. That spiral fracture of the humerous from that bicycle fall is just a freak accident. "S/he is so clumsy. If you ask him/her about the broken bone/black eye, bruised leg they are so embarrassed they just stare at the ground and say nothing." Nah. There is no physical evidence of it. Probably something people have dreamed up.I see no reason to - unless people are being harmed. But my feeling is that you would know about it if it were happening. So...Child abuse? Emotional/psychological? Probably not. It will toughen the children up so they can function in the real world. That coupled with a slap or two and an occasional beating with a belt is a very positive experience.Rather than define it perhaps an example would help. Telling a young child that they will burn in hell forever for sins they cannot understand and did not commit, unless they follow some set of poorly defined rules, I view as child abuse. And if you tie it to your religious beliefs I think it meets the requirement for "spiritual" abuse. Remember, if a physical punishment/correction causes a subdural hematoma (black and blue) it was inflicted with enough force to be considered abuse. Soft tissue swelling or skin bruising is also within the definition. With all due consideration - You do not know that children in any of the F&W families are not being abused physically. You don't know how many bones have been broken in anger. You do not know, for example, how many children have been locked in closets as punishment. How many children have been told over and over they are worthless. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2013 12:33:18 GMT -5
Rational keeps harping on all the broken ribs and smashed faces which make up a big part of the 90% of the abuse but no one is coming forward.....or they just don't exist to any extent. The latter is more likely to be true. I have never said that broken bones or smashed faces make up a big part of the 90% of non-sexual abuse. Neglect is by far the largest part and the broken bones and smashed faces occur at a much lower frequency. But it is a disservice to victims to say that physical abuse does not cause long term problems just as sexual abuse does. The report in the NY Times does not support your conclusion: Overall cases of child sexual abuse fell more than 60 percent from 1992 to 2010, according to David Finkelhor, a leading expert on sexual abuse who, with a colleague, Lisa Jones, has tracked the trend. The evidence for this decline comes from a variety of indicators, including national surveys of child abuse and crime victimization, crime statistics compiled by the F.B.I., analyses of data from the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect and annual surveys of grade school students in Minnesota, all pointing in the same direction. Researchers See Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Rate |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 29, 2013 13:06:18 GMT -5
CD wrote: Caution is good, but when there are very few reports of physical abuse and a significant number of reports of CSA, the only logical explanation is that physical abuse is not only small, but far lower than the general population. There are a huge number of exes out there today who would have no inhibition about speaking out about physical abuse if they had experienced it and felt is was a widespread problem among F&Ws. It think it is quite fair to have confidence that few reports = few incidents.
I do not share your confidence with your analysis. I can assure you that often the levels of crimes or abuses are not known and sometimes appear insignificant until someone makes specific enquiries into the subject. In my area, and I can speak for most of the UK as well, we did not have a significant illegal drugs problem until special units were formed to enquire into it. Very suddenly our knowledge about the extent of the issue was at least tenfold. The same occurred with domestic abuse, wildlife crime, etc. Once a dept is created to look into a particular crime, the level of the crime increases greatly, not so much through actual occurrence, but through intelligence and knowledge. Giving crimes a high public profile also leads to far greater reporting and recording, not necessarily a genuine increase in the crime itself.
The actual incidence of child physical abuse etc within the lay fellowship has not been explored. It is an unknown quantity. I do suspect levels will be less than the general public, but nevertheless suspect they will be at levels which justify concern. There are testimonies out there which suggest this to be the case. However, I do hope that you are right, i.e, few incidents!
No one knew that our elder's wife was physically abused -- her husband always managed to kick her above her hemline!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 13:14:05 GMT -5
CD wrote: Caution is good, but when there are very few reports of physical abuse and a significant number of reports of CSA, the only logical explanation is that physical abuse is not only small, but far lower than the general population. There are a huge number of exes out there today who would have no inhibition about speaking out about physical abuse if they had experienced it and felt is was a widespread problem among F&Ws. It think it is quite fair to have confidence that few reports = few incidents.
I do not share your confidence with your analysis. I can assure you that often the levels of crimes or abuses are not known and sometimes appear insignificant until someone makes specific enquiries into the subject. In my area, and I can speak for most of the UK as well, we did not have a significant illegal drugs problem until special units were formed to enquire into it. Very suddenly our knowledge about the extent of the issue was at least tenfold. The same occurred with domestic abuse, wildlife crime, etc. Once a dept is created to look into a particular crime, the level of the crime increases greatly, not so much through actual occurrence, but through intelligence and knowledge. Giving crimes a high public profile also leads to far greater reporting and recording, not necessarily a genuine increase in the crime itself.
The actual incidence of child physical abuse etc within the lay fellowship has not been explored. It is an unknown quantity. I do suspect levels will be less than the general public, but nevertheless suspect they will be at levels which justify concern. There are testimonies out there which suggest this to be the case. However, I do hope that you are right, i.e, few incidents!
No one knew that our elder's wife was physically abused -- her husband always managed to kick her above her hemline!!! Perhaps he was simply breaking her will? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2013 13:31:17 GMT -5
Rational - No, I didn't call it minor. I said that in looking at all forms of abuse, sexual abuse was a minor part.It is relevant because out of every 100 cases of abuse, on average, only 10 of them will be sexual abuse, a minor part of the total abuse.It has no effect on CSA at all because it is looking at the number of cases of sexual abuse there are compared to the total number of abuse cases.Again, it is not a comment on CSA other than stating that out of the total number of abuse cases reporter the number of sexual abuse cases is a minor part. Perhaps a little story will help. There are 1,000 people standing in the town square. 900 of them are women and 100 are men. Men are the minor part of the crowd.And then something about...the reason it is focused on is because it involves sex, and sex sells? I think you have it. A crowd of 1,000 in Times Square does not make the evening news. 1,000 nude people in Times Square does make the evening news. 1,000 people having sex in Times Square is good for a couple of news cycles. The same group wearing tan trench coats - maybe a paragraph on page 10 below the fold. rational - There was no correlation or comparison. Sexual abuse and being struck with an object are both defined as types of abuse. Abuse is abuse. And crime is crime, but we don't lump it all together. For example, we don't lump petty theft in with murder. Nope. But petty theft is generally not a felony and murder is. Child abuse of any type is the same category of crime. Can you really say one type of abuse is worse than another? It would be trivial to come up with examples to counter any claim. rational - Not all people who have been sexually abused suffer long term problems either.Can you support your statement that someone who has been sexually abused had no lasting damage from the experience? This is a tough statistic to determine. There is a big difference among people who have been abused by a stranger, a close family member, or by a minor who is just a few years older. There is also a great difference between sexual abuse that might consist of exhibitionism, frottage, or other types of non-penetrative sex and rape, for example. A statement put out by the Darkness to Light Organization states: The consequences of child sexual abuse often follow victims into adulthood. Most people have no idea that the effects of child sexual abuse are so pervasive in adult life. Although survivors of child sexual abuse are negatively impacted as a whole, it is important to realize that many individual survivors do not suffer these consequences. Child sexual abuse does not necessarily sentence a victim to an impaired life.From the American Psychological Association: The impact of sexual abuse can range from no apparent effects to very severe ones. Typically, children who experience the most serious types of abuse—abuse involving family members and high degrees of physical force—exhibit behavior problems ranging from separation anxiety to posttraumatic stress disorder. However, children who are the victims of sexual abuse are also often exposed to a variety of other stressors and difficult circumstances in their lives, including parental substance abuse. The sexual abuse and its aftermath may be only part of the child's negative experiences and subsequent behaviors. Therefore, correctly diagnosing abuse is often complex. Conclusive physical evidence of sexual abuse is relatively rare in suspected cases. For all of these reasons, when abuse is suspected, an appropriately trained health professional should be consulted.Because of the strong emotional/psychological component, determining the cause of the long term effect is problematic. In all cases treatment and support from family and friends results in the best outcome. rational - There is a wide spectrum of abuse yet the narrow focus is on sexual abuse. Object reality is ignored.Can you support the statement that "the narrow focus is on sexual abuse?". Why is "object reality ignored?" Look back 6 months ago and see how much of the discussion was focused on any thpe of abuse other than sexual abuse. Even though many accounts of the abuse were committed by family members or close trusted friends/workers the focus was on the sexual abuse while the emotional and psychological component of the incident was ignored. Why? I am sure you have your own conclusions why the emotional abuse suffered by a child who was raped by her father was ignored. "rational - It really doesn't matter how you say it. There is much less attention given to non-sexual abuse. And because of the lack of attention given to non-sexual abuse it is minimized." So you blame this on the fact that we are narrowly focused on "sexual" abuse...due to "sex sells and gets all the attention?". Actually, I am not placing blame. Only offering a possible explanation. It is very possible that you do not think that sex sells. You may not believe that an article about some event that has a sexual tone will attract more readers than one without a sexual tone. You may think that Fifty Shades of Grey sold 70+ million copies because it was well written literature.
|
|
.
. 
