|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 24, 2014 9:31:21 GMT -5
I only recall one sin that is unforgivable. I think the message Jesus was getting across was make every effort not to offend. And "little ones" often refers to Jesus' followers. And, tell me. Do you really understand that one unforgivable sin? Enough to explain it to the rest of us? I've wondered the same thing esp. in the light of how Jesus comes down on those who "offend these little ones".....Jesus has passed judgment on such folks and sentenced them hasn't he? He says that it would be better should a stone be tied around the offender's neck and they were tossed into the sea. Doesn't seem like to me that Jesus was allowing any of them more time to go to convs. and borrowing trouble of repeating offense to any of these "little ones."
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 24, 2014 9:34:11 GMT -5
If there are no incidents recent enough so that IH can be prosecuted and become a CONVICTED child abuser, then what are the chances that any child at convention will be assaulted? Especially if he is under supervision. Just sayin'. Just a note that the last I heard, he was supposed to be "supervised" by his wife at conventions. I feel for his wife, but also don't think that wives can be proper "supervisors." Since his wife is one of those women who has been crazy over him even though he was in the work and then went into the work herself and when he became available, she was quick in grabbing him and offering him all she had, which she thought she had so much more then she had! So I would strongly suspect her craziness over him all her life would make her think and feel that he wouldn't do such criminal things! JMO
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 24, 2014 9:40:42 GMT -5
Too bad, someone didn't think about what your father could get charged with IF IH had come and had just been alleged to have broke a law on his property! And as it was a child victim, the parents were going to sue your father. Specifically, what would the crime be? With what could the owner be charged? Is IH a criminal? An ex-criminal? I am sure the parents could sue but without a crime its success would be questionable.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 24, 2014 9:54:10 GMT -5
Too bad, someone didn't think about what your father could get charged with IF IH had come and had just been alleged to have broke a law on his property! And as it was a child victim, the parents were going to sue your father. Specifically, what would the crime be? With what could the owner be charged? Is IH a criminal? An ex-criminal? I am sure the parents could sue but without a crime its success would be questionable. Rational, quit being so obtuse! You know as well as anyone else that IH had more then ONE victim of CSA during his years in the work....he admitted "in part" or as I see it, as near to denying the allegation as he could honestly get by with when confronted with Jean's accounting and letters. IF CSA is not a crime, please post the law that says it is not a crime! We've discussed several times before the issue that conv. ground owners could find themselves in a lawsuit over a CSA case, esp. when the perp was a suspected one or even a past one who had been sentenced, etc The world is quick to hand out lawsuits these days, for it is an easy way to gain a bit of money.....so I feel that the conv. ground owners are not going to be missed on some kind of lawsuii forever and since people have become aware that the 2x2 religion is as bad if not worse then the Catholic religion with the ministers being found guilty of the crime of CSA and the other ministers hiding them for ages!
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Oct 24, 2014 10:30:44 GMT -5
Does this describe the environment that has allowed IH to remain in the ministry for so long and to now be allowed to go to conventions: 1) workers are held in high esteem and cannot be spoken against; it is taught that it is greater evil to speak against church authority than to commit sexual sins or crimes; 2) parents, especially in the past, have not been aware of or educated their children about CSA and dangers even in the fellowship or potentially from that trusted worker sleeping in the guest room; 3) brother workers tend to see immorality/abuse as a minor failing of the flesh (not of the spirit), and blame it on the victim, not on the offender; for example, just several years ago, many workers were against IH being removed from the work for his offenses; 4) sister workers are used to witnessing immoral/abusive/predatory behavior on the part of brother workers and just accept it; for example, a SW told us that IH "had a very strong sexual energy;" she is a younger sister worker, so her observation is based on his later years; 5) in general, there is no understanding in the fellowship of the nature of sin - that it starts in the heart and that it evidences spiritual failure that has preceded the outward expression of sin by probably many years - that the offender has big spiritual issues to resolve and is not fit to lead others in spiritual matters; 6) there is a general apathy when it comes to abuse and immorality - many friends and workers are not horrified by it, it doesn't have a shock value for them, and doesn't propel them into speaking out against it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 24, 2014 12:18:03 GMT -5
Specifically, what would the crime be? With what could the owner be charged? Is IH a criminal? An ex-criminal? I am sure the parents could sue but without a crime its success would be questionable. Rational, quit being so obtuse! You know as well as anyone else that IH had more then ONE victim of CSA during his years in the work....he admitted "in part" or as I see it, as near to denying the allegation as he could honestly get by with when confronted with Jean's accounting and letters. IF CSA is not a crime, please post the law that says it is not a crime! We've discussed several times before the issue that conv. ground owners could find themselves in a lawsuit over a CSA case, esp. when the perp was a suspected one or even a past one who had been sentenced, etc The world is quick to hand out lawsuits these days, for it is an easy way to gain a bit of money.....so I feel that the conv. ground owners are not going to be missed on some kind of lawsuii forever and since people have become aware that the 2x2 religion is as bad if not worse then the Catholic religion with the ministers being found guilty of the crime of CSA and the other ministers hiding them for ages! I didn't say CSA was not a crime. I said that an owner is not responsible for the independent actions of someone on his property. IH was suspected, accused, and admitted there was some indiscretions on his part. Legally, none of these facts restrict his movements. Of course, someone could sue. But usually there has to be some legal grounds for a law suit to be successful. I am not being obtuse. I am questioning your statement and asking for the federal/state statute that IH would be violating by attending a convention.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 24, 2014 12:21:50 GMT -5
Does this describe the environment that has allowed IH to remain in the ministry for so long and to now be allowed to go to conventions: 1) workers are held in high esteem and cannot be spoken against; it is taught that it is greater evil to speak against church authority than to commit sexual sins or crimes; 2) parents, especially in the past, have not been aware of or educated their children about CSA and dangers even in the fellowship or potentially from that trusted worker sleeping in the guest room; 3) brother workers tend to see immorality/abuse as a minor failing of the flesh (not of the spirit), and blame it on the victim, not on the offender; for example, just several years ago, many workers were against IH being removed from the work for his offenses; 4) sister workers are used to witnessing immoral/abusive/predatory behavior on the part of brother workers and just accept it; for example, a SW told us that IH "had a very strong sexual energy;" she is a younger sister worker, so her observation is based on his later years; 5) in general, there is no understanding in the fellowship of the nature of sin - that it starts in the heart and that it evidences spiritual failure that has preceded the outward expression of sin by probably many years - that the offender has big spiritual issues to resolve and is not fit to lead others in spiritual matters; 6) there is a general apathy when it comes to abuse and immorality - many friends and workers are not horrified by it, it doesn't have a shock value for them, and doesn't propel them into speaking out against it. Perhaps the point would be better understood if the actual actions were explained instead of the vague CSA. For the faithful, in their minds this may be reduced to accidental touching the clothed buttocks of the victim and dismissed as harmless and the charges as a bitter person out to bring discredit on the worker.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Oct 24, 2014 13:23:11 GMT -5
Does this describe the environment that has allowed IH to remain in the ministry for so long and to now be allowed to go to conventions: 1) workers are held in high esteem and cannot be spoken against; it is taught that it is greater evil to speak against church authority than to commit sexual sins or crimes; 2) parents, especially in the past, have not been aware of or educated their children about CSA and dangers even in the fellowship or potentially from that trusted worker sleeping in the guest room; 3) brother workers tend to see immorality/abuse as a minor failing of the flesh (not of the spirit), and blame it on the victim, not on the offender; for example, just several years ago, many workers were against IH being removed from the work for his offenses; 4) sister workers are used to witnessing immoral/abusive/predatory behavior on the part of brother workers and just accept it; for example, a SW told us that IH "had a very strong sexual energy;" she is a younger sister worker, so her observation is based on his later years; 5) in general, there is no understanding in the fellowship of the nature of sin - that it starts in the heart and that it evidences spiritual failure that has preceded the outward expression of sin by probably many years - that the offender has big spiritual issues to resolve and is not fit to lead others in spiritual matters; 6) there is a general apathy when it comes to abuse and immorality - many friends and workers are not horrified by it, it doesn't have a shock value for them, and doesn't propel them into speaking out against it. Perhaps the point would be better understood if the actual actions were explained instead of the vague CSA. For the faithful, in their minds this may be reduced to accidental touching the clothed buttocks of the victim and dismissed as harmless and the charges as a bitter person out to bring discredit on the worker. It is helpful to have the actual actions explained, but who and how is going to do that? There has to be an environment of openness about these issues. When we addressed elders in our field, our overseer replied to all of us, and then we exchanged several emails where all were included as recipients. When some explicit things were mentioned, several elders openly requested to be removed from further conversation. People quickly get uncomfortable when explicit things are mentioned and are not interested to know the details, not even - or especially - when it has to do with their own preachers.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 24, 2014 18:48:53 GMT -5
I accidentally run onto something in regards to the unforgiveable sins against the Holy Spirit.
In Mark 3 When Jesus was casting out demons from folks his opposing folks said he was casting them out as having Beelzebub! Jesus responded to them that a house divided would fall......then he went on to tell them in the 28th verse that all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hat never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. 30. Because the said, "He hath an unclean spirit."
They were declaring Jesus had an unclean spirit when Jesus had a full measure of the Holy Spirit and thus they were blaspheming the spirit that Jesus had...they were blaspheming the Holy Spirit!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 26, 2014 8:10:01 GMT -5
Perhaps the point would be better understood if the actual actions were explained instead of the vague CSA. For the faithful, in their minds this may be reduced to accidental touching the clothed buttocks of the victim and dismissed as harmless and the charges as a bitter person out to bring discredit on the worker. It is helpful to have the actual actions explained, but who and how is going to do that? There has to be an environment of openness about these issues. When we addressed elders in our field, our overseer replied to all of us, and then we exchanged several emails where all were included as recipients. When some explicit things were mentioned, several elders openly requested to be removed from further conversation. People quickly get uncomfortable when explicit things are mentioned and are not interested to know the details, not even - or especially - when it has to do with their own preachers. I understand and this is the uphill battle. When a person hears am allegation/rumor/gossip concerning child abuse there should be a single question asked - "Have you reported it to the authorities?" If abuse is being claimed it needs to be reported. No one except the person making the report needs to know the details. We know, however, this is not going to be the case. So there is a second followup question - "What specifically was the nature of the abuse?" I am guessing the details will not be forthcoming in most cases. If they are then revert to the first question. The problem is on multiple levels. People may not know the nature of the abuse. They cannot believe one led by god could be guilty. Reporting to an outside agency is frowned upon. Isn't there a slow but steady change coming? I have seen directives stating that the report be made directly to the authorities. Assuming this will happen, it should result in the correct result. I think one of the battles that cannot be won is looking back and attempting to get some sort of resolution to historical cases. They should not be ignored/forgotten but there is merit to moving forward with the new plans in place without the past baggage to deal with. It is difficult to start down the new road when people refer to the way things were handled with IH and ask why didn't "Mr.X" get the same treatment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 8:27:42 GMT -5
I only recall one sin that is unforgivable. I think the message Jesus was getting across was make every effort not to offend. And "little ones" often refers to Jesus' followers. And, tell me. Do you really understand that one unforgivable sin? Enough to explain it to the rest of us? Forgivable or unforgivable sin apart, there is an idiom which goes like this : Once bitten, twice shy. The operative words become TRUST and CONFIDENCE.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 26, 2014 11:14:12 GMT -5
I only recall one sin that is unforgivable. I think the message Jesus was getting across was make every effort not to offend. And "little ones" often refers to Jesus' followers. And, tell me. Do you really understand that one unforgivable sin? Enough to explain it to the rest of us? Assuming the attributes of the holy spirit or assigning the attributes of the holy spirit to another, for example, satan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 15:27:14 GMT -5
I only recall one sin that is unforgivable. I think the message Jesus was getting across was make every effort not to offend. And "little ones" often refers to Jesus' followers. And, tell me. Do you really understand that one unforgivable sin? Enough to explain it to the rest of us? ummm blaspheme would be the unforgivable sin... 1. you have to be a believer to commit blaspheme 2. you have to speak out against the holy spirit 3. you can't do it accidentely 4. when you do it you'll know it 5. and your right most people don't even understand it
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 26, 2014 17:15:15 GMT -5
And, tell me. Do you really understand that one unforgivable sin? Enough to explain it to the rest of us? ummm blaspheme would be the unforgivable sin... 1. you have to be a believer to commit blaspheme 2. you have to speak out against the holy spirit 3. you can't do it accidentely 4. when you do it you'll know it 5. and your right most people don't even understand it Some would contend that if you are a believer you could not commit blaspheme against the holy spirit. The facts about this are all over the place. I don't know how the believers keep track!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 26, 2014 21:55:29 GMT -5
I accidentally run onto something in regards to the unforgiveable sins against the Holy Spirit.In Mark 3 When Jesus was casting out demons from folks his opposing folks said he was casting them out as having Beelzebub! Jesus responded to them that a house divided would fall......then he went on to tell them in the 28th verse that all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hat never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. 30. Because the said, "He hath an unclean spirit." They were declaring Jesus had an unclean spirit when Jesus had a full measure of the Holy Spirit and thus they were blaspheming the spirit that Jesus had...they were blaspheming the Holy Spirit! First of all, one has to believe that there really IS something called a "holy spirit."
Then one has to believe that Jesus possessed the "holy spirit."
Then what does "blaspheme" mean? "An act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable."
If a person shows a "lack of reverence" for something that they don't believe in to begin with, they could hardly be guilty of "blaspheme" could they?
Again, with so much of religion, "blaspheme" is only in the eye of the beholder. Of course the same is true of the word "sin."
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Oct 27, 2014 10:28:39 GMT -5
It is helpful to have the actual actions explained, but who and how is going to do that? There has to be an environment of openness about these issues. When we addressed elders in our field, our overseer replied to all of us, and then we exchanged several emails where all were included as recipients. When some explicit things were mentioned, several elders openly requested to be removed from further conversation. People quickly get uncomfortable when explicit things are mentioned and are not interested to know the details, not even - or especially - when it has to do with their own preachers. I understand and this is the uphill battle. When a person hears am allegation/rumor/gossip concerning child abuse there should be a single question asked - "Have you reported it to the authorities?" If abuse is being claimed it needs to be reported. No one except the person making the report needs to know the details. We know, however, this is not going to be the case. So there is a second followup question - "What specifically was the nature of the abuse?" I am guessing the details will not be forthcoming in most cases. If they are then revert to the first question. The problem is on multiple levels. People may not know the nature of the abuse. They cannot believe one led by god could be guilty. Reporting to an outside agency is frowned upon. Isn't there a slow but steady change coming? I have seen directives stating that the report be made directly to the authorities. Assuming this will happen, it should result in the correct result. I think one of the battles that cannot be won is looking back and attempting to get some sort of resolution to historical cases. They should not be ignored/forgotten but there is merit to moving forward with the new plans in place without the past baggage to deal with. It is difficult to start down the new road when people refer to the way things were handled with IH and ask why didn't "Mr.X" get the same treatment. The solution is actually quite simple and would produce quick results: The ministry should openly acknowledge their past mistakes, put in place child protection guidelines, give out clear instructions to all to report all reportable offenses, and give out instructions to report all non-reportable offenses to a designated church body. If a non-reportable allegation can be supported by a witness, if the offender admits the offense or if there is more than one allegations against the alleged offender, these should be sufficient indicators to remove the offender from the ministry. These measures would give all victims the liberty to report abuse and they would clean up the ministry from those who shouldn't be in it. Of course, this is not going to happen until the ministry decides to conduct its affairs with transparency and accountability before the rest of the church. But, if these steps are taken, the next generation would have fewer non-reportable allegations to deal with, as most allegations would be dealt with as soon as they happen due to the education about abuse and due to the new liberty to report abuse.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 27, 2014 13:33:42 GMT -5
.....I think one of the battles that cannot be won is looking back and attempting to get some sort of resolution to historical cases. They should not be ignored/forgotten but there is merit to moving forward with the new plans in place without the past baggage to deal with. It is difficult to start down the new road when people refer to the way things were handled with..... The solution is actually quite simple and would produce quick results: The ministry should openly acknowledge their past mistakes, put in place child protection guidelines, give out clear instructions to all to report all reportable offenses, and give out instructions to report all non-reportable offenses to a designated church body. If a non-reportable allegation can be supported by a witness, if the offender admits the offense or if there is more than one allegations against the alleged offender, these should be sufficient indicators to remove the offender from the ministry. These measures would give all victims the liberty to report abuse and they would clean up the ministry from those who shouldn't be in it. Of course, this is not going to happen until the ministry decides to conduct its affairs with transparency and accountability before the rest of the church. But, if these steps are taken, the next generation would have fewer non-reportable allegations to deal with, as most allegations would be dealt with as soon as they happen due to the education about abuse and due to the new liberty to report abuse. Which of the steps would have meant you could stay in the fellowship? Does 'child protection guidelines' include not having workers stay in homes with children? That's the only solution I could see to "never sending a molesting worker" to your home. I can't endorse that one. Just how would the one making plans know if a worker would molest for the first time at someone's home? The reason I could not endorse 'no workers in homes with children' is because I would have missed SO MUCH and believe children now also would.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Oct 27, 2014 14:29:11 GMT -5
The solution is actually quite simple and would produce quick results: The ministry should openly acknowledge their past mistakes, put in place child protection guidelines, give out clear instructions to all to report all reportable offenses, and give out instructions to report all non-reportable offenses to a designated church body. If a non-reportable allegation can be supported by a witness, if the offender admits the offense or if there is more than one allegations against the alleged offender, these should be sufficient indicators to remove the offender from the ministry. These measures would give all victims the liberty to report abuse and they would clean up the ministry from those who shouldn't be in it. Of course, this is not going to happen until the ministry decides to conduct its affairs with transparency and accountability before the rest of the church. But, if these steps are taken, the next generation would have fewer non-reportable allegations to deal with, as most allegations would be dealt with as soon as they happen due to the education about abuse and due to the new liberty to report abuse. Which of the steps would have meant you could stay in the fellowship? Does 'child protection guidelines' include not having workers stay in homes with children? That's the only solution I could see to "never sending a molesting worker" to your home. I can't endorse that one. Just how would the one making plans know if a worker would molest for the first time at someone's home? The reason I could not endorse 'no workers in homes with children' is because I would have missed SO MUCH and believe children now also would. Hi Emy, thank you for asking so I can try to clarify this. No, I am not against workers staying in homes, only against known molesters/abusers/immoral being sent into our homes. We as a family have always enjoyed having workers stay in our home. Our kids have loved it - it was a highlight. I believe that hospitality is an important part of being a Christian (haven't always lived up to it...) I am not concerned about the potential danger of a 1st-time offender, as long as there are child protection guidelines known to all in place. With child protection guidelines in place, there is a high probability that the 1st-time offender will be dealt with legally and removed from the work. It's the same risk we take when we send our kids to school or any activity. All of the above steps would be needed for us to be in the fellowship - dealing with future potential danger cannot be accomplished without dealing with past offenses and removing those already known to be immoral/abusers from the work. I am not only concerned about CSA but about adult abuse and immorality as well. I know of some who have been reported to overseers for immoral/abusive/predatory behavior who are still in the work. I know of some who are known among sister workers for such behavior, but the sister workers don't have the liberty to do anything about it. There has to be an atmosphere where such issues can be dealt with for the good of all - both the immoral (unto repentance) and the church. The immoral simply should not be in the ministry.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 27, 2014 14:56:36 GMT -5
Which of the steps would have meant you could stay in the fellowship? Does 'child protection guidelines' include not having workers stay in homes with children? That's the only solution I could see to "never sending a molesting worker" to your home. I can't endorse that one. Just how would the one making plans know if a worker would molest for the first time at someone's home? The reason I could not endorse 'no workers in homes with children' is because I would have missed SO MUCH and believe children now also would. This is indeed a problem. There has been little success in determining who will offend prior to the first offense. In some cases the individuals themselves self report and seek help. This is the minority of cases. The bottom line is that usually there has to be an offense before there is an offender.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 27, 2014 15:00:46 GMT -5
Clearly some workers and friends haven't gotten the memo that sexual immorality (and even more importantly CSA) is unacceptable behaviour for people professing godliness.
How is it that the memo for hem length and hair do were effectively disseminated, yet the more important matters are poorly understood?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 27, 2014 18:33:21 GMT -5
Clearly some workers and friends haven't gotten the memo that sexual immorality (and even more importantly CSA) is unacceptable behaviour for people professing godliness. How is it that the memo for hem length and hair do were effectively disseminated, yet the more important matters are poorly understood? Some memos come from higher sources straight to a heart. Upon what are you basing that first statement? I hope it's not anything friends or workers have written here. I'm pretty sure all of us consider any sexual immorality unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 27, 2014 18:47:25 GMT -5
Clearly some workers and friends haven't gotten the memo that sexual immorality (and even more importantly CSA) is unacceptable behaviour for people professing godliness. How is it that the memo for hem length and hair do were effectively disseminated, yet the more important matters are poorly understood? Some memos come from higher sources straight to a heart. Upon what are you basing that first statement? I hope it's not anything friends or workers have written here. I'm pretty sure all of us consider any sexual immorality unacceptable. No, I didn't have anyone on here in mind.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Oct 27, 2014 21:04:39 GMT -5
Clearly some workers and friends haven't gotten the memo that sexual immorality (and even more importantly CSA) is unacceptable behaviour for people professing godliness. How is it that the memo for hem length and hair do were effectively disseminated, yet the more important matters are poorly understood? Some memos come from higher sources straight to a heart. Upon what are you basing that first statement? I hope it's not anything friends or workers have written here. I'm pretty sure all of us consider any sexual immorality unacceptable. There seems to be a different doctrine held by workers, especially senior brother workers, than the one held by most friends. Most friends would not think that it can just "happen" for them to end up in bed with someone they are not married to. On the other hand, senior workers think that immorality can happen to anyone out of the blue and that it's akin to slipping on a banana peal - it just happened to them, and they just need to pick themselves up, brush of their clothes and keep walking, pretending that nothing has happened. Sure, it's embarrassing if someone sees you, but one can always call on forgiveness. Even some friends have told us that immorality among the workers is to be expected, and therefore excused, because they are celibate. Senior brother workers do not understand that immorality begins in the heart and that it is only a symptom of deep spiritual problems and dishonesty with oneself and others. Even many "good" brother workers have bought into this doctrine - I assume because it's the only way for them to reconcile what they see happening in the ministry with their conscience.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 27, 2014 21:13:05 GMT -5
Some memos come from higher sources straight to a heart. Upon what are you basing that first statement? I hope it's not anything friends or workers have written here. I'm pretty sure all of us consider any sexual immorality unacceptable. There seems to be a different doctrine held by workers, especially senior brother workers, than the one held by most friends. Most friends would not think that it can just "happen" for them to end up in bed with someone they are not married to. On the other hand, senior workers think that immorality can happen to anyone out of the blue and that it's akin to slipping on a banana peal - it just happened to them, and they just need to pick themselves up, brush of their clothes and keep walking, pretending that nothing has happened. Sure, it's embarrassing if someone sees you, but one can always call on forgiveness. Even some friends have told us that immorality among the workers is to be expected, and therefore excused, because they are celibate. Senior brother workers do not understand that immorality begins in the heart and that it is only a symptom of deep spiritual problems and dishonesty with oneself and others. Even many "good" brother workers have bought into this doctrine - I assume because it's the only way for them to reconcile what they see happening in the ministry with their conscience. Assuming that's an accurate analysis, that's a sad commentary.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 27, 2014 23:22:05 GMT -5
There seems to be a different doctrine held by workers, especially senior brother workers, than the one held by most friends. Most friends would not think that it can just "happen" for them to end up in bed with someone they are not married to. Aren't some of the people sharing the bed friends? Or if not sharing a bed at least rumored to be sharing a bed?
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Oct 28, 2014 10:01:06 GMT -5
There seems to be a different doctrine held by workers, especially senior brother workers, than the one held by most friends. Most friends would not think that it can just "happen" for them to end up in bed with someone they are not married to. Aren't some of the people sharing the bed friends? Or if not sharing a bed at least rumored to be sharing a bed? I've never heard a friend say that that committing a physical act of immorality could happen to themselves or anyone else out of the blue or without premeditation, but I know for a fact that senior workers say that. Yes, I've heard rumors of friends engaging in consensual relationships with workers, but it seems that "immorality" that gets reported to overseers is usually reported as abuse/harassment - it's not consensual.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 28, 2014 19:00:52 GMT -5
Aren't some of the people sharing the bed friends? Or if not sharing a bed at least rumored to be sharing a bed? I've never heard a friend say that that committing a physical act of immorality could happen to themselves or anyone else out of the blue or without premeditation, but I know for a fact that senior workers say that. Yes, I've heard rumors of friends engaging in consensual relationships with workers, but it seems that "immorality" that gets reported to overseers is usually reported as abuse/harassment - it's not consensual. That would make it a crime. Sexual assault. Rape. Is there the possibility that the sex was consensual at the time but consent was denied when the transgressions were discovered? Two people having an ongoing sexual relationship can hardly be called sexual assault. Of course, it has been said that because of the belief that the workers are called by god that the idea of true consent goes out the window because people fear for losing out on eternal life. But can one really believe that a person forcing them to have a relationship that they do not want hold the decision of whether they will find salvation?
|
|