|
Post by rational on Mar 9, 2008 10:58:54 GMT -5
Sorry rational, I feel you are wrong - and will restate my concerns about 2x2 and sexual abuse of children. The interest in this thread measured by number of reads is also an indicator. Restating your concerns does not address any of the points I made. The child abuse cases within the F&W are not unique. The existence of WWW sites mean nothing other than the fact that someone decided to set one up. As far as the number of "reads" - don't put a lot of stock in the figures. What I started - (Read 21,489 times) Now - (Read 21,587 times) Do you really think there was than much activity in that time? Do you really think that this statistic is also true: Most users online was 309, Jul 15, 2007, 3:20am
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 9, 2008 17:02:05 GMT -5
The child abuse cases within the F&W are not unique. What an odd rationalization for child abuse!
|
|
|
Post by wuoh on Mar 9, 2008 18:30:33 GMT -5
author=rational board=general thread=1190271258 post=1204788137] author=wuoh board=general thread=1190271258 post=1204775692]
This was definitely written by Rational:
And you have some data to back up your claim?
No, I don't I was being sarcastic, but am really bad at it.
"Rational, I truly hope that no one that you know will ever come to you for help if he or she ever finds themselves being sexually abused.
You are the kind of person who has no empathy and will make the victim feel worse rather than letting them know that you care and will be there for them.
I still think you wouldn't be any help on this one and your quote: I think the point was that the victim didn't feel bad until someone told them they they should.", proves it.
May God lead a victim to the right people to receive help."
I wrote that may God lead the victim to the right people not that may God come to help the victim
We are talking about the sexual abuse of children.
I think the point was that the victim didn't feel bad until someone told them they they should.
This is not an issue for God to deal with. If God really was concerned about child abuse there would be no child abuse. After all, being omniscient and omnipotent does give one a definite advantage over those who abuse.
I completely agree with you on this one, no buts about it. Even when I would hope that God would lead a victim to the right person for help, it is proven over and over again that God doesn't seem to care. I also agree that if God were omnipotent he would do something to prevent this from happening
I think part of the problem is that this is looked at as a spiritual issue when it is a criminal issue of abuse.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 9, 2008 23:15:53 GMT -5
The child abuse cases within the F&W are not unique. What an odd rationalization for child abuse! You really need to read the whole thread, The poster (Edgar) said sexual abuse within the F&W was unique. Knowing the meaning of the word unique I can assure you that child abuse within the F&W is not unique. I believe it is Edgar's attempt to somehow make a case that the F&W is the cause of sexual abuse and not only that but is unique in the way it happens. Yet if you read a story like Lindy's you can see that it was a dysfunctional family that just happened to be members of the F&W. It would have happened had he been a Mason, a Jew, or a Pentecostal minister. There are countless cases (sadly) just like them in various other religions.
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Mar 9, 2008 23:19:59 GMT -5
What an odd rationalization for child abuse! You really need to read the whole thread, The poster (Edgar) said sexual abuse within the F&W was unique. Knowing the meaning of the word unique I can assure you that child abuse within the F&W is not unique. I believe it is Edgar's attempt to somehow make a case that the F&W is the cause of sexual abuse and not only that but is unique in the way it happens. Yet if you read a story like Lindy's you can see that it was a dysfunctional family that just happened to be members of the F&W. It would have happened had he been a Mason, a Jew, or a Pentecostal minister. There are countless cases (sadly) just like them in various other religions. thats exactly what i have been trying to say on another thread.. very well put rational.... we agree on something, finally.. i knew we would.. and because of what we agree on, i think its our destiny for you and i to raise a family together.. whattya say? of course if you are male, we'll have to adopt or steal someone elses baby.. at least if we steal a baby, we know it will be raised in our own non dysfunctional family..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2008 2:13:42 GMT -5
Just for the record I am well aware of the fact (as I have clearly stated before) that the problem of sexual abuse of children is not a problem that doesn't exist in many other areas of society.
However it is clear that 2x2 doctrine creates some extremely unique oportunity for child molesters. One of them is the doctrine that workers, because of their higher calling, must be trusted as morally higher than all other people in the world. This creates an ideal environment for workers as potential preditors. -- Unless there is 100% forensic proof otherwise, any critisizm of a worker is regarded as critisizm against God himself -- and evidence of a 'bad spirit' -- and worthy of punishment (in many cases expulsion). This policy actively protects child molesting workers.
The policy of workers living in the homes (with unlimited access) of potential victims is also a clear sexual security risk for children. --- this is also unique for 2x2 ers.
The very clear leadership policy that suspisions of sexual impropriaty must be kept secret means that the ordinary protection mechanizm in society, of families sharing concern with each other, is effectively destroyed. In the past this hasn't been unique for the 2x2 fellowship, but most other groups have left this mindset behind.
Perhaps one of the most critical (well established) 2x2 leadership policies is that suspected child molesters are simply moved to more unsuspecting enviornments. There is nearly always a major reason for field change -- , but it is very very seldom explained. This means that, inadvertantly, preditors have a whole organization covering up for them -- and protecting their dangerous secrets. This perhaps isn't a hundred % unique as in years past the Catholic church has also previously used this trick to avoid taking responsibility.
Then even in the instances when they are 'caught red handed' the worst that happens is they are asked to quietly leave the work, and most often are placed in a new unsuspecting environment, where no one is allowed to discuss or get information as to dangers involved (ex. Saskatoon at the moment) -- Unique for 2x2 leadership -- I think so!
|
|
|
Post by side issue on Mar 11, 2008 4:00:44 GMT -5
Whether or not this matter is unique to 2x2's is really neither here nor there. That is a side issue. The real question is whether it is an issue in that way. It doesn't matter if any other sects behave similarly. That type of deflection is simply avoidance of the issue within the F&W's sect, or a distraction, or worse, an excuse.
In my view, what Edgar is pointing out (don't be distracted by his strident portrayal), is in fact a MAJOR issue in the F&W set-up, in light of the various child abuse cases which have been uncovered.
Let's keep our focus on the course. The old cold war adage "Protect and Survive" can just as easily be applied to preserving the innocence of our children.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 11, 2008 8:28:55 GMT -5
However it is clear that 2x2 doctrine creates some extremely unique oportunity for child molesters. One of them is the doctrine that workers, because of their higher calling, must be trusted as morally higher than all other people in the world. How does this differ from priests or ministers of other churches? Again, not unique to the F&W. This is certainly something that happens more in the F&W than in other religions where the ministers have a residence. But 'unlimited' access is really the parent's call. They have to decide what the interaction will be. Suspicion is just that - not fact. It would be wrong to accuse someone just because you suspect they are doing something wrong. Since the suspicion is on the victim level, why would the leadership be involved? I would certainly voice my suspicions to my family and to the authorities if there was information that warranted it. Certainly once they have been caught. But there are many smaller sects that continue to operate the exact same way. This has happened in many religions. It happened often enough that the Baptists have set up a WWW site - www.stopbaptistpredators.org Perhaps the F&W could follow along. Defiantly not unique to the F&W - although I wonder why the victim did not report the incident to the authorities.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 11, 2008 15:30:03 GMT -5
Wow, rational. You've all but excused the perpetrators of any responsibility. Remind me never to permit you near my children.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 11, 2008 17:36:14 GMT -5
Wow, rational. You've all but excused the perpetrators of any responsibility. Remind me never to permit you near my children. I am not excusing any perpetrator of anything. Edgar is intent to show that the F&Ws are unique in regards to sexual child abuse. I was just pointing out that this is not the case. But I invite you to point out where I have excused a perpetrator of any responsibility. You might also explain why you would not allow me near your children. I don't want to jump to any implication.
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Mar 11, 2008 18:38:29 GMT -5
Wow, rational. You've all but excused the perpetrators of any responsibility. Remind me never to permit you near my children. I am not excusing any perpetrator of anything. Edgar is intent to show that the F&Ws are unique in regards to sexual child abuse. I was just pointing out that this is not the case. But I invite you to point out where I have excused a perpetrator of any responsibility. You might also explain why you would not allow me near your children. I don't want to jump to any implication. i have no idea what you are talking about, but yes rational is quick to let anyone do their evil deeds until a written confession is given to her in triplicate.. ;D rational, you would confuse the hell out of any child... they'd ask a question and never get a 100% true conclusion from you, thats what. honestly, i enjoy reading you much more when you are not posting to me. reading your posts can raise good questions... but trying to convince you one way or another with very compelling evidence has proved both frustrating, fruitless, and now pointless, and i have seen many things that you do not take into account separately as a whole, its like sometimes one little issue i have proven will be something so bad, that it alone makes anything else these people did irrelevant. i dunno how to put it into words, sorry, but i would rather read your posts when they are to someone else...
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Mar 11, 2008 18:51:21 GMT -5
for example, lying to americans saying the air in new york city was safe, in order to open wall street. when that day the report from fema said that there were very high levels of asbestos in the air. thats a big deal. they are now guilty of that, and what is the penality for that? they get raises and promotions. i didnt mean to change the subject, but the post caught my eye.. back to your uh.. thread..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2008 14:11:13 GMT -5
Wonder what other group places often single adult males to live in family homes with puberty aged youth, and demands unquestionable trust - (with the threat of otherwise offending God)?
|
|
|
Post by Fenton Swain on Mar 12, 2008 14:24:07 GMT -5
Edgar, instead of trying to convince Rational with your views, take comfort that what your are stating is virtually the same as how society in general regards these issues nowadays and is shaping itself accordingly.
Of course you make like banging your head against a brick wall ?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 12, 2008 16:27:56 GMT -5
Wonder what other group places often single adult males to live in family homes with puberty aged youth, and demands unquestionable trust - (with the threat of otherwise offending God)? As I said above, this is one aspect that is not found in a lot of other religions. But, as I also pointed out, the access these visitors have to children is under the control of the parents. My argument with your statements, Edgar, is that you try to present the facts as if there was something unique about the F&W that causes rampant abuse. Do you have any indication that abuse within the F&W is any higher than in similar populations?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 12, 2008 16:30:46 GMT -5
Edgar, instead of trying to convince Rational with your views, take comfort that what your are stating is virtually the same as how society in general regards these issues nowadays and is shaping itself accordingly. I doubt very much that society at large blames the F&W system for child abuse. I guess it would be easier to just say - "Sure, Edgar, the F&W group are unique and child abuse is rampant."
|
|
|
Post by John on Mar 12, 2008 16:51:56 GMT -5
Edgar can sure use extreme language to get his point across.
His views have much to commend them, but certainly his degree of presentation does come close to your often narrow minded and blinkered approach to these matters.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 12, 2008 18:29:10 GMT -5
Just saw this site on the child molesters thread: www.wingsfortruth.info I am sure there will be so many who will benefit from this, most importantly… our children! Well done on this website... it's so informative and I've already found it so useful. I can't wait for the discussion board and chat room to open! If the admin is here... any idea of when this will happen? Awesome job anyway. Thanks! And sorry for the delay in getting the website up. It took some time to compile all the research and information. I am working on creating a discussion board and chat right now so it'll be up and running shortly. There will both public and private forums on there. I hope it will be a helpful resource for all. www.wingsfortruth.info
|
|
|
Post by new site on Mar 12, 2008 22:10:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Mar 14, 2008 6:09:04 GMT -5
I was just reading the few stories that are already up on the new Wings site (thank you all for your hard work in getting that up, btw...it looks fabulous and I'm sure it will be a wonderful resource for people in years to come....your work is appreciated by many, I'm certain.) and I just wanted to say that I am shocked and appalled by some of the stories. While I still believe this goes on in almost all types of organizations, not just F&W, it's F&W that we are talking about on this board, I do understand that...and to think that it happened there is just so very sad to me after what I grew up thinking about the workers, especially. (and by the way, I still think the vast majority of them are wonderful people. In most cases with the F&W it is the way that is flawed and not the people...who are no more flawed than any other human being.....with the HUGE exception of these abuse cases) ....and just in case any who told his/her story there read here....I just want to say I am SO very, very sorry for what you suffered. In some cases words just can't describe what you must have gone through...would have been so traumatic for any adult to deal with, much less a child. May God bless you and help you to heal.... with love, Mich
|
|
|
Post by no name on Mar 14, 2008 22:53:51 GMT -5
I guess it would be easier to just say - "Sure, Edgar, the F&W group are unique and child abuse is rampant." Since that appears to be Edgar's primary feeling, I agree that's probably exactly what he'd like to hear.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 14, 2008 23:02:22 GMT -5
Maybe I missed something somewhere, but could someone please point out to me where Edgar said that child abuse is "rampant" in 2x2ism?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 15, 2008 0:26:14 GMT -5
Maybe I missed something somewhere, but could someone please point out to me where Edgar said that child abuse is "rampant" in 2x2ism? I don't think anyone claimed Edgar said that. It was what I was proposing to say instead of trying to refute Edgar's claims. He has implied in several posts that this is the case.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 15, 2008 9:29:03 GMT -5
Really? Could you point that out to me?
|
|
|
Post by no name on Mar 15, 2008 9:46:36 GMT -5
Really? Could you point that out to me? It's virtually infused in Edgar's comments. Unless you agree with his viewpoint, they can't really be missed. Just a few examples: In other words, b/c workers often spend time in the homes of people with children, the situation presents an automatic situation of abuse. Another example of his insinuation that abuse is uniquely rampant within the fellowship. More insinuations here. He starts off by saying he "doubt if it is true", but then he launches into commentary about the "acceptance" of sexual abuse by workers within the "group".
More examples of what Rational is talking about.
More bloviating . . . .
And the list goes on . . . . once you're exposed enough to Edgar's posts, it's easy to see the widespread condemnation he holds towards the fellowship as a whole and his comments reflect that viewpoint. It's demonstrated in nearly every subject he talks about with regard to the "fellowship" - heck, just take a look at the thread about prayin' in meeting. According to Edgar, because people in meeting pray aloud we're somehow less Christian than a person who literally goes into their "closet" to pray. Even though Christ's talk of a "closet" was a figurative example, not literal. But you can't explain something like this to Edgar, because he's so intent on demonizing anything and everything about the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 15, 2008 10:12:44 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to address my question. I appreciate it.
In each of the excerpts you cited, Edgar states very plainly that the potential for abuse is wide-spread. I think he used the word "risk" to describe it. You are confusing his description of risk for an insinuation of actual occurence.
Regardless of whether or not one were to agree with his views, one has to make certain assumptions about his comments that go beyond what he said in order to believe that he claimed that abuse was actually rampant.
I could tell you that the risk for collision and bodily injury is widespread on the highway (which it is, really). Is it necessary to assume that I am insinuating that collisions are indeed widespread?
Not so. Edgar only described the risk involved of placing unmarried supposedly celibate men in settings where they are alone with children.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 16, 2008 6:57:55 GMT -5
Really? Could you point that out to me? It's virtually infused in Edgar's comments. Unless you agree with his viewpoint, they can't really be missed. Thanks for responding No Name. There is no argument that child abuse is wrong. A long time friend was part of a religion similar to the F&W. She had since gone back to school and is now the pastor of her own church. I mentioned the cases of child abuse in the F&W in relation to a case that just came to light in her former church. It was her opinion that people are people and the religion they embrace is not a factor. As I have said - it is not a spiritual issue but a criminal issue. Being a member of the F&W does not increase the probability of sexual abuse.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 16, 2008 7:03:03 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to address my question. I appreciate it. His implication is that the risk in the F&W is higher. That may be very close to the definition of imply. Yes. Yes. Your implication is that driving on the highway has a greater risk of collision than sitting in your living room. And the implication is that this will increase the rate of child abuse.
|
|