|
Post by learnedaboutgrace on Oct 4, 2007 14:00:00 GMT -5
I wasn't a sexual abuse case, but there was physical abuse. When it finally got bad enough that my mom got scared my dad would kill one of us, they went to the workers. I was around 16 when my dad choked me on the kitchen floor. My mom physically tried to pull him off and there was quite a tussle. It was one of the last times because the next time he tried to grab me I started attacking him instead of just trying to protect myself. Of course, this was towards the end. This stuff had been going on for years. I even had a sister worker within the last year tell me that when I was quite small, she felt sorry for me when I was "taken out" during meeting. Felt sorry for me? Oooooo, that was very Christ-like of her. Anyway, what they did in my case when I was 16 and had been choked, 5 workers, 3 brothers and 2 sisters, cornered me and forced me to get into a car. I couldn't get out without physically having to fight and climb over someone. Then I got a 20-30 min fun little session where each had their turn at me. It boiled down to honor thy father and mother. No, are you ok? How long has this been happening? What about your siblings? Do you fear for life? Do you need somewhere to stay? Has it happened before? Do you have bruises? No, it was my fault.
So, is this a 2x2 case or a Social Services case?
Workers and the friends knew, they chose to keep out of it. Any one of them could have called Social Services, they had more contact w/ our family that any so-called worldly people. Sure we went to school, but we knew they were just wordly teachers that were being deceived by satan and weren't to be trusted. Sure we spent hours there everyday, but we were conditioned, trust nobody, talk to nobody, make friends w/ nobody. No you can't participate, no you can't go to this or that kids birthday party. But hail the workers. Oh my, the coversations I have heard. So and so stays at such and such more than here. But if a worker came, man it was huge. Only the best for them. Oh, would you like a drink, would you like a snack, how about laundry, let us wash your laundry. What time would like for us to serve you your meals? It was a terribly stressful time. You don't think that can lead to abuse? They obviously were much more important than we were.
I never was sexually abused but I was lead on by a brother worker for around 5 years. It was all very subtle, but he would do certain little things that I thought would eventually lead to something "when I was old enough". I was around 14 when it started. He was 13 yrs older. When I was 19, he left the work. I thought it might have been for me. But a while later he married someone else. That was ok, by then I was married, too. He actually called and apologized for leading me on all those years. Never once did I tell anyone. I could dream about him when I felt trapped. Someday, someone will care about me. Why didn't I tell? Because he was a worker? No, my belief system was so messed up by then, I thought I was special to a worker, wow, the ultimate. Of all the girls in the state he knew, he cared about me, or so I thought. At least he made the effort to call. Maybe he got honest w/ himself. He could have just blown it off.
So, is it a 2x2 thing or a Social Services thing? You decide.
Who wants to know if they follow the laws of the land? They don't. Personally, I think they should be mandatory reporters like doctors.
Off this topic, they always tried to avoid needing to follow state regulations for things like food handling at convention until the state stepped in and threatened to shut them down. They were not proactive at all. The friends just didn't think it was fair that they should have to follow the laws.
All I have time for now.
Peace and grace through our Lord Jesus Christ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2007 14:22:22 GMT -5
learnedaboutgrace, thanks for your open account of some of the tragedy of your background. You asked the question several times "Is it a 2x2 thing, or a social service thing?" For me it is a moral issue where the 2x2 people involved choose to put the interests of their organization before the interests of innocent people that are being victimized. The illusion of a "holy people" living in a paradise on earth leaves no space to explain a violent father, or a sex hungry individuals.
Ordinary moral interest and concern for the weak and vulnerable would stop at nothing (including legal authorities) to protect and help ..... not so in 2x2 circles ... here it is the perceived concern for the illusion of group serenity that is paramount.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 4, 2007 14:59:03 GMT -5
learnedaboutgrace does paint an interesting situation. It is sad when this type of behavior is allowed to continue but it is not a 2x2 issue. As has been shown on this message board in a number of threads, people do not like anyone telling them how to raise their children. Just suggest that spanking is considered to be inappropriate and see how people feel.
If you do see a parent spanking their child in what you think is a potential damaging way (The last woman I remember speaking to was dangling her 3-4 year old by the arm while attempting to spank him)and mention that it could harm the child you too will learn that looking the other way is the norm rather than the exception.
It would be nice if that was the norm but remember that woman who was murdered in NYC? More than 10 people either heard or saw the events yet none of them even bothered to call the authorities.
I am not saying it is right or just but the fact is that generally people do not stand up to abusers. They make excuses. And although some have an ax to grind regarding the 2x2s is there any data to show that it is a worse than in any other organization?
As in the case of learnedaboutgrace and the boys molested in the Catholic church, the boy scouts, etc., the error was that the parents went to the workers/priests/leaders instead of going to the people whose job it to deal with these cases. While it is true that these organizations did try to cover it up, had it been reported to the authorities initially the criminals would have been stopped rather than being moved to another target rich field.
The organizations are in the wrong - let there be no mistake about that. But to say there are 10s or 100s of cases that are not ever reported and blaming the organization for that is wrong.
In my state if I were to see something happen and call CPS (Child protective services) they have to, by law, investigate. And I do not even have to give my name.
My point is that you can't blame an organization for the faults of the members.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2007 15:35:34 GMT -5
This tread is about Child moleters in the church. The discussion is about the degree of abuse in the church. We have one individual who, as usual, makes wild claims of the extent of abuse, and who does the abuse, but states that when he was a worker their was no abuse. Insinsuating that the problem, which in his opinion is in plague proportions, has just come about since he left the fellowship.
I was not brought up in the church. My parents believed in using the "rod" and i certainly felt in on many many occasions. The ironing cord was the weapon of choice.
I could now "tell stories" about how unfair and violent my parents were to us children. But......thats was the norm. And I honestly dont believe it did me any long term harm. (certainly did short term).
At school, the teachers had canes, they used them often and I now suspect, enjoyed the experience.
Without trying to downplay learnedaboutgrace, now days Mums and Dads worst nightmares are thier teenage Daughters. (and Sons). From what I am told, most 15 year old girls, think that they know all about life and that Mum and Dad know nothing.
Translate that view to some of the young ladies who have left the fellowship, and now relate their reasons for leaving. Some of the stories, viewed from their side, can sound quite sensational.
In my experience while professing, I heard of one case where a worker was asked to leave the work, after "an issue" with an adult female. He was quickly dealt with. These things happen, because we are human and we all fail. We are not perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Bluenoser on Oct 4, 2007 16:37:18 GMT -5
I've read some interesting stuff by an ex-priest. He talks more about the Catholics given that that is his background but he feels that the child abuse scandals should be a wake up call to people. "Even the devil knows that something is drastically astray. With the events that are unfolding today it is difficult to understand how some people can still think that everything is alright and that world problems are the same today that they always have been. On Feb.19th 2005, a CNN internet headline stated that "Catholic bishops announced that they received 1092 new allegations of sexual abuse against 756 catholic priests and deacons" What is God trying to tell the people of this world?........ "The most important thing to understand is that it is a free gift: you do not have to go anywhere and you can find God in the comfort of your own home ...... You need not that any man teach you (1 John 2:27).......
|
|
|
Post by learnedaboutgrace on Oct 4, 2007 17:58:24 GMT -5
Casper
I am glad you brought up the point about parents and the issues they have w/ teenagers. There are actually 2 things. For one, by the time we were teenagers, I WAS pretty angry. I ask you, how would you feel after a lifetime of not being allowed to be who you really are? A lifetime of being told you are not good enough, smart enough, etc? Am I totally against spanking? No, but I have spoken to psychologists that are generally against spanking, but can see the value in some situations. The harm comes in when the parent is out of control. So angry they can't see straight. Then the parent hits harder than they planned, in places they shouldn't, do things they wouldn't when they are not out of control. Did I back talk? Sure, whose fault is that? Mine, but come on, is it appropriate for the parents to react that way? What about the "littler" things that happened before? The hundreds of things that led up to the "no respect" of the parents? This wasn't a all of a sudden she's a mouthy teenager. I now have a teenage daughter. 15, I have never been so angry at her I felt the urge to kill her. Have I ever been angry w/ her? Hundreds of times. Has she ever voiced her opinion about what I am asking of her? Of course, but we have a good enough relationship we can disagree w/ out coming to blows. When you hear a teenager being disrespectful, ask yourself, why? People earn respect whether as parents or teachers, co workers, etc. Will teenagers push the boundaries? Yes, that is what they do but if there is a core of respect, you will be able to survive it without demeaning anyone.
It comes down to respect. Respect your children and they will respect you. I respect my children as people. Does that mean they can do whatever they want whenever they want? No, there are rules and lines, but I allow them to develop friendships, find the things they are interested in and encourage and support them. They are not a commodity, something I need to control to make myself look good. The motto at our house while as a kid was save face at all costs. Your feelings don't matter. Shut up and obey. My parents thought it made them good little 2x2s. I have had conversations w/ my mom about this now and she certainly has regrets that she must live with...
Grace and Peace
|
|
|
Post by What is the lesson on Oct 4, 2007 18:41:26 GMT -5
On Feb.19th 2005, a CNN internet headline stated that "Catholic bishops announced that they received 1092 new allegations of sexual abuse against 756 catholic priests and deacons" What is God trying to tell the people of this world?........ Maybe God is trying to point out that a number of people are trying to get on the band wagon for the cash that is being awarded to these people by the courts. That brings up another question. Why are people given cash? Were they damaged financially in some way? In general, the idea of a court ruling is to make the victim whole. Anyone have an idea of how a cash award does that?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 4, 2007 20:26:15 GMT -5
Howdy, In regards to: That brings up another question. Why are people given cash? Were they damaged financially in some way? In general, the idea of a court ruling is to make the victim whole. Anyone have an idea of how a cash award does that? I think that it punishes those responsible in a way that gets the attention of the organization. If the only penalty was verbal or jail for the individual responsible for the crime, then the organization would not suffer the consequences of allowing such people to hold positions of authority. By slapping the organization with a heavy fine it causes that organization to make changes. Scott
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 4, 2007 21:33:39 GMT -5
I think that it punishes those responsible in a way that gets the attention of the organization. In many cases the fines are paid by insurance companies. The only people who end up paying are the people who try to get insurance in the future. The organizations get fined if they knew of the problem and moved the individual to another area. So the money is a punishment. But what does it do for the victims? How many people would bring charges if the money that was taken from the organization as a punishment was given to other organizations to help solve the underlying problem instead of being awarded to the victim? The same set of questions could be asked regarding the money that was paid to the families of the WTC victims. Why should the family of a person who was killed on 9/11 in NYC be paid when the family of the husband/father who was killed in Chicago by a drunk driver gets nothing? It goes back to the same question - what does money have to do with making people whole? If punishment is what is needed, then have the organization do public service.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 4, 2007 21:47:42 GMT -5
Rational, I think that is an excellent idea If punishment is what is needed, then have the organization do public service.Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 1:11:32 GMT -5
I am quite convinced that sexual abuse by workers IS greater than the general run of the population --- Just as the Catholic church with its celibate priesthood, combined with doctrinal trust, together with oppurtunity for private contact with vulnerable youth -- has proven to have a higher risk rate than other groupings.
Neither the Catholic church or 2x2 policy condones abuse behavior -- And of recent years the Catholic church has been forced to take responsibility for the risk filled environment their doctrine has constructed --- but 2x2ism still frantically evades any suggestion of responsibility for the awfull misery their unnatural doctrine causes -- both for victims and for the perpetrators.
There has been the suggestion that this is changing in the 2x2 group --- but the recent case of the Manitoba worker involved in child abuse that was just moved in secret to another province and placed amongst more unsuspecting people proves to me that there is no change. It is an ongoing problem that the group refuses to take any responsibility for.
The more positive handling of the Minnesota case isn't all that significant, as really there was sufficient pressure (by outsiders) put on leadership in that case, so that there was in principle 'no other choice'. Other wise I am convinced they would have tried to wiggle out of it too!
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Oct 5, 2007 1:32:43 GMT -5
What kept me back from telling my parents? I've been trying to work this out for some time now - trying to understand how much of my reaction was just 'me', how much was 'my family circle', how much was 'the Truth' ... So far I've come up with more general reasons than anything else - - Inertia - having to actually start telling the story
- social closeness - the man concerned was a close family friend
- ripples - the feeling that information would spread out round the entire local 2x2 community. I really didn't want that.
So what part did the 2x2 Organisation play? At the moment I believe it can be summed up in the popular phrase from my childhood "what will the workers think?"I felt I had to deal with it myself, just in case ... But that of course was my personality - another person in a similar position might have been happy to get things out in the open. Caro
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Oct 5, 2007 1:40:12 GMT -5
Casper's line of thought:
Child molestation in the church is the affair or parents (who do not take enough care of their children) or of individual workers (who are an insignificant minority). The «management» has nothing to do, nor do the «doctrine» or the church as such. We are all humans after all, we are all weak and we all sin.
The above attitide is most hypocritical, dangerous and crooky and here is why.
First parents are made to believe that the workers are the best of the best, men and women God uses to speak His word. Why should parents who hear nice gospel preachings from «saintly» individuals be suspicious of these same individuals when they have close contact with their children? In my case, as acts are more important than words, I would say that the preachings are false and this is one of the main reasons I stopped having relations with the workers (I consider them the most evil of people, real crooks).
Second, even if we accept that individual workers fail (something that is always possible) we have been made to believe that THE WAY is perfect. That the Spirit of God is guiding the «management», that all in all God takes care of his church. However the way these scandals are treated shows that this is not true. Cover-ups, denial, moving of people to other places WITHOUT warning to potential future victims. This proves that either the «management» has nothing to do with the Holy Ghost, or that even if the Holy Ghost is guiding them they chose to ignore it and practice their own way. In both cases these people are not to be trusted.
Edgar's testimony about how he could not see what was happening when he was in the work corroborates, at least partly, the above.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 5, 2007 8:12:37 GMT -5
The above attitide is most hypocritical, dangerous and crooky and here is why. First parents are made to believe that the workers are the best of the best, men and women God uses to speak His word. This is in error. No one is made to believe. That is not the way belief works. The parents choose to believe. That is the point - they shouldn't. While it might be convenient to say people are brainwashed, they were duped, etc. the fact remains that people have free will. They can make decisions. If they choose to follow Jim Jones into the jungle is that the fault of Jim jones? People need to take responsibility for their actions.
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Oct 5, 2007 9:19:23 GMT -5
EXACTLY, they make their choice ... somethin that is celebrated as of primary importance for their eternal salvation.
EXACTLY and leave this wormhole of crooks.
HOWEVER if people do not chose to believe what the workers perscribe, they are theatened with eternal Hell and punishment. Remember, it is the workers that express the true word of God on earth (according to the 2x2 doctrine) and nobody els.
EXACTLY, God will not protect anybody from the 2x2s. People have to distance themselves on the basis of their own brains. There are a number of conclusions that could be drawn from this regarding god and his ability to protect innocent children but that should be discussed in another thread.
I FULLY AGREE
If BLIND workers lead BLIND parents they will all fall in the pit!
Rational, I think you prove that although you try thinking irrationaly, the rational conclusion every rational man will come to is that RELIGION (especially cultish one like the 2x2s) IS DANGEROUS FOR YOUR HEALTH AND THE HEALTH OF YOUR FAMILY.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 5, 2007 9:57:05 GMT -5
HOWEVER if people do not chose to believe what the workers perscribe, they are theatened with eternal Hell and punishment. But if you do not believe what the workers prescribe that threat is hollow. I fully agree that religion is a dangerous thing but, as I said, that is a different discussion. This one was trying to make the point that a group does not force people to believe. And just because you are a member of a group that does not relieve you of all personal responsibility for your actions.
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Oct 5, 2007 11:24:32 GMT -5
This applies to any normal group, not a cult. By definition a cult is a group that exercises such a control over its members (or in the context of which the members have delegated so many control) that they no longer act on their own free will. They have been in a master-slave relationship in the context of which, yes responsibility may be shared 50-50 but non the less the sexual act is conducted by an adult over rthe detriment of a minor and other adylts are covering up, in a way assist, the perpetrator in his/her act. So even if we may accept that thee parents do share a big part of the responsibility, we cannot accept that they bear the FULL responsibility of child molesting in the church even if they may be accused of GRAVE NEGLIGENCE.
It would be very easy for all the crooks (especially those coming preaching the Bible) to say «All you had to to was to be careful, you idiot» !
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 5, 2007 21:27:00 GMT -5
This applies to any normal group, not a cult. By definition a cult is a group that exercises such a control over its members (or in the context of which the members have delegated so many control) that they no longer act on their own free will. I guess I have never accepted the deffinition that would define the 2x2s as a cult. The 2x2s are no more a cult that Christianity. To say that members are no longer able to act on their own free will is just another way of absolving the members of any responsibility and dumping all the blame on the leaders. It is like the soldiers who tried to place the responsibility for atrocities on the officers. "We were just following orders". If the adults knew it was happening and failed to report it, yes, they are guilty, both the members and the leaders. If the organization knew that the person was a danger and did not report it or moved the individual to a different location to 'protect' them then the organization would also be guilty. In fact, they might be considered to be criminally negligent.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 5, 2007 22:30:48 GMT -5
Rational, In regards to: If the organization knew that the person was a danger and did not report it or moved the individual to a different location to 'protect' them then the organization would also be guilty. In fact, they might be considered to be criminally negligent.
Lets take a 'hypothetical' situation here. A worker molests a child. The parents out of fear of being shunned by the friends and possibly kicked out of the 'truth' do not turn the worker in to the authorities, but instead consult with the overseer about what to do. The overseer then places the worker in question in a 'resting' status for a while while the situation blows over and is hushed up, and then the worker is relocated to another field. Do you feel that the overseer is criminally liable for not reporting the molestation to the authorities? Also, how about those who are professing and know of this situation, do you feel that they are criminally liable for not reporting this same issue? And to take it a step further, lets say that I hear of this same situation, but do not report it, would I then be criminally liable also? Just curious as to what you think about this, as I almost feel the need to call the authorities in regards to this situation, but I lack the 'proof' that you questioned me about on another thread.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Oct 5, 2007 22:39:36 GMT -5
Concealing a crime in Minnesota:
Aiding and Abetting: It provides for a three-year felony for harboring, concealing, or assisting another if the person knows or has reason to know that the other has committed a felony. Previously, this penalty only applied if the person assisting the other knew the person had committed a felony.
So looks like the law agrees that if the workers knew about the crime and concealed it they would also be committing a crime.
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Oct 5, 2007 22:59:18 GMT -5
|
|
sms
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by sms on Oct 5, 2007 22:59:47 GMT -5
Perhaps there is someone here more knowledgable about US "Mandatory Reporting Laws." My question is: Aren't ministers required to report abuse and/or suspected abuse?
Just curious how this law applies to ministers/priests.
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Oct 5, 2007 23:02:00 GMT -5
Perhaps there is someone here more knowledgable about US "Mandatory Reporting Laws." My question is: Aren't ministers required to report abuse and/or suspected abuse? Just curious how this law applies to ministers/priests. See the news link posted above. Looks like its a misdemeanor if you know about a crime but don't report it.
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Oct 5, 2007 23:06:39 GMT -5
Wings: I LOVE your monkey (but's he is a little creepy!)
I think that law is right on... I think any adult who knows about a crime against a child should be held accountable if they do not report it. That includes workers, neighbors, etc.
|
|
sms
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by sms on Oct 5, 2007 23:11:38 GMT -5
DUH. Read the article! LOL.
So - do workers believe they are exempt from this because they aren't called "ministers" and aren't - technically - "in charge" of a "church"? Obviously - from the information "Carpenter" posted here prior, some workers are becoming aware of this responsibility - but I am wondering whether many workers are aware of this legal responsibility. After all, they aren't actually formally "trained" - so I'm not sure how they would become aware of the law and learn how to implement it.
I am sorry to hear the story of the physical abuse mentioned above. I have wondered (now that I'm older!) if one of my acquaintances some time ago wasn't a victim of physical abuse - the signs are all there now that I'm aware of what to look for. (I'm an RN). I'm sooooo disappointed that this situation wasn't dealt with more compassionately. HOWEVER - I suspect the reason (I was told this MANY times growing up!) that it would be far worse for the child to be moved to an unprofessing foster home than to remain in a less-than ideal professing home.
Anyway - just my personal experience - I cannot extrapolate for areas beyond those I've lived in. But I do think this is an under-reported issue among the f and w - and it causes me grave concern.
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Oct 5, 2007 23:21:11 GMT -5
Wings: I LOVE your monkey (but's he is a little creepy!) I think that law is right on... I think any adult who knows about a crime against a child should be held accountable if they do not report it. That includes workers, neighbors, etc. ROFL.... he represents my "Mr Hyde".... ;D
Yes you're right. I wonder if each state has their own laws regarding this. I must do some more research.
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Oct 5, 2007 23:27:02 GMT -5
DUH. Read the article! LOL. So - do workers believe they are exempt from this because they aren't called "ministers" and aren't - technically - "in charge" of a "church"? Obviously - from the information "Carpenter" posted here prior, some workers are becoming aware of this responsibility - but I am wondering whether many workers are aware of this legal responsibility. After all, they aren't actually formally "trained" - so I'm not sure how they would become aware of the law and learn how to implement it. Its a shame if they think they are above the law or that it doesn't apply to them. Maybe after a few have been bust out in the open, they will sit up and take notice..... and action!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 5, 2007 23:34:52 GMT -5
Lets take a 'hypothetical' situation here. A worker molests a child. The parents out of fear of being shunned by the friends and possibly kicked out of the 'truth' do not turn the worker in to the authorities, but instead consult with the overseer about what to do. The overseer then places the worker in question in a 'resting' status for a while while the situation blows over and is hushed up, and then the worker is relocated to another field. Do you feel that the overseer is criminally liable for not reporting the molestation to the authorities? Let's assume the parent caught the worker in the act. The parent is guilty of not reporting the situation to the authorities since they knew what happened. The overseer has only the word of the parent to act on. I believe the overseer should at the very least investigate the situation but without proof there is not a lot that can be done. The overseer could go to the authorities and relate what they suspect, but without the proof there is not a lot the state can do either. The overseer could try to get the parent to report what they know to the authorities. The overseer could confront the worker in question, and if appropriate, get the worker to turn themselves in for treatment. The overseer is in a tough position because they do not have proof of the crime. I do believe they should take some action and try to determine the truth and not sweep it under the rug. When you say 'know of the situation' do you mean they have heard it from others or they have witnessed the crime? Hearing about a situation if not proof. As a mandated reporter you have to report if you have "reasonable cause to believe" "reasonable suspicion.""know or suspect," which is a higher degree of knowledge. I was just wondering what you consider proof. Different states have different requirements. While I can understand what you are doing, why don't those who have been harmed do the reporting? If it evolves children - the parents would be the appropriate reporters.
|
|