JustThinking

OM, I have made it to page 21 so far and haven't found anything specific. Maybe someone, somewhere said something with detail but not in this little rant.

Shaz, Your response to Simon really gets to the heart of my question. Ministers do a lot more than stand in a pulpit and teach. They may end up doing couseling work in areas that in other cases might be handled by mental health professionals. When I was a TC, for example, people came to me with many things which were out of my expertise. My usual approach was to send them up the Way Tree because I chose not to delude myself that I had ANY qualification to deal with the issue at hand. However, I did see other coordinators/leaders trying to "counsel" someone out of homosexuality, drug use, etc. and royally screw it up. In some cases, the two of them ended up in the sack. In one case, the woman was trying to get out of an S&M lifestyle and guess where the two ended up? Should he be liable in the court's view as a counselor? I don't know. I know what I think is morally right but that won't secure a conviction.

OM, Fair criticism. Before reading the article, I assumed that there was legal information in it. (PJ is kind of known for dabbling in legal stuff) There is not. So you are right. My apologies to you. JT

OM, The thread is about legal responsibility. The law in the US and many other countries protects individuals from exploitation by those who have undue authority and/or influence over them. Professions such as psychiatrists are recognized as having both a higher level of impact AND privileged information which can be used to take advantage of their patients. The responsibility is on the physician to maintain the appropriate relationship. It is not a moral debate but a legal restriction which is not up for discussion in the laws view. My question is whether ministers or religious counselors ever fall into this category. I really would like to know the answer. Please do not try to turn this into another "she started it too" debacle. It would probably be easier to sum up that you think the woman bears responsibility, many others disagree and none of you are likely to change your opinion. Is that fair?

Dan, You didn't miss much. LCM started to see the number "two" in his entire life. He was to "establish" the ministry etc. Of course, the teaching USED to be that the number two could also represent division. Hmmm... maybe it WAS appropriate!

Ok, I DO see profit in these now! They would make a great college drinking game: 1. One shot every time the word "insane" is used. 2. Two shots when "asleep" is used. 3. Three shots when anything even vaguely specific is said. (Sadly, no one wins this one) 4. One shot each time two or more trustees are mentioned in the same sentence. Etc. It probably would have made these meetings more fun or at least bearable. :-)

They learned from the best on how to talk for a long time and say nothing. Kind of like politicians who say they are for better education. And who is for WORSE education? Shaz, I think you nailed it. Would any of the attendees believe they are in favor of NOT "doing the Word?" Duh! He did a great job of defining his opponents views for them. Politics 101.

I'm up to page 21 and I need an Alka Seltzer. Endless attempts to find "deep hidden meanings" in the ramblings of a country huckster. If the guy was so great and there was so much for those who chose to search it, why did he have to plagiarize so much?

Got is Radar. Thank you.

It doesn't matter because LCM said she's not part of the functioning body of Christ anway. ;-)

Amen, George. Kind of makes me wince and sigh at the same time.

Goey, Good points. Until there is real impact, it's just a marketing business. It just occurred to me that I can't recall a single time when Jesus told his followers to bring a friend or loved one to the next sermon.

Pj, Thank you. It's very informative.

Oak, Some times I feel like you are my twin as our experiences are SO similar. That was my main role as a witness. It certainly wasn't to say much or even help in deciding a situation. I was a good note taker. How sad is that? It was almost like watching a tennis match go back and forth at times. Guess I was a bobblehead too. The disgust at my own lack of support for someone I felt had been unfairly treated is what caused me to start pulling out of TWI. Heck of a way to finally wise up. I'm trying to rebuild that friendship and hope they'll forgive me.

Is it my imagination or did LCM just LOVE Old Testament violent imagery? I didn't realize that as "Athletes of the Spirit" that we might slip on the bema because it was splattered in our enemies blood. :-( (Great mind picture, huh?)

98? I think I was. Not sure though. That was the start of my "fading into the woodwork and out the door time."

I guess it depends on the purpose of a witness. In my experience, the "witness" was their to help the main TWI person confront the accused. Actual, first-hand knowledge of the other person's "offenses" was optional. They were there to "witness" the confrontation NOT be a witness AGAINST the accused. It seemed almost like moral support for the one screaming. Not saying this fits anything remotely sounding biblical but that was my experience with TWI.

Oak, I think you nailed it. They were there ONLY to observe. The name says it all: "witnesses." The script I saw played out more than once: Leader: "You sit there and watch. Oh yeah, rip into them when I can't think of anything or need a drink of water/coffee. By the way, go make me some coffee." TWIt: "Yes, sir." TWIt to Spouse TWIt: "We're so blessed to be trusted with this responsibility even if it is 10:30 at night and our kids are at home alone on a school night." Spouse TWIt: "You're right, honey. Why can't [insert target of inquisition] get it? If they would just do the word, their life would be so much better. That's where deliverance is."

WW, Agreed. Are they legally liable though?

In the Parker case, one of the allegations was sexual assault. Is it ever against the law for a minister to have an affair? There are legal limits for some doctors such as psychiatrists. Are there any such limits for clergy? If so, could anyone in TWI have been sued on these grounds?

I'll move this to it's own thread to avoid a total derail.

Ok, now the wheels are turning.... Could a LC also be sued for the same behavior as LCM in the Peeler case?

The LCs are co-defendents? Really?! Hmm... I have to admit that I haven't kept up with the case. Maybe I will.

I can't imagine any other reaction that totally agreeing with whatever the MOG-wannabe said. They wouldn't stop to think. Glazed eyes would be the most common physical trait of the Wayfer.

"Substantial" must be a relative term to them. Kind of like "truth" and "research."