Rocky

No. We don't agree on what laws (which are not sentient) might be aware of. The law doesn't enforce anything. Agencies with police power exercise discretion as to which laws or whether laws will be enforced. The situation varies by jurisdiction. Laws are written/made by citizens and/or the representatives of citizens. Which laws are or aren't made also vary by jurisdiction. I'm really not interested in and not trying to trigger you. Please recognize it.

Yeah, anyone can post anything. Nevertheless, Loy's reality was unmistakably altered by being exposed via the interwebs, not necessarily in ways he would have preferred. I apologize if this triggers you. That would be clearly contrary to my intent. I won't try to argue or bicker or clarify what accountability via the internet might mean.

Because freedom of religion. "The Law" has been constrained to prevent regulation of religion. As religions, such as twi, RC, and Mormons use that freedom to hide abusive and harmful non-religion related practices to harm children and adults, legislation can address some related issues/concerns/risks. But legislation gets challenged before, during, and after the legislative processes attempt to protect those at risk. The struggle never ends. But it's still an important struggle. Depending on the laws in one's state, citizens might be able to initiate such mitigating efforts in order to keep Big Money interests (churches and their insurance companies) from stopping movements for accountability.

Not sure the state legislature in Ohio could or would have done anything to mitigate the problem. But yeah, it was bound to happen. Over the weekend (just passed), I watched the 2015 movie Spotlight three times. Something (some) legislatures have done and others (including citizens) still can do is eliminate clergy-penitent privilege. (Btw, THIS is a matter of law/legal discussion, NOT politics.) Several US states have successfully eliminated it. In others, certain churches have thwarted movements to eliminate it by carrot or stick manipulation of only a handful of legislators. It's application to the RC and Mormon churches would have substantial impact to mitigate risk of potential harm to children. To twi, it would have been a bit murkier but helpful nevertheless, not limited to potential risk to minors. Eliminating the privilege would require the confessor to report to law enforcement whenever s/he became aware of sexual assault and/or likelihood of assault in the future. And to testify in court when necessary to put such facts into evidence/record. In the RC church, an abusive priest goes to confession w/one of his colleagues hearing the confession. Because of the privilege, the one who heard the confession is prohibited from disclosure to law enforcement. I'm confident readers here are aware of the pervasiveness of the problem in the RC church. Spotlight cited former priest and research psychologist Richard Sipe as estimating at the time of his research, 6 percent of all priests in the RC church act out in sexual ways with children. In Boston, during the time of the Spotlight investigation, that estimate was 90 priests. The Globe's investigative team identified 87 such priests. There's NO question the social structure of twi enabled clergy and other leaders to "command" or otherwise elicit sexual compliance from (younger) adult married or unmarried women. There's no question that accountability via the internet made a difference. And Bolshevik, I'm so sorry for how people in NK blamed you. Hopefully, that too has passed.

Nobody believes you... on this website. You don't have either adequate communication skills or ability to relate to those you hope will read your blather.

Or perhaps better characterized as a TROLL.

Here's what Mike's doing:

ICYMI, a staff UNION is a step toward the kind of collegial rather than hierarchical "church" structure as appears apparent in the Acts of the Apostles. Btw, does anyone remember our fellow GSCer Taxidev posting the point that RnR didn't ask for money? And IIRC, I told him more than once that I didn't believe they weren't interested in money.

You aren't accomplishing that mission. Your communications skills are easily overmatched. By that, I mean, your rhetoric is clumsy, your responses to being challenged on any point are easily picked apart, refuted. Do you not realize that everyone here realizes you completely dismiss the essence of anything and everything anyone says to you? Are you even honest with yourself about your "mission?"

Really, Mike, you ARE overmatched. You have not demonstrated any (significant) growth in understanding, communication skills, or ability to relate to the people you allegedly love and try to reach HERE with the "greatness of God's Word." In 20 effing YEARS. Maybe it IS time for you to take a time out (for at least a year).

You rest on words that YOU apparently recognize but don't really acknowledge you haven't effectively communicated.

Nobody here is able to read your mind. It MIGHT be easier to figure out what you really mean if we were face to face. We're not, so there's no body language to enhance your communication. Bottom line is you HAVE said essentially the meaning/message Socrates responded to NUMEROUS times. One time acknowledging you might not always be right doesn't outweigh. Really, Mike, you are overmatched on GSC and always have been. I don't believe you when you claim you have won GSC hearts over to your side/view. IF you see (read) that you have been misunderstood, telling the person they are wrong is an unfruitful way to clarify your message. IF you see (read) someone and you believe the person has misunderstood you, you might be more effective to say "It appears I wasn't clear, here's another way for me to state my message. I hope I succeed in making it clear. ANY time you blame the other person for getting your meaning wrong, you are BLAMING them, when they aren't able to control how you convey your intended message. That's ONE key to why people don't accept your 20 years of saying the same damn thing.

Unless there had been a policy of limiting staff service to only a year or two, that was an incredibly abusive practice. Of course there was no such limit on staff service. Exploitation, thy name is The Way International. I'm glad I was never on twi staff.

It's a good thing! Btw, it highlights the need for a twi staff UNION!

If the RandR gang hasn't had SS withholding for all or most of their employment in twi, that's a BFD. I would (and do) empathize with them in that regard. Not because of their tenure in twi, but as American citizens.

To succeed on that objective, it will take doing some emotional work. I hope you avail yourself of the insights I shared with video of Brene Brown. Her insights can powerfully assist in that regard.

Dude, I've been working on changing ever since I left twi. It's a journey. Am I willing to acknowledge your position on biblical matters of any kind? I might be, if that was the focus of my journey these days. But it isn't. Too many other, more pertinent, things to learn and to do before it's all said and done and I take my last breath.

Extra cash? Heck, I'm thankful to not be homeless.

A more contemporary scholar than Peck. Brene Brown. Has studied vulnerability for decades. The rhetoric you have used on this thread, today, is the opposite of vulnerability.

Mike, the way it happened between Gorbachev and Reagan was Gorby didn't keep insisting it was a two way street. He had to, in the words of the late M Scott Peck, empty himself of such an attitude and clearly, emphatically, indicate he was OPEN and willing to give first. Are you capable of doing the same?

Where did you find that common ground, other than in your head? I believe you believe you have found said common ground. But that's not reflected in any of your posts.

The following is a reflection on world history. The COLD WAR ended when Mikhail Gorbachev decided to implement glasnost. It's clear from the history books (and much is available on line) Russia and Gorbachev viewed themselves as victims of western imperialism. That was a legit point of view even though Europe and the US had a much different POV that was no less legitimate. I submit that the GSC cold war between Mike and the rest of us will end when Mike decides to implement glasnost. IF you're honest with yourself and with US, Mike, you'll have to recognize the corrosive impact of the rhetoric you employ. I cited a couple of examples in posts a little while ago. IF you genuinely want people here to take you seriously, you will have to engage with a different, perhaps more loving, tone.

An exquisite example, Socrates, of the opposite of Deep Canvassing. And of people talking AT you. And brilliantly illuminating the fundamental (bottom line) reason Mike has not, nor ever will (unless he figures out how dismissively unloving people perceive his schtick to be here). How do people change their minds? First step, someone listens to them BEFORE (or really, instead of) telling them how wrong they are. I sat in on a law school class session once a few years ago. The professor asked questions intended to elicit discussion. Instead of, "no you're dead wrong," he replied to students with thoughtful, acknowledging responsive follow ups like, "what about this..." or "have you thought about this angle..." Mike, all you're doing and have been doing for the better part of two decades here at GSC, is 1) talk AT us, 2) not recognize the humanity and value of the experiences that underlie the responses people have graciously (or at times, snarkily) given you. Have you given these things any thought over the years/decades?

THIS seems like a quintessential example of talking AT us. The opposite of dialogue.