Frankly, once LLP and JWBM entered this thread, and posted to the effect that twi as a corporate entity is innocent of wrongdoing, this thread no longer reflected an intellectual exchange of ideas in the truest sense.
TWI's responsibility in this matter is what I see as the main discussion point of the thread (outside of exposing Mark's treachery), and a most useful discussion.
I think most are agreed that Mark deserves all punishment he received, if not more. But what is not exactly clear, especially by those still in TWI, is TWI's involvement, responsibility, complicity, or even criminal participation.
My opinion is that TWI is fully responsible, had knowledge of what was going on, did nothing to stop it, has done nothing since, and most likely doesn't see any wrong done by Mark or consider it a minor offense. But for someone still in TWI, this is a huge leap in thinking. It doesn't fit with what they know of TWI and is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom.
I know someone in TWI right now, dealing with this same issue, who's opinion is very similar to LLPs. LLP's posts have been most enlightening in helping me understand why this current TWI member remains loyal, and understanding the questions, doubts, justifications that her thinking entails. To that end, I extremely appreciate LLP posting here and what others have posted, adding to the discussion.
There are a lot of unknowns here:
- When did TWI know what Mark was doing?
- What was their response?
- Did they relocate him after knowing what he did to the girl, and leave him in a position to abuse other children?
- What is TWI's doctrine on the subject?
TWI has been silent on the issue. In my mind, their silence is implicating them. Their actions are in direct contradiction of their public doctrines and teachings and past actions in dealing with wrong doing in their leadership, further implicating them.
But, I sat through countless teachings listening to Craig scream about some evil so and so did. I watched many friends put on mark and avoid for minor offenses. I saw the witch hunts, looking for such things as a dirty house to show that a person is possessed and should be kicked out. I see the hypocrisy very clear. LLP may have been only listening to post-Craig STS teachings, where only bland, basic, rehashed doctrines are presented. Maybe not. Most experiences with TWI are unique.
So, the three questions are:
Why is TWI responsible?
Why is TWI not responsible?
Does it matter whether TWI is responsible or not, only my standing with God matters (which I think is a part of LLPs thinking?)?
OK Bob! Yes, I think TWI is responsible, in part (a large one) or in whole.
In my opinion they bear responsability, either way you look at it.
1. They are infallible, hold the secret decoder, know all the secrets of devils and men. They had to have been very aware of what was happening, and allowed it.
2. They are snake oil salesmen, or their decoder does not quite decode right. They really can't see devils through 10 feet of lead, concrete and reinforced steel. Their arrogance of believing otherwise at least allowed this "little problem" to slip by. They are then guilty of negligence. And I am not blaming the poor stooges that bought into the junk. It may be harsh, but I too was a stooge once..
I think even asking the question of TWI being responsible is a bit too much for a loyal TWI member. The implications of such question, as LLP pointed out, are enormous and impact greatly on one's belief system.
Mr. Hammeroni, their beliefs do tend to seperate them from other groups, which is why I think the comparisons with the RCC and others falls through. Criag's number one charge to the Way Corps was to keep the "household" clean. A rather significant part of their training is geared directly toward this.
I suppose another question would be, does TWI believe that a person who sexually abuses a child is possessed? I don't know. It would line up with their other doctrine, but they have been silient on the subject of sex and possession.
If they believe he was possessed, then how did he go so long without the devil spirit alarm going off by any one of the members/corps operating the manifestation of discerning of spirits. They do claim that everyone can operate it at any time. How was he missed? This would indicate that their doctrine doesn't work (Mark did this for a long time).
If they don't believe he was possessed, which is a distinct possibility (why else would Mark believe he could return to his ministry carreer?), then it would indicate they don't believe what he did to be wrong, or it being a minor mistake.
Yep. And the silence is almost deafening. I wouldn't hold my breath for them to chime in here in their own defence, not that they even care. Perhaps they are pleased to be living so as to have "the ministry to be blamed".
But I do not know how different they really are from other groups. Once you make a claim of infallibility, that Craigers is THE Mog, and to this day adhere to his mandates, suggestions and questionable doctrines like they were written in stone... in their opinion he was speaking excathedra (sorry exie, NO comparison to you intended!) , and will defend his stuff to the death. Sounds familiar to at least one other group.
I think this is part of the heart of the subject of this thread. Once you claim infallibility, you get everything that comes with it. This includes the blame when it goes sour.
The situation with this clergy guy is pretty darn sour. Passing the blame to poor stooges will not work very much longer. Not a very comfortable position for TWI I think. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
They must be between a rock and a hard place.
Admit the wrong and wrongdoing, and losen your grip over the little flock that is left. Whatya afraid of? Afraid they might be able to have a little fun?
Or hold on to the austere and devilish mandates of your lords and masters- LCM, Rosie and group?
Wordwolf: You wrote: “Hindsight is 20/20. The Catholic Church was not "obviously" a haven for child molesters. If they were, then "obviously" the police and the courts would have been having a field day with them for years. Most people were surprised and shocked when the news of the scandals in the RCC broke. Most people didn't say "I knew it all along."â€
So, how does what you wrote about the RCC not apply to TWI? Was TWI so obviously a haven for child molesters, and, if so, why were not the police and courts equally having a field day with TWI over the years?
Wordwolf: I cited your words (enclosed within quotation marks) above in my previous post, and posed the question above. For full context, reread my previous post. I didn’t see a response from you – perhaps I missed it, perhaps you don’t care to reply – doesn’t matter, but I’d be interested in your response.
“Please cite EXACTLY what caused the impression I was making a double-standard...or admit it was simply the way you read the posts.â€
I have already done that, and further conceded that “exoneration†was probably not the right term to describe your position.
Your words from a previous post that you quoted in your most current message:
“Presuming equal numbers of both, would you then seek to excuse the organizations that harbored these perversions just because they might have been widespread? Do you forgive them for covering up their evil deeds because they werent the only ones?â€
â€[Here I hammered my position that they should be treated equally, and both equally severely.]â€
I don’t see anything in your words “presuming . . .†that advocates equally severe anything. Rather, you are trying to amplify the statements I have made to paint me into a position I have never advocated.
You write:
“[Other than a nebulous statement that "the organization should bear responsibility", what SPECIFIC measures do you think should be done with the RCC and twi? I already gave my general guidelines for action, let's hear yours-or do both organizations go on their merry ways?]â€
I have stated that I cannot speak intimately to the claim of wide-spread sexual child abuse in TWI, and I also stated that I’m not an expert in this area. Any organization should bear appropriate responsibility for any illegal activity that occurred in a measure equal to the degree to which they condoned or facilitated said activity. I can’t be more specific than that since I am not directly involved. My reference to moving forward doesn’t presume that organizations “go on their merry ways†but, rather that they make appropriate changes/improvements in the way they do things moving forward to minimize the opportunity for repeated illegal activity.
“and you're suggesting I said to close them down†- Here’s what I said: “I find unrealistic the notion that the RCC should somehow be disbanded by some government enforcement agency over this issue. Disbandment of TWI over the same issues seems equally unrealistic to me.†I did not attribute the “notion†to you or anyone else.
Oooo, nasty WordWolf doesn't want to hear points of view other than his own-he eschews "balanced" discussion. Slapping that label on my comments in no way alters their substance, and claiming yours are "balanced" AGAIN STILL doesn't make them so
The balance I’m referring to, WordWolf, is the community benefit that results when opposing views are freely exchanged on this or other BB’S. It’s not a matter of whether my comments are “balanced†and yours are or are not. It’s the balance that results when the weight of your argument offsets the weight of mine, and our combined effort at polite dialog compliments that of all the other posters on the board, whether they be pro- or anti-TWI. I’m slapping no labels, WordWolf, but I do take exception to comments that tend to portray me as less than sincere. You said: “Fine. I dont believe you, since it seems clear to me that you can't view this subject with "balance". I called all the perpetrators evil, and you threw up this smokescreen in response, claiming I excused the perverts in the RCC. That was blatant MISrepresentation of what I said. Therefore, I don't believe you're here to provide fairness OR balanceâ€
Keywords such as “smokescreen†“misrepresentation,†and flat-out statements that you don’t believe that I’m here to provide “fairness†(your interjection, not part of my original statement) or balance tend to make you appear to be attacking me personally, and I read them in that light – and I do take exception to those comments. It hearkens back to the days when throngs on this board accused me of being a troll. It’s wasn’t true then, and your suggestion that I have some other motive for posting here other than to discuss the topic of this thread is not true, either.
“Now, as to accusing me of duplicity, you just did above, with your "hearsay" charge†I did not accuse you of duplicity, and the term hearsay is not a dirty word. It only speaks to the legal strength of any given set of facts. Either you are repeating what you saw first hand, or you are repeating hearsay. It’s as simple as that. I didn’t charge you with anything.
“I'll give you this-you have added more style to your posts. You're also refraining from making baldly false statements. That is also an improvement. However, you're still interpreting events so as to re-cast twi in the best possible light, and its dissenters in the worst possible light. That's not intellectually honest. If I wanted to, I could do the same, but I prefer to take a certain pride in the integrity of my posts “
I’m not in school, here, WordWolf, nor am I making any conscious effort to stylize my posts. I’ve never made baldly false statements, so refraining from them does not represent any improvement on my part. I’m not trying to “re-cast TWI†and have stated that my comments are not an attempt to defend TWI. I’ve been very careful to point out that I respect the views of the anti-TWI posters on this board, and refute your allegation of intellectual dishonesty.
Finally, “BTW, LLP, please make it easy visually to tell when you're quoting me and when you're speaking for yourself, for the benefit of those playing along at homeâ€
I follow a time-tested practice of enclosing your statements in quotations. You post as you please, I’ll do the same. The comment about “those playing along at home†would seem to indicate that you view this exchange as some sort of game. I do not.
Abigail, thank you for your advice . . . and to all, I apologize for having allowed such a pointed two-way exchange to have somewhat derailed such a valuable thread.
quote: I’ve never made baldly false statements, so refraining from them does not represent any improvement on my part. I’m not trying to 're-cast TWI' and have stated that my comments are not an attempt to defend TWI. I’ve been very careful to point out that I respect the views of the anti-TWI posters on this board, and refute your allegation of intellectual dishonesty.
I've always found your above description to be the case. I've never seen you address anyone with disrespect; nor have I seen you allege that anyone's accounts were false.
Thanks for posting LLP. I appreciate hearing your point of view, and I'm glad you're here.
Although this information is now a few years old, it was taken from a very reliable source. This information can be found on the web and it is from the US Department of Health and Human Services. Just because the data is a few years old I wouldn't consider it irrelevant. I believe this data was taken from the year 2003. Amazingly the number of reported child abuse cases reached a record high in 2003 in our state as well, which is by far the highest number ever.
In fact, I too was also surprised to learn that females, (specifically female parents) are by far the largest percentage of child abuse perpetrators - and not males. But then, people are still of the opinon that strangers are the largest percentage of child abuse perpetrators, but that perception fortunately is changing. It wasn't until 1968 when Dr. C. Henry Kemp and Ray E. Helfer's book The Battered Child was published that people finally began to realize and be aware that parents and caregivers are by far the greater percentage of child abuse perpetrators and not strangers.
People who still think that males are the greater percentage of child abuse perpetrators are simply ignorant of these facts. Since when is child abuse "gender specific?" I find their solution to child abuse to be just as ignorant, as most of them want to execute the ones who happen to be in the smaller percentage and not the larger.
...I always wonder about mommy and why she never says a thing, except for when I'm bad, she yells and hits me till my ears ring...
...I got screamed at again and slapped hard too, my mommy took the belt and hit me with the buckle, and daddy's navy shoe.
These lines were taken from the poem: "Daddy's Girl" (Dr. Julie Soule) The poem speaks of a child enduring abuse not only by her father but by both parents - not just "daddy" alone for the poem also contains the line ... Are all mommies and daddies like this I wonder, I think I'll ask my friend, but not until daddy's done, he put my clothes on top of the fridge.
Of course all the attention is now on some Mark N. who happens to be with TWI because of his position in TWI. I guess this incident is supposed to make me forget about the ladies who were/are in TWI who carried a "wooden spoon" in their back pocket to every ministry function, or whenever they were with their child. I guess you wanted to impress me how well behaved your child was. Frankly speaking, I was never that impressed to begin with.
I have been in the education field my whole adult life. Over 25 years. I have seen good daycares, and poor ones. I have seen abuse, and reported it.
I think I have a little experience to speak to the issue of child abuse, and of how the institution in which it happens should respond.
A good institution endeavors to keep checks and balances in place against all its employees. A good institution is ready to work with the authorities on any allegation. A good institution will protect the safety of the children above the comfort of its employees.
One example (first-hand knowledge): The year was 1983. A 4-year-old child in a daycare makes an accusation that "two big boys climbed over the wall and came in the bathroom and touched me. The teachers saw it and didn't do anything." The wall was 8 feet high. I was there the day it supposedly happened. It didn't happen. The daycare director's immediate response: suspend the teachers named, with pay. Have the police brought in to talk to everyone involved. Call a meeting with all parents to bring them up to date on what was happening.
The result? The child began to name an uncle, and the parents who originally came forward with this accusation withdrew their cooperation with the police. The daycare returned to normal operations, with further instruction to staff as to how to handle children in the bathroom and how to handle any suspicion of abuse. A few parents withdrew their children, but not many.
Compare that with how TWI not only did not have any in-depth spiritual perception and awareness to know what was going on, but they didn't even have any 5-senses common sense to protect children from this guy, and you can see why I am not happy with TWI as an organization.
what the hay, i was thinking about child sexual abuse when i asked you that.... the thread being about a TWI minister getting 6 years for sexual assaults against a child.
"Although this information is now a few years old, it was taken from a very reliable source. This information can be found on the web and it is from the US Department of Health and Human Services. Just because the data is a few years old I wouldn't consider it irrelevant. I believe this data was taken from the year 2003. Amazingly the number of reported child abuse cases reached a record high in 2003 in our state as well, which is by far the highest number ever."
That is possible.
"People who still think that males are the greater percentage of child abuse perpetrators are simply ignorant of these facts."
My impression is that while females simply outnumber males, and are likely the most common child abusers, it is often the men who get into the media about it.
From our envolvement with the Foster-care system [which was recently stopped], it would seem that step-fathers did do some of the physical beatings and sexual abuse. But most of the overall abuse in children that we encountered came from females [assiging children to grind pills to powder to be snorted, as runners between prostitute and johns, as pillows to be punched, as splash-guards to have boiling water poured over them, etc].
Now I do realize that some children are simply prone towards 'special needs', and that no matter what we do there will still be children from good families that are ADHD, or hyper-active, dyslexic. However among foster-children there exists a very high ratio of ODD, RAD, IED; which are all related to the lack of personal intervention and attention while birth to 3 years old. And now they are saying that even ADHD is often related to the number of hours an under 5 child spends watching TV.
There is also a lot of FAS and crack-baby incidents also; which are 100% mother provided forms of abuse.
I dont know any numbers on the subject, though from our observation I could see where it is possible that the majority sex could possibly be responsible for the majority of the child abuse.
I have dealt the results of sexual-abuse from both mothers and fathers. I have heard of it from adults other than parent [though I have not had any children, nor do I know any foster-parent with children sexually-abused by adults other than parent].
I see in my local paper usually on a weekly basis more arrests for 'endangering a minor', or 'suspected child-abuse'. With what Bonnie and I were 'investigated' for, none of it was illegal; and we lost any ability to adopt. I see serious abuse arrests weekly in my local paper, so I have to think that nationwide thousands of children must be abused daily.
But this all seems to be beside the point. In this case, a man did sexually assault a child, possibly many children. The whistle was blown on his activities, but TWI's response was to support the molester.
I am with Shaz on this one. We can talk all we want, analyze all we want, rationalize all we want.....BUT......
This thread is about a twi corps grad, long time twi staffer, apparently (??) twi clergy that has been CONVICTED AND SENTENCED as a child molester. A convicted child molestor that has the complete and public SUPPORT of TWI.
- Did they relocate him after knowing what he did to the girl, and leave him in a position to abuse other children?
- What is TWI's doctrine on the subject?
TWI has been silent on the issue. In my mind, their silence is implicating them. Their actions are in direct contradiction of their public doctrines and teachings and past actions in dealing with wrong doing in their leadership, further implicating them.â€
I continue to be concerned over the issues raised by MN’s conviction, and have been reviewing this thread for further enlightenment. In re-reading the above that you posted, I realized that there is some good food for thought here. I can’t answer any of the questions you pose . . . . perhaps factual answers will be forthcoming in the future.
“TWI has been silent on the issue. In my mind, their silence is implicating them.â€
You might want to consider the possibility that TWI’s silence, for the moment and immediate future, at least, may be based on advice from counsel to refrain from public debate in light of pending litigation before concluding any implication in their current decision to be silent on the issue. I cannot speak to their silence prior to the filing of charges since I’m not conversant with the details – gosh, I don’t even know when the original complaint was filed.
But this all seems to be beside the point. In this case, a man did sexually assault a child, possibly many children. The whistle was blown on his activities, but TWI's response was to support the molester.â€
Shaz:
I posted a reply on the thread initiated by “See Me†that probes the issue of TWI’s response. I doubt that See Me is currently in position to reply, but trust that we will one day have some answers – they (the answers) are very important to me.
You have my respect and admiration. Your position is not an easy one to be in, particularly if you have a spouse and family who may not be as willing to consider all sides of the story.
If ya ever need to "talk", my email is abigail0900@yahoo.com.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
14
21
21
Popular Days
Aug 8
24
Dec 19
20
Jan 4
19
Jan 7
18
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 20 posts
Belle 14 posts
Bob 21 posts
Ham 21 posts
Popular Days
Aug 8 2005
24 posts
Dec 19 2004
20 posts
Jan 4 2005
19 posts
Jan 7 2005
18 posts
Popular Posts
pjroberge
I think a minister should be allowed to go back to being a minister if: 1) They have child molester branded in their forehead 2) They are castrated 3) They are un-paid as part of their making amend
Bob
TWI's responsibility in this matter is what I see as the main discussion point of the thread (outside of exposing Mark's treachery), and a most useful discussion.
I think most are agreed that Mark deserves all punishment he received, if not more. But what is not exactly clear, especially by those still in TWI, is TWI's involvement, responsibility, complicity, or even criminal participation.
My opinion is that TWI is fully responsible, had knowledge of what was going on, did nothing to stop it, has done nothing since, and most likely doesn't see any wrong done by Mark or consider it a minor offense. But for someone still in TWI, this is a huge leap in thinking. It doesn't fit with what they know of TWI and is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom.
I know someone in TWI right now, dealing with this same issue, who's opinion is very similar to LLPs. LLP's posts have been most enlightening in helping me understand why this current TWI member remains loyal, and understanding the questions, doubts, justifications that her thinking entails. To that end, I extremely appreciate LLP posting here and what others have posted, adding to the discussion.
There are a lot of unknowns here:
- When did TWI know what Mark was doing?
- What was their response?
- Did they relocate him after knowing what he did to the girl, and leave him in a position to abuse other children?
- What is TWI's doctrine on the subject?
TWI has been silent on the issue. In my mind, their silence is implicating them. Their actions are in direct contradiction of their public doctrines and teachings and past actions in dealing with wrong doing in their leadership, further implicating them.
But, I sat through countless teachings listening to Craig scream about some evil so and so did. I watched many friends put on mark and avoid for minor offenses. I saw the witch hunts, looking for such things as a dirty house to show that a person is possessed and should be kicked out. I see the hypocrisy very clear. LLP may have been only listening to post-Craig STS teachings, where only bland, basic, rehashed doctrines are presented. Maybe not. Most experiences with TWI are unique.
So, the three questions are:
Why is TWI responsible?
Why is TWI not responsible?
Does it matter whether TWI is responsible or not, only my standing with God matters (which I think is a part of LLPs thinking?)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
OK Bob! Yes, I think TWI is responsible, in part (a large one) or in whole.
In my opinion they bear responsability, either way you look at it.
1. They are infallible, hold the secret decoder, know all the secrets of devils and men. They had to have been very aware of what was happening, and allowed it.
2. They are snake oil salesmen, or their decoder does not quite decode right. They really can't see devils through 10 feet of lead, concrete and reinforced steel. Their arrogance of believing otherwise at least allowed this "little problem" to slip by. They are then guilty of negligence. And I am not blaming the poor stooges that bought into the junk. It may be harsh, but I too was a stooge once..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
I think even asking the question of TWI being responsible is a bit too much for a loyal TWI member. The implications of such question, as LLP pointed out, are enormous and impact greatly on one's belief system.
Mr. Hammeroni, their beliefs do tend to seperate them from other groups, which is why I think the comparisons with the RCC and others falls through. Criag's number one charge to the Way Corps was to keep the "household" clean. A rather significant part of their training is geared directly toward this.
I suppose another question would be, does TWI believe that a person who sexually abuses a child is possessed? I don't know. It would line up with their other doctrine, but they have been silient on the subject of sex and possession.
If they believe he was possessed, then how did he go so long without the devil spirit alarm going off by any one of the members/corps operating the manifestation of discerning of spirits. They do claim that everyone can operate it at any time. How was he missed? This would indicate that their doctrine doesn't work (Mark did this for a long time).
If they don't believe he was possessed, which is a distinct possibility (why else would Mark believe he could return to his ministry carreer?), then it would indicate they don't believe what he did to be wrong, or it being a minor mistake.
Either way, TWI doesn't look clean.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yep. And the silence is almost deafening. I wouldn't hold my breath for them to chime in here in their own defence, not that they even care. Perhaps they are pleased to be living so as to have "the ministry to be blamed".
But I do not know how different they really are from other groups. Once you make a claim of infallibility, that Craigers is THE Mog, and to this day adhere to his mandates, suggestions and questionable doctrines like they were written in stone... in their opinion he was speaking excathedra (sorry exie, NO comparison to you intended!) , and will defend his stuff to the death. Sounds familiar to at least one other group.
I think this is part of the heart of the subject of this thread. Once you claim infallibility, you get everything that comes with it. This includes the blame when it goes sour.
The situation with this clergy guy is pretty darn sour. Passing the blame to poor stooges will not work very much longer. Not a very comfortable position for TWI I think. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
They must be between a rock and a hard place.
Admit the wrong and wrongdoing, and losen your grip over the little flock that is left. Whatya afraid of? Afraid they might be able to have a little fun?
Or hold on to the austere and devilish mandates of your lords and masters- LCM, Rosie and group?
In my opinion, either way, they lose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
I think most of the questions have been answered by the person who brought the legal action against mark.
See the thread: I am the one who filed against "Ex Minister get 6 years guy"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Hm.
Some good points from both of you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
Wordwolf: You wrote: “Hindsight is 20/20. The Catholic Church was not "obviously" a haven for child molesters. If they were, then "obviously" the police and the courts would have been having a field day with them for years. Most people were surprised and shocked when the news of the scandals in the RCC broke. Most people didn't say "I knew it all along."â€
So, how does what you wrote about the RCC not apply to TWI? Was TWI so obviously a haven for child molesters, and, if so, why were not the police and courts equally having a field day with TWI over the years?
Wordwolf: I cited your words (enclosed within quotation marks) above in my previous post, and posed the question above. For full context, reread my previous post. I didn’t see a response from you – perhaps I missed it, perhaps you don’t care to reply – doesn’t matter, but I’d be interested in your response.
“Please cite EXACTLY what caused the impression I was making a double-standard...or admit it was simply the way you read the posts.â€
I have already done that, and further conceded that “exoneration†was probably not the right term to describe your position.
Your words from a previous post that you quoted in your most current message:
“Presuming equal numbers of both, would you then seek to excuse the organizations that harbored these perversions just because they might have been widespread? Do you forgive them for covering up their evil deeds because they werent the only ones?â€
â€[Here I hammered my position that they should be treated equally, and both equally severely.]â€
I don’t see anything in your words “presuming . . .†that advocates equally severe anything. Rather, you are trying to amplify the statements I have made to paint me into a position I have never advocated.
You write:
“[Other than a nebulous statement that "the organization should bear responsibility", what SPECIFIC measures do you think should be done with the RCC and twi? I already gave my general guidelines for action, let's hear yours-or do both organizations go on their merry ways?]â€
I have stated that I cannot speak intimately to the claim of wide-spread sexual child abuse in TWI, and I also stated that I’m not an expert in this area. Any organization should bear appropriate responsibility for any illegal activity that occurred in a measure equal to the degree to which they condoned or facilitated said activity. I can’t be more specific than that since I am not directly involved. My reference to moving forward doesn’t presume that organizations “go on their merry ways†but, rather that they make appropriate changes/improvements in the way they do things moving forward to minimize the opportunity for repeated illegal activity.
“and you're suggesting I said to close them down†- Here’s what I said: “I find unrealistic the notion that the RCC should somehow be disbanded by some government enforcement agency over this issue. Disbandment of TWI over the same issues seems equally unrealistic to me.†I did not attribute the “notion†to you or anyone else.
Oooo, nasty WordWolf doesn't want to hear points of view other than his own-he eschews "balanced" discussion. Slapping that label on my comments in no way alters their substance, and claiming yours are "balanced" AGAIN STILL doesn't make them so
The balance I’m referring to, WordWolf, is the community benefit that results when opposing views are freely exchanged on this or other BB’S. It’s not a matter of whether my comments are “balanced†and yours are or are not. It’s the balance that results when the weight of your argument offsets the weight of mine, and our combined effort at polite dialog compliments that of all the other posters on the board, whether they be pro- or anti-TWI. I’m slapping no labels, WordWolf, but I do take exception to comments that tend to portray me as less than sincere. You said: “Fine. I dont believe you, since it seems clear to me that you can't view this subject with "balance". I called all the perpetrators evil, and you threw up this smokescreen in response, claiming I excused the perverts in the RCC. That was blatant MISrepresentation of what I said. Therefore, I don't believe you're here to provide fairness OR balanceâ€
Keywords such as “smokescreen†“misrepresentation,†and flat-out statements that you don’t believe that I’m here to provide “fairness†(your interjection, not part of my original statement) or balance tend to make you appear to be attacking me personally, and I read them in that light – and I do take exception to those comments. It hearkens back to the days when throngs on this board accused me of being a troll. It’s wasn’t true then, and your suggestion that I have some other motive for posting here other than to discuss the topic of this thread is not true, either.
“Now, as to accusing me of duplicity, you just did above, with your "hearsay" charge†I did not accuse you of duplicity, and the term hearsay is not a dirty word. It only speaks to the legal strength of any given set of facts. Either you are repeating what you saw first hand, or you are repeating hearsay. It’s as simple as that. I didn’t charge you with anything.
“I'll give you this-you have added more style to your posts. You're also refraining from making baldly false statements. That is also an improvement. However, you're still interpreting events so as to re-cast twi in the best possible light, and its dissenters in the worst possible light. That's not intellectually honest. If I wanted to, I could do the same, but I prefer to take a certain pride in the integrity of my posts “
I’m not in school, here, WordWolf, nor am I making any conscious effort to stylize my posts. I’ve never made baldly false statements, so refraining from them does not represent any improvement on my part. I’m not trying to “re-cast TWI†and have stated that my comments are not an attempt to defend TWI. I’ve been very careful to point out that I respect the views of the anti-TWI posters on this board, and refute your allegation of intellectual dishonesty.
Finally, “BTW, LLP, please make it easy visually to tell when you're quoting me and when you're speaking for yourself, for the benefit of those playing along at homeâ€
I follow a time-tested practice of enclosing your statements in quotations. You post as you please, I’ll do the same. The comment about “those playing along at home†would seem to indicate that you view this exchange as some sort of game. I do not.
Abigail, thank you for your advice . . . and to all, I apologize for having allowed such a pointed two-way exchange to have somewhat derailed such a valuable thread.
Respectfully,
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
good post LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Written in a friendly style, anyway, which does bode for more
civil discussions-and civil disagreements-at any rate.
LLP,
in EACH post,
I said BOTH the RCC and twi bore blame for their actions,
and NEVER claimed I preferred one over the other.
Your question about how my comments applied to ONE and not the
OTHER were without basis. I was consistent in saying BOTH
organizations needed more than a slap-on-the-wrists.
What I wrote about the RCC, I wrote about twi at the same time
and in the same comment. I still don't get what would cause the
impression I was applying one set of rules to one, and one set
to another. Please supply the quote if there is ANY ambiguity
about it.
Further, if you can interpret a double standard in a post that
uses identical terms and advocates identical treatment for
2 different organizations, there's probably nothing I can do
about that. I don't know any clearer way to communicate.
Thank you for clarifying the previous issue-whether or not
organizations should bear some of the responsibility in such
situations. Seems that, to some degree, we agree that they do,
and measures should be taken regarding those organizations.
Thank you for saying you were not trying to suggest I advocated
closing down either group. By tossing that comment in when you
did, it certainly gave the impression that you were saying the
opposing viewpoint (as in, mine) was that very position.
It seems you don't see that your comments concerning who saw
what can be easily seen as a move to discredit the testimony of
witnesses, which has been a popular sport among twi apologists
here in the past. Well, I can't do anything about that, either.
BTW, both of us have been posting here for years, and your
current posts DO reflect an improvement of style, as I see it.
As to the prior substance of your posts, I'll drop it, since I
see no profit in pursuing it for anyone.
As to maintaining your own posting style, fair enough.
If the lurkers have difficulty separating the comments,
they can just read slower and more carefully.
Personally, I prefer to make things easier for the readers.
As has been pointed out, my preferences are hardly universal
nor universally-embraced. Feel free to post in whatever style
suits you, without thought of me measuring your style against
mine. (As if such a comparison mattered.)
By "those playing along at home", that's one of several cultural
figures of speech I use to refer to lurkers and nonparticipants
in a thread. If I didn't take the threads seriously, I wouldnt
put thought and time into them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
I've always found your above description to be the case. I've never seen you address anyone with disrespect; nor have I seen you allege that anyone's accounts were false.
Thanks for posting LLP. I appreciate hearing your point of view, and I'm glad you're here.
Linda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
Although this information is now a few years old, it was taken from a very reliable source. This information can be found on the web and it is from the US Department of Health and Human Services. Just because the data is a few years old I wouldn't consider it irrelevant. I believe this data was taken from the year 2003. Amazingly the number of reported child abuse cases reached a record high in 2003 in our state as well, which is by far the highest number ever.
In fact, I too was also surprised to learn that females, (specifically female parents) are by far the largest percentage of child abuse perpetrators - and not males. But then, people are still of the opinon that strangers are the largest percentage of child abuse perpetrators, but that perception fortunately is changing. It wasn't until 1968 when Dr. C. Henry Kemp and Ray E. Helfer's book The Battered Child was published that people finally began to realize and be aware that parents and caregivers are by far the greater percentage of child abuse perpetrators and not strangers.
People who still think that males are the greater percentage of child abuse perpetrators are simply ignorant of these facts. Since when is child abuse "gender specific?" I find their solution to child abuse to be just as ignorant, as most of them want to execute the ones who happen to be in the smaller percentage and not the larger.
...I always wonder about mommy and why she never says a thing, except for when I'm bad, she yells and hits me till my ears ring...
...I got screamed at again and slapped hard too, my mommy took the belt and hit me with the buckle, and daddy's navy shoe.
These lines were taken from the poem: "Daddy's Girl" (Dr. Julie Soule) The poem speaks of a child enduring abuse not only by her father but by both parents - not just "daddy" alone for the poem also contains the line ... Are all mommies and daddies like this I wonder, I think I'll ask my friend, but not until daddy's done, he put my clothes on top of the fridge.
Of course all the attention is now on some Mark N. who happens to be with TWI because of his position in TWI. I guess this incident is supposed to make me forget about the ladies who were/are in TWI who carried a "wooden spoon" in their back pocket to every ministry function, or whenever they were with their child. I guess you wanted to impress me how well behaved your child was. Frankly speaking, I was never that impressed to begin with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
I have been in the education field my whole adult life. Over 25 years. I have seen good daycares, and poor ones. I have seen abuse, and reported it.
I think I have a little experience to speak to the issue of child abuse, and of how the institution in which it happens should respond.
A good institution endeavors to keep checks and balances in place against all its employees. A good institution is ready to work with the authorities on any allegation. A good institution will protect the safety of the children above the comfort of its employees.
One example (first-hand knowledge): The year was 1983. A 4-year-old child in a daycare makes an accusation that "two big boys climbed over the wall and came in the bathroom and touched me. The teachers saw it and didn't do anything." The wall was 8 feet high. I was there the day it supposedly happened. It didn't happen. The daycare director's immediate response: suspend the teachers named, with pay. Have the police brought in to talk to everyone involved. Call a meeting with all parents to bring them up to date on what was happening.
The result? The child began to name an uncle, and the parents who originally came forward with this accusation withdrew their cooperation with the police. The daycare returned to normal operations, with further instruction to staff as to how to handle children in the bathroom and how to handle any suspicion of abuse. A few parents withdrew their children, but not many.
Compare that with how TWI not only did not have any in-depth spiritual perception and awareness to know what was going on, but they didn't even have any 5-senses common sense to protect children from this guy, and you can see why I am not happy with TWI as an organization.
Regards,
Shazdancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
what the hay, i was thinking about child sexual abuse when i asked you that.... the thread being about a TWI minister getting 6 years for sexual assaults against a child.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
What The Hay:
"Although this information is now a few years old, it was taken from a very reliable source. This information can be found on the web and it is from the US Department of Health and Human Services. Just because the data is a few years old I wouldn't consider it irrelevant. I believe this data was taken from the year 2003. Amazingly the number of reported child abuse cases reached a record high in 2003 in our state as well, which is by far the highest number ever."
That is possible.
"People who still think that males are the greater percentage of child abuse perpetrators are simply ignorant of these facts."
My impression is that while females simply outnumber males, and are likely the most common child abusers, it is often the men who get into the media about it.
From our envolvement with the Foster-care system [which was recently stopped], it would seem that step-fathers did do some of the physical beatings and sexual abuse. But most of the overall abuse in children that we encountered came from females [assiging children to grind pills to powder to be snorted, as runners between prostitute and johns, as pillows to be punched, as splash-guards to have boiling water poured over them, etc].
Now I do realize that some children are simply prone towards 'special needs', and that no matter what we do there will still be children from good families that are ADHD, or hyper-active, dyslexic. However among foster-children there exists a very high ratio of ODD, RAD, IED; which are all related to the lack of personal intervention and attention while birth to 3 years old. And now they are saying that even ADHD is often related to the number of hours an under 5 child spends watching TV.
There is also a lot of FAS and crack-baby incidents also; which are 100% mother provided forms of abuse.
I dont know any numbers on the subject, though from our observation I could see where it is possible that the majority sex could possibly be responsible for the majority of the child abuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
what the hay and galen,
do women sexually abuse children more than men?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
excathedra:
"do women sexually abuse children more than men?"
I honestly dont know.
I have dealt the results of sexual-abuse from both mothers and fathers. I have heard of it from adults other than parent [though I have not had any children, nor do I know any foster-parent with children sexually-abused by adults other than parent].
I see in my local paper usually on a weekly basis more arrests for 'endangering a minor', or 'suspected child-abuse'. With what Bonnie and I were 'investigated' for, none of it was illegal; and we lost any ability to adopt. I see serious abuse arrests weekly in my local paper, so I have to think that nationwide thousands of children must be abused daily.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
But this all seems to be beside the point. In this case, a man did sexually assault a child, possibly many children. The whistle was blown on his activities, but TWI's response was to support the molester.
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
I am with Shaz on this one. We can talk all we want, analyze all we want, rationalize all we want.....BUT......
This thread is about a twi corps grad, long time twi staffer, apparently (??) twi clergy that has been CONVICTED AND SENTENCED as a child molester. A convicted child molestor that has the complete and public SUPPORT of TWI.
THINK ABOUT IT INNIES!
ROR
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
the gender issue in this thread is nothing more than an attempt to distract people from the point and sweep it under the rug.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
To Bob:
“- When did TWI know what Mark was doing?
- What was their response?
- Did they relocate him after knowing what he did to the girl, and leave him in a position to abuse other children?
- What is TWI's doctrine on the subject?
TWI has been silent on the issue. In my mind, their silence is implicating them. Their actions are in direct contradiction of their public doctrines and teachings and past actions in dealing with wrong doing in their leadership, further implicating them.â€
I continue to be concerned over the issues raised by MN’s conviction, and have been reviewing this thread for further enlightenment. In re-reading the above that you posted, I realized that there is some good food for thought here. I can’t answer any of the questions you pose . . . . perhaps factual answers will be forthcoming in the future.
“TWI has been silent on the issue. In my mind, their silence is implicating them.â€
You might want to consider the possibility that TWI’s silence, for the moment and immediate future, at least, may be based on advice from counsel to refrain from public debate in light of pending litigation before concluding any implication in their current decision to be silent on the issue. I cannot speak to their silence prior to the filing of charges since I’m not conversant with the details – gosh, I don’t even know when the original complaint was filed.
Thanks for your post.
Respectfully,
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
But this all seems to be beside the point. In this case, a man did sexually assault a child, possibly many children. The whistle was blown on his activities, but TWI's response was to support the molester.â€
Shaz:
I posted a reply on the thread initiated by “See Me†that probes the issue of TWI’s response. I doubt that See Me is currently in position to reply, but trust that we will one day have some answers – they (the answers) are very important to me.
Respectfully,
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
“THINK ABOUT IT INNIES!â€
ROR:
Wheels a-turnin’ here.
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
LLP,
You have my respect and admiration. Your position is not an easy one to be in, particularly if you have a spouse and family who may not be as willing to consider all sides of the story.
If ya ever need to "talk", my email is abigail0900@yahoo.com.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
Thanks, Abigail.
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.