RumorMongers and the damage they do to the Church

August 26, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane said:

I think if we all spent more time together around the campfire roasting marshmellows we wouldn't have such issues. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Shane,

I believe and appreciate what I believe is your attempt to lighten the mood. However this topic along with the various others started at the same time concerning spiritual abuse, those leaving the church etc need to be treated as the serious matters they are. So much of this rests in the hands of the members. The members are the ones that have the force if they choose to put a stop to so much of this.

No matter what the abuse, it takes those willing to take a stand, not bury their heads in the sand to stop it.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........ on second thought,,,,,,,

That might make it worse.

August 26, 2006

The whole purpose of having forums such as Clubadventist is to come together to discuss ideas and to hash out the difference of opinions. You are and I are closer to agreement than we were six years ago but the gulf still is great. I do not think a lifetime would be enough to close that gap. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/mittelgr124.gif" alt="" />

Anyway if I have been wrong in any of my post feel free to correct me. Not that it will change my viewpoint but at least it will be out in the open. Otherwise we will never know what is bugging the other person. I have made my greviences to you very clear. Clarity is essential to establishing an understanding.

August 27, 2006

At least this exchange has been civil. Stan has to be pleased about that at the very least. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

August 27, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

CyberGuy said:

At least this exchange has been civil. Stan has to be pleased about that at the very least. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> well it has been much better than things in the past...

HOWEVER MY GOOD FRIENDS

It is waaaaaaay off topic....

August 27, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

HOWEVER MY GOOD FRIENDS

It is waaaaaaay off topic....

Oops. I guess we did get off topic there. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/oops.gif" alt="" />

August 27, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Stan Jensen said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

CyberGuy said:

At least this exchange has been civil. Stan has to be pleased about that at the very least. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> well it has been much better than things in the past...

HOWEVER MY GOOD FRIENDS

It is waaaaaaay off topic....

Quite the contrary to what you stated to your good friend, it is not off topic. It began with the first page of this discussion.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Often, almost 100% of the time, when people are terminated for whatever cause, there is a non-disclosure clause, especially if they are paid more than minimum wage, or higher than the state law. That is how business is done.

Rumor and hate mongers insinuate this is a gag order and very rare. Giving a completely different flavor.

You define anyone that sees this as a gag order as rumor and hatemongers. When someone is terminated that has done great harm to another and a gag or restriction is placed on anyone speaking out for fear of being labeled a hatemonger, what nice sanitary word is there to use??

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

People are hurting the Church by spreading ugly rumours rather than taking Biblical and legal recourse to everything

You are correct. But it is the denomination itself that refuses to take the biblical and legal recourse. Providing plenty of tar and feathers for those that do finally come forward. Also the denomination itself is quite capable of spreading ugly rumors via their willing minions among the members that the real problem is those "hatemongers' that are not willing to remain silent.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

This is one of the reasons why RMS wants charges laid against those who need to be charged.

If people are not willing to lay charges, then the blood (or whatever of the next victim) in my opinion is on them as well

This also added to the discussion. If Risk Management truly wanted this, they would be out front forcefully doing what they can to promote this idea. Making it known throughout the denomination this will not be tolerated and action must be taken.

Blame for the next victim has been quite neatly placed on those lest able to fend for themselves at that time.

One thing I care little if you believe, but those of us that have had to walk this "nice sanitary, christian, compassionate,caring, concerned gauntlet" are so shell shocked in the beginning they have a hard time believing themselves what they know to be true. When the light begins to dawn and they find out just how foolishly and I might add from experience just how STUPID some of us are to have such complete faith in this system, we are then to be blamed for not doing what you believe to be correct.

Try it sometime, you life and that off those you love more than life itself are falling apart, you turn to those you should be able to trust the most, if you are still standing when it's over you are a hate or rumormonger . You can't win for losing.

You report it, your trash, you don't report it, you are not only trash, you are responsible for the next victim.

August 27, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

rudywoofs said:

and rumors don't need to be *big* to cause a lot of harm.. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

This is probably the very best post on this topic so far.

August 27, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

bonnie said:

This also added to the discussion. If Risk Management truly wanted this, they would be out front forcefully doing what they can to promote this idea. Making it known throughout the denomination this will not be tolerated and action must be taken.

It is not really the sole responsibility or jurisdiction of ARM to do this, is it?. Other Church entities would need to colaborate. This is a difficult process at best.

It is hard for some of us to imagine why ARM would be NOT wanting to work within the denomination to end abuse and deal with it. At the end of the day we still have to separate the facts from the fiction. You have an opinion here; and that's fair enough. But, things presented as facts, have to be fiction until they are proven.

Not all are "stupid" who don't believe everything you may care to say on this ARM issue Bonnie.

The original topic of this thread was how "rumor-mongers"

cause problems for not only others, but also - even for themselves.

I remember once when I thought someone in the church was guilty of something; and I repeated it to someone else, only to be proven wrong a few months later.

Even when your brave US marines, or our Canadian troops go out to literally kill the really bad guys; they have "rules of engagement." And they are held to those rules of engagement by some pretty serious accountability.

I am thinking that some who do not respond to abuse issues or other serious issues in the way we think they should, that they may be just trying to work with a set of "rules of engagement," that they have for such things. This can be very irritating and frustrating to those of us who want "justice now;" but we need some balance and checks in dealing with creeps who we suspect of abuse, or certain really gross other things I have seen. We even need rules of engagement for these people in the church. I know for myself, that I have in the past misinterpreted how people sometimes try to follow whatever rules of engagement they are going by.

I once had to directly confront a pastor about something serious that he had done. It was all I could do to keep myself from making "mincemeat" out of him when I went to see him.

But, because I do have some measure or trust in "the system" I chose to try to stick to a few rules of engagement. The major rule for me was to speak calmly, without addressing the guy's personality, only the specific behavior, and the other one was to take a witness with me of my choosing, whom I could trust, as a way of helping to control my "instincts" here. While I sat acroos from him in the chair; I could see my knuckles turning hot white, but this helped me to stick to the rules of engagement here.

It actually did not turn out really well, and the guy was never held accountable for what he did. But I walked away knowing that I did the right thing as far as I knew to do.

I feel that ARM has some really good people in it that do care and will act if or when they can. They try to follow the rules of engagement; and that won't always "sync" with us.

"Rumor_Mongering" happens when we try too hard to characterize those who do not see the rules of engagement the same as us. I believe that we blindside ourselves when we do this, and that that is when we cannot possibly see the person concerned, as they actually are.

Many of us who set out to "get justice," are in essence, free to do it whatever way we personally see fit. There is nothing in place to restrain us. We want no rules of engagement, and we accept no accountability. That is a very dangerous line to cross. And, it almost always is very unjust to someone.

August 27, 2006

Stan;

Why are there new posts, but when I click to view new posts, there are none. I have to go to the end and back up to find the last post I read.

August 27, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

calgary_guy said:

This also added to the discussion. If Risk Management truly wanted this, they would be out front forcefully doing what they can to promote this idea. Making it known throughout the denomination this will not be tolerated and action must be taken.

Yup, but of course I did not say I had not added, what I said was it began on the first page of this discussion.

I think that I stated that as well. Risk Management has the responsibility of laying out requirements for coverage. RMS has a responsibility for treating victims fairly. It is not the sole responsibility, it is the responsibility of all. Most importantly the members.

Interesting. Stan made a flat out statement, one that was I believe to be taken as fact and make all feel really good about the claim. Is Stan the only one that has heard about this eagerness??? Has a representative made this claim on behalf of RMS??? If not, it is only an opinion, fiction till a clear statement by RMS is offered.

I didn't claim anyone was stupid, except myself when I believed what I had always been told about the principals with which the official arm of the churc operates. So again, please stop assuming, or offering an opinon on what I think. Fiction at best, spreading rumors at it's worst

Yup, happens to mnay of us. One little difference on this specific issue. Dealing with the org.,I made sure, whether you should choose to believe it or not, every claim I made could be backed up. The church that does not believe in lawsuits might just decide to show you that only applies to members suing the church.

Am I about to produce all the docunmentation you would require. NO!! Mostly including names here would be quickly stopped,but not worth the headache.

Can I prove to you the academy teacher teaching after a out of court settlemnet. Yes.

Can I prove to you we have a terminated pastor from MN now pastoring another unsuspecting area. Yes. Did give his name and for some reason allowed to stand.

Can I prove to you the pastor in our situation had a track record going back thirty years. Yes. Many knew that could have put a stop to his questionable spreading of the "gospel.

I would think you must surely be upset when you see throughout this forum, claims and complaints from people on how they have been treated within the denomination. I see only their words, not one shred of proof whatsoever this happened to them. Nothing to indicate fact, only fiction.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Even when your brave US marines, or our Canadian troops go out to literally kill the really bad guys; they have "rules of engagement." And they are held to those rules of engagement by some pretty serious accountability.

Oh how I would love to live to see the day, "Rules of Engagement" were followed with some serious accountibility.

You would not be insinuating here that I was asking for anything else would you??

We do have rules. Several of them. The majority of the time they have been ignored. One is the role and function of the SECommittee. Biggest joke of all. While there very well may be highly qualified and responsible individuals on that committee, they first have to have the issue brought to them.

I was never told such a committte existed. You can't reach them as a member as the elected parties remain secret. So secret in fact most don't know they are there. If RMS, in it's eagerness to see charges filed, took a few simple steps as a requirement for the privilege of coverage to do what could be done to prevent it from reaching a legal status maybe I would believe this self serving eagerness of theirs.

No following policy, insurance does not cover. Make the members aware thru our conference office.

When I learned that all conferences have them, I made a visit to our conference office. Spoke to one in authority, and he rather smugly told me "sure we have a SEC, have had since the 70's, but we have never had an occasion to use it. Strange, but there have been several lawsuits of this nature since the 70's.

Of course when the conference president is the one to call them to their duties and he doesn't, they are worthless.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I am thinking that some who do not respond to abuse issues or other serious issues in the way we think they should, that they may be just trying to work with a set of "rules of engagement," that they have for such things. This can be very irritating and frustrating to those of us who want "justice now;" but we need some balance and checks in dealing with creeps who we suspect of abuse, or certain really gross other things I have seen. We even need rules of engagement for these people in the church. I know for myself, that I have in the past misinterpreted how people sometimes try to follow whatever rules of engagement they are going by.

There are clear guidelines on how thhis is to be handled. I would have been very happy to see them work within the rules. I would never have said a word publically, had they made a serious attempt to follow what they themselves have set as "rules of engagement" It is pretty hard to misinterpret a total lack of response, or the response that says those coming forward and making it known are the hate mongers.

Just cut the touchy-feely claims of the principals our denomination abides by, if they are going to be ignored.

I once had to directly confront a pastor about something serious that he had done. It was all I could do to keep myself from making "mincemeat" out of him when I went to see him.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

But, because I do have some measure or trust in "the system" I chose to try to stick to a few rules of engagement. The major rule for me was to speak calmly, without addressing the guy's personality, only the specific behavior, and the other one was to take a witness with me of my choosing, whom I could trust, as a way of helping to control my "instincts" here. While I sat acroos from him in the chair; I could see my knuckles turning hot white, but this helped me to stick to the rules of engagement here.

Good for you, now can we stop with the insinuating that somehow I want something more, something special, that I somehow don't want to follow the rules.

I asked, I requested, I suggested, I demanded, I begged for that to be the case. I still am.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I feel that ARM has some really good people in it that do care and will act if or when they can. They try to follow the rules of engagement; and that won't always "sync" with us.

I have not stated otherwise. We have good people in all phases of the denomination. To often, the good people can only suggest.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"Rumor_Mongering" happens when we try too hard to characterize those who do not see the rules of engagement the same as us. I believe that we blindside ourselves when we do this, and that that is when we cannot possibly see the person concerned, as they actually are.

NO, I asked that they not be ignored. They were ignored all done the line. Beginning thirty years ago, thru KY,N.Dak,Ill.,and MN.

I have had people, even some on here, that said after the absolute admission from the guilty party that maybe it wasn't true. Maybe he was just making a false confession. Until it was proven in a court of law, I should not state him guilty. Nevr mind the fact he was living with my DIL, the divorce was not final. But we still couldn't be sure he was guilty

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Many of us who set out to "get justice," are in essence, free to do it whatever way we personally see fit. There is nothing in place to restrain us. We want no rules of engagement, and we accept no accountability. That is a very dangerous line to cross. And, it almost always is very unjust to someone.

Our family worked within the law.

We tried first to work within the system of the denomination. We did not feel free to do it anyway we wished with no accountibility.

I ASKED,BEGGED,PLEADED for the rules of engagement to be followed. So please stop telling me in this insinuating way that I want to do as I please. At least have the courage to come out with it and use my name directly.

If the rules of engagement to you mean we all should keep quiet,accept their lack of rules of engagement, let families continue to be destroyed NO DICE.

They have a policy, they pledge to adhere to it,LET THEM START,or at least let them begin to be honest about it and say we will set the time and place we follow the rules.

August 27, 2006

Bonnie, I believe you and Dave are done for this round. Let others post to the topic with anything other than your issue. Thank you.

August 27, 2006

I appreciate your interest 6 hours later after my post. No problem.

August 27, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Amelia said:

Bonnie, I believe you and Dave are done for this round. Let others post to the topic with anything other than your issue. Thank you.

Amelia

Thanks for your opinion. That's what this forum is for. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

August 27, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I appreciate your interest 6 hours later after my post. No problem.

I do sleep at times.

August 27, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Thanks for your opinion. That's what this forum is for.

I agree. But this particular issue tends to crop up and take over time and again. It's been hashed and rehashed here and on another board. It's time to take a breather.

September 1, 2006

What happens to a person's faith when he or she finds out that the facts s/he believed turn out to be false?

And what happens to a person's faith when someone else is destroyed by some information s/he's shared, be it true or untrue? Does a person smile and say, "Well, it's too bad but s/he had it coming?"

It's like the unmarried pregnant church going teen. Is there any value in kicking her when she is already down? Is there any pride in helping someone to the ground?

September 1, 2006

Actually I've been in a situation where the truth was revealed and the people who believed the inaccuracies

went into denile. They firmly believed the falsehoods and felt that there was a coverup. These people were not conspiracy theorists either. Just the truth was too hard for them to accept. Why is it easier for some people to believe the worst in a person than the better? Why is it they are automatically guilty first?

September 1, 2006

Too often the case, I am afraid.

September 1, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Why is it easier for some people to believe the worst in a person than the better?

Sometimes it is just the opposite though - that happened with me. One of my former grade school teachers was convicted of sexual abuse of students and I could not believe it. I'd known him for 30 years, and would have gone to court as a character witness for him....then I found out that he admitted to the charges. I was crushed. It took me awhile to figure out that his recent behavior did not take away from the fact that he was one of the best grade school teachers I'd had...that realization has made it able for me to write to him now as a friend while he's in prison.

September 2, 2006

Pam, good comment.

September 2, 2006

often we fail to remember that people can engage in questionable behavior yet have good qualities.....

September 2, 2006

We often judge other people based on our own morals. That is why a boss that is a crook will always suspect his or her employees of stealing from him or her. A cheating spouse will suspect their spouse of cheating. A lier suspects other people of lying.

The reverse is also true. If I could never imagine myself embezling it is hard for me to believe one of my coworkers is guilty of doing so. If I never used drugs, it is hard for me to believe my kids are doing so. If I always intend on doing what I say, I assume other people do too.

September 2, 2006

the real black sda on the internet is the website churchpond. bsda.com is a clown show.

September 3, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

D_Bishop said:

the real black sda on the internet is the website churchpond. bsda.com is a clown show.

<hr /></blockquote>which I can tell you miss.... now how is your comment related to this topic?

September 3, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

A liar suspects other people of lying.

How true. I have experienced that myself. One cannot tell the truth to a liar for they are always suspecting you are lying.

Sign In

RumorMongers and the damage they do to the Church

Recommended Posts

bonnie

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

CyberGuy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

CyberGuy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Stan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

CyberGuy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bonnie

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Fran

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bonnie

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Amelia

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bonnie

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Amelia

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Amelia

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gail

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Amelia

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

rudywoofs (Pam)

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gregory Matthews

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Kountzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

CyberGuy