pressingonbyHisgrace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone else remember "Let's raise the level"?
> Usually it was said when silliness or raunchy talk
> began.
>
> Also, JRS was viewed by first-time visitors often
> as having the persona of "a used car salesman".

Good one! Pressing.

It always bothered me that things did get so "raunchy" in OC area.

I confess, I learned my bad language from my 2nd grade son who learned a plethora of foul mouth phrases.

I felt it was so low level to be speaking and acting the way some did at church. Like the "used car salesman " had to remind the flock that he was trying to act of higher quality in order to sell a roles royce or Benz to someone of high level of society that he really was selling.

If he was leading us into the kingdom of hsi god, why did he have to "raise the level" in front of first timers? What a hypocrite? Good example of how things did not add up- oh I forget- being raunchy was ok because "we're under grace".

Onion, and Jez you both a are doing amazing work.
Grateful to have this forum with all the information or we all would be sailing in uncharted territory for all we know.
HUGS

Oh, these ponderings.

NancyB - I want to discuss a couple of things you said recently about legal consequences for the perpetrators of abuse. I, too, am not a lawyer but even if I was still lawyering, I would only be speaking to California law. As to my doctorate of law, that is more applicable to general law and I always speak my opinions from that education but NEVER do I give legal advice.

A preponderance of evidence is the threshold required to prove CIVIL liability and has been described as 50.01%. The burden of proof in a civil case is on the person bringing a civil lawsuit.

The level of proof required in a criminal case is "beyond reasonable doubt" which has been referred to even in the news sometimes as beyond "ANY" doubt and that is not accurate. The doubt that finds a defendant not guilty of something has to be reasonable and this requirement is usually explained by a Judge to the jury before the case is sent to the jury for deliberation.

The difference in these 2 standards of proof is quite large and is why often when a criminal case is unsuccessful, the case is filed by the injured person or his/her family in civil court.

Lampshmamp: I am sorry you were so horrified by a remark wishing for prison and its consequences for sexual abuse perpetrators. But I understand the desire to see a pedophile/sexual abuser/rapist and those who assisted or facilitated a lifestyle where the crime/abuse was carried out repeatedly and unchecked, held criminally liable. A relative or close relationship with victims of this abuse/rape/pedophilia is naturally and logically hopeful for extreme consequences. This is not a wish in a vacuum it is the cry of a person who empathizes and cares for abuse victims. And, in my opinion, perfectly natural.

As for naming names. I have always encouraged people to name names when they tell their stories or describe details. As long as people are describing what they saw/experienced or are describing their personal thoughts and opinions, the right to name perpetrators is solely the right of the teller of the event. And again, just my opinion, naming names really helps the healing process. I suggest if you don't feel free to name names on this forum (as NancyB said, nothing is every privacy guaranteed) at the very least, do so with your therapist.

My 2 cents.

changedagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JezTheBelle Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Onion Wrote:
> >
> > So, if you think of things we can do to help
> > without putting families at risk, I hope you'll
> > speak up about that too.
> >
> > If we stick together, there's nothing we can't
> do.
>
>
> Yes, I'm sure H argrave, with his ample resources,
> is searching for every vulnerability within our
> ranks, looking to divide and weaken the resolve of
> those who want him to held accountable for his
> role in enabling and covering up decades of abuse
> within TLW F. He has a great deal of cunning, honed
> through years of turning the tables on anyone who
> dare take him on. Perhaps this time he'll get his
> comeuppance. It's a worthy effort on our part,
> regardless of outcome.

At the risk of being redundant, repeating my self, saying the same thing over and over, I am sure hargrave does have a crew hired to search for every vulnerability within the ranks.

It is all too easy to find posts of ex-members like us on this forum and FB.

All one has to do is type in the right keys words. That is good news as well for the folks who are searching for friends outside -like us.

There are MORE survivors willing to speak up and support those who are filing charges against this crumbling cult that their are leaders who have no where to hide so they are shaking in their boots for the day of reckoning.

If some one wants to PM any one us because they knew us and trust they would have to join the site to PM. For newbies: don't post your address and phone #'s for public view nor too much that will reveal your location.

Walked Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those who are hanging on to the tail end will
> excuse Hargrave's fleeing as necessary to escape
> the nephilim or false charges brought against him
> by the likes of us-- who they consider Satanic
> forces or whatever the nom du jour is. Anyone who
> hasn't seen the light yet is so far up where the
> sun don't shine that Hargrave could do *anything*
> and they'd suck it up. All that's left to wonder
> is who will lead the rag-tag remnant into the end
> time?? ;) One last thought--- Hargrave couldn't
> possibly believe in God, because if he did, he
> would know the reckoning coming...


I think her highness M believed she was Queen of Heaven. We are not talking about people with normal healthy views on life.

I will always feel protective of the people I grew up with in Washington, so I want to say a kind word for my old friends.

I don't really know, but my guess is that the folks who were from the core families pre-JR S may feel they have no choice but to stay to clean up the mess at Shiloh that they did not make. I send my love to them. it will take time to sort out the tangled webs of lies of certain people who pulled the wool over too many eyes.

Any leads on Shiloh fiances? For years, tho' I was not there, I heard about M businesses. I wondered if Shiloh could maintain tax exempt status with someone pocketing money tho' apparently in debt.

I'm digging deep for my family on the assessments of Shiloh which is supposed to be a trust. Would the stated of the IRS question the tax exempt status if an interested party questioned it?

Here's an article: How Your Nonprofit Could Lose it's Tax exemption
[www.thebalancesmb.com]


Yep, I dare question authority! I may be grasping at straws to help a family member in regards to the miss use of inheritance.

Does nay one have any ideas on how tlw was going over their tax exempt status? is a cult even a church? Did Shiloh follow its tax exempt mission statement? I know we don;t have the answers on this forum, but what IF someone who is reading this post just happens to mosey up to the new leadership to ask. Inquiring minds want to know.And did the new leadership know what a mess ha graves made of it?

Onion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, these ponderings.
>
> NancyB - I want to discuss a couple of things you
> said recently about legal consequences for the
> perpetrators of abuse. I, too, am not a lawyer
> but even if I was still lawyering, I would only be
> speaking to California law. As to my doctorate of
> law, that is more applicable to general law and I
> always speak my opinions from that education but
> NEVER do I give legal advice.
>
> A preponderance of evidence is the threshold
> required to prove CIVIL liability and has been
> described as 50.01%. The burden of proof in a
> civil case is on the person bringing a civil
> lawsuit.
>
> The level of proof required in a criminal case is
> "beyond reasonable doubt" which has been referred
> to even in the news sometimes as beyond "ANY"
> doubt and that is not accurate. The doubt that
> finds a defendant not guilty of something has to
> be reasonable and this requirement is usually
> explained by a Judge to the jury before the case
> is sent to the jury for deliberation.
>
> The difference in these 2 standards of proof is
> quite large and is why often when a criminal case
> is unsuccessful, the case is filed by the injured
> person or his/her family in civil court.
>
> Lampshmamp: I am sorry you were so horrified by a
> remark wishing for prison and its consequences for
> sexual abuse perpetrators. But I understand the
> desire to see a pedophile/sexual abuser/rapist and
> those who assisted or facilitated a lifestyle
> where the crime/abuse was carried out repeatedly
> and unchecked, held criminally liable. A relative
> or close relationship with victims of this
> abuse/rape/pedophilia is naturally and logically
> hopeful for extreme consequences. This is not a
> wish in a vacuum it is the cry of a person who
> empathizes and cares for abuse victims. And, in
> my opinion, perfectly natural.
>
> As for naming names. I have always encouraged
> people to name names when they tell their stories
> or describe details. As long as people are
> describing what they saw/experienced or are
> describing their personal thoughts and opinions,
> the right to name perpetrators is solely the right
> of the teller of the event. And again, just my
> opinion, naming names really helps the healing
> process. I suggest if you don't feel free to name
> names on this forum (as NancyB said, nothing is
> every privacy guaranteed) at the very least, do so
> with your therapist.
>
> My 2 cents.

Thank you Onion.

have I posted here that I found my son't physical and mental abuser. He is still teaching in CA. His first name is Stan. Do I dare post the full name?
His direct supervisors have heard my allegations as the mother.i did not witness that multiple beating on my son' bared bottom that was done in front of other people. I did see the red marks on his skin. There is documentation of the 7 year old's mental state. I did report it but apparently the report was turned back on me. The abuse that happened to my son at thta school has had long lasting affects on him mental state.

I have gotten feedback on other incidents that happened under Stan's D irection. Any one else who has claims I can give the phone # of his current supervisors. Statutes of limitations is up. but school directs do not want abuser in their schools. Perhaps Stan would be willing to give up some valuable information as to the directions for the school discipline.

God knows, I wish I was perfect and had all the answers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2019 11:59AM by NancyB.

Reepicheep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is an article that I believe would be helpful
> to many people on this forum. The title is "Forget
> About Forgiving Your Narcissist/Psychopath: Here's
> Why ".
>
> Here's a sneak peek of the subtitles:
>
> You need to move on
> You get more drained by the second
> It's time for you to come first
> You need to stop feeling bad for seeking justice
> Toxic people get off scot-free
> Forgiving yourself should be the first priority
> Know you’re not stupid for getting involved
> Not forgetting doesn’t make you a bad person
> You need to heal
>
> [www.perpetuaneo.com]

Excellent article! Thanks Reep!

Know what? I can laugh about "being a stupid -bitch.". I'm good with it now because those words no longer control me!

Thank you Sunny and welcome

I enjoyed my 1958 copy of First Principles back in 1960. I thought it was a very helpful Bible Study guide. with that said I studied that booklet when I was 10 to 12 years old. I remember some grown up people thought it distracted form the Bible. Well, I was a prepubescent so what did I know?

I learned something form the First Principles. Did it warp me? I don't know?
What did disturb me was the statements of possible plagiarism. I had to look that up in the dictionary when I heard and cried. The church printed song books had to be destroyed about the same time I heard the rumors of First Principles being plagiarized. ( i nver compared it to another work- but I'm pretty sure the ideas were not exclusive given by god to John S.)

Back to the church written song books- I thought ALL the songs we sang were ALL exclusive, too. I had to look up the words "copyright violation". I cried. I did not understand. So, what gets me is that way back in the late 50's and 60's God did not give the revelation to not break the law by stealing things that did not belong to them.

Now- who was stupid? I kind of remember the explanation seemed like persecution of the church- and that concept I was unfamiliar with as well, but I accepted it because we were special in God's eyes.

Telling about this early habit of breaking the law so nonchalantly had deeper roots than was I wanted to accept - It's like telling me there is no Santa Claus and Jesus birthday is not Christmas all over again!

While I'm on a snotty attitude roll does any one remember when the Valley church was built?

I was a tween or young teen. I had no idea about building codes at that age. I learned by listening to JRS telling about one city code harassment after another. The number of parking spaces was not write- so the city held up what ever. other stuff like maybe the electric wiring- i can't exactly recall except to say that I did not understand why John did not wan the building to be as safe as the city wanted it to be.

I was a a kid listening to John S "whine" about the city throwing up barriers to getting the Valley church built. "BAD , evil city laws!) At the time, I wondered why not build it right? Why was the city so bad to have good expectations? But i was young and stupid, and I had kind of learned to not ask dumb questions.

I can see that I was trained to expect religious persecution and demonic harassment. Why did no grown up question his logic? I have no idea except he was a very intriguing story teller.

I want to barf. I thought the late 50's and early 60's were happy days. But, now I see the lies started under WJ nose form the pre-walk days.

changedagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tmason Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > And all the people said... AMEN!
> >
> > The beginning of the end will be to get the tax
> > exempt status revoked.
> > How is the free labor that generated revenue
> that
> > went directly to them protected under IRS
> rules???
> > There's a reason they say "don't mess with the
> > IRS"
>
Tmason I am interested in what you know about the tax exempt status. We'd been wondering how they could get by for so long??? I've considered calling the IRS. but I need to sound like a rational grown up with something tangible more tangible than just the complaint my children have.