Church of Wells/YMBBA Ministries



You are not logged in. Would you like to login?



12/26/2012 10:25 am  #21


Re: Discussion - Part 1

Chris, you have been our lifeline to what is REALLY going on in town! I, for one, appreciate the info I receive from you.

 

12/26/2012 10:48 am  #22


Re: Discussion - Part 1

Kjdean49 wrote:

Chris, you have been our lifeline to what is REALLY going on in town! I, for one, appreciate the info I receive from you.

anytime my love, anytime!!!!!!


Matthew 5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
 

12/31/2012 4:27 am  #23


Re: Discussion - Part 1

Excerpted from KGW.com, Portland, various articles.

OREGON CITY, Ore. -- In front of a packed courtroom Thursday afternoon the jury found a faith-healing couple guilty of second degree manslaughter, in the death of their newborn, who died hours after his birth in 2009.

Judge Robert Herndon: “This was a death that simply did not need to occur. And you're responsible for what happened."
Judge Herndon said the sentence was appropriate but added that the impact on the faith-healing family "tortured him." He also said that "God is not a magician..."

District Attorney John Foote: “We really don’t get any satisfaction or pleasure out of prosecuting these cases. We really want the children who need medical care to get it. That is our preference. And we only prosecute these cases because it isn’t happening and children are dying."

Foote said he had personally reached out to church members twice. The second time he wrote letters directly to every church member, urging them to use doctors for their children. It brought “some results," he said. “It was scattered," Foote said, "But kids are going to see doctors and they're getting the help they need. We're very hopeful in the long term that we won’t have to prosecute these cases anymore."

Prosecutor Mike Regan said the couple didn't believe they had done anything wrong...Church members have resisted change, stubbornly and arrogantly, he said.

Regan: "The law of civil society demands that they change. It demands that we sent a message to all of them that whether you believe this or not in Oregon, you cannot act upon that belief."

District Attorney John Foote pledged to work with church members to try and change their policies regarding doctor visits. He also said he would prosecute parents for failing to give their children medical care if necessary.

Prosecutor John Wentworth told jurors in closing arguments that the Followers of Christ members viewed medicine as poison. He said to deny a baby medical care was a crime. "What would a reasonable person do if you thought your baby was about to die? They didn't even try. What kind of parent doesn't even try?"

Shannon Hickman, the baby's mother. Her response to questions about decisions like calling 9-1-1:
"The wife submits to the man, and he's the head of the household."
When asked what to do when her husband wasn't present, she answered that it was her duty to find another man to consult.

Defense attorneys asked the judge to allow the jury to be able to also consider a lesser charge of criminal mistreatment. The request was allowed, but it would require that ten or more jurors to vote not guilty on the manslaughter charge.
The verdict was unanimous.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Babys-parents-to-testify-in-faith-healing-trial-130652358.html

Last edited by Hythlodaeus (12/31/2012 4:29 am)

 

12/31/2012 12:13 pm  #24


Re: Discussion - Part 1

Glad to see Justice was served!!!! 18 months isn't that long... considering that baby can never be brought back!! I have a very low tolerance to child abuse/neglect. If I posted how I really feel about this matter many of you probably wouldn't like me.

I so disagree with men are above women. I can't imagine my sister waiting/seeking permission to get one of my nieces medical attention.


Matthew 5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
 

1/07/2013 6:14 pm  #25


Re: Discussion - Part 1

Question for Aegonis3:

You were observing them for the last two years. As an outsider or as member of the church?
Did you start off as one of the original group and choose to step out? Or just hung out with them, with Sean/Jake/Ryan's permission?

Can you share anything else? I'd love to hear it.

Thanks.

Last edited by Hythlodaeus (1/07/2013 9:48 pm)

 

1/07/2013 6:53 pm  #26


Re: Discussion - Part 1

Chew on this for awhile. We'll break it down.

Texas Penal Code - Section 22.04. Injury To A Child, Elderly Individual, Or Disabled Individual

§ 22.04. INJURY TO A CHILD, ELDERLY INDIVIDUAL, OR DISABLED INDIVIDUAL.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally,knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child , elderly individual, or disabled individual:
        (1)  serious bodily injury;                                                   
        (2)  serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; 
or            (3)  bodily injury.                                                           

(a-1)  [pertains to residents of group homes and nursing facilities]
   
(b)  An omission that causes a condition described by Subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) or (a-1)(1), (2), (3), or (4) is conduct constituting an offense under this section if:
        (1)  the actor has a legal or statutory duty to act;  or                     
        (2)  the actor has assumed care, custody, or control of a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual.

(c)  In this section:                                                         
        (1)  "Child" means a person 14 years of age or younger.                       
        (2 and 3)  [Definitions of elderly and disabled]
        (4)  "Exploitation" means the illegal or improper use of an individual or of the resources of the individual for monetary
or personal benefit, profit, or gain.

(d)  For purposes of an omission that causes a condition described by Subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3), the actor has assumed care, custody, or control if he has by act, words, or course of conduct acted so as to cause a reasonable person to conclude that he has accepted responsibility for protection, food, shelter, and medical care for a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual.
   
(e)  An offense under Subsection (a)(1) or (2) or (a-1)(1) or (2) is a felony of the first degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly, the offense is a felony of the second degree.
   
(f)  An offense under Subsection (a)(3) or (a-1)(3) or (4) is a felony of the third degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly.  When the conduct is engaged in recklessly, the offense is a state jail felony.

(g)  An offense under Subsection (a) is a state jail felony when the person acts with criminal negligence.
  An offense under Subsection (a-1) is a state jail felony when the person, with criminal negligence and by omission, causes a condition described by Subsection (a-1)(1), (2), (3), or (4).
   
(h)  A person who is subject to prosecution under both this section and another section of this code may be prosecuted under either or both sections.  Section 3.04 does not apply to criminal episodes prosecuted under both this section and another section of this code.  If a criminal episode is prosecuted under both this section and another section of this code and sentences are assessed for convictions under both sections, the sentences shall run concurrently.

(i)  It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b)(2) that before the offense the actor:
        (1)  notified in person the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that he would no longer provide any of the care described by Subsection (d);  and
        (2)  notified in writing the parents or person other than himself acting in loco parentis to the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that he would no longer provide any of the care described by Subsection (d);  or
        (3)  notified in writing the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services that he would no longer provide any of the care set forth in Subsection (d).

(j)  Written notification under Subsection (i)(2) or (i)(3) is not effective unless it contains the name and address of the actor, the name and address of the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual, the type of care provided by the actor, and the date the care was discontinued.
   
(k)  It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the act or omission consisted of:
        (1)  reasonable medical care occurring under the direction of or by a licensed physician;  or
        (2)  emergency medical care administered in good faith and with reasonable care by a person not licensed in the healing arts.
   
(l)  It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section:         
        (1)  that the act or omission was based on treatment in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized religious method of healing with a generally accepted record of efficacy;

        (2)  for a person charged with an act of omission causing to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual a condition described by Subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) that:
            (A)  there is no evidence that, on the date prior to the offense charged, the defendant was aware of an incident of injury to the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual and failed to report the incident;  and
            (B)  the person:                                                             
                (i)  was a victim of family violence, as that term is defined by Section 71.004, Family Code, committed by a person who is also charged with an offense against the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual under this section or any other section of this title;
                (ii)  did not cause a condition described by Subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3);  and
                (iii)  did not reasonably believe at the time of the omission that an effort to prevent the person also charged with an offense against the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual from committing the offense would have an effect;  or
        (3)  that:                                                                   
            (A)  the actor was not more than three years older than the victim at the time of the offense;  and
            (B)  the victim was a child at the time of the offense.                   


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 2067, ch. 819, § 1, eff. Aug. 29, 1977;  Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 365, ch. 162, § 1, eff. Aug. 27, 1979;  Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 472, ch. 202, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1981;  Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 2397, ch. 604, § 1, eff. Sept.1, 1981;  Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 357, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989;  Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 497, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, § 8.139, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;  Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 5.02(b), eff. Sept. 1, 1999;  Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 268, § 1.125(a), eff. Sept. 1, 2005;  Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 949, § 46, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.

     Thread Starter
 

1/07/2013 10:56 pm  #27


Re: Discussion - Part 1

Deep in the Heart of Texas!!!!


Matthew 5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
 

1/07/2013 11:01 pm  #28


Re: Discussion - Part 1

ONLY in Texas

 

1/13/2013 2:12 am  #29


Re: Discussion - Part 1

An explanation from Church of Wells' "Doctrine of Judgement" for why they must reject family -

"Conversion and confession are a life change, a death and resurrection, and as men are called to lose their lives (Matt. 10:39) to save them, the family is an inevitable cost therein. The unconverted man is a child of the devil, a practitioner of his lusts, an instrument of his will (Eph. 2:2-3), and therefore, conversion is a birth into another family which is at enmity to the former (John 3:3). Your household formerly could have been friendly, but at your conversion there must be immediate spiritual enmity. Jesus says, at the gain of Him and His family, your carnal family becomes your "foes" (Matt. 10:36). You must be divided from your family for your own salvation, because your family is united in the worldwide divide against God. We are born into a world at war against God, into a family energized by the Devil’s perverse hatred of God. Jesus said you are not a child of your family name but rather of the Devil (John 8:31-51). A war begun by the Devil and allied by man, the sword of gospel power is God’s battle plan to set the captives free. At the scene of war, division is “supposed.” The violent point of a sword pierces through the fighting lines and no one “thinks” it strange, but if these are the spiritual circumstances surrounding a sinner’s conversion to Christ, what shall we “suppose” and “think?” In this way, one may understand the spiritual circumstances surrounding true Christianity and conversion, and so, Christ reproves the astonishment that men have of these truths. He calls it blind hypocrisy, for such a one cannot see the spiritual climate of his own time. This is what Jesus meant in His reproofs in Luke 12:54-56. He is calling men to awaken to spiritual realities, and this is to "discern this time" which they are in (Lk. 12:56)."


• It's armed conflict. At sword point. Loss of life. Family is collateral damage. 
• Conversion is changing sides.   
• The "unconverted" are dangerous. The devil.
• "Unconverted" = family and friends. Doesn't matter what they believe. Anyone not following the same path. Anyone questioning the direction.
• Family become an immediate enemy; "your foe."
• A convert must be divided from family for their own salvation.


Any questions?

     Thread Starter
 

1/13/2013 7:11 am  #30


Re: Discussion - Part 1

Have had all of this used against us since this all began in September, 2011. Hmmm, 9/11. How appropriate. 

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum

©2012-2018 all rights reserved.

This is a conversation, an open dialogue, in the tradition of Free Speech. The purpose is to promote independent investigation, public debate and dialogue on cult and mind control issues critical to our social and individual well-being. Statements made reflect the writer's opinion. This forum acts to provide a space for electronic medium of information transfer, with the explicit understanding that each user will independently evaluate it and carefully make up his or her own mind as to its factual accuracy and usefulness. Independent individuals, organizations, authors, researchers, academicians and contributors may be exercising constitutional rights of petition, free speech, participation in government, or freedom of religion in researching, evaluating and freely discussing any matter. These discussions or statements may be constitutionally-protected opinions, speculation, allegations, satire, fiction, or religious beliefs or religious opinions of independent individuals, organizations or authors and as such, may or may not be factual.