Forced "new light", but only slightly

[Anna]

1 minute ago, Shiwiii said:

it should be reported because it is abuse and sometimes the victim will not come forward based on fear of more abuse

OMG! How are you going to report it if you don't know about it????

[Shiwiii]

Just now, Anna said:

OMG! How are you going to report it if you don't know about it????

Did you even read what I wrote? 

 

In your scenario, no one knows.....no one.......nada....zilch....none. So it cannot be reported.  And how in the world do you even consider this to be a supporting factor in the discussion? Its like saying if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? 

 

In mine, maybe I failed to mention the part of someone going to the elders, but someone DOES know and still refuses to report it.  

[Anna]

5 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Go directly to the police or a local authority. 

Then we are in agreement.

6 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Not so in my case, as I've already been accused of slander and was threatened of being disfellowshipped before i left..  

I never did hear back from the Police that i contacted online.  

Whether you have been accused of slander or not makes any difference to the secular authorities. So that shouldn't worry you. Plus you are no longer JW. But what does it tell you that the Police haven't got back with you yet?

[JOHN BUTLER]

^{(paragraph) 6} A sin against the congregation

"We do not tolerate in our midst individuals who unrepentantly commit wicked deeds and who bring reproach on the good name of the congregation."

Um, how is it then that some Elders have been found to have commited sex offencies against more than one child and a lot more than once per child, in a congregation ? 

Court cases prove this point. 

[Shiwiii]

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

Then we are in agreement.

really? Or is it only the part before and not this part:

 

10 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Do not go to the body of Elders. Trust no one, but know that God allows those secular  authorities to be there to do His work. 

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

3 minutes ago, Anna said:

Then we are in agreement.

Whether you have been accused of slander or not makes any difference to the secular authorities. So that shouldn't worry you. Plus you are no longer JW. But what does it tell you that the Police haven't got back with you yet?

I suppose it tells me I should walk into a Police station and tell them directly. 

[Anna]

1 minute ago, Shiwiii said:

In mine, maybe I failed to mention the part of someone going to the elders, but someone DOES know and still refuses to report it.  

Well that is not what we were talking about. You said the victim is afraid to come forward. Maybe that is a little technicality you maybe should have mentioned earlier but didn't.

But as you said, when someone knows, there is nothing stopping them from reporting it

In your own words: Finally, they finally get it that it is the wrong doer who is the bad guy and not the reporter 

And as for your argument that this is just lip service because of the two witness rule, then no, the two witness rule only applies in order to form a judicial meeting. No one has to have two witnesses to bring it to the authorities.

I don't have time for anymore of this rubbish, just going round in circles. You either have a hard time comprehending, or you are purposefully taking my time up.

[Shiwiii]

Just now, Anna said:

there is nothing stopping them from reporting it

There is,  you know it as well as everyone on this forum.  Your cognitive dissonance is showing. 

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

In your own words: Finally, they finally get it that it is the wrong doer who is the bad guy and not the reporter 

And as for your argument that this is just lip service because of the two witness rule, then no, the two witness rule only applies in order to form a judicial meeting. No one has to have two witnesses to bring it to the authorities.

I don't have time for anymore of this rubbish, just going round in circles. You either have a hard time comprehending, or you are purposefully taking my time up.

yes, and I stand by my comments. Finally there is a change, albeit a slight one, but still some change. Sadly this is knee jerk reaction to the piling up lawsuits. 

No, technically no one needs another witness to bring anything up to the proper authorities, but this is just a play on words with you. You know right well what we are talking about, but choose to hide behind words and technical definitions to convey your support for the org as well as your possible disgust of CSA and to save face with normal people. You have been trained to play words to create loopholes, just as John was talking about. 

Anna, I agree we cannot continue this conversation based on technical definitions of words and the ambiguity of your position based upon whom you are talking to or about, instead of the actual topic and PROBLEM at hand. 

[Melinda Mills]

5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Melinda,  Come on. This IS the wt we're talking about. Well known fact here what CSA means in wt world

Never saw CSA in a publication. Seems you will be soon be using USA however you like.  CSA means Canadian Standards Association, along with the others mentioned above.  

[Anna]

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

"We do not tolerate in our midst individuals who unrepentantly commit wicked deeds and who bring reproach on the good name of the congregation."

Um, how is it then that some Elders have been found to have commited sex offencies against more than one child and a lot more than once per child, in a congregation ? 

I guess that's because those individuals fooled the elder body into thinking they were repentant. It obviously wasn't because the elder body wanted more children to get molested.

[JOHN BUTLER]

9 hours ago, Anna said:

I guess that's because those individuals fooled the elder body into thinking they were repentant. It obviously wasn't because the elder body wanted more children to get molested.

No, it's probably because it WAS ELDERS DOING THE ABUSING. and as I've found out from experience, the Elders stick together to hide situations. 

Hence when i accused one elder of a serious thing, I got called a slanderer by another Elder and threatened with disfellowshipping if i didn't retract everything i said.  

Personal experience, in my opinion, goes far deeper that theory. But you tend to like to make up 'pretend situations'. 

Please remember court cases in the USA and here in UK have proved so much, that it is no longer theory. 

[Anna]

56 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But when I mention the reality I get told off for fault finding or criticism

You are obviously saying you are not fault finding or criticizing, just stating facts. Some people don't like to hear facts, especially if it goes against what they believe to be true. Nobody likes to be called out. The wisdom for you is to say your piece, and leave it. A bad idea is to keep harping on about it like you are the judge of all things. Don't think people don't hear you, they do, and it's up to them to process it.

I am not talking about forums like this one, you can harp on about things to your hearts content here, I am talking about face to face with people.