Jump to content

TrueTomHarley

The Reproach of Child Sexual Abuse Falls on the Abuser

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

TrueTomHarley -
Space Merchant -
116
2376

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Anna said:

Obviously it's aimed at everyone, otherwise the elders would receive this information in the form of a letter to the body of elders. So I don't know what point you are trying to make...?

I think the word is diplomacy. But basically 'if the cap fits wear it'. 

It's letting the congregants know that the Elders are being told.

What's that saying. 'It's not enough that justice is done, but that justice has to be seen to be done'. The congregants need to have some sort of confidence restored it seems. 

Also, as all 'Letters to Elders' are now freely available online, it would be seen as accepting that the Elders have very often been the cause of the suffering of the victims. 

Remember that the JW Org is just like a political party looking for votes. The difference is that the JW Org needs congregants that will pour money into the Org. So it is important for the Org to clean up it's act. This Watchtower is just one way of making it look like the GB are actually doing something positive. 

Does it mention destruction of evidence in this Watchtower. Or does it mention The clergy–penitent privilege, clergy privilege, confessional privilege, priest–penitent privilege, clergyman–communicant privilege, or ecclesiastical privilegeis a rule of evidence that forbids judicial inquiry into certain communications (spoken or otherwise) between clergy and members of their congregation. ??? 

Probably not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote @TrueTomHarley "No more than the motorist uses the posted speed limit sign as an “excuse” to explain why he was driving that fast."

Here we can see how Tom calmly compares a speeding motorist with a Pedophile that has abused a young child. What does this tell you of his lack of feeling for other people ? Where is his personal application of the scripture that talks about 'Looking after widows and orphans'. Where is his idea of protecting children in the JW Org ? Nothing, it's just like speeding motorist to him. 

Tom and others, the JW Org has said it does not have a Clergy Class. But it uses the Clergy privilege to avoid giving evidence in court. That is hypocritical. 

Now as for : Quote "I might have inferred this based upon your constant remarks that one does not need an organization or GB.." 

Actually I've constantly said 'if God wants to use the JW Org then God will clean it out properly' and I've said that the GB should consist of 12 or 13 men from different countries around the Earth. I've said that the current GB should be replaced. 

Was it Rutherford or Russell that said an organisation was not needed ? Whichever it wasn't me. Unless you can quote me as saying it ? 

As for Elders serving because they want 'power and control', yes i think many of them do. Especially the ones that are Pedophiles. 

When an Elder is using a dating website and using the name Yogi Bishop, and using a pretend 'hometown',  then I would think he is not an Elder for the right reasons. (That's one for the Kid, one of the real life issues that i know about). 

For me there is no bravery in telling people that I've been sexually abused, physically beaten up and emotionally abused as a child / teenager. It has a purpose. If I'm a pain in the bum, then people will know why. It's because it is impossible to 'get over it'. 

That is why I don't like seeing it happen to others. But it seems that a lot of you just see it as collateral damage.  You see it as, well it's only a few hundred out of 8 million, so in your eyes it doesn't matter. And even those few hundred you basically call liars. 

It's Your conscience. If you are happy with your gods, the GB and it's Org, then so be it. Yes i can understand that Almighty God needs a means of communication, But He needs a pure clean organisation and at this time that is not the JW org. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It's Your conscience.

Not only did Anna serve as therapist to you. In his own way, @JW Insiderdid also, by plainly stating it when he thought you were right, and by impartially supplying you with information that he deemed accurate, regardless of what you might do with it. His reward was the same as Anna’s—to be called a hypocrite without conscience.

Admittedly, I have not overly belabored with taking the “high road” with you, if high road it truly be. It certainly didn’t get them anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well. Keep serving your GB and the JW Org. God will decide whom He will use and whom He won't use. 

TTH gets his kicks from writing stories and the Kid gets his kicks from just being plain nasty. 

Anna seems to sit on the fence as I'm sure she has told me of things that she knows about, that are just plain wrong in the Org. But then she seems to condemn me for saying similar things. 

In truth we can only tell it as we each see it. 

Tom i do wish you would show me some of these things you 'quote' about me. Otherwise it's all pie in the sky. 

I generally comment on one comment at a time. Therefore if someone says something i agree with I will upvote it, and if that same person says something i totally disagree with i will down vote it. I am not interested in praising or knocking a person. i praise or knock a comment. I do not worship people. 

I walked away from worshipping people when i left the JW Org. Of course i didn't realise that I was worshipping people at the time I was in the Org. It's only when i saw the contrast of being out of the Org that it made sense. The not believing every word I had been taught was a great relief. However you people cannot have that relief, and that is clearly seen by your attitudes. It must be difficult for you all having to keep up this defence of the GB and it's Org, when you know in truth that the GB are not who they pretend to be and the Org has so many faults. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

. @Annaactually did rise to the occasion as a therapist for a few comments, and her reward was for you to hurl everything back in her face and call her a hypocrite without a conscience.

I've given up now, as I am sure you will shortly. But what I do want to know from you @John Butler is any news on your report to the Police?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Anna seems to sit on the fence as I'm sure she has told me of things that she knows about, that are just plain wrong in the Org. But then she seems to condemn me for saying similar things. 

Just noticed this post John. Yes, I acknowledge the org. has made mistakes, and I am sure no Witness on here would deny that the org. has made mistakes, why, even the org. itself acknowledges it has made mistakes. But you on the other hand are saying that the org. is tantamount to Satan's spawn. I don't think that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing for certain. In this day and age there are certain folks out there who embrace pedophilia and in one recent situation, a specific group was in question. More of them will enter into schools and churches and the problem is going to expand and explode, on the other side of the spectrum, those who are also in support of pedophilia have been defending their own among the rich and powerful.

In the end, we must educate, which is effective, and people need to talk, and there are those with that syndrome out there, so more people have to be informed.

@Anna I wonder the same thing, granted, as this much time had passed, some information would be out already, granted the situation itself is child abuse, at least a story or two of an alleged attack and the mention of the mentally ill person who has committed the attack, and so forth. But the one who professed such and showing his true colors afterwards, it tells you something. That being said, I guess it is time to do the initiative and do some digging, which I am doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Anna said:

I've given up now, as I am sure you will shortly. But what I do want to know from you @John Butler is any news on your report to the Police?

 

 

No news and I've contacted them twice 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Anna said:

Just noticed this post John. Yes, I acknowledge the org. has made mistakes, and I am sure no Witness on here would deny that the org. has made mistakes, why, even the org. itself acknowledges it has made mistakes. But you on the other hand are saying that the org. is tantamount to Satan's spawn. I don't think that.

 

 

What I'm saying quite clearly is that the GB and It's people in positions of responsibility including the Elders have not only made mistakes, but have deliberately taken action to hide Pedophiles within the JW Org / Watchtower Soc'. And deliberately misused scripture.

Now if you choose to translate that into Satan's spawn (which actually means nothing to me) then that is your choice. 

I do think the Devil is working within the JW Org by misleading the GB, many Elders and others. I am not saying that the JW Org could not be saved however. 

Look, keep in mind that the Nation of Israel literally offered children in the fire to Molech, a false god. Do you honestly think the JW org is untouchable by Satan ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I understand why you admire JWInsider.

I don’t admire him. I use him. And I think he is okay with that.

I also have sought to understand him.

If anything, I admire you & and a few other very similar personas, for the tenacity to defend the current governing arrangement, which I also defend. But admiring or not admiring has little to do with anything. If my goal is to admire and not admire and to demonstrate my loyalty or lack thereof, then I hang out exclusively with the real flesh and blood people of my circuit, who all like me, barring perhaps a few who think me a windbag. (but how can they be faulted for that?)

He spills a lot of dirt. I would never spill the dirt that he does. And lest John B start frothing over this, it must be pointed out that everyone everywhere in every field of activity has some dirt that they could spill. It will always be a question of whether they choose to do it or not.)

But the fact is that he is not going away. So how do I come to grips with that? Should I simply repeat ‘Liar! liar!’ when the tone of his writing does not suggest lying? Notice what I said (and you quoted):

20 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In his own way, @JW Insiderdid also, by plainly stating it when he thought [John] you were right, and by impartially supplying you with information that he deemed accurate,

I didn’t say that his information was accurate. I said that HE deems it accurate. I didn’t say that John was right. I said that there were times when HE thought he was right.

There is much I like about JWI, but also much I don’t like. I think he is too swayed by the pretentions of journalism that the cockroaches disappear when you shine the bright light of journalism upon them. I think they just go somewhere else, leaving the illusion that something has been solved, which presently enough generally turns out to be but an illusion.

I hate to say it. I really really really really hate to say it, but I think someone I might truly like in person is @James Thomas Rook Jr.if you could only muzzle him, which seems unlikely at present. He is unpretentious, and that is a quality I am drawn to.

The Internet is not the congregation. You cannot make it behave as though it is. Brothers look like fools when they insist upon it. In a sense of strict organizational loyalty, none of us should be here, you no more (or less) than JWI. (or me)

I hope that the brothers enjoy what I write, but rarely are they my main intended audience. Nor, when I address villains, are they my intended audience. It is the unaligned & often misinformed people that I seek to address, and the relative success or futility of this will probably never be known.) To that end, I sometimes distance myself from certain loyal ones who declare their loyalty (often with heat) but otherwise bring little to the table. (and I don’t think of you as one of them- you bring plenty to the table) In real life, I would hang out with them. But the Internet is not real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    61,680
    Total Topics
    114,509
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,507
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    AliciaBarbosa
    Newest Member
    AliciaBarbosa
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine. I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )
    • I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again.  Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though.  There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.  On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death.  The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
    • If only you would stop quoting outside sources, and just be more basic with your comments, then i may understand them . Yes I understand 'if your throw out all the good, only the bad is left.  But the reverse is, if you only see the good, you are not being honest with yourself or others.  @Arauna is a case in point.  
    • @JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. " That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say.  However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs.  However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself.  doctrine a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.     Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom -  Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "   Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine.    Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.   (This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?)    Matthew 22 v 44    ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ?    As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures.    What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ?    And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?    
    • I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer. If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here.  I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.” Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.
    • Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this: Jude 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness." (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels? It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.