The Reproach of Child Sexual Abuse Falls on the Abuser

[JOHN BUTLER]

@Anna So it looks to me as if you are showing evidence here from a 1973 Watchtower that the GB or the Writing department said :

And by dragging fellow believers before pagan judges, they would bring great reproach upon God’s name

whether the congregation could still come into disrepute 

However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God’s Word on this matter, such one would not be “free from accusation” as a Christian. He would not be one who has “a fine testimony from people on the outside” of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

Complete with threats too. would not be “free from accusation” 

this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

And this was in a Watchtower.  I think that is proof enough thank you. 

So how can anybody say that this direction did not come from the 'top', the GB is supposed to proof read this stuff yes ? 

[JOHN BUTLER]

15 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

If you can’t find the video. Secretly instant message James. He likes to post manipulated content from apostate sites.

 

 

I did post a video that was in an article.

 

[Anna]

40 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

http://watchtowerdocuments.org/bbc-reports-did-jws-destroy-evidence/

 

 

Thanks for posting that. It doesn't prove anything you said, in fact it indicates this may be "all apostate lies"

"While the BBC’s report is correct that all Kingdom Halls were given direction about the destruction of certain internal documents, there is some debate and many unanswered questions as to whether this was a “change of policy” specifically intended by the Watchtower Society to prevent the Commission’s access.

Watchtower branch officers in the UK claim that this was not the case – and there is some evidence to support their claim. On the other hand, the Watchtower’s critics claim that the instructions regarding document destruction were specifically designed to complicate and frustrate the Commission’s investigation.

Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders did prepare a formal response to the BBC Radio 4 Broadcast (as read near the end of the program) that stated:

“We are pleased to confirm that our direction to all congregations in England and Wales is compliant with the terms of the Goddard inquiry…”

One would think that if this statement can be trusted, then Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders in the UK must have checked with the proper authorities before making such a claim. If  Jehovah’s Witnesses elders and officers were compliant with the terms of the Goddard inquiry, and innocent of the charges made on the BBC broadcast – namely that they ordered congregations to destroy IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS – then the credibility of the accusers will certainly come under further scrutiny.

[Anna]

23 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

@Anna So it looks to me as if you are showing evidence here from a 1973 Watchtower that the GB or the Writing department said :

And by dragging fellow believers before pagan judges, they would bring great reproach upon God’s name

whether the congregation could still come into disrepute 

However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God’s Word on this matter, such one would not be “free from accusation” as a Christian. He would not be one who has “a fine testimony from people on the outside” of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

Complete with threats too. would not be “free from accusation” 

this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

And this was in a Watchtower.  I think that is proof enough thank you. 

So how can anybody say that this direction did not come from the 'top', the GB is supposed to proof read this stuff yes ? 

Well you obviously didn't get it either! Because ALL of this was talking about disputes, such as business disputes, not crime. Crime is not a dispute; Theft is not a dispute. Rape is not a dispute. Child molestation is not a dispute. Murder is not a dispute. These are ALL crimes. The subject of the WT was not crime.

So John, if you had been an elder you would have applied it wrongly too!

[JOHN BUTLER]

4 minutes ago, Anna said:

 

Thanks for posting that. It doesn't prove anything you said, in fact it indicates this may be "all apostate lies"

While the BBC’s report is correct that all Kingdom Halls were given direction about the destruction of certain internal documents, ..

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

30 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

47 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I'll look for the video, it's been posted on this forum before.

If you can’t find the video. Secretly instant message James. He likes to post manipulated content from apostate sites.

Billy46:

This Video is available on YOUTUBE.

No one needs to go to "apostate sites" ... it is all in the public domain.

By the way ... the Original Video being analyzed for content was NEVER made available to us who paid for it,  through official channels ... but it was leaked by someone who thought we should KNOW.

....after all.... WE paid for its creation and production !

It came from JW.ORG

(Sans analysis....)

JW.ORG Satan's Coming After Us! Destroy Those Records!.mp4

[Anna]

2 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Thanks for posting that. It doesn't prove anything you said, in fact it indicates this may be "all apostate lies"

While the BBC’s report is correct that all Kingdom Halls were given direction about the destruction of certain internal documents, ..

 

The key word is CERTAIN documents. The accusation is that these are documents needed by the commission. What if they are not?

[JOHN BUTLER]

7 minutes ago, Anna said:

Well you obviously didn't get it either! Because ALL of this was talking about disputes, such as business disputes, not crime. Crime is not a dispute; Theft is not a dispute. Rape is not a dispute. Child molestation is not a dispute. Murder is not a dispute.

So John, if you had been an elder you would have applied it wrongly too!

I don't think it gives specifics. And it talks about pagan judges, when God has put them judges in their place to do God's work as scripture tells us. So the GB / Writing dept' are actually going against God's rules. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

3 minutes ago, Anna said:

The key word is CERTAIN documents. The accusation is that these are documents needed by the commission. What if they are not?

What if a police officer is arresting you for being a drunk driver, and you only have a bad case of the flu?

Refuse to be taken to jail?

Same thing.

[JOHN BUTLER]

It's 10.15pm and I have washing up to do, then bed. Goodnight from me in England  

Sorry to leave this interesting conversation. 

[Anna]

7 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And it talks about pagan judges, when God has put them judges in their place to do God's work as scripture tells us.

It's talking about pagan judges, judging on matters (disputes) that should be figured out by the congregation who use the Bible which is superior (God is judge) as their guide. They're not talking about "pagan" judges, judging a criminal case. Don't keep mixing the two up. Does it need to give specifics? It clearly says disputes. Of course unless like some elders you believe child molestation is a dispute....

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

6 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I don't know for sure if it was a Watchtower production. If it was, it is a poor production piece when many things are omitted for the worst. I don't believe the Watchtower would pay for something like that. I'd rather trust the writing. But, as usual, people tend to use internet content, that may or may not be the whole original piece.

Gimme a break!

If you are not already a Watchtower Lawyer ... you should apply. 

With your talent they would probably pay for your legal education, as they did for a son of a GB member, if memory serves.

Watch the whole video I posted from Youtube ... THEN... you are entitled to a sane opinion.