The Reproach of Child Sexual Abuse Falls on the Abuser

[Anna]

44 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with the video is that the commentator (by that I mean the critic) is obviously slanting it towards child abuse. I am not saying it may not apply, but it is a general video about all areas of function. America is the land of lawsuits, and it forces one to protect oneself down to ridiculous minuscule specifics. What if this.....what if that..... Sometimes it's things that a normal person wouldn't even think of (well not a European person for sure). It was only recently that I found out that the reason many landowners put no trespassing signs up is not necessarily because they want privacy, but because they are worried about lawsuits. What if someone walking through their land twists their ankle on a twig? Yup, that person can sue. And the more money a defendant has, the better. So it makes logical sense to destroy drafts and notes which may be used as evidence against you. I would not want someone reading my drafts, they may get a completely wrong picture of what I am trying to say.

The important thing is that approved content is not destroyed. Those kind of records have to be kept. So the accusation that records have been destroyed needs to be specific. Were these drafts of records or content approved records? This is the question that the BBC report is asking. So far apparently the evidence is that content approved records have not been destroyed.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

You can only temporarily "rent" draft beer!

[Anna]

24 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

So, blame the UK government for the Watchtower complying with secular law. 😉 The legal department caters letters that pertain to individual governments and their laws. It's not one size fits all.  🙂

That is true.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

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

I wrote about this video:

At a supposedly confidential 2017 meeting of elders, leaked for Internet perusal by a self-styled freedom fighter—a meeting dealing with the ramifications of child sexual abuse litigation, a Witness representative stated: “Well, we know that the scene of this world is changing, and we know Satan’s coming after us, and he’s going to go for us legally. We can see by the way things are shaping up.” It is not hard to imagine what certain ones are doing with the explanation that “Satan’s coming after us.”

How could he say it? With religion in general, it is the misconduct of leaders that has come home to haunt them. With Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is misconduct of members whose cases allegedly were mishandled. God help us if the members of other faiths are put under the magnifying glass, as with Jehovah’s Witnesses. On the other side of the world, Jehovah’s Witness are banned in Russia for reasons having nothing to do with child sexual abuse—the topic was entirely absent, as government and media partnered to whip the public into a froth, hurling many virulent accusations against the faith—but never that one.

There, it is “professing the superiority of one’s religion.” There it is being Western spies disguised as a religion. There it is blood transfusions, and should a Witness refuse one and thereafter die, the death is invariably attributed to the refusal, with leaders of the faith likened to murderers. Surely, somewhere along the line it should be acknowledged that Jehovah’s Witnesses have absolutely no deaths at all attributed to illicit drug abuse, overdrinking, and tobacco use, save only for when someone is slipping into old habits. All things considered, they are, far and away, the ‘safest’ religion out there. Yet they are said to be the murderers.

Keep in mind that we are speaking of the faith whose members are universally recognized as ‘pacifist,’ who will on no account resort to violence or support war efforts. It is highly unusual for a large group of people to have absolutely no blood on their hands in this regard, but they do not. Is it so crazy for the Witness spokesman to say: “Satan is coming after us?” Given the foregoing, it would be crazy for him not to. One thing that we know about opposers: they will always overplay their hand.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Violence is in the mind of the beholder ..... If I should shoot someone to death for trying to kill me or mine, I have STOPPED violence.

First theirs.

Then my own.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

To defend the TRUTH, you do not even need any lawyers at all.

NONE

To defend property and treasure, and your position ... you need a LOT!

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

6 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Try making sane observations.

Where is the fun in that?

lighten up ... you will live longer and be a lot happier.

[TrueTomHarley]

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

To defend the TRUTH, you do not even need any lawyers at all. NONE To defend property and treasure, and your position ... you need a LOT!

Still, I’ll put off the verse for as long as I can.

”they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, while they were in need, in tribulation, mistreated;  and the world was not worthy of them. They wandered about in deserts and mountains and caves and dens of the earth.”

[TrueTomHarley]

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Violence is in the mind of the beholder ..... If I should shoot someone to death for trying to kill me or mine, I have STOPPED violence.

First theirs.

Then my own.

If I had a dollar for every comment that has invoked a 1984 scenario with regard to Jehovah’s Witnesses, I could retire wealthy. Can you think of anyone who has made those comparisons?

As it turns out, the only ones actually fulfilling 1984 are Witness enemies in Russia.

If memory serves, wasn’t Mr. O’Brien, on the surface, a pleasant and refined man, posing as Winston’s friend, before revealing his true character?

Does that remind you of any current Witness opposers here?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

15 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If memory serves, wasn’t Mr. O’Brien, on the surface, a pleasant and refined man, posing as Winston’s friend, before revealing his true character?

Does that remind you of any current Witness opposers here? 

I would not be a good judge of that, even if I wanted to, as I am neither pleasant, nor refined, by choice.

My only claim is to be a Barbarian, interested in Truth and Justice, and fairness.

And I have no love whatsoever for "Big Brother", wherever, and in whatever form,  he may be found.

....   since we are extrapolating with fictional characters, may I remind you of Ferengi Rule of Acquisition No. 48 ... "The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife."

 

 

[Anna]

22 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

22 hours 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. 

John, further to our discussion, here is a 2002 letter to the BOE in the UK. Although it upholds the two witness rule, which still stands today, notice that paragraph 7 states this:

"Our position is that secular authorities deal with crime while elders deal with sin. To
avoid a miscarriage of justice, elders must not interfere with, prevent, or impede any secular
investigation into child abuse. The elders are directed to ensure that secular laws are adhered
to. (Romans 13:1) To that end, they are instructed to contact the Legal Department at Bethel
whenever they receive information from even one person who alleges that child abuse has occurred.
When a report is received, guidance is given by the Legal Department to ensure that
(1) the alleged victim, and other potential victims, are protected from possible abuse, and
(2) that counsel is given to report crime to the proper authorities and to comply with any additional
legal requirements. The elders know that it is the absolute right of the victim, his or her
family, or anyone else, to report the matter to the authorities if they so choose. Galatians 6:5"

As a side point; some critics assume that  the reason the legal department is contacted is so that loopholes are found where one does not have to report. That is a very unintelligent thing to assume. For one, there are no loopholes. You are either mandated to report or not report. Regardless of which it is, the objective is always to prevent further abuse, and not propagate it, and if that means reporting to the appropriate authorities, then that is the advice that will be given. Two, since the objective is to prevent further abuse, (for the sake of the victims, and also for the sake of further reproach brought on the organization by the perpetrator, and lawsuits) why would one try to find loopholes to get out of it in the first place? Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation?

https://faithleaks.org/wiki/documents/d/d7/20020711LTC_bi.pdf

 

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

Quote @Anna " Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation? " 

Let me give you an example which unfortunately i cannot give you full details of as it's much too personal. BUT :-

I reported an Elder for doing something very wrong. In fact that Elder used his position of Elder to do that wrong.  He basically acted like a Catholic priest, using his 'authority' and thinking he would not be questioned.  I reported him by writing a letter to the Body of Elders. However it seems, if other elders tell the truth, that the whole body of elders didn't get to see the letter. So I was called to the Kingdom Hall for a meeting with the 'Elders', but when i got there only two Elders were there.  One questioned me whilst  the other sat behind me and just listened and probably took notes. The one questioning me didn't listen to my replies, just butted in and said I would be disfellowshipped for slander if i didn't retract all the accusations I was making. Yes i stated all this before i know. BUT: -

The Elder I was accusing and the Elder questioning me were the only two Elders in the congregation that were 'businessmen'. The Elder i was accusing had shares in a Gold Mine, and the Elder questioning me owned / owns around ten properties, one of which is a farm. Those two Elders were good friends, not just brothers in the Org, they had more in common than that. So the Elder questioning me made sure that he didn't listen to me, so that he didn't have to take any action against the other Elder. Instead he threatened me with being disfellowshipped. 

So please don't ask such a silly question as " Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation? "  Because the simple answer is that that in many cases it is Elders protecting other Elders. 

You and others talk to me as if i've had no experience in the JW Org. But I've had years of it, and I know of other things which I just cannot mention on here as it would get other people into trouble.

And I would think here in the UK is very tame compared to America. I really dread to think of what goes on in American congregations. The things hidden between Elders in the USA must be much worse than here.