Noble Berean

On 1/28/2019 at 7:51 PM, Equivocation said:

Even outside of the faith this is the practice. Where do you think the practice originated from if you don't mind me asking and from whose congregation?

That’s a very extremist interpretation of Pauls message. The only Christian religions that practice shunning on former members are regarded by most as thought controlling cults.

19 hours ago, Anna said:

The lawyer is not lying if he is referring to family members STILL living at home. The problem is, most people understand family members to mean anyone who was originally born into the family, but not necessarily still all living together.

The legal definition of family (even immediate family) is: 

• Father
• Mother
• Parent’s spouse, if a parent has remarried
• Child (by blood, adoption, or marriage)
• Brother
• Sister
• Spouse
• Grandparent
• Grandchild

Further, a person’s immediate family for legal purposes also includes the spouse of his child, brother, or sister, as well as the father, mother, brother, and sister of his spouse.

Obviously, rarely do all these members live together all of the time, with the exception of the spouse and underage children. 

I haven't seen the rest of the video, but had the Judge asked specifically if he is referring to family living outside of the home, then the lawyer would have had to clarify this. However, if there was no further clarification established, then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading.

 

Someone's spouse, parents and grandparents, children and grand children, brothers and sisters, mother in law and father in law, brothers in law and sisters in law, daughters in law and sons in law. Adopted, half, and step members are also included in immediate family

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/immediate-family.html

You’re being an apologist. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t technically lie (which I still believe he is doing). At best, it’s intentionally VERY misleading. Someone outside of the org will easily misunderstand this Bethelite lawyer’s  comments to believe the org is more tolerant than it actually Is.  It’s no different from the org saying similar things about disfellowshipped family in the JW.org FAQ section. They know what they’re doing. The org has a public and private voice and they’re very different. If the org has the truth, it should speak the truth instead of hiding behind legalese.

On 7/29/2019 at 8:26 AM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Wrong! Credibility is being lost by people as yourself that muddy the water for honest witnesses to convey Bible truth without the need for people to reflect, if your own members have a problem, why shouldn't we. That's the problem with Today's Watchtower. They can't see far ahead of their own to weed out the undesirables like you James, Anna, ?Winsider.

The mentally diseased of an organization that God knows firsthand they lost their faithful heart to energize their own dull senses to weigh in on their own deception and lies within this world. Remember, when the Watchtower uses the term "mentally diseased" it's NOT referring to the sanity of a person, like ALL you dense people portray, but it belongs with the "poisoning of the mind" that is reflected upon one's heart. 😏

On the contrary, the org should value the people who can respectfully discuss and critically examine doctrine like what is done here...Berean-like ones that test out the expressions they hear against the Bible. Instead, direction is not up for debate and people are told to even submit to “illogical” direction from the organization. So what the org will become is a bunch of yes-men who don’t know how to think for themselves.

On 7/29/2019 at 12:26 AM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Hey! If Ryan can do it, why can't anyone else. This site is a poor excuse for being a witness site. It's more like an apostate site, where anything goes. 😏

And yet, here you are. Face it, you’re a bad, bad boy! 🤣

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

A lot of material in there. This came up as "03. Light Brighter Part A.PDF." Are we to assume there is also a Part B? or even Part C? I notice that there is also mention of a "1925 folder" and that "03." implies more parts, too. Are these also shareable? Privately if not publicly?

Yes that was just one part of it. There's an entire drive of information. Here you go: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BwbiWY5ulihhbUtHMExCMElWRjA?usp=sharing

On 7/3/2019 at 1:11 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

For one, think about the times, or are you confused. Back then, organ transplant was not an option with either fraction blood of bloodless surgery. Try to get your decades straight.

 

The other one. This is a new one. Where in the world did you cook up this lie from? Women unable to yell out when being raped, WOW!

 

Where has the Watchtower told any woman that? I will hold your personal responsible for this slander, so enlighten me. Show proof. NB! Make it good, since this one I will go after! 🤔

Sure. Jump to page 82: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwbiWY5ulihhSDI5MkxMbGJnR0E/view?usp=sharing

12 hours ago, Anna said:

I suppose there is no need to, unless this understanding of ours became so important to us that we couldn't keep ourselves from acting.

Which brings me to this quote of yours:

I would think that it's an important thing, that direction never truly conflicts with God.  I agree with you about absolute truth, something is either black or white, however, what about this: (one of JTR's favorite images)

 

Perspective has a profound effect in how we see things. When there is a change, I prefer to see it as an "update" brought on by new perspective. I am sure you will agree there is nothing wrong with updates? After all, without "updates" we would still be using a cell phone the size of a brick.

So in summary, I think the most important thing is not the "change" but making sure the "change" is not in conflict with any core principles and "truths" (the cylinder) about God.

 

Your illustration would work if the changes through the years have been only greater refinement. The reality is that the organization has vacillated back-and-forth on its doctrines (organ transplants, the meaning of "superior authorities," and the understanding of fornication come to mind). This vacillation is a serious issue. Think of the people that died refusing organ transplants or the women that were falsely accused of "consenting" to rape due to their inability to yell out.

On 6/30/2019 at 3:42 PM, Anna said:

So if our obedience to anyone, including the GB, conflicts with God, then we do not obey.

(At this stage, haven't words like GB, organization, and Jehovah become conflated?)

What you're saying here is very true, but does the history of the organization reflect that? The GB has already admitted to giving incorrect direction to its members. Throughout all of these changes, JWs have remained staunchly loyal to the GB in the old thinking and the new.

The GB can hand-wave away their errant direction. I am sure they would say it's direction has never truly conflicted with God. But there aren't variations of the truth -- there is only right and wrong. If a change is made, then that means there was something false with the previous direction. You might see that as an overly critical mindset, but I am only scrutinizing the GB with the same level of scrutiny that they impose on all of us.

Now, I know that there have been JWs that recognized an incorrect doctrine ahead of an "adjustment" by the GB. I say that with certainty, because I have hardcore JW family that experienced this personally. That is why Jackson's comment is highly disingenuous, because JWs have never had the right to act in harmony with their own views. Again, I'll direct you to the organization's comments:

"At the same time, we recognize that our knowledge of God's purpose is not perfect; our understanding has undergone adjustments over the years. Loyal Christians are content to wait on Jehovah for all such refinements." (W04 Feb 15 p.17)

"Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?'" (Nov. 2016 WT)

The WT makes it clear that it is not our place to form our own understanding of doctrine. Jackson's statement is illogical from a WT perspective -- that's not how the organization has ever functioned. Direction has always been revealed through the organization since it is "spirit directed" by God. If we have personal doubts, we are instructed to wait for the GB to make an adjustment. At no point do we act on our own understanding. This can never change, or the GB will lose its control over members. Control is of utmost concern to them - that is their chief priority.

On 6/24/2019 at 2:22 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

@Anna  In my opinion, based on fact that no where in WTJWORG print or digital way, GJ appearance  before ARC was NOT possible to see (to read about) on JWTV Broadcasting, to empowered your reasoning, claim  before JW people on that other website. 

That is a good point Srecko. The audience at the ARC wasn't JWs (and any indoctrinated JW would've probably avoided viewing the ARC recording). That is why Geoffrey Jackson is able to make disingenuous comments like the one Anna brought up. They weren't meant for JW ears. Another that comes to mind is his remark that the GB claiming sole spokesperson status would be "presumptuous." He wouldn't dare say something like that to active members, because it would confuse and disturb them. No, the comments were meant for outsiders that are less familiar with the organization and less likely to question him.

The ARC is not the only time representatives for the organization have taken advantage of the general public's ignorance of JW doctrine and culture. They bend the truth to make the organization seem more open and tolerant than it really is. Another example was when a JW Bethelite stated under oath in a Canadian court that disfellowshipping does not alter normal family relations. We know that to be a false statement, but the organization has no qualms with using shady legal language to muddy the waters. There is basically a public voice and a private voice. Very alarming when the organization promotes that it has "the truth," because there aren't different versions of the truth.

On 6/7/2019 at 12:02 AM, Anna said:

100% true.  Somehow though I think that the idea of unquestioned obedience to a group of uninspired men exists in the minds of some Witnesses, but not all. I had a conversation along similar lines with Witnesses on another website, and when I pointed out that Br. Jackson of the GB himself indicated that we should not have unquestioning obedience to them, and I even quoted Br. Jackson to support what I said, I got thrown out of the forum. I paraphrase Br. Jackson here as I am on another computer and do not have access to the transcript where he made that quote. Basically, the gist of what he said was that "if the GB said something that was out of line with the scriptures, then all other JWs who have the Bible, would see that it was wrong direction". In other words, if others recognized from the Bible that certain direction was wrong, they would not follow it, no matter who it came from.

So really, that kind of solves the problem. Someone has to take the lead, and if we use the Bible as a measuring stick, and see that that person, or body of persons are going against the scriptures, then it would be wrong of us to obey them in that particular instance as we must obey God as ruler, rather than men.

Hi Anna! Sorry for the delay in response. I am a little bit confused what you mean about complete obedience being in the minds of only some Witnesses. The Governing Body spells it out in their literature. Here are some notable examples:

• Since Jehovah God and Jesus Christ completely trust the faithful and discreet slave, should we not do the same? (w09 2/15 pp. 24-28)
• "We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval." (w11 7/15 p.24 Simplified English Edition)
• "[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." (w01 8/1 p.14)

I am not sure how much clearer they can be about their attitude. They expect complete trust and obedience in their direction. For Br. Jackson to suggest that JWs would see wrong direction and not follow it is disingenuous. The truth is that adherents have continued to obey the GB throughout its self-admitted history of erring direction.

JWs are literally told that their personal views are valueless next to the direction of the organization: "He [a mature Christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding." (Watchtower 2001 Aug 1 p.14) So, under what circumstances would JWs suddenly become aware that their personal ideas on the Bible have weight? Members are primed to put loyalty to leadership and the group ahead of their personal faith.

On 1/15/2017 at 7:19 PM, Anna said:

In the past months, there have been quite a few study articles with regard to the GB/Slave. I am trying to get an overall  understanding of 2 particular WT articles on this one topic, so that two quotes from the WTs harmonize. 

Today's WT study (Nov 2016) p.15 par.9:  "Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives.’"

And

WT Feb.2017 p.26. par.12 " The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870".

It seems that the key to making sense of these 2 seemingly opposing quotes is in the above paragraph if we continue reading: " Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food".

The WT's statements about the GB are a logical fallacy. That is why you are having difficult harmonizing your beliefs.

1. "The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food." Watchtower 2017 Feb p.26
2. "Since Jehovah God and Jesus Christ completely trust the faithful and discreet slave, should we not do the same?" Watchtower 2009 2/15 p. 24-28

It's the textbook example of cognitive dissonance: believing in contradictory ideas at the cost of one's mental state. There is a reason why JWs struggle in the organization. They are being given mixed signals under their leadership. JWs are expected to be understanding of the GB's mistakes while also fully compliant to their direction. Imagine having a spouse that demands total obedience but also expects love and understanding when wrong. People would call that an unhealthy relationship with one partner holding all the power.

One wonders why Jehovah God appointed fallible, uninspired men over his people when he was perfectly capable of accurately conveying his truths to the writers of the Bible? There is no scriptural precedent for the idea of unquestioned obedience to a group of uninspired men. There is no scriptural precedent to putting obedience to men above scriptural truth. 

Complete trust in someone or some group requires strong support. Trust in the GB can't come from its history of unwavering doctrine, because the GB acknowledges it has made errors in doctrine and changes have been made. Trust also can't come from the GB's prophet status, because the GB acknowledges it is not inspired by God. 

So, what does the WT offer as support for complete trust in the GB?

1. The preaching work: "...the faithful and discreet slave has been able to accomplish in giving a worldwide witness about Jehovah God, his Son, and the Kingdom. Jehovah’s worshippers are actively proclaiming the Kingdom message in over 230 lands and island groups." 2009 2/15 p. 24-28
2. The growth in members: "...In the last 15 years, the number of congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide has grown from some 70,000 to over 100,000—an increase of over 40 percent. And what about the new disciples added? Nearly 4.5 million disciples were baptized in the last 15 years—an average of more than 800 a day." 2009 2/15 p. 24-28

This 'support' is brought into question when it is pointed out that other Christian denominations engage in forms of preaching work all around the world. For many years, the JW organization did have tremendous growth, but that growth has slowed in recent years and is even in decline in some countries. The fastest growing Christian denominations in America are Catholics and Evangelicals. (The fastest growing religion in the world is Islam.) So, this support is weak at best, and it doesn't change the logical paradox the GB expects all JWs to accept.

On 8/29/2018 at 10:20 PM, Space Merchant said:

They do not completely cut off their child, as some, even former JWs have made claim to this only to be targeted by disgruntled JWs. When someone is expelled from a church, they are cut-off from church ties entirely, although can still attend, they are not allowed to partake and or be part of sermons and or some actions taken within the church, but family ties still remain, even regarding that of children. When the child is obviously older and dwells upon Apostasy, should he or she chooses that path, family ties still remain, but there will be a clear atmosphere when it comes to those who practice a faith vs. those who are interfaith and or is disgruntled towards the faith.

Disfellowshipped individuals are far from just ignored at the meetings. What do you mean family ties still remain? Disfellowshipped children are to be shunned in every sense of the word. They are treated like they are dead already. What difference does it make whether they are young or old or living at home vs. living somewhere else? You shouldn't shut off your love for your child just because they're not living the same life as you. "Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media." Watchtower 2017 Oct p.16

On 8/26/2018 at 10:50 AM, JW Insider said:

Maybe. To me it sounds like the original post is recommending that ex-JWs return evil for evil:

• (Romans 12:17-21) 17 Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.

What some Witnesses do under the supposed umbrella of "tough love" is actually "evil" in the sense of showing no natural affection, or shutting off their true affections. It is hypocritical love if they are able to shut off love for family just to avoid contact with a disfellowshipped person. The paragraph in the Bible just before the one quoted above starts out:

• (Romans 12:9) 9 Let your love be without hypocrisy. . . .

Based on this idea, there is another way to read the entire idea about Biblical disfellowshipping:

• (2 Corinthians 6:3-13) 3 In no way are we giving any cause for stumbling, so that no fault may be found with our ministry; 4 but in every way we recommend ourselves as God’s ministers, . . .  by patience, by kindness, by holy spirit, by love free from hypocrisy, 7 by truthful speech,. . .  11 We have opened our mouth to speak to you, Corinthians, and we have opened wide our heart. 12 We are not restricted in our affections for you, but you are restricted in your own tender affections for us. 13 So in response—I speak as to my children—you too open your hearts wide.
• (Romans 1:28-2:1) 28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, . . . malicious disposition, . . . haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, . . . having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are, if you judge; for in the thing in which you judge another, you condemn yourself, inasmuch as you that judge practice the same things.

Remember, too, that Jesus said that Moses was allowed to give the law that Israelites could disfellowship their own wives only as a concession to their own hard-heartedness:

• (Matthew 19:7-8 ) : “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives,. . .

It's true that Christians should not "share" with evildoers, for what sharing do believers have with unbelievers, what sharing does light have with darkness. But this cannot mean completely avoiding them, or even a complete lack of association with them. Paul made this clear in the central, pertinent discussion of the topic:

• (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) 9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

When a person accepts their disfellowshipping, and is no longer presenting himself or herself as a member of our faith, they are no longer calling themselves our brother. The most vocal ex-JWs make it all the more obvious that they are not calling themselves our brother. So they become just as a person of the world to us.

• (Matthew 18:17) . . .. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.

Scripturally, however, that means that we are perfectly within our own rights to exercise the freedom of our Bible-trained conscience, to associate with them just as we would anyone else in the world. This does not necessarily mean close association, or "table fellowship" which was acceptance of these ones as an insider, related to us either as family or those related to us in the faith. Yet, we should consider that Jesus had "table fellowship" with sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, gentiles, and unclean persons, without condoning their sin. People found fault with his ministry but Jesus did not give any cause for stumbling through such table fellowship. (2 Cor 6:3,4 quoted above.)

There is sometimes an in-between step where a person still calls himself our brother, and we should still admonish him as our brother. Yet they are not fully walking in accordance with Christian teachings. These are the ones we "mark" --to withdraw our close association from them-- even though they are still considered brothers. Apparently, Paul especially had in mind greedy persons who wanted to remain in association for what they could get, not what they could share. They wanted the free food, as a key feature of Christianity was its open-hearted table fellowship, providing material food for the poor, the orphans, the widows, etc:

• (2 Thessalonians 3:6-15) 6 Now we are giving you instructions, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother who is walking disorderly and not according to the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you should imitate us, because we did not behave in a disorderly way among you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food free. On the contrary, by labor and toil we were working night and day so as not to impose an expensive burden on any one of you. 9 Not that we do not have authority, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate. 10 In fact, when we were with you, we used to give you this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” 11 For we hear that some are walking disorderly among you, not working at all, but meddling with what does not concern them. 12 To such people we give the order and exhortation in the Lord Jesus Christ that they should work quietly and eat food they themselves earn. 13 For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing good. 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not consider him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

It must have been frustrating, that some would just be no more than meddlers, taking and not finding ways to share, but Paul admonishes the Christians not to give up in doing good. [Good works included giving, sharing and distributing material goods.] I think that many ex-JWs are frustrated at the unchristian conduct of some Witnesses, but ex-JWs, too, should not give up in doing what is good if they wish to "heap fiery coals" and conquer evil with good. Most Witnesses probably need to "get out more" as it is, and seeing one's grandkids can only help to have a good effect in general, and help to open the hearts wider. Even if the ex-JW being shunned believes the Witness is a bad influence, the fact of a grandparent spending any time at all with a grandchild can only be a good influence on the grandparent.

Are we talking about the JW shunning that I am familiar with? If so, a JW parent will completely cut an exJW child off. Nothing more than well-being checkups. You know the gravity of that--it's not a minor thing. Christians shouldn't return evil for evil, but they also shouldn't reward bad behavior. There has to be a balance. And shunning of children goes beyond what can be tolerated--it is an immoral practice. A grandparent has no rights to see their grandchildren; it's actually a privilege and a blessing to be a part of their lives. It makes absolutely no sense for a person to reward their shunners with that opportunity.

It's only a matter of time now before the media begins to publicly scrutinize the org's child abuse policies.

Sounds fair to me, but JWs will usually shun the grandchildren too. Even though they're innocents in the situation. I knew this woman who seemed liked the sweetest older lady, but she flat out told me she will have nothing to do with her worldly grandkids. 

3 hours ago, Gone Away said:

What's the issue here? A group of Christians go to heaven? No issue. A large group of Christians are going to live on earth? No issue.

"an exclusive group have access to this divine insight?" It's in the Bible. Who's this exclusive group? You just reccounted it yourself didn't you?

How many suppositions are made in the WT quote? The org states that they 1. have special anointed ones with access to exclusive info from heaven 2. this info is specifically being imparted by heavenly anointed ones 3. this connection has led to correctly identifying the great crowd.

We're just supposed to "take it at their word" in 3 different ways. That's a lot of faith with no evidence to back it up. How can we know their info is correct? 

On 1/2/2017 at 1:15 AM, JW Insider said:

Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest. That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935.

This reasoning just hurts to read. Are we supposed to just take their word for it that they have the "correct identity" of the great crowd? Isn't it odd that only an exclusive group have access to this divine insight? Where's the proof?

On 3/30/2018 at 12:46 AM, AllenSmith said:

Most of us have sons and daughters that we need to be personally responsible for. The Governing Body doesn’t hear every human condition that exist in every local congregation. That’s what the Elders are for. But what if the Elder body drops the ball? YOU, JTR, ANNA, and others want to blame the GB. What damn crystal ball do you think the GB has? The GB were dragged in, because the Branch office couldn’t handle the responsibility, but ultimately, the GB take responsibility for the actions of those that should be MATURE. The GB are there to dispense spiritual food. That’s their primary JOB that God has entrusted to them. Jesus was sucked into legal matters by who? But, do you honestly believe he played quarterback, in EVERY CASE, in EVERY Synagogue? Why then would he urge the people to SUBMIT to every authority? That’s what the legal team is there for.

Why are you separating law from spiritual matters? The GB claims to take the lead over the ENTIRE organization--not just the spiritual. The "buck stops" at the GB. They've claimed that responsibility, and they have to accept accountability. The child abuse legal troubles are due to policies that the GB gave a stamp of approval on. The GB may delegate responsibilities to helpers such as lawyers, but all entities within the organization must report to the GB and get their stamp of approval. Very little is getting past the eyes of the GB. Elders act based on the GB-stamped direction they receive from Bethel. It's set up to be that way, because the GB want maximum control over the group as the self professed "faithful slave."

To suggest that the GB was somehow disconnected and not responsible for ineffective abuse policies is ridiculous. The org is controlled from the GB down. Elders have been sending files of alleged pedophiles for years to the branch. This has been a long, ongoing issue.

Child molestation occurs in many large organizations--religious, governmental, and academic--that in itself is not a red flag. When it continues unabated, that's when there's a problem.

It is clear that the JW organization has an ongoing problem with child abuse. When confronted on this issue, the org had the opportunity to make positive reforms and reevaluate its policies. Instead, the org staunchly defended the policies that have created the problems in the first place. They've used the two-witness Bible principle as a crutch for their inaction through the years--a fact they're very proud of in the JW Broadcast. There is this smugness among the JW leadership, as if Jehovah God approves of elder inaction that gives predators a free pass to continue preying on children. The ego and lack of accountability by those taking the lead is alarming. I'm not sure how they reconcile all this exposure with their own conscience. In situations like this, where proactive action is vital, there is actually a laissez-faire attitude by the org. Why? It is the moral obligation of the elders to protect the flock: not only the victim but other potential victims. This is not like other sins--this is predatory and hurts others. To drag your feet isn't an option.

The secular authorities can be an important resource to elders in investigating and uncovering abuse (a capability that the elders lack), but the org emphasizes an avoidance of police involvement as much as possible. Why is this? Why the mistrust of authorities? This is something JWs must ponder. Where are the org's priorities? Saving face or protecting their own?

The org has made itself a martyr to worldly entities that dare question their abuse policies. Their policies have created actual victims to abuse, but the org has twisted it to make itself the victim! And that's the way "in" JWs perceive these inquiries--as attacks by Satan. Has the Watchtower "addressed" this issue to its adherents as another board member suggested? No. It continues to proport itself as a spiritual paradise and ethically superior to any other organization on earth. These inquiries like the ARC are nothing of substance--nothing more than Satan's attacks on the true religion. So information is being heavily distorted by the org to its adherents--another alarming reality. Because child molestation is a huge problem in the org, and its policies play a part in it. But JWs are ignorant to this and are consequently put in a dangerous position. It is our responsibility to seek the TRUTH...if it wasn't for independent research I wouldn't have know about the ARC or Candace Conti or any of the lawsuits. We can't accept the distorted reality the org is selling.

On 3/19/2018 at 4:39 AM, Space Merchant said:

Everyone speaks of pedophilia and child abuse and cover-ups, no matter the faith, the background or affiliation, be it religious or non-religious and when such is done, no such persons hold up to any moral superiority (this is a first of such I have seen), especially in an imperfect world who abuses the gift given to them, the gift of Free-Will.

I wouldn't say it is an acceptance of who is better and who is not. Church organizations tend to be better in theology, scripture, teachings and the like than others, for they are the shepherds to their flock, those who follow such churches are people of different backgrounds, and since most churches tend to Evangelize people regarding what is said in the bible about making disciples and the like and teaching the gospel to a multitude of people. As for Spiritual Paradise, there is still imperfection no matter who the person is.

As for policies, if someone follows what is scriptural, it does not make it messed up, foolish and or ridiculous, for anyone hardpressed in scripture will follow it and live by it, that being said, I take the word of the ARC on how regarding the rules and regulations of said faith and at least come to a conclusion as to the how and why such rules they have are so, in addition to that, if they have information on child abuse to teach to their followers, should the followers accept it, that tells you something, for not many are willing to teach about child abuse unless it actually happens unexpectedly among the community of a faith. Plus elsewhere there has been many, many discussions about the rules, beliefs of other faiths in addition to their policies, with fact and how such is used, I know enough, as do others who really look into it themselves instead of some randoms making a rule out into something that it is not.

As for speaking to the members of said issues, it is up to them if they want to keep it among the leaders within that church location and or tell their members this, only if such is okay with the family/victim and the sake of the victim and guardian of the victim, you have to respect that. Some matters at times are kept private, only known by the leaders and the family of the victim, or should the family state they want to time to heal before anything can be said to others, as for the abuser, what can simply be said is so and so has has removed and or no longer with the church, something along those lines and evidently later on they will know the reason why, but again, depends on those in authority within the church or institution and how the family is involved if their child is victim.

I say this because some parents of victims tend not to want such information disclosed about what they have been through to be made public to local churchgoers, and respecting one's privacy until their ordeal has been dealt with is a a positive thing. Even outside of a church, parents of the victim will have very few and or specific persons of whom they disclosed the information of child abuse to, which will eventually get on the radar of the police, this has been heavily expressed in PSAs regarding child abuse met to teaching adults, teens, and children alike and options available, teaching them of personal spaces, talking to people you trust (talking to adults on what took place, asking of other adults, etc), for anyone in those age groups witness child abuse or know the signs and or dealing with someone who has already been affected, especially when it comes to young ones, unaware of what happen and is confused, keeping the information secret from others and will only express the truth about the abuse to someone that they trust, it could be parents, other than the parents, it could be a friend, a teacher, a neighbor, etc. In the end, it is there choice of how they want to deal with the situation to have  positive outcome for the family and the victim. PSAs and  information can easily be found, I would post some here, but obviously what is said in the PSAs is and will evidently be ignored when the reality and truth is expressed through them.

For there is a saying, respect the wishes of the family, should they choose to go down that route, no matter who they are or what they believe, to go back should said person bring it up only makes you not a trusted person.

But I do strongly agree, Child Abuse is indeed a problem, a big problem, and it is among the branches of other things like human trafficking, sacrifice/killing of children, etc. Other things, even minor things is considered Child Abuse and will result in your own children to be taken away from you, etc. Also you have to also realize it isn't not always an adult that is the abuser, when it comes to that point, it becomes very difficult and complex of how things are dealt with in order to help the victim of this form of child abuse. Another thing to note is you have to be aware that no matter the group or institution, they will most likely do an internal investigation first while on the other hand the victim's family will aid and or seek help outside of the internal investigation if or if not said persons called the police.

An example of internal investigation regarding child abuse, a teacher having had intercourse with a minor outside of school grounds (sometimes on school grounds itself), said teacher had been exposed via internal investigation, 50% of the time it is found out via social media or a high probability due to the student who is the victim. The school will zero in on teacher and fire her, and with what is known, the police is contacted by the school and or the victim's parents when the school informs them of such conduct (often times the parents do the investigation themselves before contacting the police) and not many are made known as to why said teacher was fired until months later down the road when said information is given the green light to be made public with the minor and or major evidence against the abuser, that is, the teacher - rarely is police called immediately when a known abuse is present, especially with the recent cases in both public and religious schools in the US. The teacher, now removed, school continues day in and day out, the victim will return should he chooses to and will seek counsel about his ordeal should he accept it, the parents of the victim will be on high alert and learn about child abuse themselves and or is informed about it by the police.

That being said, internal investigations is pretty much the norm to religious, business, and educational based institutions, and or secondary groups/activities, etc.

Saving face or the trauma of an investigation is really no excuse not to report. It's not just about punishment. By identifying sexual predators, law enforcement can remove the offender from society or monitor his whereabouts. If a child molester isn't reported to police, he can go and do the same evil to another innocent child. In fact, evading punishment can embolden a sexual predator. It's disturbing that predators were able to hop from congregation to congregation leaving a trail of abuse. JWs look to the elders for direction--we know many JWs that await their permission for the most mundane things. But their example shows a resistance to reporting abuse unless the legal system forces their hand. So what does that communicate to these ones? Don't get the police involved. That's read between the lines.

Why resist the authorities that have the means to uncover evidence of wrongdoing? The elders cannot get a warrant to search a person's property--their investigations are reliant on willing testimony. Even with evidence, they can't make an arrest. It seems odd to resist a resource that could potentially expose a predator and keep the congregation clean. 

TBH I think the org decided many years ago to not get involved in child abuse and to put the burden on the family. How often can it be said that a family's choice has authority in this org? This was likely to cover their butts from legal accountability. This means the elders have limited capacity to protect the flock. It's unfortunate that this lawyer attitude has permeated the org. At some point, the org is a beast that behaves with its own self-interests and not the individuals that make up it. The org uses human law more and more to justify it's behavior.

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If you consider the fossil record, which besides this specific instance, consists of thousands of TONS of hard evidence that only an agenda driven person would ignore ... and the emergence of "Homo Theocraticus" about 6,000 years ago by direct creation of Jehovah God, it becomes VERY clear who Cain "married" and had children with after he was judged by God for killing his brother, Able.

The Earth had been filled with pre-direct-creation human prototypes before Adam and Eve were created .... by various gene pool groups.

I do not have Polaroids ... but this theory solves ALL the problems with reconciling the Bible record, with literally TONS of hard evidence that cannot be ignored .... except by the determined ignorant.

Honestly, if we start reasoning that God created pre-Adam humans, wouldn't it make more sense to throw out the whole book as inspired by God? Because at that point we have strayed so far from the Bible's narrative.

On 3/12/2018 at 4:07 PM, AllenSmith said:

As compared to which * PERFECT* organization or institution, especially GOVERNMENT run institutions that like to HIDE, CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE as NOT to be seen as hypocrites for aggressively going after others rather than starting with their own.

 

By, your standards? Then there are millions of children abused that have gone unreported. So, how do you reconcile your narrow mindedness?

 

If this is no place for controversial post, then why post such an uneducated, post that DOESN’T include ALL claims of child abuse by County, City, State, Country, Institution etc.

 

Let's not do whataboutism. The organization has frequently used the pedophile cover ups in the catholic church and secular institutions to support their moral superiority and divine backing. So should we now accept that this organization is no better than them? Isn't the whole point that our org is BETTER than these other religions/organizations because we are a spiritual paradise?

I understand that child abuse is a problem that cannot be stamped and is present in all large organizations. BUT the organization has done itself no favors by doubling down on their messed up policies which have allowed abuse to continue in congregations. And they have been completely zip-lipped with their own members--refusing to be transparent about this ongoing problem. JWs are owed transparency on this matter. It's the least they could do.

This has no place in controversial posts. This is the reality of the organization. 1000s of unreported sex case allegations.

@Shiwiii it disrupts the idea that the organization is a "spiritual paradise" or an oasis of purity in an evil world. Adherents can't realize that the organization has filth in it just like many other organized religions, because it would destroy the notion that the WT is superior as the "true religion". In fact, today the CO at my kingdom hall referenced child molestation as a way to verify that a religion DOES NOT have God's backing!

JWs 100% deserve transparency on this matter, but they've gotten the opposite. The way this has been handled proves that men are calling the shots here and not God. Only an imperfect human would think they could "contain the stink." Maybe they can prevent JWs from seeing the ugly truth, but they cannot conceal it from Jehovah God.

2 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

And yet jw's will continue worshipping them.

The lack of response is telling