My my, Allen. I'm going to need a license to fish out all the red herrings swimming in your post.

20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Is that all you got, O’maly. Your looking bad to your followers.

Only in your imagination. 

Quote

 

[Ann] Which claims do you think are the ambulance-chasing, bogus ones? Which cases do you think are 'legitimate'? Have you followed any of them?

[Allen] Have you? 

 

Yes. Conti, Campos, Karen Morgan, 'A' (the one referred to in the OP), several more. 

Which cases have you followed? Seeing as I have asked you this a number of times now, I can only conclude that you haven't really followed any.

Quote

But locally, I have seen where the Petitioner lost for overly exaggerating their claim.

Was this a JW case? If so, who was it and where? I'd like to check it out. 

Do you think the cases I just mentioned above were ambulance-chasing, bogus ones? Or were they 'legitimate'?

Quote

 

[Ann] Governments have done so already [figured out their failures and passed on recommendations to all institutions]. Did you see the .gov websites I linked to in my previous posts and read the recommendations?

[Allen] Well, if you call half measures to deflect attention from them, and concentrate their resources elsewhere? And in the case of Australia…penalize those people that are in, position to call authorities if a crime has been committed, but then face charges themselves for doing so? Yeah! Your right, they have made changes to protect themselves…not the population.

 

So you didn't read them ... otherwise you wouldn't have written such twaddle. But for the sake of argument, what protocols in your opinion does the government need to recommend to improve institutions' responses to child abuse allegations? Do you have any concrete ideas? Or are you going to continue to blow smoke?

Quote

I found a case in Mexico City very interesting.

Was this a JW case? If so, who was it? I'd like to check it out.  

Quote

 

[Ann] If there was an allegation of abuse, it was proper to call the authorities, and Watchtower would not be liable for breach of confidentiality for reporting a crime. However, elders routinely did not call the authorities in the '80s and '90s, as has been evidenced in the ARC and numerous court cases - the woman 'A's' abuse mentioned in the OP article occurred in the late '80s/ early '90s ("The police were not told ... "). 

[Allen] You see, there you go again, with your emphatic insistence you have sold proof…that elders don’t adhere to local laws. 

 

You asserted that the WTS was sued for breach of confidentiality when elders reported crimes to the authorities. You haven't backed up your assertion, and the evidence from Watchtower's own documentation and elders' own testimonies in court reveal that elders did not routinely notify the authorities about child abuse during the '80s and '90s. 

Quote

With my personal experiences, that statement is simply “false”. Your argument is predicated on the ARC assertion that elders routinely did not report incidents to authorities, in Australia. The list of 1006 cases the ARC received from the branch office, had CASES that were other than child sexual abuse. Their presumption is exactly as yours, WRONG! Cases of Adultery, Fornication, improper contact, masturbation were included in that list. Since they deal with Sexual Immorality [incomplete sentence]. Those cases are the MAJORITY or BULK of the cases recorded within the last 65 years. Why in the world would there be a need to contact the local authorities for those reasons?

We've been over this, doofus. You are wrong. I have shown you why you are wrong. All 1006 cases were classified as Child Sexual Abuse. The commission is only interested in child sexual abuse incidents hence it being called (see if you can spot the clue in the title) 'The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.' 

Do you really think Watchtower Australia inflated its own figures by including adultery, fornication, masturbation and 'improper contact' in its child sexual abuse stats? Lolol.

Quote

 

[Ann] Watchtower is resisting allowing the U.S. courts access to their files on child abuse allegations (and it's costing Watchtower $thousands p/d in fines for every day it doesn't produce)  so you do not know the stats on how many, if any, abuse allegations were reported to the police by the elders. 

[Allen] As for the case in California. The WTS is being penalized for not being properly informed by the Petitioner attorney’s…they had submitted a motion…the WTS found out later after a default judgement had been rendered. But…later overturned. ...

 

Um, no. That's not how it happened. Watchtower didn't want to produce the necessary documents on some pretext that it wasn't practical because it would take a crazy amount of time (somewhere in the order of 20 years) to give the court what it wants. A computer expert testified that the needed info could be extracted in a couple of months so it became evident that Watchtower was talking BS. Although the default judgment (i.e. the terminating sanctions because Watchtower had violated the court's discovery order) was overturned on appeal, Watchtower is still ordered to produce the needed documents and will have monetary sanctions imposed for each day it doesn't.

http://dumaslawgroup.com/2016/06/28/jehovahs-witnesses-face-sanctions-withholding-documents-sex-abuse-case/

Quote

... So the WTS is not resisting anything on discovery that has to do with child sexual abuse. They are gathering that information for discovery. 

I should hope they are. That's JW publishers' dedicated funds they're wasting! 

Quote

And what makes you think I didn’t get the stats from the evidence presented to the ARC, those are stats from the Australian Branch Office of JW’s. 

Because it's not there in the ARC evidence.

Quote

[Ann] Last I heard, adultery, fornication, masturbation and 'improper touching' (whatever that is) weren't felonies legislated against by the government. Child sexual abuse is.

[Allen] And yet, that was the information submitted to the ARC. 

Horse-hooey.  

Quote

[Ann] 2 victims testified for the ARC inquiry.

[Allen] Whatever, 1, or 2. That’s a far cry from the implication you are suggesting by your distortion. 

Hahaha! Saying there were 2 testifying victims 'is a far cry' from my contention that there were 2 testifying victims? Brilliant. At least you've conceded on this point.

Quote

 

[Ann] How is your quoted extract relevant to my question?

[Allen] While, your attempt of at being clever, by being divisive…you forgot to add the rest of my quote, spiritual cleanliness. I understand scripture means nothing to you, but let’s try to show some intelligence.

 

You have forgotten your own train of thought. The point I was responding to was your suggestion that Mr. Stewart was ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability.' I asked whether you really believed that. You then answered with something completely irrelevant about 'spiritual cleanliness' so I cut it from my post.

20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

O’maly: I stand corrected on the terminology. The crux of the matter is this:

You stated,

"Now, if the authorities are alerted, and no action is taken by the authorities, the accused name is placed on a mandatory sex offenders list" (GRAMMAR MISTAKE)

Ah, now you are trying to proof-read. (Psst, you bolded and italicized the wrong part.) 

Quote

 

[Ann continued] You are wrong. A 'caution' in UK law (which is to what your quote refers) is the consequence of authorities taking action against a criminal act (was your hypothetical 15yo boy deemed to have committed a sexual assault on the hypothetical 14 yo girl or was it a misunderstanding?), and during police interview, the 15yo would have to make "a clear and reliable admission of guilt" to a crime. The purpose of a 'caution' is "to resolve cases where full prosecution is not seen as the most appropriate solution."

[Allen] Well, that’s the difference between laws. I’m basing myself on American laws. 

 

Why did you quote UK law, then?

Quote

So how wrong am I when I stated the facts. Here is the USA, you are placed in [on?] a mandatory list. 

Not if the authorities have taken no action - which is contrary to what you stated.

20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

O’maly: Who should establish the validitiy (MISSPELLED) of an accusation? Professionally-trained police bodies or untrained, volunteer elders?

Clap ... clap ... clap. You caught one. I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of highlighting every punctuation and spelling mistake of yours that I've copied and pasted in this post. I may not have caught them all (there were so many) but I've found there is always room for improving our written presentations, don't you agree? 

Quote

 

[Ann] Wrong again. Both victims testified. Do you not tire of looking like an idiot?

[Allen] I see (BGB) [period needed] I forgot what distinction distinctive(?) letters…they gave the witness. Who was the other one, you keep insisting that testified before The Australian Royal Commission? What is her distinct lettering?

 

I'll give you a hint. If you look through my previous post, you might just see it among the 2 transcript extracts I quoted. Now, don't pester me for more clues. I don't want to spoil all the fun for you. Good luck! 

Quote

 

[Ann] Both victims had already disclosed to the elders seeking help. Had the authorities been called from the get-go, they would have had the needed support, and the perps would have been stopped in their tracks earlier.

[Allen] Your assumption works if the victim was a willing participant. Was that the case? 

 

As I said, both victims had already disclosed to the elders seeking help, so yes, they were willing to participate in exposing the wrongdoing.

Quote

 

[Ann] The statute of limitations also applies to civil prosecution - whether honest or not.

[Allen] Are you referring to the UK, or the USA, your flip-flops are confusing?

 

 The 'flip-flop' confusion is because your brain is jumping around like a frog in a box. 

The UK has no statute of limitations for sexual crimes. The U.S. does.

Quote

 

[Ann] Well, Cosby is the one accused of sexual assault. That'll be why the 20+ women would like to sue him. But they can't ... because the statute of limitations has run out.

[Allen] Deflecting from the main point, that those 20+ women aren’t suing Hugh Hefner, where the alleged crimes took place, or any entertainment industry Bill Cosby is associated with.

 

The main point is to do with the person (allegedly) responsible for sexually assaulting these women and calling him to account before a court of law. If there were others involved who had knowledge of and/or knowingly enabled the crimes to take place, hopefully they will be called to account too. But the only reason I mentioned Cosby was to make a connection in your head about the statute of limitations barring victims from initiating lawsuits after a set period of time since the crime, thereby countering your point about victims suing 40, 50 years later.

13 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I usually get deleted after you people start writing “ad-hominem”. That’s your queue word for the moderator to step in, when you are failing an argument. The same “deflection your using? A what point did you decide your words have more value than mine? Like I said, seek help.

Did you mean 'cue' word? Anyway, despite your latest round of diatribes, the moderator's axe hasn't fallen on you yet. 

Much of your post is off-the-point invective (as usual) so I'll only home in on what is pertinent to the topic.

Quote

Now, do I think “all” the claims are legitimate? No, I don’t believe they all are. That has been made clear by the way governments are making suggestive arguments; in legal terms is called (Leading the witness). Does that mean some claims aren’t true, NO…there are some legitimate claims, ...

Which claims do you think are the ambulance-chasing, bogus ones? Which cases do you think are 'legitimate'? Have you followed any of them?

Quote

... and when Governments figure out where “THEY” have failed? Then…they’ll pass the “recommendations” down to ALL religions and institutions.

Governments have done so already. Did you see the .gov websites I linked to in my previous posts and read the recommendations?

Quote

Well, let’s analyze your words here. I believe, I mentioned that in the 80’s and 90’s Disgruntled Witnesses, that were wrongfully accused ...

Oh you didn't specify that they were wrongfully accused. 

Quote

... but had the local authorities called? Did those cases make the news? NO! but they sued the WTS for Breach of Confidentiality when The authorities were notified by Elders. 

If there was an allegation of abuse, it was proper to call the authorities, and Watchtower would not be liable for breach of confidentiality for reporting a crime. However, elders routinely did not call the authorities in the '80s and '90s, as has been evidenced in the ARC and numerous court cases - the woman 'A's' abuse mentioned in the OP article occurred in the late '80s/ early '90s ("The police were not told ... "). 

Quote

But, since I was privy to many in the States, I DISAGREE with your assertion.

Watchtower is resisting allowing the U.S. courts access to their files on child abuse allegations (and it's costing Watchtower $thousands p/d in fines for every day it doesn't produce)  so you do not know the stats on how many, if any, abuse allegations were reported to the police by the elders. 

It is a matter of public record how many of the 1000+ allegations were reported by the elders in Australia, so you can DISAGREE all you want but these are the objective facts.

Quote

But let’s take Australia and the 1006 cases they have on file since the ARC inquiry, and were turned in to the local authorities. 

But they weren't - not by the Org, anyway.

Quote

First off, Did the ARC mention if any of this cases…recorded were of “Adultery”, and “Fornication”? How about “masturbation”, or “improper touching”. All these scenarios were entered.  Some may consider those to be in a category of sexual immorality.

Last I heard, adultery, fornication, masturbation and 'improper touching' (whatever that is) weren't felonies legislated against by the government. Child sexual abuse is.

Quote

The WTS corrected Mr. Stewart on that.

 On what?

Quote

Just like Bro. Jackson corrected him in many other things.

Actually, Mr. Stewart wiped the floor with him. 

Quote

Your distorted mentality is telling you, they were all child sexual abuse cases. But let’s look at your evidence, shall we! 

You refer to (not 'my evidence' but) Watchtower Australia's list of 1006 Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) incidences that was submitted as evidence to the ARC. The title of the tabulated document is, "Jehovah's Witnesses - Incidence of CSA in Australia" so yes, they were all child sexual abuse cases.

You mention there are some convictions listed, but do you see the last column on the right of the table titled "Reported to authorities by JW"? Scroll down that column. Do you see any 'yes' entries there?

As I say, you can DISAGREE all you want but these are the objective facts.

Quote

 

[Ann] Who's 'we'? Your duplicate accounts don't count.

[Allen] Yes, we already established how divisive you people can be. 

 

There you go again. 'We.' Are you using the 'royal we,' perhaps? 

Quote

 

[Ann] So what do you think? Do governments have to legislate so that 'God's organization' is made to do the right and moral thing? Or should the Org's own sense of morality and justice make it proactive rather than reactive when formulating its child safeguarding procedures?

[Allen] And what makes you so sure, the WTS hasn’t been implementing Safeguards already.

 

By reading the BOE child abuse letters (including this month's which made some improvements but still nowhere near what's needed), the elders manual, and the UK's WTBTSB Child Safeguarding Policy.

Quote

So, the point is NOT, if it’s proactive or reactive, it has to do with Progression or Regression.

The point is always safeguarding children and young people by having a robust and up-to-date set of policies and procedures that meet current best practice in line with the recommendations of the government and other advisory bodies with expertise in this area.

The Org's approach remains inadequate. It has to be dragged by external pressures into making any changes. 

After the Conti case in 2012, when a stark light shone on the Org's shameful failures in dealing with a known abuser in their midst, Watchtower issued new directives to the BOE. 

Recent high profile UK cases drawing the attention of the Charity Commission as well as the ARC hearing and findings, where the Org's handling of abuse was dissected and laid out on public view, have likewise prompted Watchtower's revision of its directives that were circulated earlier this month.

Therefore, the Org is exhibiting a reactive mindset rather than a proactive one - which is indicative of an institution that won't acknowledge how far it needs to change.

Quote

You make it seem, like there are 1006 pending cases, when it’s only 2, but only 1 testified for the ARC inquiry. How ridiculous!!!!!

2 victims testified for the ARC inquiry.

Quote

Are you a witness. I know in other apostasy websites, you indicated you were, but…we know that’s false. 

 

There's that 'we' again. Relay this message to the other voices in your head: 'Ann has never testified in court about Watchtower abuse issues; she has never claimed to have done so; quit making stuff up.'

Quote

 

[Ann] In general. Now you have that clarified, 

What if the wrongdoer isn't disfellowshipped because the elders believe s/he is repentant? How can the congregation's children be protected while s/he continues as a member?

Your suggestions please.

[Allen] No, that actually doesn’t clarify a thing. But I did give you an example. Did you not read it? 

 

You gave an example of a 'repentant' abuser who wasn't disfellowshipped and remained a member of the congregation? Did you also detail how the congregation's children were protected at the time? I must have missed that. Can you repost your example?

Quote

 

[Ann] Do you not think child abuse to be a crime? Do you not think that negligence and failure to provide a duty of care to vulnerable members of a faith community should be brought to civil court? 

[Allen] Legitimate case, yes. But, that’s why we have courts right! 

 

Good. We agree with each other here.

Quote

I guess, that’s why recreants like to hear yourselves talking, since no sane person will listen.

Are you one of the insane, then? For you are 'listening' to me and engaging with me. It looks like I was right about your mental state after all. 

Quote

 

[Ann] And, most hilariously, are you really suggesting that a professional lawyer with 20 years experience is ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability'?

[Allen quotes an exchange from the ARC transcript between Stewart and Jackson about a scriptural point (Acts 6:3,4) on how congregation leaders were appointed in the 1st century CE to oversee food distribution to widows.]

[Allen] ... I see many examples where a lawyer with 20 years’ experience doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he is attempting to make a legal point about scripture? 

 

How is your quoted extract relevant to my question?

Quote

 

[Ann] "Anyone." Rather than dump all the responsibility of reporting the crime to a frightened and perhaps dysfunctional family, the elders can take the initiative to report themselves. 

What if the crime wasn't child abuse but murder? Should an elder keep an allegation to himself about a murder having taken place thinking, 'It's the victim's family that has the responsibility to notify the authorities - not me"? 

[Allen] Are we Catholic to you? ... [more rambling]

 

Is that a 'no'?

Quote

What makes you think, the proper authorities haven’t been called. 

I refer you back to previous answers.

Quote

 

[Ann] Baloney. You have to be convicted as a sex offender to be put on the sex offenders list

[Allen quotes from the interwebs.]

. How long do offenders remain on the register?

It depends on the offence. Those given a jail sentence of more than 30 months for sexual offending are placed on the register indefinitely. Those imprisoned for between six and 30 months remain on the register for 10 years, or five years if they are under 18. Those sentenced for six months or less are placed on the register for seven years, or three and a half years if under 18. Those cautioned for a sexual offence are put on the register for two years, or one year if under 18.

 

I stand corrected on the terminology. The crux of the matter is this:

You stated,

"Now, if the authorities are alerted, and no action is taken by the authorities, the accused name is placed on a mandatory sex offenders list"

You are wrong. A 'caution' in UK law (which is to what your quote refers) is the consequence of authorities taking action against a criminal act (was your hypothetical 15yo boy deemed to have committed a sexual assault on the hypothetical 14 yo girl or was it a misunderstanding?), and during police interview, the 15yo would have to make "a clear and reliable admission of guilt" to a crime. The purpose of a 'caution' is "to resolve cases where full prosecution is not seen as the most appropriate solution."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_caution

If no action is taken by the authorities, the accused's name would NOT be placed on a mandatory sex offenders list!

Quote

So, in the words of Paul, the WTS has been complaint to the laws given by Caesar. 

If the WTS has been compliant, why have 'Caesar's laws' shown it to be otherwise?

Quote

[Ann]And what 'rules of evidence' does the congregation employ in its handling of child abuse allegations?

Shouldn't 'evidence' rather be collected by professional police bodies rather than by untrained, volunteer leaders?

[Allen] [Nonsense] First you need to establish the validity of an accusation, and a willing participant. [More nonsense]

Who should establish the validitiy of an accusation? Professionally-trained police bodies or untrained, volunteer elders?

Quote

[Ann] Actually 2 cases - 2 victims who, out of more than 1000 recorded cases by the Australian Branch, were brave enough to relate their experiences before a public inquiry.

[Allen] I’m beginning to be bored, showing all your distortions. 2 victims were introduced to the Australian court system. But only 1 testified to the Australian Royal Commission. But only 1 testified to the Australian Royal Commission. Victim (AB) or (BG).

Wrong again. Both victims testified. Do you not tire of looking like an idiot?

Transcript Day 1:

MR STEWART: Your Honour, the first witness will be the
first survivor witness, [BCB]. Her name and address are
known to the Royal Commission, and she is accompanied by
her husband for support.

THE CHAIR: [BCB], it will be necessary for you to be
sworn. Will you take an oath on the Bible or an
affirmation?

[BCB]: An oath on the Bible

<[BCB], sworn: [11.30am]

Transcript Day 2:

MR STEWART: The next witness, your Honour, will be [BCG].

THE CHAIR: [BCG], it's necessary for you to be sworn. Will you take an oath on the Bible or an affirmation?

[BCG]: Affirmation.

<[BCG], sworn: [12.14pm]

Quote

 

[Ann] Backing up to your initial statement, namely ... 

"as I recall, in the Australia case, that 1 witness “begged” the Elders NOT to turn her father into authorities. Are you suggesting by any means and force?"

... You were implying that, if a minor victim begged the elders not to turn in her father to the authorities for sexually abusing her, that the elders should comply; that the elders should not 'force' that action upon her. Hence my question about your mental state. Your suggestion is extremely irresponsible and dangerous, for such compliance would further enable the abuser to continue abusing. It's astonishing that I should have to spell this out to you as if you were a child yourself

[Allen] And your responses aren’t irresponsible and dangerous for using innuendoes. You continue to use the “word” child to cause outrage. The ARC case, was when the victim was a teenager. Her MOTHER was there.

 

Which victim? 'AB' or 'BG'? *snort*

Quote

 

So, if the elders contacted the Authorities. Let’s say to come to the Kingdom hall. And the victim left. The Elders notify the cops a young victim came to advise them she has been abused by her father. The cops get the information. They can’t rely on hearsay evidence, so they head out to contact the victim. The victim refuses to answer the door or speak with the cops. They can’t (FORCE) her. They call Child protective services. CPS comes to the home. They don’t see any physical evidence on the victim. The victim refuses to speak with CPS, or to submit for testing. They can’t (FORCE) her. The father is already alerted. He relocates his wife and child. Starting new, and with anger, starts to beat the mother and youngster. Now they’re really terrified. Perhaps the accused ends up killing them both. As has been done in many cases. The Authorities were contacted, as well as child protective services.

At what point is this better, if the youngster’s mindset would have been the same or worse for having the police called, something she was begging to be understood. And unless her mother or someone else (FORCED) her to comply? They have “failed”. Then what else could the police or CPS do? Genius.

 

Both victims had already disclosed to the elders seeking help. Had the authorities been called from the get-go, they would have had the needed support, and the perps would have been stopped in their tracks earlier.

Quote

 

[Ann] You are projecting once again. What was complete and utter bunkum was your argument that 'forcing the child to the police department' - whether by the elders or the child's mother - would amount to 'child abduction.' This fancy of yours is totally ludicrous.

[Allen] Well, I don’t know what planet you live in, but here on earth. If you use force for whatever reason on another person, rather it be a child, teenager, adult, male or female…it’s called abduction or kidnapping. Read a law book once in a while.

 

Your statement: not even wrong.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Quote

 

[Ann] So you believe historical child sexual abuse cases are not 'legitimate'? 

Are the government-led inquiries into institutional historical child abuse, because the cases may include instances that occurred 40, 50 years ago, likewise not 'legitimate' and are decided with 'the aid of corrupt lawyers'?

Are you aware that many countries have a statute of limitations that bar victims from making civil claims for sexual crimes after a set amount of time? So, a victim would be unable to civilly prosecute somebody 40, 50 years later. Are you familiar with the controversy surrounding Bill Cosby and why it has been so difficult to prosecute him due to the time that has elapsed since his alleged crimes?

[Allen] To honest claims yes. The USA has such statute of limitations for criminal prosecution. 

 

The statute of limitations also applies to civil prosecution - whether honest or not.

Quote

The UN resolution of 2013 also widen the specs to civil lawsuits. Generally, it was meant to go after the accused like Bill Cosby. 

You are citing a UN resolution about conflict-related rape and applying it to Cosby's alleged crimes? Smh.

Quote

But there’s a difference. Those 20 plus women are suing him, NOT the Playboy owner or any Entertainment institutions.

Well, Cosby is the one accused of sexual assault. That'll be why the 20+ women would like to sue him. But they can't ... because the statute of limitations has run out.

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not that anyone actually needed specific evidence since Allen has also used these same two names (among a couple of others) in the JW-Archive forum. And he ties them together with a unique vocabulary including the same misspellings, and the unique use of words like "recreants" etc. ...

... I'm sure that AllenSmith is aware that the two names don't really fool anyone here who is involved in dialogue with him. ...

... In fact, for most of his posts that have been given a like or reputation, he is the only one who likes them.

Yep. Got him pegged. 

Poor little thing 

On 8/17/2016 at 5:14 AM, AllenSmith said:

If that’s all you took from it, then I would suggest you see a psychologist.

Proverbs 18:1-3 Context: The Unfriendly Pursue Selfishness

1He who separates himself seeks his own desire, He quarrels against all sound wisdom. 2A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind. 3When a wicked man comes, contempt also comes, and with dishonor comes scorn.

What has that to with the price of beans? Again, instead of having a rational discussion about how the Org. has historically dealt with and presently deals with child abuse allegations, you resort to ad hominem and deflection. I think our conversation must soon come to an end if you continue to be incapable of rational discussion.

Quote

Of course, legitimate cases mean everything to me, and the WTS. It’s only people like you to think we don’t. 

My questions resulted from your own words where you said the WTS and other institutions are getting hammered and negative publicity, not because of their failings but, because of "ambulance chasing lawyers." 

Do you think the dozens upon dozens of lawsuits in recent times are down to "ambulance chasing lawyers" and are not 'legitimate' cases? Which 'legitimate' cases have you followed?

Quote

However, what’s further interesting…the senseless rhetoric exploits of a situation, when the WTS did make such decisions back in the 80’s and 90’s, “didn’t” make the news, and the WTS would be sued for breach of confidentiality, by disgruntled witnesses.

What are you babbling on about? Which disgruntled witnesses? The abusers? When did the WTS or congregation elders notify the authorities about allegations of child abuse in the '80s and '90s? In Australia, according to the evidence brought out at the Royal Commission, the elders did not notify the police about the crime once in all 1000+ cases in the past 50 years.

Quote

Didn’t we already surmise this with your flip-flop attempt to put words on other people’s mouth. 

Who's 'we'? Your duplicate accounts don't count.

Quote

First you say for the WTS to obey Caesars laws, then you say it takes Caesars laws to be compliant. 

I asked you a question. Do you know the difference between a statement and a question? You stated that the WTS will make changes through the Branches to comply with new government legislation. This prompted my question to you about whether you believe governments have to legislate to make 'God's organization' do the right and moral thing?

So what do you think? Do governments have to legislate so that 'God's organization' is made to do the right and moral thing? Or should the Org's own sense of morality and justice make it proactive rather than reactive when formulating its child safeguarding procedures?

Quote

Wow! To normal people, they wouldn’t venture into judging in a few cases to condemn the entire organization. However, that’s Modern Ideology Right! Not that these Elders are bad apples to condemn the entire barrel. But, by your own admission, then this WHOLE WORLD is GUILTY. Like I said…a Remarkable A GOD! Since you adversely continue to single out the WTS, and have NO consideration for the other victims of other religions and secular institution.

Again, you are wanting to bend the discussion away from the issues and make it about me or other institutions. To steer you back on track, a reminder: the article in the OP is about JWs. This thread is in the JW section. Ergo, we are discussing how JWs deal with child abuse within their organization. 

Court case after court case after public inquiry after court case has shown there is a pattern in how disclosure of abuse has been mishandled by the Org. The directives to the BOE as well as JW culture explain why this pattern exists. There are huge flaws in the Org's approach that desperately need addressing.

Quote

Are you referring to, in general or a single case?

 In general. Now you have that clarified, 

What if the wrongdoer isn't disfellowshipped because the elders believe s/he is repentant? How can the congregation's children be protected while s/he continues as a member?

Your suggestions please.

Quote

Your distorting facts between criminality and civil culpability, that has no bearing in spiritual forgiveness. The same ignorance ARC Mr. Stewart displayed.

Do you not think child abuse to be a crime? Do you not think that negligence and failure to provide a duty of care to vulnerable members of a faith community should be brought to civil court? 

And, most hilariously, are you really suggesting that a professional lawyer with 20 years experience is ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability'? 

Quote

 

What you are suggesting is the use of FORCE!!!

When should an Elder FORCE a 30-year-old mother with a 4-year-old child that was abused by her uncle?

When should an Elder FORCE themselves against the wishes of a 17-year-old who was abused by her father?

When should the Elders take the “LAW” into their own hands, when a 10-year-old boy is being abused by both parents, yet “ALL” the uncles and aunts are aware.

 

Historically, the Org's elders have already been 'taking the law into their own hands' by investigating and passing judgment on child abuse allegations internally within the congregation. This is why so many cases have been grossly mishandled, pedophiles had opportunity to abuse more JW children, and victims were further harmed and traumatized.

Regarding your nonsensical objection about 'forcing' - reporting to the police or child protection services is forcing a criminal act to be exposed and stopped, and the perpetrator of that crime to be called to account and punished. 

What should the elder do if he suspects child abuse and/or neglect?

"If you suspect a child is being harmed, or has been harmed, you should report your concerns to the appropriate authorities, such as child protective services (CPS), in the State where the child resides. Each State has trained professionals who can evaluate the situation and determine whether help and services are needed. Most States have a toll-free number to call to report suspected child abuse and neglect. Child Welfare Information Gateway, a service of the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), provides a list of State child abuse and neglect reporting numbers and information on how to make a report in each State.

"Another resource for information about how and where to file a report of suspected child abuse or neglect is the Childhelp® National Child Abuse Hotline. Childhelp® can be reached 7 days a week, 24-hours a day, at its toll-free number, 1.800.4-A-CHILD® (1.800.422.4453)." - http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/faq/can6

Quote

ARC: Bro. Jackson: “No, Mr Stewart, if I could just ‐ what I'm trying to highlight is there are several factors that make it hard for a minister of religion to make a clear‐cut or quick decision on this matter. Obviously, I think, again, what has been highlighted to the Commission, the elders should encourage the guardian of the child, or whoever is in that family arrangement that is not the perpetrator, to notify the authorities.”

"Anyone can report suspected child abuse or neglect. Reporting abuse or neglect can protect a child and get help for a family it may even save a child's life." - https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/responding/reporting/how/

"Anyone." Rather than dump all the responsibility of reporting the crime to a frightened and perhaps dysfunctional family, the elders can take the initiative to report themselves. 

What if the crime wasn't child abuse but murder? Should an elder keep an allegation to himself about a murder having taken place thinking, 'It's the victim's family that has the responsibility to notify the authorities - not me"?

Quote

Example: If a 14-year-old girl goes to the Elders with an allegation of sexual abuse? Then they find out…that allegation was for, improperly touching this girl, by a 15-year-old boy…And the girl forgives the accused, does that merit the local authorities to be called. If secular authority is called, and they come to the same conclusion, what can they do? If the accuser doesn’t want to press charges. But that boy’s name goes into a mandatory registry.

The article in the OP is not discussing this type of scenario but that of adults abusing minors. Besides, the latest August 2016 BOE letter clarifies what the Org. means by 'child abuse' on p.3:

10. Congregation Considerations: When discussing child sexual abuse from a congregation standpoint, we are not discussing a situation in which a minor who is a willing participant and who is approaching adulthood is involved in sexual activity with an adult who is a few years older than the minor. Nor, generally speaking, are we discussing situations in which only minors are involved. (See paragraphs 24-25.) Rather, we are referring to an adult guilty of sexually abusing a minor who is a young child, or an adult guilty of sexual involvement with a minor who is approaching adulthood but was not a willing participant.

Quote

Now, if the authorities are alerted, and no action is taken by the authorities, the accused name is placed on a mandatory sex offenders list ... [Allen's imagination runs wild] 

Baloney. You have to be convicted as a sex offender to be put on the sex offenders list.

Quote

Then you’re a brilliant mind reader to think, you know the minds and hearts of every Elder in this world ... [ramble, ramble]

Elders are required to follow the Org's instructions. No mind-reading was involved. 

Quote

When the Christian arrangement came about, with our Lord Jesus Christ giving us direction, the Christian church does not have the authority to throw people into prison, to execute or to do anything to them.

Exactly. The governmental authorities have those processes and powers. This is why they have to be called on to act when crimes have been committed. As the apostle Paul said,

"Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.  So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished.  For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you.  The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.  So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience." - Rom. 13:1-5 (NLT)

Quote

So the judicial system in the Christian arrangement involves the spiritual cleanliness of the congregation, and the rules of evidence remain the same all the way through.”

And what 'rules of evidence' does the congregation employ in its handling of child abuse allegations?

Shouldn't 'evidence' rather be collected by professional police bodies rather than by untrained, volunteer leaders?

Quote

Are you not arguing the same post? “that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had failed to protect a woman” To me, “A WOMAN” is singular not plural. The Australia Commission was defined by 1 case.

Actually 2 cases - 2 victims who, out of more than 1000 recorded cases by the Australian Branch, were brave enough to relate their experiences before a public inquiry. 

Quote

Does this mean the high court has made a decision? Or does the mean, it’s OK for the lower court to continue with their INQUIRY. The same as the Australians.

It means that the UK WTS have been unsuccessful in blocking the Charity Commission from investigating how the UK congregations deal with child abuse allegations. The Commission can now go ahead with their inquiries. Read the article.

Quote

 

[Ann O'Maly] Are you suggesting that an abused and traumatized child should make decisions about whether her/his abuser parent should face criminal justice or not? Are you insane? 

[Allen] No, you are for thinking it. Was the ARC referring to a 4-year-old, or a 14-year-old child. However, I believe the MOTHER that was right there, was much older.

 

Backing up to your initial statement, namely ... 

"as I recall, in the Australia case, that 1 witness “begged” the Elders NOT to turn her father into authorities. Are you suggesting by any means and force?"

... You were implying that, if a minor victim begged the elders not to turn in her father to the authorities for sexually abusing her, that the elders should comply; that the elders should not 'force' that action upon her. Hence my question about your mental state. Your suggestion is extremely irresponsible and dangerous, for such compliance would further enable the abuser to continue abusing. It's astonishing that I should have to spell this out to you as if you were a child yourself.

Quote

 

[Ann O'Maly] Complete and utter bunkum

[Allen] Yes, I have already established you have NO CLUE, and would much rather have WTS break every other law to satisfy your argument. The complete and utter bunkum is the nonsense you write about.

 

You are projecting once again. What was complete and utter bunkum was your argument that 'forcing the child to the police department' - whether by the elders or the child's mother - would amount to 'child abduction.' This fancy of yours is totally ludicrous. 

Quote

Do you know how to read? NOT everything is about child sexual abuse. 

Well duh. And your point is ...? 

Quote

The worst offenders ARE Australia and the UK. But you don’t see the MEDIA criticizing their own government, it takes outside sources to do that. Does that make “governments more credible and more reliable for the safety and welfare of “all” their women and children? NO! as seen by the recent Australian legislation, is…to “PREVENT” workers at detention centers from informing the proper authorities of sexual abuse of women and children in detention centers. Your continued ignorance…is to sensationalize 1 organization you despise. That’s why I disagree with your tactics. To ignore everyone else and just concentrate on one. Widen your scope if you wish to be effective, thus far zero!!!!

Aaaand another senseless ad hominem rant. Your trademark. To repeat:

The article in the OP is about JWs. This thread is in the JW section. Ergo, we are discussing how JWs deal with child abuse within their organization. 

Do you get how topical sections in a discussion forum work?

Quote

The effort is to “help” all those who have a legitimate claim of abuse. Not someone who after 40, 50 years later decide by the aid of corrupt lawyers, and recent enacted civil laws passed to make these types of claims, make it much harder for an honest victim to pursue justice, without all the red tape these cases have added to civil legislation.

So you believe historical child sexual abuse cases are not 'legitimate'? 

Are the government-led inquiries into institutional historical child abuse, because the cases may include instances that occurred 40, 50 years ago, likewise not 'legitimate' and are decided with 'the aid of corrupt lawyers'?

Are you aware that many countries have a statute of limitations that bar victims from making civil claims for sexual crimes after a set amount of time? So, a victim would be unable to civilly prosecute somebody 40, 50 years later. Are you familiar with the controversy surrounding Bill Cosby and why it has been so difficult to prosecute him due to the time that has elapsed since his alleged crimes?

Quote

it takes a tremendous amount of inner strength for a victim of a heinous crime to come forward as it is, and now…they have to prove in top of that, their claim is legitimate.

This is the most sensible thing you have said in the whole discussion. However, evidence gathering is done by the police and forensic teams, and the legal system decides whether there is enough to potentially secure a conviction in criminal court and/or a favorable judgment in civil court.

Quote

As I said, your abatement is within criminality and civil culpability, and spiritual cleanliness.

Huh? What does that even mean?

Quote

Proverbs 29:8 Context: The Stiff-Necked will Be Destroyed ...

Yeah whatever. This scripture has no bearing on how best to safeguard children now.

14 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Wrong! that's all you O'maly

What's 'all me'? After sifting out all the raving, this was the sum of your post.

Quote

The WTS is getting hammered just like any other religion and institution by a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers.

Is that what you think the lawsuits are about? 'Ambulance chasing lawyers'? Victims' suffering and their wanting redress for institutional negligence resulting in their harm means nothing to you?

Quote

And when a government changes their laws, the WTS through their Branches will make changes to comply with those new laws by “means” of those Branches. 

Are you, then, of the same mindset as the elders questioned at the ARC, that governments have to legislate to make 'God's organization' do the right and moral thing?

Quote

You seem to think; the Branch Offices have no authority to make adjustments that would pertain to a specific Country. 

You seem to have made an erroneous assumption about what I think.

Quote

This hypothetical only works if you have concrete evidence that “all” Elders run a Judicial Committee in the same manner as thought by the ARC. However, they found out...that supposed “fact” was false. Now, I know your stance…as indicated by your replies in other apostasy websites, that’s what all ex-witnesses believe, however “wrong” they are.

I cannot understand the gobbledegook you just wrote there. I'll try again:

What if the wrongdoer isn't disfellowshipped because the elders believe s/he is repentant? How can the congregation's children be protected while s/he continues as a member?

Can you manage to respond with something half-coherent this time?
 

Quote

How do you know emphatically, it isn’t a standard now? 

I know because of what is contained in the elders manual and the latest BOE letters on child abuse. Have you read them?

Quote

Funny, how only 1 witness came forward in Australia, only 1 witness has come forward in the UK. 

'1 witness'? What nonsense!

Quote

Perhaps…those Elders didn’t use their best judgement, but as I recall, in the Australia case, that 1 witness “begged” the Elders NOT to turn her father into authorities. Are you suggesting by any means and force?

Are you suggesting that an abused and traumatized child should make decisions about whether her/his abuser parent should face criminal justice or not? Are you insane? 

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_on_the_Civil_Aspects_of_International_Child_Abduction

Do you see Australia and the UK in this list? What you are suggesting, that the WTS be ignorant of every other law enacted to satisfy your need, since forcing the child to the police department would constitute child abduction by a third party (Elders). The Mother could have done it, but she would also be at risk for child abduction, since she didn’t want to get her father involved by their secular authorities, and her “mother” did nothing to have her daughter comply when the Elders advised her that’s what she needed to do.

Complete and utter bunkum.

Quote

So how do you handle a situation like that O’maly. Give us your wisdom, and discernment, since you know so much, and know the hearts of all human beings. 

To answer that, refer to these websites:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/faq/can6

http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect.html

I see you ignored my last question by embarking in a senseless ad hominem rant. I guess you believe the Org is better continuing to dig its heels in, point fingers elsewhere and resist correction. I would have to disagree.
 

What bugged me was that Ivery said the cameraman/neighbor "had it all wrong" when he was asked if he was a convict and on the register.

I would have preferred something along the lines of, "Yes, that's me. I committed this terrible crime and I'm on the sex offender's register for life. I served my time, I repented and became one of Jehovah's Witness. Nevertheless, to allay your and the neighborhood's concerns, not only am I monitored by the authorities, but I have certain restrictions within the congregation, and an elder who knows my background has to accompany me whenever I'm out in field service sharing my faith. If you wish to check with the police, please be my guest. Good day to you, sir." Then with voice lowered, "Psst, and by the way, the more recent allegations against those sisters were never proven." 

Youtube pulled the original video. Here's a new link to it:

https://tv.wtsarchive.com/vid/jw-pedophile-preaching

So your response, Allen, to my question about how to better safeguard children in the Org is basically,

• Divert attention away from JW Org own failings and point at other religions' failings;
• Disfellowship and remove unrepentant wrongdoers in line with scriptural guidelines.

Isn't that pretty much why the Org. is getting hammered with lawsuits and negative publicity on this issue in the first place? 

What if the wrongdoer isn't disfellowshipped because the elders believe s/he is repentant? How can the congregation's children be protected while s/he continues as a member? 

What about notifying child protective services or the police when an allegation comes to light? Do you think this should be included as standard procedure to improve safeguarding practices?

Lastly, do you think it is the course of wisdom for the Org, rather than point the finger at what other religions have or have not done, to look candidly at itself, acknowledge its failings, and implement policies and procedures that raise the standards in keeping with current best practice as recommended by the secular authorities? (Luke 6:41, 42)

8 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Please! I believe in checking Recreants overall attitude about the WTS ... [etc.]

I'll take that as a 'no.' 

8 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Is that why you changed your “ICON” your handle picture. What are you hiding.

... asks somebody with two or more accounts and whose handle picture is of Wyatt Earp. 

Anyway, moving back more in line to the topic at hand, you criticize those who criticize the Org's mishandling of child abuse. I ask again - as we do not want to lose sight of the important central issue that children need to be protected and victims of abuse need redress and to see their abusers stopped and punished - with regard to the specific inadequacies of the JW Org, what in your opinion will help address their child safeguarding failures? Can you offer any possible improvements to the Org's child protection policies and its procedures after disclosure?

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

However, I was referring to a direct contribution of your criticism to a different religious website, which is none.

Again, you cannot know what criticisms I make elsewhere ... unless you believe yourself to be cyber-omniscient. Do you believe yourself to be cyber-omniscient, Allen?

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

And how does that differ with any other Religion. ...

Your initial allegation was that I was an "instigator, not a problem solver," to which I replied that the power to change policies and legislation was in the hands of the Org's leadership and secular authorities. Yes, there have been appalling failings in numerous institutions globally, and now those institutions are being investigated and called to account - rightly so. 

So with regard to the specific inadequacies of the JW Org, what in your opinion will help address their child safeguarding failures?

I don't know why you referred to Mark 13:9. It's talking about being brought before the authorities for bearing witness to Jesus - not for doing wrong. A more applicable passage is the first few verses of Rom. 13.

Oops. I didn't see you'd already linked to the article before I did. 

Another noteworthy comment from it:

Quote

Fay Maxted, chief executive of the Survivors Trust, a national sexual assault charity, said: “These are cases where someone has been sexually violated and had their whole trust in the safety of their religious community blown away.

 

“It’s deeply disappointing that a faith-based organisation appears to be so determined to try and avoid answering questions about its own behaviour …

 

“This is something the Catholics and Church of England have also had to deal with – these big institutions will fight and fight every step of the way.”

Rom. 13:3-5 (NLT) - "For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. ⁴ The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. ⁵ So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience." 

11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I don’t see your handle in other religious websites making the same claim.

You do not know all the websites I post on and the handles I use. This section of the forum is for 'JW news' - not 'Catholic news' or 'Scientology news' or even 'Nuwaubianism news.' The article I posted falls into the category of 'JW news.' Can you at least try to make comments pertinent to the article and not make the thread about personalities (yet again)? Thanks. 

11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

An instigator, not a problem solver.

As you well know, the problem of inadequate safeguarding procedures can only be addressed by the Org's leadership or those secular bodies involved with legislation.

25 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

No different than any other religion that is dealing with a worldwide problem.

Any religion that has the same problem, that has mishandled the problem, that has negligently allowed victims to be harmed, needs their failings exposed - whether it's the Catholics, the Church of England, the Jewish or Muslim faith communities, the LDS, Moonies, Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Damn right that the JW Org is feeling the pressure too. The Org has a history of naivety and stubbornness in this area and has to be dragged by 'worldly' authorities into improving their safeguarding protocols. The Org is still lagging too far behind current best practice - even now after the latest BOE letter guidelines.

55 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

God knows what I mean.

Indeed. I guess He's the only one who does. 

Methinks you are projecting, Allen. 

You stated, "Your salvation is incumbent to following God’s laws and commandments"

It was shown that the apostle Paul disagrees with you. If following God's laws and commandments would save people, there would have been no need for Jesus. Because nobody can follow God's laws and commandments properly, everyone is condemned. That's why, according to Christian doctrine, everyone needs Jesus to be saved. 

You also stated: "The WTS has never implied they hold salvation."

Again, three posters have provided numerous official Watchtower pronouncements demonstrating that you are mistaken. 

You may deflect and project all you like, but it doesn't change reality.

On 7/28/2016 at 4:39 PM, Kurt said:

Is it wrong to criticize another's religion? No.  Jesus did it to the Pharisees and Sadducees

Another's? It was his own religion Jesus was criticizing. 

18 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

your suggestive implication!!!!!!

Nope. Watchtower's own comments that contradict your claim.

27 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

So in your world, When did Jesus abstain from the governance of the laws. Are you suggesting there are known. That people by our mediator, can do without accepting any of Gods commands. That's what I was talking about until you thought you could exploit my words. Get a life Omaly!!!!!!!

In short, nothing to do with your statement about being saved by works of law and the apostle Paul's rebuttal to that idea.

40 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

es, twisting WTS literature is a habit with you. Let's not start manipulating the context to mean something else. ... When, has the organization said, there is NO salvation unless through us.

Didn't you read the quotes? What did I twist and manipulate? The quotes are verbatim and properly referenced so that anyone can check the wider context for themselves. They are what they are. Too bad if you don't like it.

40 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

You are saved by Jesus. When did Christ make himself GOD

36 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

No, I just don't put Christ above God, as you people are doing. ...  OK, when did you people, become higher than Christ?

What has that to do with your statement about being saved by works of law and the apostle Paul's rebuttal to that idea (my Gal. quote and your Eph. reference)? 

On 8/1/2016 at 10:35 AM, SonOfcaleb said:

Very flexible use of the English Language here....Its a Logo. Not a symbol. It doesnt represent a concept. Its not a visual image. It doesnt suggest an idea. Its a logo.

You may have a point there.

These are examples of symbols:

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The WTS has never implied they hold salvation.

Never?

*** w93 9/15 p. 22 They Compassionately Shepherd the Little Sheep ***
But if we were to draw away from Jehovah’s organization, there would be no place else to go for salvation and true joy. (Compare John 6:66-69.) 

*** w89 9/1 p. 19 par. 7 Remaining Organized for Survival Into the Millennium ***
Only Jehovah’s Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the “great crowd,” as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil. (Revelation 7:9-17; 2 Corinthians 4:4)

*** w85 3/1 p. 22 par. 21 Jehovah ‘Speeds It Up’ ***
Let us point all homing “doves” to the way of “salvation” behind the protective walls of Jehovah’s organization and increase “praise” to him at its gates. 

*** w81 11/15 p. 21 par. 18 ‘Stay Awake and Keep Your Senses’ ***
And while now the witness yet includes the invitation to come to Jehovah’s organization for salvation, the time no doubt will come when the message takes on a harder tone, like a “great war cry.”

*** w67 8/15 p. 499 par. 4 The Way to Security ***
So the visible congregation of God’s people has something to do with the provision of salvation today. Indeed, it has an important place in that provision. Every congregation forms a small part of God’s people. We cannot remain outside the organization of God’s people, separated from it, if we want to have Jehovah’s protection.

*** w67 8/15 p. 503 par. 19 The Way to Security ***
If we want to assure our everlasting salvation, we must stay within the bounds of Jehovah God’s loving provision associated with his visible organization, presided over by his High Priest. 
 

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Wrong! Your salvation is incumbent to following God’s laws and commandments.

*Sigh* I see you've completely missed the point of Jesus and the Christian gospel.

If salvation was incumbent to following God's laws and commandments, the biblical 'true religion' would still be Judaism and everyone would still be doomed.

Galatians 3:10-14New Living Translation (NLT)

¹⁰ But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.”^[a] 11 So it is clear that no one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, “It is through faith that a righteous person has life.”^[b] 12 This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, “It is through obeying the law that a person has life.”^[c]

¹³ But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”^[d] 14 Through Christ Jesus, God has blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing he promised to Abraham, so that we who are believers might receive the promised^[e] Holy Spirit through faith.

biblegateway.com

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The best research I've seen on this topic comes from a non-JW who opposes the JWs, but he was never baptized. (AlanF)

I'm afraid he was.

 https://ad1914.com/the-jw-experience-of-alan-feuerbacher/

But yes, he is an excellent researcher.