JW Insider

You should pay closer attention to exactly how SM answered this supposed claim that he was not (or is not) a Witness. Others have made this claim for him, but watch closely to see if he has ever made this claim about himself (up until now, at least). Positioning oneself here as a Restorationist Christian is not the same as claiming that one is not a JW. I think it might be a "ninja" thing. ?

The congregation, as a rule, is not informed formally, on purpose. My parents are in a congregation where a molester, former elder, had been disfellowshipped and apparently no one knew or said anything about the reasons for two years until he was reinstated last year. But rumors of the offense got around in the congregation immediately after his reinstatement, and the brother and his family (??!!??) have moved to another congregation. I believe the procedure has been just inform the elders of the new congregation, and tell them to keep a close watch and not return his privileges. Naturally, there are more cases where the knowledge of child abuse gets known in the congregation through other secular channels, newspapers, media, law enforcement, sex offender lists. The rumors can even start through a fellow family member who hates the molestor.

Thanks for this information. Unfortunately, yes, he died 2 weeks ago. Another acquaintance of ours (of my wife's mostly) called us to let us know. John Gatto was like the guy from the ad for Dos Equis beer: "The Most Interesting Man in the World." Now and then some of the best minds end up in the same place at the same time. (I include my wife, who was once nominated for Teacher of the Year in NYC, and John Gatto, of course, who actually won the city and state and got nominated for the National award.) Even the woman who told us was another who worked together with John for a couple of years. She is African American and went on to open some excellent charter schools in California, and helped shake up the education system around San Francisco/Oakland. One of her sisters was Gwen Ifil, who recently died from cancer after a professional career mostly in political broadcasting, gaining national and presidential attention. Another sister of hers has gained national attention as a lawyer. Another man who was a good friend of mine at the same place where my wife, John and Gwen's sister worked, had an amazing mind, and then joined a "cult." (EST) (Hey, they can't all be winners.) The "obit" over at the JTG blog doesn't tell half the story. But here are some bits from there about John Gatto (emphasis mine): After college, John worked as a scriptwriter in the film business, was an advertising writer, a taxi driver, a jewelry designer, an ASCAP songwriter, and a hotdog vendor before becoming a schoolteacher. During his school teaching years he also entered the caviar trade, conducted an antique business, operated a rare book search service, and founded Lava Mt. Records, a documentary record producer, which won several awards for cover design and content, and which presented the horror of H.P. Lovecraft, dramatized, and the speeches of Richard M. Nixon and Spiro Agnew, exactly as given. In 1991, despite being the two-time New York State Teacher of the Year, he quit school teaching . . . Later that year he produced a show at Carnegie Hall called “The Exhausted School” where he explored innovative forms of respectful learning, which launched a career of public speaking. In 1992, he was named Secretary of Education in the Libertarian Party Shadow Cabinet, and he has been included in Who’s Who in America from 1996 on. In 1997, he was given the Alexis de Tocqueville Award . . . In 2011, he co-created . . . an epic 5 hour video interview exploring the history of education, political power, and freedom that was released in 2012. As Witnesses we no longer had time to stay in touch after he left the academy where my wife was a fellow teacher. We made use of an apartment he owned in Alicante, Spain a couple of times. And I once procured a small library of hard-to-find books for him based on a valuable donation to a NYC library that the library had no idea what to do with. Over the years, I've noticed his name involved in things I had no idea about at the time. He left his politics out of the school, but brought excitement and energy to learning. The later academic and professional success of the students always reminded me of "wisdom is proved righteous by its works." (Matthew 11:19)

Excellent research. We have long used the "inculcate them in your sons" phrase to teach that literacy was high among the Jewish population. This would have been the ideal if everyone followed the Law. But there are as many pieces of opposing "evidence." And I agree that there is no hard evidence on either side. Expressions like, "have you not read?" are actually found very rarely in the Bible. And if you note the context, it's always with reference to Pharisees and Sadducees which fits the previous points made. To more common people, such as those who heard Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, the expression, even when quoting written scripture, is: "You heard that it was said. . ." It's found six times in the Sermon on the Mount alone. There are no examples of Jesus mentioning "reading" except when chief priests, scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees were the focus of attention. (Even Jesus' question about "Whose inscription was on the coin?", by the way, was directed at Pharisees.) So the same point made by the blogger could be taken as evidence against the literacy of the common man. But apparently they did! Certain kinds of merchants, including house stewards who were the ones required to trade with merchants for foodstuffs and household supplies, might require a knowledge of money and writing. That is acknowledged. (Luke 16:6-7) And Joshua ben Gamala's potential reforms, as a chief priest married to a wealthy woman from the priestly Boethos family, were precisely because education --even of 16 and 17 year olds-- had been an exclusive privilege of the rich. The very fact that he hoped for a change in this regard could be used as more evidence of common illiteracy.

Good points, especially from our current vantage point in time. On the latter point in the above quote, Paul could be said to have dealt with that issue, by the admission that Scripture was "Jewish Scripture" in the following verse: (Romans 3:1, 2) . . .What, then, is the advantage of the Jew, or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 A great deal in every way. First of all, that they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God. Yet the immediate context, plus the entire book as further context, provides the explanation against misuse of this statement by Judaizers: (Romans 2:29) . . .But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code. . . .

Made in America - Sold to the World ME It's a good thing there are no anti-GB meme makers around here!

True. Also, it was an accusation from outsiders and therefore not necessarily an accurate reflection. But there is also the fact that it is not rebutted in Acts, and it fits what Jesus said about revealing truths not to the wise and intellectual. (Matthew 11:25) . . .At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children." Paul recognized the same point, and even spurned his own educational training as worthless. We can also combine this with the fact that of the original 12 apostles, only two of them, Matthew and John, were ever credited with writing a gospel account. But even this is based on later traditions. Nowhere, in any of the gospels do we even see the names of the writers, whether Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. There was an early tradition that Matthew had written a gospel and that it was originally in Hebrew (Aramaic), but this gospel could not have been the one we now call Matthew. There was also a well-known gospel called the "Gospel of Peter" that probably originated in the second century, but might have even been written in the first century while the apostles were still alive. In spite of the name, it was not taken seriously after the second century, and the "Gospel of Mark" was seen as Peter's gospel through a "second" hand. Yes. The Watchtower has referenced this view. *** w09 7/1 p. 4 1. Ask the Author for Help *** Jesus’ apostles were considered “unlettered and ordinary” because they had not attended rabbinic schools for religious training. (Acts 4:13) Nevertheless, Jesus assured them that understanding God’s Word was within their reach. Although the very next year, the Watchtower moved back to the idea of illiteracy in language education. *** w10 10/1 p. 30 Speaking in Tongues—Is It From God? *** Spreading the good news to that extent would require the use of many tongues other than Hebrew. However, many of those early disciples were “unlettered and ordinary.” (Acts 4:13) How, then, would they be able to preach in distant lands where languages were spoken that they may never have heard of, let alone learned to speak? Holy spirit empowered some of those zealous preachers with the miraculous ability to preach fluently in languages they had never before learned to speak. I have read the view that many Judeans of this time and even many more Galileans and Samaritans never learned Greek, but knew and spoke only their form of Aramaic (sometimes called "Hebrew" as in the above quote from the 2010 Watchtower). Being unlettered (illiterate) in the sense of not knowing how to read and write in your language even if you spoke it fluently, is considered an insult to one's intelligence in most societies today. But illiteracy was very common in the first century, and no one expected anyone to be able to read and write except a certain level of soldier required to send reports, certain types of merchants, and the rabbis who would need to learn to read for the synagogue services. Not even the average tax collector needed to know how to read and write, even though we now tend to think of some kind of accountant/scribe. Because we anachronistically consider it to be such an insult, we think we are coming to the defense of the apostles by saying that this was only referring to a special level of illiteracy and a technical meaning of "ordinary." We forget that "rabbinical schools for religious training" were precisely where persons learned to read and write. This is why even the persons we would today call civil lawyers came out of this same class of education (Pharisees, scribes). Josephus, for example, rose in military rank in Galilee due to his rabbinic training, i.e., literacy. After his capture by the Romans, he maneuvered quickly into Roman acceptance due in large part to literacy. I'm glad you pointed out one of the meanings of idiotai, as it would be easy for English readers to only see the insulting cognate when the original term did not have the meaning "idiot."

The Bible is the perfect book it should be. But we should discern the spirit of the Christian message and not be distracted with so many lower-priority details that we miss the forest for the trees. As brought up in the post to @Outta Here we need to be alert to what we are being taught. If we understand the "spirit" of the message and the "priorities" we will not be quickly shaken from our reason in believing a message has apostolic authority when it really was just some speculation over less important details: (2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .we request of YOU 2 not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us. . . I think most of us would agree that the idea of priority of the objective has been perfectly met in the Bible, and is perfectly encapsulated in 1 Timothy: (1 Timothy 1:5-7) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

Yes. Excellent point. I believe it has everything to do with it, and I believe that Paul was well aware of the responsibility and understood very uniquely from his own situation why such a spiritual gift was so important. After all, he was not one who had heard Jesus speak personally during Jesus' earthly life, and Paul at times, had to rebuke the very apostles who had such influence on others. The idea, I think, is even carried in the verse in the context of the idea of making sure of the more important things: (Philippians 1:9-10) 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ; Of course, Paul also made good and purposeful use of extra-Scriptural references which also were "useful for setting things straight and disciplining in righteousness," but in order for future congregations to be built especially upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Paul knew that, not just the Hebrew Scriptures, but also the authority of the apostles would become both the doctrinal and practical foundation of the congregations. He had to set things straight even among the other apostles, and the apostles were able to give Paul counsel, too. (Gal 2:10) Fortunately, we don't need now to question anything that comes through the authority of the apostles. But we still need to follow the same principle of discernment that Paul used when questioning and accepting doctrine. (Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. Today, of course, we also need to be reliant upon good scholarship to avoid acceptance of certain statements that do not have "foundational" apostolic authority and yet have crept into our Bible texts. It's a modern form of the same spiritual gift of accurate knowledge (and full discernment.) 1 John 5:7.8 is the best example, The New World Translation committee has accurately removed the non-authoritative parts of 1 John 5:7,8, but there are dozens of full verses removed in lesser-known examples found in some of the older texts (not usually the oldest texts) and found not to be as reliable, based on "textual criticism." Some of these omissions seem innocuous, but they are still without sufficient apostolic authority to keep in the context with the authoritative verses. By calling our Christian Greek Scriptures "apostolic", we acknowledge that some were not written directly by apostles, because most of the apostles were evidently unlettered (illiterate) and required second-hand "secretaries" to record their first-hand experiences and memories. Writings by non-apostles were accepted on the basis that they were understood to have come from those with a direct relationship to the apostles, and who lived at the time of the apostles. The significance given to this idea comes through the statement from Paul that the number of eyewitnesses to Jesus resurrection was known. (Luke 1:1, 2) 1 Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, (2 Peter 1:16) 16 No, it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we acquainted YOU with the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but it was by having become eyewitnesses of his magnificence. (Acts 1:21-23) . . .It is therefore necessary that of the men who accompanied us during all the time in which the Lord Jesus carried on his activities among us, 22 starting with his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us, one of these men should become a witness with us of his resurrection.” 23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barʹsab·bas, who was also called Justus, and Mat·thiʹas. (1 Corinthians 15:5-7) . . .and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Paul knew that Timothy was already well acquainted with the inspired Scriptures. So the reference would have been to the Hebrew Scriptures only at this time. This does not mean that Paul didn't recognize the status of at least some of his own letters or some parts of his own letters as "inspired." But it isn't likely Paul was referring to his own letters at this time, just the "Old Testament." Another question is whether Paul would have been thinking of the same set of books that we think of today. Some Jews and therefore some Jewish Christians might not have agreed on which books could be considered inspired (or partially inspired). I say partially, because some books had portions that included stories that were not considered inspired even if the primary portion of the book was considered inspired. (Daniel, Bel and the Dragon, Susannah and the Elders, etc., just as the book of John had a story about the near stoning of a woman caught in adultery, or Mark with both a short and long conclusion. It's merely a tradition that tells us that the writer of 1,2,3 John and Revelation were the same person. Based on the language and grammar, it seems unlikely to many scholars that it was the same John who wrote Revelation. (The gospel of John was apparently written by the same person who wrote 1,2, &3 John.) Also, there is some good external and some internal evidence and tradition that Revelation was written close to 96-100 CE. But there have also been some excellent scholarly books pointing to the possibility that Revelation could have been written prior to 70 CE. (Prior to Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans.) For that matter, there is considerable speculation among scholars that the letters to Titus and Timothy were developed, more likely between 100 CE and 150 CE. This does not mean that they were not "Pauline," but to some scholars they appear to be attempts to turn Paul's counsel into a set of semi-legalistic rules. They are more akin, stylewise, to the style and content one would find in the books of 1 Clement, Ignatius or Polycarp. (Some of the writings and letters by the latter could well have been written prior to 1 & 2 Timothy.) If they are Paul's own direct words, many scholars find some of them at odds with the "spirit" of Paul's words in Thessalonians, Philippians, Romans and Corinthians. Books of Enoch, Jannes and Jambres, The Assumption of Moses, 12 Patriarchs, Epistle of Barnabas, etc., were clearly very popular in some Christian circles likely going all the way back to the first century CE. There were also several gospel accounts that the writer of Luke hoped to replace with the gospel of Luke. This could have been one of the reasons that 1 John 4:1 asks Christians to "test the inspired utterances." Of course, Christians much closer to the time when these books were first known were in a better position to test which of them had real apostolic authority and which came from the actual time period of the apostles. Also, when scholars look at supposed contradictions and assume a late authorship they are often taking the easy way out. Some portions of the Bible were clearly intended so that we would look at things from two different perspectives. The variations in the gospel accounts do not cause any doctrinal problems but they show different perspectives. The difference in James' statement that 'a person is declared righteous by works and not by faith alone,' while Paul says that 'a person is declared righteous by faith and not by works' is clearly intentional. These perspectives actually help us to 'make sure of all things.'

If things were exactly the same now, then yes, this would make them hypocrites. But it's a matter of what was actually "known" even though what we thought we "knew" was really based on assumptions. We assumed that fornication was a huge problem and pedophilia was a nearly non-existent problem. We probably also assumed that "kids" lie and elders tell the truth, because that has been built into the system for decades.

Hardly! Britain very nearly could not even save itself. And the USA made use of a 'get in there as late as possible' tactic which allowed all the other nations of imperialist leanings to lose power by the end of war. The true credit goes to the Russians for holding out so long against the Nazis. To scale, it was more like this:

I think that hits the point exactly. The elders, especially during previous years, were directly taught at KM school (Elder Training) that the first time that there is suspicion of two persons of the opposite sex spending hours of time alone together, that there should be some kind of very strong counsel and even sanction due to the appearance alone, even if the elders were convinced that they were innocent of loose conduct. It was the same at Bethel, because there was a rule against being alone with a sister in your room unless the door was open, this meant that as soon as the door was closed, there should be strong counsel and even sanction. I knew that the rule was often broken, and I think that very few would turn someone else in, yet multiple infractions of the rule could mean dismissal. If a couple of the opposite sex ever were seen to have contrived to be alone together, it was simply assumed that they went too far in their conduct with one another. The elder training gave examples of appropriate questions to ask, even if it was not overnight, and these questions assumed the worst, and would try to draw out a confession of "loose conduct." There would be a probation or loss of privileges of some kind, even if both vehemently denied any misconduct. If the time spent together appeared contrived, and was overnight, especially if reported by a third party who saw a car parked overnight in front of the other person's house, then the assumption was always that fornication had occurred and that any denial means the two are lying. The types of questions to be asked gave away the assumption of immorality and dishonesty. If they had previously been counseled, this could immediately escalate to disfellowshipping. Having been raised in the truth, and having gone to school in Missouri, I didn't realize until I went to college that many of our assumptions were similar to many of the fundamentalists around us. It wasn't just JWs but most old-time religionists, assuming that leaving two persons of the opposite sex alone together was always an instant recipe for fornication and/or adultery. If you listened to radio preachers you'd hear the same assumptions. Witnesses were also assuming that there was nothing else that young people could possibly be interested in. It wasn't until after Bethel when I went to college that I realized that many persons were immoral, but also that many had morals likely superior to ours. And most surprisingly that many persons of the opposite sex actually lived together as roommates and still didn't ever worry about the topic of sex/fornication ever coming up. Now, I have seen statistics that show that teenage pregnancies were always much higher in the "Bible Belt." Perhaps part of the problem was in the assumption that young people have nothing better to do.

translate.google.com: To calm down, it is also very important not to forget your relationship with the Creator. Jehovah does not look favorably upon those who rejoice over the misfortune of their enemies, for such an attitude reflects an avenging spirit. Now, in Proverbs 24:17, 18, we find this warning: "When your enemy falls, do not rejoice; and when it stumbles, let not your heart be joyful, that Jehovah may not see it, and that it shall not be evil in his sight."

Amazing that China, for example, generally builds robots to focus on building things, and the United States builds robots to keep the status quo. These particular robots make a good metaphor for the silicon valley economy. They are kept so that rich people can't be bothered or disturbed after exploiting properties through gentrification processes. SF is notorious for extremely low new building projects to keep real estate prices high, where most adjacent counties in California have much more unimproved and untouched acreage than acreage that has been built upon. In fact, even where SF will begin to expand is not into newly zoned areas for new building, except by encroaching upon Oakland so that additional gentrification processes can be used to remove the majority black and latino populations to rebuild Oakland as a playground for the rich. Silicon Valley has even been finding ways to aid this specific type of gentrification, even through social media, military and law enforcement support -- and Oakland was one of the first targets.

At least most of those cars finally got cleared off the lot. "Urban Explorers" must still be a problem, though. I read somewhere that they keep breaking locks and cutting fences just to take a selfie at a place like this. Right? Looks like quite a project. Perhaps someday it could become a "Wyndham" hotel. Seriously, however, especially if permission to add the two 70 foot towers and botanical gardens works out, it would be a great place for corporate events, weddings, etc. In the US, we often made use of these out of the way locations for corporate events. Attendance was always low when events were held in Las Vegas, Atlanta, etc., and much higher at captive locations. With those planned hiking trails it would remind me of the last three I went to: Mohonk House in New Paltz, New York and another one in Amish/Mennonite country in rural Ohio, and another one in Asheville, North Carolina, The [Vander]Biltmore). I don't know how popular this idea is in the UK, but a French company I worked for would send us to a Bordeaux winery (that they owned) and then a "Club Med" in Normandy that was not a typical water-sports oriented Club Med. It was designed with a lot of garden-like pools and little bridges based on Monet/Manet paintings.

I programmed mine to fool TrueTomHarley into thinking it was his wife.

Which means, when translated, something like: Hello, the Bible should be read in context and one should not try to understand it by taking a verse out of context.

And I made it look like I was blaming you. Sorry. As I recall, you had already defended yourself very well a few hundred posts back in this thread. They even talked about threaded replies. And I knew it wasn't your fault from the start. I've been asked to split off several threads myself, and I always have trouble with the fact that the initial post is the oldest relevant post that can be added to the thread so it looks like that person started the new thread. It gives the impression that some innocent person had deemed a side-track topic to be important enough for its own thread.

I for one, thank you for sticking around for this discussion. Yes, I remember how unfair it seemed that someone started a thread with your name in it, just to make it clear that they didn't trust your own stated reasons. But, of course, forums are full of opinions sprinkled with a few facts sometimes, but just to bolster opinions. People rightly treat most of this like YouTube comments, or some other "worst" example of the way people's opinions can cloud out anything useful. But I stll think that what you have provided here is a first hand experience (prior to JW association) and a subsequent reaction to WTS policies that is very important for most of us to reflect on, even if it's different from the way most of think we would react.

Oddly enough, Brother Jackson came very close to implying it, but still didn't say elders themselves would always comply even if it the state produced a consistent mandatory reporting law. Brother Jackson danced around the actual response expected from elders. You can see this on page 36 to 40 of the official transcript: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case Study 29 - Transcript - Jehovahs Witnesses - Day 155 - 14082015.pdf For example, Bro. Jackson said it would make it easier, but that the elder would still have to consider whether he got the information confidentially and quoted Proverbs 25:8 (importance of confidentiality) in the same breath in which he suggested consistent mandatory reporting laws. He said that none of these principles necessarily takes precedence, but that the elders need to consider it. (p.37) Then Jackson went on to quote 1 Peter 5:3 to show that the elder himself could be lording it over the flock if he took it upon himself to report something when it could be seen as the responsibility of a family head to report it. And he again repeated that the decision will be "easier for us" but did not make a statement that the elder himself should be the one who complies with a mandatory reporting law. He repeated again that, for the elder, there would still be no "clear cut or quick decision on the matter" even if it were obvious that other children in the same family were still at risk. (p.38) As seen at the top of page 39, these "dances" were seen by Stewart as reasons for potentially "overriding mandatory reporting" even if and where it did exist. And Jackson was very accepting of the idea that this was, indeed, his goal by clarifying that he, Jackson, still prefers that the elders only be required to "encourage the guardian of the child, or whoever is in that family arrangement who is not the perpetrator, to notify the authorities." (p.40). . Also, I didn't follow how the Australian Parliament might have responded to any such recommendations for consistent mandatory reporting. Can you point me to a place that shows exactly what they rejected?

The vast majority of Witnesses have the expectation that the WTS will always try to do what is right, no matter what the topic. But like all institutions, reputation is paramount. The WTS is full of people who want to enhance the reputation of the WTS. This is a problem, but also natural --almost expected-- if we are also sure that we have the most life-saving message, and that this message will likely be rejected if our reputation is sullied. A college or sports organization will be just as guilty of protecting their reputation through maneuvering, or even more so, when the motive is as mundane as staying in business. We've been through these ideas before, but it's quite possible that TTH is correct in assuming that the WTS/JWs have made great strides in protecting young ones from abuse. I notice that the media has tended to move from "Catholics only" to "Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses." But part of that perception is the fact that we Witnesses have our ears "tuned" to listen to anything the media says about JWs. We will sometimes think we are being bashed when we are actually being treated fairly, just because we perceive we are being ganged up on. It could just as easily be true that only a small percent of our own sexual abuse issues make the news, but the exposure of Catholic clergy and institutions has made Catholics might be highly overexposed by the media. I was Googling, "Barbara Anderson" and also picked up a short booklet on Amazon that she had written (or it looks like someone wrote for her). But I noticed that she has also said that the problem is not something for which the media should focus on just Catholics and JWs. I found a quote where she said that Billy Graham's son, a well-known Protestant preacher, said that the problem of child sexual abuse is greater in the Protestant religions, especially the mega-churches. I noticed that some Catholics in Australia had no problem finding numbers from the "Commission" (ARC) that proved that the problem among JWs and another set of religions was shown to be much bigger among these non-Catholic religions. But another couple quotes from Barbara Anderson also said something about seeing a court document, not shared publicly, that could explain why the "GB should keep so much info . . . all to themselves." For one thing she says that many of these cases involve incest and an exposure of the names of either victims or perpetrators when combined with the crime could bring another level of public hurt upon the victim. Also I saw a quote from her that said that it really was true that quite a number of persons for which the WTS admitted that their pedophile status was known was through our prison outreach program. When persons locked up for child sexual abuse are baptized and then released, or released and then baptized, this inflates the number of persons listed in the WTS records even if they have not ever been known to commit a sexual abuse crime after leaving becoming a JW. Another point that I sensed from combining a few ideas she wrote about is this. The WTS lists contain a wide range of abuse crimes, and some of them truly are those from which a sensible person would not think right to expose to the court and law enforcement (risking also the leaks to the media). A 17 year old, for example, might have done things in high school that have truly not been a problem for the last 40 years. Of course these same lists have been shown now to have contained heinous crimes that were covered up and should obviously be exposed to law enforcement. But starting this process creates a slippery slope to a decision-making process where the WTS can't trust itself to always "redact" correctly, and the WTS has never trusted the world to handle anything correctly, especially where it relates to protecting their own reputation. So, it's the old dilemmas: "between a rock and a hard place" / "between the Devil and the deep blue sea" / "between the Pharoah and the deep Red Sea." This is probably true. Even here no system is without potential loopholes in justice. But it's back to the idea that the WTS would potentially give up control of its reputation to "the world." In these cases its something that should absolutely be done. It's not perfect, but it's much better, and a culture in which this is expected will result in a much better sense among all of us that it should have been done this way all along. I referenced a website which TTH has quoted from, and noticed that the general point of this entire website is that reporting ALL accusations is a culture change that all institutions need to begin, religious and non-religious.

We don't really care, or shouldn't care as much what God had in mind in Genesis, Exodus, or Leviticus. But we should care what James and Peter had in mind when they gave an edict "abstain from blood" to Paul and Barnabas to spread among the Gentile believers. Even so, I think you are right -- assuming that we truly believe that the intent of the edict "abstain from blood" referred to any means of taking it into the body. And this is exactly what we believe, whether by medical procedure or by consumption through the mouth. I always imagined it like this: Let's say Adam and Eve had been told to abstain from eating from a certain tree of the garden and let's say that this tree had been, for example, a banana tree, and there was only one of these trees in the whole garden. So they proceed to pick the fruit and find ways to make food products from it: banana puree, banana wine, banana sugar, banana jam, dried banana chips, banana powder, banana oil, including products from banana peels, banana leaves, banana tree bark, and banana tree roots. Satan appears in the form of a tarantula spider and tells them that all these products are just fine because they aren't really eating from the tree, they are eating byproducts from the tree. Satan says that as long as you process and smash and dry and mix and powder and recombine with other products, it's not really the same as eating from the banana tree. Just don't eat the whole banana fruit at once, or the whole leaf, or the whole root, or the whole peel. Otherwise, it's just a matter of conscience. I should add, however, that in the last couple of years, I've changed my mind on just how far one could apply this specific illustration. And now --based on something very specific and clear that the apostle Paul wrote-- I think that the whole blood issue is entirely a matter of conscience. Due to conscience, I might personally view the matter more strongly than another believer, or less strongly. But I would not wish to impose my own conscientious view on others.

Sort of. I was referring to both. And our steers were only stunned with the head shot, not killed outright, so the heart was still beating. I was just saying there was a time when I was more interested in the various processes, so as to compare them, partly because of the blood issue, and partly because we had raised our steers from calves (along with a heifer and a milk cow). I therefore had a concern about their suffering. Naming them was a bad idea. I was interested in the process then, because a true kosher slaughter, at least at the time, required that the animal be readied for stringing up and then the throat cut as soon as the animal was strung up. There was no stunning or bolt gun with the kosher method, with the idea that the heart (and fear of the process) would help the heart beat stronger, and pump out more blood. How much more, I don't know. I might not have even been given completely correct info. The bolt-shot (stunned) unconscious animal might be in a kind of shock, lowering the heart rate I would assume, but I suppose the amount of blood drained could be similar, but might take longer, when compared with an animal that is fully alert, and the throat is slit with a fully beating heart. I think it's interesting that our slaughterhouse told us that the kosher method is faster because the animal is so afraid of dying that the blood is pumping more strongly and the heart rate is off the charts. But more recently, when more people are interested in whether the animal experiences fear and suffering, the kosher method is sometimes touted as "instant death" -- which it definitely is not. That might be. And I might have been given wrong information about how the kosher method supposedly drains more blood, by throat slitting without ever knocking out or stunning the animal.

I don't believe anyone would claim that this red liquid in the package is blood. But as you say, it contains blood, whole blood cells. So does the meat itself. But it looks like your argument boils down to something like this: No one can actually get rid of all the whole blood cells that will be found in meat by any practical process. And the Bible's laws never technically meant that absolute full drainage was required anyway, as the idea of "lifeblood" was intended, not blood, per se. Therefore, if we were not supposed to worry about small amounts of whole blood, we should not necessarily worry our conscience about fractions or particles of blood, either. I agree with this, that it's a "question of what Biblical standard we are willing to subject our thoughts to," but it doesn't really seem to address the question of why certain fractions are prohibited from the perspective of the Watchtower's guidelines, and certain fractions are considered to be a matter of individual conscience.