Anna

I have heard of situations like this. Very sad. With the kind of ambiguous information regarding what's "natural" and what's "un-natural" it can get confusing. Both you and Melinda have brought out good points. I remember the ** tp chap. 13 pp. 149-151 Your View of Sex—What Difference Does It Make? that Melinda mentioned, and I recall not really being comfortable with some of the things it brought out. We studied the book shortly after I was married. Words like "sexual greed" "Sexual appetite" "uncleanness" in the context of marriage was confusing, at least to me. Including this sentence "It is true that husband and wife have a Scriptural right to engage in sexual relations with each other. "But does this mean that they can throw off all restraint? The fact that God’s Word urges all Christians to cultivate self-control argues against such a view." I had no idea what to make of that. It conjured up images of frigidness and constraint, instead of warmth as spontaneity. I am not saying that the writer was trying to convey such a negative image, but it left things too much to interpretation. What I mean by this is that the husband and wife could each interpret this differently, and then this could be a valid reason for driving a wedge between them especially if they were not very sexually compatible in the first place (it is fact that some people like sex more than others). And then if the married couple did engage in some acts which they believed were "un-natural", or if they thought they had "thrown off all restraint", according to how they interpreted the admonition, then this could lead to a bad conscience, which is not a good situation to be in. It seems to me that too much emphasis was unnecessarily put on what happens in the bedroom in the aforementioned chapter of that book. In contrast, this admonition is so much better: How I interpreted that was that natural sexual intimacy is that which is between a husband and wife, and that kind of intimacy has no rules about kinds and limits a long as both partners treat each other with tenderness..... But like I said, I have not noticed any more said about marital intimacies to the extent that it was in the past (60's 70s' 80's) and the above WT was the first after a long time and the style is completely different. I am thinking that obviously you were not the only elder who encountered problems to do with marital intimacies among the congregation and that perhaps it was realized that these articles caused unnecessary and embarrassing situations, both for the married couple, and for the elders who were shepherding them. Why should elders be privy to what happens in a bedroom? Surely there are more important things to be concerned about...? Just out of interest, how did you counsel the couple on the shepherding visit?

What was the result?

A good sense of humor covers a multitude of beards though!

The first one affects me personally and I have my own "theories" regarding this. Perhaps we can make this into a new subject. The second subject I have heard a little bit about, but things already began to change when I got baptized, although some things regarding what's appropriate between a husband and wife still surfaced sometimes. But I have not been aware of anything in the past 15 or so years. I am glad. I never thought it was appropriate for the brothers to pry and get involved in dictating what was a very private affair. I never really understood why they were so concerned about what practices go on behind closed doors of a married couple.....to me, it was none of anyone's business. Interpreting what was correct sexual behavior according to their interpretation of the scriptures was taking it too far, in my opinion anyway. What goes on in the bedroom should be based on scriptural principles, (just like everything else in life) and not on specific actions deemed right or wrong according to opinion. The third point I have been following for some time as you have probably figured out. We actually had good policies but not perfect ones. Plus the trouble was that they didn't always get followed. It's a complicated subject and a lot of it has been distorted by the media and ex- witness victims who have a grudge against the society on the whole. What is good is that our policies will keep on improving. It will be interesting to watch the new hearing in March https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/27353-australian-royal-commission-final-report-of-handlin-of-child-sexual-abuse/#comment-34899

I feel the same way. I have explained it somewhere on this forum, why I think this is. I feel it has something to do with their responsibility, which could perhaps be viewed in a similar way to parental responsibility. My experience with my own mother was that she tried to appear as perfect as possible. This worked fine when I was a toddler and little child. And then I got older, and I began to see her imperfections and flaws. It was quite a shock for me really to realize my mother had the same, or similar weaknesses as me, that she was an imperfect human being just like anyone else. I asked her about this. I wanted to know why she never admitted to any mistakes and why she tried to appear perfect. Her answer I think is the key to how the GB might be thinking. She said that she needed to appear as perfect as possible in order for me, as a child, to look to her for guidance, to trust her, and lean on her with confidence. There was a letter once from the GB to a publisher, which expressed those sentiments, and I have also heard it expressed elsewhere, that the GB cannot lose the trust and confidence of the bothers. So maybe this is the reason why it appears they are not humble, because with humility they might expose weaknesses which in turn could lead the brothers to view them with distrust. I personally do not believe that would actually be the case. On the contrary, I think it would lead to more respect. Another aspect tied to humility I think is transparency. I would love to see more of that. But all in all I do think there has been a lot of improvement in these areas with the new set of GB.

That was a funny movie!

Hahaha, I agree. But I still maintain that had: there is a strong possibility that the whole negligence thing would have been thrown out. Perhaps they should have fought to exonerate themselves of all accusations. Candace is probably very happy that WT did not take it to the supreme court, she would have ended up stripped of everything, even if WT hadn't won.......WT have their own lawyers, and WT has a lot more money than Candace, WT had not much to lose compared to Candace. She had everything to lose, so I am sure it would have benefited Candace a lot less than WT. Think about that. WT could have fought, but they didn't. What does that tell you? Besides, this is not the only legal case WT has ever fought, being exonerated in the eyes of the world doesn't mean that much to them as long as their conscience is clear before God. Jehovah knows the truth of what happened, and that's more important.

As far as I am aware, a confidential settlement is a private agreement between parties, involving their respective lawyers only, and not the court. As you see in the docket link it says: “letter dated June 22, 2015, notifying the court that petitioners, Watchtower and Fremont Congregation have reached a settlement with respondent, Conti”. In any case whether settled in or out of court the result is exactly the same. Candace gave up on her “noble” quest to change WT policies. Why? Yes, supervise Kendrick's field service, and as I said, I believe they DID supervise Kendrick's field service by NOT assigning Candace to work with him in field service. This portion was the next step WT would have appealed/ defended as that is the only thing the the court concluded, as you said. The elders could not be expected to monitor Kendrick after field service. They were not expected to watch Kendrick's every move in his private life. The only way Kendrick's movements could have been totally controlled is if he would have been incarcerated, but of course as we know, the police "could only act according to the law at the time". So, I say again: " Is it believable that the elders purposefully arranged for someone whom they believed to be a danger to children, to be assigned to be alone with children in the congregation and in field service? This assumption is illogical and NO ONE in their right mind would even suggest otherwise except of course if you have ulterior motives; such as opposers, certain news reporters, and certain lawyers….

Ok. Let me put it this way then. When a group of people allow certain opinions regarding themselves to flourish, regardless whether that group of people has actually promoted or instigated that opinion, then they must also accept certain responsibility if others misinterpret certain things. Many, many JWs, especially the older generation, view the GB as “almost Jesus”. This is a fact. It’s evident from what they say. I have heard it and seen it in action. So then when the GB says something, or insinuates something, especially regarding the end, then people naturally get excited. Why should they get excited if it is clear that no one knows except Jehovah and Jesus? Precisely! Because they believe the GB has information that no one else has, from Jehovah and Jesus. So if you are going to mention ANY date, then the friends will prick their ears and listen. The society got burned a few times over this in the past, so much so that one of the GB members who gave a talk a few years back in our circuit said from the platform “Brothers, we promise you, no more dates!” (The talk was about the refined understanding regarding the identity of the toes of the image in Daniel’s prophesy). Of course I agree with you that none of the friends should have reacted the way they did over 1975 and should have viewed it as merely an opinion. We have all learned our lesson I think though, and this is why now the explanation of the “overlapping generation” is viewed by many as merely an opinion.....

I remember Armageddon Ernie!!! It must be wonderful to go in field service with you! Why do you keep trying to defend something which the GB have themselves admitted as being a mistake on their part?

It's been very interesting following Eoin and JWInsider's conversation, and some insightful thoughts from Comfortmypeople. All raised some good and valid points. This topic is probably exhausted, (and some new ones started) but I would just like to express a few thoughts. It seems clear that there is no doubt that oversight and leadership is inevitable and necessary in order for an international organization like ours to stay united in the same mind and in the same line of thought (1 Cor 1:10) otherwise we would be no different to Christendom. To believe that each congregation should be autonomous (as some opposers have suggested) is foolish because this would never work. Although congregations have their own unique personality and chemistry, the teachings are always the same. It is remarkable really, that you can travel halfway across the world and end up with same lessons like at home, just in a different language. So I would say the question isn't so much in the shepherding i.e. the organizational structure, but rather in the interpretation of scripture. Are we to follow the interpretation of scripture of a body of men, even though we know this interpretation might not be correct? This was the main thought I was trying to raise, and indeed this is one of the biggest bones of contention with our opposers, as we know.... It is understandable if we take it at face value; why should some men dictate what we are to believe? Or why should we believe what some men are telling us to believe? Especially if we know they can err, just like any one of us can err. And we can also see where they have erred, partially by their own admission and partially from experience. JWInsider touched on this subject a number of times and brought out that this (relying exclusively and unconditionally on the words of the GB) would actually be unscriptural. Is it not the responsibility of each Christian to make sure that they are in line with the scriptures as far as we can understand them and in the most core and fundamental areas? (make sure of all things) Do we need to have the scriptures partially digested for us and then spoon fed? Didn’t Paul say we should grow in spiritual maturity and eat solid food? In fact we would be foolish if we were to take every utterance by the GB/Slave as “gospel truth”. But is there really a problem with that? “Witness” tried to suggest instances where the GB/Slave have caused damage by what they said. (and Comfortmypeople has mentioned some in his new topic). It’s easy to point a finger, but is there any substance to that claim, besides mere opinion? In my many years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I have not had any reason to be distrustful of the GB. What did change though was that as the years have gone by, I have developed a more balanced and reasonable attitude towards them. My main issue I guess is what Comfortmypeople brings out in this topic so I will just move over there and see where it's going...

Ann:You don't have documentation, then. You do not know what the police concluded. No matter what they concluded, they could only act according to the law at the time. What did the police conclude then? And thank you for bringing attention to changing laws. Changing laws have a bearing not only on what the police did and what they do now, but also what the elders did and what they do now. You are wrong. The entire case ended up being settled out of court, despite Candace claiming money was of no interest to her and that all she wanted was changes to WT policy, lo and behold, when WT appealed, and the court threw out the punitive damages award, both Candace and the WT could have appealed again, (Candace to reverse the court’s decision about the punitive damages and WT to throw out the entire judgement), but before either of them filed ANY briefs, the parties entered into a confidential settlement. Which means that Watchtower agreed to pay an undisclosed amount to Candace and drop its appeal, and in exchange Candace agreed to dismiss the case and not to attempt to enforce the jury verdict. Those ARE the facts. You can check them out. What is evident in all of this is that Candace would have ended up with next to nothing, if anything, and was advised to drop the case. There is no other reason why, after saying she would fight to the end, she didn’t..... you can form your own conclusions on that, but to me it is evident she did so because it was unwise to carry on as WT in all probability would have won the case. Why do I think WT would have won the case? Because they would be given the chance to defend the duty to watch “during church activity” and would be able to prove that indeed Kendrick was NEVER assigned to work alone with Candace in field service. This would have be thrown out of court immediately as it was established that the elders had no duty to watch Kendrick. And it makes logical sense as the elders could not be expected to constantly monitor Kendrick. Very silly to even suggest that this would have been gross negligence. We will just have to agree to differ I’m afraid. It is evident to me that the elders felt confident that they had matters regarding Kendrick under control, whether they really had Kendrick under control in every aspect of Kendrick's life is not the issue here. The issue here is; is it believable that the elders purposefully arranged for someone whom they believed to be a danger to children, to be assigned to be alone with children in the congregation and in field service? This assumption is illogical and NO ONE in their right mind would even suggest otherwise except of course if you have ulterior motives; such as opposers, certain news reporters, and certain lawyers….

I never could either! Made no sense, and I said so to one sister on Sunday and I think she thought I was being haughty

If you are insinuating that this is the case of the GB then please tell me what are the "perverse things" that you think they are saying, and how are they "drawing disciples" after themselves? Good point to ponder. For some reason my responses are merging into one post....I cant seem to change it....never did this before...

Of course not! And it's good to see much improvement, even in our policies. It will be interesting to watch the ARC in March.....Our situation (as JWs) as opposed to other institutions is that many of our cases involve incest, and that is so much harder to identify and deal with, especially when the families themselves are not very active in the congregation....

I hope nobody misunderstands this as meaning human governments. This has unfortunately been the case in some instances (I think even during the ARC hearing), where some thought that verse 12 is referring to human governments and therefor Jehovah's Witnesses are mistrustful of them and do not want to cooperate with them. We know human governments are a "protection" and help to keep law and order. In the case of handling child abuse, we know government commissions set up for this purpose are doing their best to help victims and prevent abuse. The point is that "the whole world is lying in the power of the Wicked one" (1 John 5:19) so no matter what we, or anybody else does, we will not succeed completely until Satan is removed....

Of course this is the ideal situation and assumes that both sets of parents are spiritually mature, emotionally stable and promote a healthy and functional family environment. In such cases a predator has no chance and he knows it. The problem is that where either or both parents are spiritually immature, mentally unstable and the general family environment is unstable and dysfunctional (as was the case of the family of Candace Conti discussed above) then 1.They will fail in the three key responsibilities you mentioned, and 2.these kind of families are ideal targets for predators. They are the very families the predator will seek out. So already we have a problem, the stage is set for abuse. So although I more than agree with the above, because it's a great recipe for prevention, and what's better than prevention instead of a cure...BUT it will not always work. Realistically, in this system, one will still be left with the "cure" and how to handle cases of child abuse focusing on helping the victim and protecting others from further abuse....

So they let him lose knowing he would re-offend? That he would go on to molest other children? And as I keep saying, they did this as an extra precaution On Page 117 of the aforementioned transcript Abrahamson is asked : “Were they the (cong) aware of the fact that he (Kenddrick)posed a threat to children of sexual abuse? Abrahamson: “We didn't see that he posed a threat to children” Page 207 Q Did you consider Jonathan Kendrick, then, to be a child molester after this meeting with the family in 1993? A. Child molester? Q. Yes A: Well, he abused his daughter. So, yes, he is a child molester. This is no proof that Abrahamson believed Kendrick would molest again. He merely stated a fact, that Kendrick was a child molester because he had molested a child. May 30, 2012 transcript, p. 26 doesn’t indicate anything about any elder believing Kendrick would re-offend. You must have got your page wrong Q. Did you consider Mr. Kendrick, in 1993 until he left the congregation, to be a danger to children in your congregation? A.No. As a matter of fact, we kept an eye on him to make sure that everything was fine, and there was no issue that came up after that, that warranted anything to lead us to think that way. Again, it is evident that the elders did not think Kendrick would molest again or even try. Regardless whether it included warning the parents, it still stands the same, they had no legal duty to watch Kendrick. And let’s use common sense. Of course we know they had no legal, or otherwise duty to watch Kendrick. They were not Kendrick’s guardians, and neither did they have a special relationship with Kendrick. He was free to come and go as he pleased. And after police probation he was also free to come and go as he pleased. We did not expect the police to watch him did we? I don’t get what point you are trying to make here. Isn’t noticing Kendrick behaviour and warning the parents the same as watching Kendrick and warning the parents? They had no duty to do either. In fact if they were under no obligation to notice Kendrick’s behaviour, how much less were they obliged to watch him? I repeat, they were under no obligation to watch him. However, the elders were responsible to make sure that during so called "Church sponsored activities" a child would be safe. But this is my point of contention, I do not believe that Kendrick was allowed to work in field service with a child,- as one of the elders said - to do so would have been suicide. I have no doubt that WT would have been able to defend that part of the accusation. Unfortunately, the whole case concentrated so much on the issue of supposed duty to warn, so much so that the appellant (WT) was not given a chance to refute the field service situation. This is why WT appealed, and after wining that appeal for punitive damages, it was going to appeal again, and this time defend the field service point properly and present proof and arguments as to why it was impossible for Kendrick to have molested Candace during field service. However, before anyone could appeal, the case was settled out of court.....Interestingly... I will address your questions regarding Zalkin later....no time right now Just a question. Who is going to wish to see it, if on the whole the friends are not really aware of such policies in the first place? Or are they in the UK? I posted about the ARC Here (for some weird reason this comment was merged with the one above to Ann, and so I had to try and delete it, but I couldn't get rid of your quote...so I just took it out, but your name is still there, just blank) P.S. Ok so it merged with my reply to Ann again, I have no idea why...

We do rely on the Scriptures.

Thank you for putting my thoughts into words

I don't doubt this at all, what I am doubting is that anyone who read the CNN story would start thinking of studying the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, or even studying the Bible, period. People are happy to be reading those verses, believe God is their refuge, and that's that. But will it necessarily motivate anyone to do anything? Also, it shows that you can pick and choose a passage to suit yourself, because the other passages are not nearly as encouraging, if anything, they could be viewed negatively under those circumstances. This is not the same as finding a Bible study aid in the rubbish, because the Bible study aid actually motivates people to want to study the Bible.

Come on friends, get real . What JWInsider posted

Good point! A question though. Why then does 2 Tim 3:16 say all scripture is inspired?

To be honest I find it difficult to understand what you mean. I thought the WT Jan 2016 was very good. I did not see any wariness made by the WT concerning one’s anointing. Page 19 Par.10 Those who have received this special invitation from God do not need another witness from any other source. They do not need someone else to verify what has happened to them. Jehovah leaves no doubt whatsoever in their minds and hearts. Par. 12 Those who have been invited in such a manner may wonder: ‘Why have I been selected? Why me and not someone else?’ They may even question their own worthiness. But they do not question the fact that they have been invited Par 15 Perhaps you are wondering if you have received this wonderful invitation. If you think that you might have, ponder some important questions. Do you feel that you have more than average zeal in the ministry? Are you a keen student of God’s Word who loves to delve into “the deep things of God”? (1 Cor. 2:10) Have you seen Jehovah’s special blessing on your ministry? Do you have a burning desire to do Jehovah’s will? Do you have a deep inner feeling of responsibility to help others spiritually? Have you seen proof that Jehovah has personally intervened in your life? If you answer these questions with a resounding yes, does this mean that you now have the heavenly calling? No, it does not. Why not? Because these are not unique feelings experienced only by those who have the heavenly calling. Jehovah’s spirit works with equal force in those who have the hope of living forever on earth. In fact, if you are wondering whether you have received the heavenly calling, that would in itself indicate that you have not received it. Those called by Jehovah do not wonder whether they have been invited or not! They know! Page 24, Par.10 “How can we show appropriate respect for those whom Jehovah chooses to anoint? We would not ask them personal questions about their anointing. We thus avoid meddling with what does not concern us." So, why would they fear if they are convinced they are of the anointed? And why would they stop partaking? The only explanation I see is that they couldn't have been quite sure in the first place, because if they are anointed, they know, and besides, no one will question them because it is between them and Jehovah only. If you start partaking, is someone going to question it? Perhaps, if you are 5 years old, or are known to have spiritual issues. But otherwise no. I have no idea, and I have no idea why you feel like you have to defend your God in the face of an elder body either. I really do not see what this has anything to do with the WT/GB/Slave/Jehovah's Witnesses

I am not sure if this prophesy has been orphaned. Is it possible that it can still be applied to our new understanding? The exile to Babylon was because of a punishment from Jehovah because of the Jews rebellion and unfaithfulness. In the secondary application it was also a punishment from Jehovah because of the beginnings of unfaithfulness (apostasy) in 2nd Century C.E . The wild beast that kills the Witnesses in Revelation is not a punishment from Jehovah. On the contrary, it is an attack from Jehovah's opposer because the Witnesses were doing the right thing in Jehovah's eyes. So I don't think the explanation in WT 2014/ 11/15 P. 30 is at odds with our refined understanding of the Babylonian exile and of the dry bones. It seems to refer to the short period of when the brothers were thrown into prison/symbolically killed between 1914 and 1919. I do not think it necessarily has a future application, although when the great tribulation comes the Witnesses will be attacked, but not killed, (even symbolically) because before that happens, Jehovah will step in. (Matt 24:22, Rev 7:14) "....the account refers to God’s anointed ones who took the lead during a difficult time of testing. So in the fulfillment of Revelation chapter 11, the anointed brothers who took the lead at the time of the establishment of God’s Kingdom in heaven in 1914 preached “in sackcloth” for three and a half years. At the end of their preaching in sackcloth, these anointed ones were symbolically killed when they were thrown into prison for a comparatively shorter period of time, a symbolic three and a half days. In the eyes of the enemies of God’s people, their work had been killed, causing those opponents much joy.—Rev. 11:8-10. However, true to the words of the prophecy, at the end of the three and a half days, the two witnesses were brought back to life. Not only were these anointed ones released from prison but those who remained faithful received a special appointment from God through their Lord, Jesus Christ. In 1919 they were among those who were appointed to serve as a “faithful and discreet slave” to care for the spiritual needs of God’s people during the last days.—Matt. 24:45-47; Rev. 11:11, 12." P.S. For those who want a refresher about the refined understanding of captivity to Babylon: https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/VODProgramsEvents/pub-jwbam_201510_3_VIDEO