Anna

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

Hahaha, no, I do not think that you think you are a prophet . Believe it or not I thought exactly the same about the captivity to Babylon and the dry bones as you did. It never made sense to me the way it was understood previously, and so when brother Lett explained the new understanding I thought "wait, I thought that all along!" And it made me giggle a little bit when he said it was a "million dollar question". If that was the case, then I should be getting the million dollars! I am sure that if you and I had the same thoughts, then there will be many others who thought the same. Like you said: " Then, why years before brother Lett gives these speech, one not cultivated person, not very intelligent not bright at all, could reach to the same conclusions years after "become truth"? For the same reasons any of us reading and thinking could reach to them". I don't have time right now to address the point you raised about Rev 11: 7, 8....I will have to read it properly and think about it. And then I will reply. Hopefully others will comment too.

I understand, same problem with me, so take your time, there is o rush!

A few more thoughts on Irvin Zalkin Irvin Zalkin knows that his cases involving Child Sexual Abuse of JWs are from time periods when there were no clergy mandatory reporting laws. He knows that in California, Clergy mandatory reporting laws did not come into effect until 1997. He knows the law. He knows why certain things were done or not done. But he is intentionally keeping that information away from the general public because he knows that if he explained these, he would not have such a sensationalist impact on his viewers/readers. It is very evident from what he says, especially in his partnership with Reveal reporter Trey Bundi, that he is hoping for an audience who is largely ignorant of the law, (regarding Child sexual abuse in these specific cases) and therefore he can slant his arguments in a particular way for maximum impact on the emotions. He is like a showman. He is very good at that I must admit. He cannot afford to explain things objectively. After all, he is a lawyer. That is why I say it’s all about exposure for his business, all about money. If you believe any different then you are being very naïve Ann O'Maly. Which is surprising for an apparently intelligent person like you. But I can understand that in this regard, it is not expected that everyone is versed in the law and legal matters. I am not an expert either, however, the difference between you and me in this case is that I have done my research, whereas you have done none or very little, as is apparent. You are quite happy believing everything that Irvin Zalkin and the media serves up. The sad thing is, and some don't realize this: Victims who go through the grueling procedure of trying to get justice for what happened to them years ago, run a high risk of losing the case, and losing money. Of course the Lawyer will get paid regardless. We don't know if Candace Conti even got a cent, after paying off her Lawyer fees. It is quite possible she ended up with nothing.

Just for interest "Church shouldn't have divulged child-porn suspect's alleged confession, attorney says" Elders in the Jehovah’s Witnesses church violated the confidentiality of Steven Lindhorst of Paso Robles when they told police about an alleged confession he made regarding child pornography, according to a defense motion read more..... Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/crime/article39058014.html#storylink=cpy

In the past months, there have been quite a few study articles with regard to the GB/Slave. I am trying to get an overall understanding of 2 particular WT articles on this one topic, so that two quotes from the WTs harmonize. Today's WT study (Nov 2016) p.15 par.9: "Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives.’" And WT Feb.2017 p.26. par.12 " The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870". It seems that the key to making sense of these 2 seemingly opposing quotes is in the above paragraph if we continue reading: " Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food".

Are you one of the anointed that has this "problem"? I have known a few anointed ones in my life and they were all very humble men and women. I do not know whether they ever wrote letters to headquarters with their understanding of scriptures, I never asked them. But I always thought that would be a little impractical, with all the anointed from all over the world writing to headquarters with their little bits of pieces of "knowledge". I just somehow could never see this happening. And then when the WT of July 2013 came out with the article "Feeding many through the hands of a few" it made perfect sense (at least to me) that not ALL the anointed would be taking part in feeding the "domestics". par. 8 "Starting at Pentecost 33 C.E., the resurrected Christ used his apostles as the channel through which he fed the rest of his anointed disciples. (Read Acts 2:41, 42.) That channel was clearly recognized by the Jews and proselytes who became spirit-anointed Christians that day. Unhesitatingly, they “continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles.” According to one scholar, the Greek verb rendered “continued devoting themselves” can mean having “a steadfast and singleminded fidelity to a certain course of action.” The new believers had a deep hunger for spiritual food, and they knew exactly where to get it. With unwavering loyalty, they looked to the apostles to explain the words and deeds of Jesus and to shed fresh light on the meaning of the scriptures pertaining to him. *—Acts 2:22-36. " par. 11 "Did Jehovah bless the arrangement by means of which his Son fed the first-century congregations? Most definitely! How can we be sure? The book of Acts gives us this report: “Now as they [the apostle Paul and his traveling companions] traveled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem. Therefore, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number from day to day.” (Acts 16:4, 5).........." par. 12 ".............. “Through the hands of the apostles many signs and portents continued to occur among the people,” states Acts 5:12. * .............." https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/jesus-feeds-many/ P.S. This doesn't mean of course that the other anointed are somehow limited in their understanding of scripture....they are merely not the ones dispensing it.

I understand many of the things you mentioned, and many of them have been discussed on here. I also understand what you mean about there being no niche where you can feel safe to discuss your thoughts. This is why it's nice to be able to go on here. What I would like to ask you is what makes you think that Jehovah might need to punish the Witnesses. Is there a specific reason (reasons) to lead you to this conclusion? I know you have already alluded to a few, but could you be even more specific? By the way your English is fine!

What makes you think that?

A little more trivia: I mentioned to my husband about Covington and Muhammad Ali, and he said that at one time (late 70's or early 80's) Ali and some of his relatives visited my brother in-law's congregation. Apparently one of Ali's relatives is/was a Witness.

True indeed!

Thanks for some interesting background info again JWI! (I did like the Aid book)

Let me rephrase it then. Neither the elders nor the police considered Kendrick to be a predator. Both, the police and the elders, as far as they were aware, believed this was a one time occurrence. IF they had believed otherwise, then the Police would have acted further, and so would the Elders. The fact that the elders took it upon themselves to “watch” Kendrick was as an extra precaution. Although the Elders did not believe Kendrick that it was an accident, they did not believe he would do this to anyone else, OBVIOUSLY! As I already mentioned above, the elders did not believe Kendrick was a danger to other children, OBVIOUSLY. They believed this was a onetime occurrence. The elders evidently had no idea or experience in that field, and didn’t know of the likely hood that once someone molests a child, they will repeat it again. Later, as we know, Kendrick not only molested Candace, but he went on to molest another child. (or children, not sure there). He was now labeled a pedophile by the police and was listed on a predator pedophile list (and went to prison). The reason the elders said they would watch him was as an extra precaution and a deterrent to him, and NOT because they really thought he would do it again- OBVIOUSLY. As you know, most elders are family men with children of their own, do you think they savor the thought of entertaining a predator in their midst, someone who could potentially molest their own children? I think not. No they did not. Page 18/19 of the court doc: “..counsel asked, “Did they really watch this guy like a hawk?” Conti and Congregation member Martinez testified that, at Kingdom Hall, Kendrick hugged Conti repeatedly, put his arm around her, held hands with her, had her sit on his lap, and “looked at her inappropriately”—the sort of behavior the elders said they were watching for, and if they had seen would have caused them to warn Conti’s parents about Kendrick. Thus, if the elders had a duty to watch over Kendrick that included warning the parents of any child his actions might appear to threaten, there was substantial evidence from which to find that they breached the duty in Conti’s case". However, we conclude that the elders had no such legal duty. The reasons for our conclusion are largely the same as those that led us to reject the alleged duty to warn the Congregation about Kendrick. There was no special relationship between the church and all of the children in the Congregation simply because they were members of the church. Nor did the church have a special relationship with Kendrick, for purposes of a duty to monitor his behavior toward children, by virtue of control over his conduct with them....... Nonetheless, the Congregation elders voluntarily undertook to watch Kendrick and, if necessary, warn individual parents about him, and the “negligent undertaking” doctrine, like the special relationship doctrine, is an exception to the “no duty to aid” rule. Under the negligent undertaking doctrine, “a volunteer who, having no initial duty to do so, undertakes to provide protective services to another, will be found to have a duty to exercise due care in the performance of that undertaking if one of two conditions is met: either (a) the volunteer’s failure to exercise such care increases the risk of harm to the other person, or (b) the other person reasonably relies upon the volunteer’s undertaking and suffers injury as a result.” (Id.at p.249.) Neither of those conditions for liability is met here. Nine-year-old Conti was not relying on a church undertaking, and any lack of due care by the elders in monitoring Kendrick’s interactions with children did not increase the risk of harm to her, it only failed to reduce that risk". Therefore, defendants cannot be held liable for negligent failure by the elders to notice Kendrick’s behavior with Conti and warn her parents that he posed a danger. - end of quote But it WAS all about field service. Of course we don’t know how reliable Martinez’s testimony was either, since she had a very troubled marriage with Neil Coti, before divorcing him..... I agree, it was odd, because as a father, surely he would be more concerned about this daughter’s well being, than about his embarrassment, and why would he even want to try to take the heat off the organization? All of this is mere speculation of course. In reality, it was his word against Martinez. Interestingly though the court did not even factor any of this in, the court’s main concern was, that regardless of whether Neil Conti supervised his daughter, or as Martinez said; was negligent in that matter, it was the congregations duty, not the parents or anyone else’s to make sure Kendrick was supervised by another adult during field service because it was a church sponsored event. So really, my argument still stands, there was no proof that Kendrick molested Conti during field service, but it wasn’t about the proof that something did happen, but the POTENTIAL that something could have happened because there was no provision made by the congregation to the contrary. And that is why WT and the congregation were charged with negligence. And guess why? Because as I had already mentioned several times, in the eyes of the Elders, and the police, Kendrick was not viewed as a predator, or as someone who would go on to molest more children. Although the elders believed that Kendrick’s behavior towards his step daughter was not accidental, they did not believe Kendrick would not do this again. In the eyes of the court this is irrelevant to the context of the trial of course. But I am mentioning this because it does explain why the accusation by Shiwii that “..... known molesters are still being treated the same as they were before they were found out” is wrong, because it is under the assumption that we are talking about a known predator, not someone who has done something bad, apologized and promised they would never do anything like this again, no matter how naive and trusting it was of the elders to think this way, the reality is they did think that way. However, now this kind of thinking will not be repeated as I believe if there is a first instance of child sexual abuse, it will be assumed this person can never be rusted with children again and will be dealt with accordingly (supervised at all times during field service etc.) and as you quoted above "Service Department may specifically direct elders to inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with an individual who has engaged in child sexual abuse".

Ha! Not Olin Moyle Just one happy family

This is why I really love the sentiments of this quote a father once said to his daughter (It was in one of the WT) "Plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your life time, but live your life as if it will come tomorrow"

Interesting. And that article also mentions Olin Moyle, who, according to wikipedia became "one of the leaders of the United Israel World Union, a movement that sought to convert people, particularly Christians, to Judaism". Now there's some more WT trivia I didn't know

You are right in many respects and this is why it is good to get into the habit of reading around a particular scripture, (the whole chapter usually) especially with scriptures which are "popular" and used over and over again and "usually" applied one way, or the way we are used to. In my opinion this is what it means to be a deep Bible student.

You might want to show that this topic was re directed to here from this topic, so that people can follow on "what does it mean with the April 2017 study edition of the wt? Are all who were/are baptized still bound to this vow"?

Didn't make much difference to the outcome though did it? When victims and those who knew did not report it. 20, 30 years ago it was not talked about, and not taken to the authorities. (I mean by everyone, JW or non JW). That was my point. I was under the impression they already faced sanctions and were not allowed to defend themselves. And yes, I still feel the same about Zalkin.

I never disputed that. I said "The perpetrator voluntarily confessed to (the elders) having “accidentally” touched his step daughter’s breasts on one occasion" What I also said was, and this is true, that "Evidence in the Conti case shows that the perpetrator was not known as a pedophile to the elders at the time he allegedly molested Conti". In fact, he was not known as a pedophile to the police at that time either, despite the fact that they had the same information as the elders. And as you pointed out, it went on both, the elders records and the police records that Kendrick had touched his step daughter. Didn't make much difference to the outcome for Candace did it? This is what I meant when I said the police didn't take it further, further than the elders. He was charged with a misdemeanor by secular law, and taken off as min. by "spiritual law". Evidently both, the police and the elders did not view Kendrick as a predator or pedophile and a danger to other children. However, the elders did claim they took precautions by "watching Kendrick", although they had no legal duty to do so (to watch Kendrick). It couldn't be proved that Kendrick molested Candace during field service, (duty of care). (In fact Conti's father testified that: "he did not see Kendrick engage in any of the inappropriate behavior described by Conti....that he was always with Conti at meetings and during field service, he did not allow Conti to leave meetings with Kendrick, and did not see Kendrick hug Conti or Conti sit on Kendrick’s lap" *) Most JWs know that children do not go with other adults, especially those not related to them, unless assigned to do so by the parent. I find it very odd that anyone in the congregation would allow a 9 year old girl to be alone in a car with a brother, especially when the elders knew of Kendricks past "misdemeanor" . Unfortunately WT could not produce a written policy as proof that children do not go out with others besides the parents without the parents consent, because there is no such written policy. Also, there was no evidence to show that Candace's father either consented or did not consent to it. As you know, the punitive charges were dropped, because it was found that WT had no duty to warn. The reason for that is described very well in the following excerpt from the final court document, p.15 and puts in a nutshell what applies to ALL such cases: “While it is readily foreseeable that someone who has molested a child may do so again, the burden the duty to warn would create and the adverse social consequences the duty would produce outweigh its imposition. The burden would be considerable because the precedent could require a church to intervene whenever it has reason to believe that a congregation member is capable of doing harm, and the scope of that duty could not be limited with any precision. For example, would the duty to warn be triggered by an accusation, or only an admission, of misconduct? Would one warning be sufficient, or would continuous warnings be required to ensure that new congregation members are alerted to the danger? Child molestation is a particularly heinous evil, but which other potential harms would the church have a duty to avert? Would the duty be limited to crimes and, if so, which ones? Imposition of a duty to warn would also have detrimental social consequences. It would discourage wrongdoers from seeking potentially beneficial intervention, and contravene the public policy against disclosure of penitential communications. No moral blame can be cast on defendants for adhering to that public policy". P.S. I find it very curious that Conti "executed a covenant not to execute on any judgment against Kendrick, in exchange for his agreement not to participate in the case...” ( *All quotes from court documents filed on 4/13/15)

Ha!

I am sure this has been discussed elsewhere, but nevertheless I will address a couple of things and leave it up to admin to move it under the appropriate topic if they want. Evidence in the Conti case shows that the perpetrator was not known as a pedophile to the elders at the time he allegedly molested Conti. The elders had handled a “situation” several years prior regarding his promiscuous teenage step daughter. The perpetrator voluntarily confessed to having “accidentally” touched his step daughter’s breasts on one occasion. This did not lead the elders into believing, rightly or wrongly, that he was a danger to other children in the congregation, and they considered it a “one time, never to be repeated” occurrence based on evidence presented to them by the perpetrator’s wife and the daughter. Also, the wife took the matter to the police shortly thereafter. So the police were just as informed as the elders and evidently saw no need to take the matter any further. (I would like you to be aware that I am quite familiar with the Conti case, having read all the available court material on it -about 1000 pages of transcripts - and other background information. So you might want to be careful with where you want to take this). As regards evidence presented to the ARC, much of it runs along the same lines as the Conti case. Other cases included elders being unaware of the problem in the first place, elders being presented with insufficient evidence and having to rely on ambiguous information. Much of the mishandling of individual cases was due to the naiveté and inexperience of those handling such cases. This is nothing surprising since the average person, especially 30, 20 even 10 years ago had no clue. This is why institutions such as the ARC have been put in place. To identify the problem, and educate the people. As regards the Gonzalo Campos case, that was a fiasco, as WT were not allowed to defend themselves because they had miffed the judge by not coopering with her demands, which WT felt were unqualified. And frankly, Zalkin, the victim's defense lawyer is an egotistical attention seeker, and is only interested in exposure for his law firm and $$$$$ for himself, as most lawyers are...as a side issue, apparently Zalkin said "he believes that state and federal law enforcement agencies have a moral obligation to investigate the Watchtower’s child abuse policies and seize its files" however, "The Center for Investigative Reporting made repeated attempts to interview officials from law enforcement agencies who could potentially obtain search warrants for the documents, the New York and California attorneys general and U.S. Department of Justice. None of the agencies agreed to talk". Why do you think that is? Also, Bill Bowen of Silentlambs has been on a long term mission to get the FBI involved, with no success. Why do you think that is? Is it because the FBI and other law enforcement agencies don't care about abused children? Or about pedophiles running free to molest? Think about it. There are many other cases as you mention, most of these have been appealed and won. Many have been settled out of court to the benefit of the victim. I say this because many victims don't even see the money, on the contrary, they end up owing an enormous debt to their lawyers when they pursue this kind of lawsuit. Vicky Boer is a good example. I am not sure what you mean by that. P.S. I am sure you already know that a sexual child molester is VERY difficult to identify as they are usually a very nice member of the community, and they are very good at hiding what they do, so much so that one can have a child molester right under ones roof without even realizing it. Please read the following link for insight into the typical sexual child molester http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html#georges_story

Nobody is an island, and any action, whether good or bad will affect someone in a good or bad way. If we are to understand that "warring with oneself" can mean emotional battles with oneself, then this will make us act outwardly in a certain way, and this can affect others negatively. I think this is what the author means. In a literal war, it is almost inevitable that there will be some collateral damage. In an emotional war with oneself it is inevitable that this will affect others, and some just cannot cope with someone who has "issues" and so they have to be careful who they associate with because it could cause them to have issues too. People with emotional/mental issues can cause others to become emotionally/mentally drained.

Thanks for the background information. I never thought the WT endorsed or promoted anything like that, and neither did JWI I'm sure. This is why I never bothered asking about details as I gathered this was something opposers would have been promulgating, and frankly I am not interested as it is basically the same old, same old. It is still WT trivia though, not in the sense that it itself is trivial, but it really is not important, because as you say, it's just an outrageous fabrication.