Why John Butler Left Jehovah's Witnesses

[TrueTomHarley]

8 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The Royal Commission “declined” Brother Jackson’s offer, and the process continues with the determination of each Australian Territory. What is privileged by territory. Each US state has their own definition. The EU has its own definition.

it is not that they declined it willfully. They 'declined' it as a practical matter, for just the reason you go on to state. The overall world presides over a chaotic mess, and nobody, ARC or not, has the power to kick them in the rears so as to make them get their act together.

Herein lies the strength of Jehovah's organization. It the governing members decide on a policy change, it is telegraphed around the world to all branches in no time flat. Make minor allowances for the fact that people are flesh and don't turn on a dime, and it is a fait accompli.

[JOHN BUTLER]

I've just watched a video link of Bro Jackson being 'sworn in' at the Australian Royal Commision and he swore on the Bible.

I've always thought that JW's should not swear on God's word the Bible. I thought there was a scripture that says not to swear on anything, but to let our own Yes or No mean Yes or  No..........  Matthew 5 33 - 37 

And I'm sure somewhere in his statements he says that the GB might not be the 'only' channel God is using. 

So, I'm wondering how much his words or opinions can be trusted. 

 

³³  “Again you heard that it was said to those of ancient times: ‘You must not swear without performing, but you must pay your vows to Jehovah.’³⁴  However, I say to you: Do not swear at all,c neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; ³⁵  nor by earth, for it is the footstool of his feet;d nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.e ³⁶  Do not swear by your head, since you cannot turn one hair white or black. ³⁷  Just let your word ‘Yes’ mean yes, your ‘No,’ no, for what goes beyond these is from the wicked 

[TrueTomHarley]

27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Due to this gracious response, you have restrained me from highlighting John's words "I am not you mate" and letting them stand without comment. Thank you sincerely for this and for your overall help in getting me to reign in some of my hyperboles and occasional dignified barbs.

I have pointed out before that it is beneath me to resort to despicable trolling. I confine myself to engaging in dignified perusal of internet resources in search of fatheads to set straight.

[Evacuated]

27 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

!. I am not your mate. 

Oops, misunderstanding here. We are most certainly not friends, in any sense, if you thought I was implying such. No, we are "mates" in this sense: MATE: "used to show that two people share a space" and that space is here on this forum, "forum-mates". Bit like travelling on the London Underground in the same carriage. Then we would be "tube-mates" But we probably wouldn't know each other from Adam. Hope that's clear? No offense intended.

34 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

2. I knew what i meant and so did you

If you are referring to your "almost funny" comment, I still don't know what you meant. I'll assume you mean "strange or peculiar" because no comedy is involved in the subject matter. So my comments still apply. And I'm quite happy being "funny" in any sense for that matter, so "get over it"? Not really an issue.

40 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

it's not me that started this topic, nor am I interested in continuing it.

Oh, a clarification. Well that's useful. I'll duck out of it now then,  'though I will echo @JW Insider 's comment that it is "your reaction to WTS policies that is very important for most of us to reflect on".

All the best with your search, (forum) mate. ☺️

[TrueTomHarley]

10 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Now, the government is suggesting what Trump personally said the government shouldn’t do, charge a person guilty until proven innocent. 

The presumption of innocence until guilt is proven by two or three witnesses finds its roots in religion.

Ones who reverse it to ‘guilty until proven innocent’ are typically of the left and the left is typically atheistic, or at least irreligious. Sometimes I wonder whether their disdain for traditional measures of proof is a manifestation of their rejection of religion.

[JOHN BUTLER]

1 hour ago, Gone Away said:

Oops, misunderstanding here. We are most certainly not friends, in any sense, if you thought I was implying such. No, we are "mates" in this sense: MATE: "used to show that two people share a space" and that space is here on this forum, "forum-mates". Bit like travelling on the London Underground in the same carriage. Then we would be "tube-mates" But we probably wouldn't know each other from Adam. Hope that's clear? No offense intended.

If you are referring to your "almost funny" comment, I still don't know what you meant. I'll assume you mean "strange or peculiar" because no comedy is involved in the subject matter. So my comments still apply. And I'm quite happy being "funny" in any sense for that matter, so "get over it"? Not really an issue.

Oh, a clarification. Well that's useful. I'll duck out of it now then,  'though I will echo @JW Insider 's comment that it is "your reaction to WTS policies that is very important for most of us to reflect on".

All the best with your search, (forum) mate. ☺️

I'll just say thank you, and admit you made me laugh. 

[Anna]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

unfair it seemed that someone started a thread with your name in it

IT was the librarian, he was punishing me for not sticking to a topic. Now it looks like I started this thread. I would never start a topic with a title like that.

[JW Insider]

5 minutes ago, Anna said:

IT was the librarian, he was punishing me for not sticking to a topic. Now it looks like I started this thread. I would never start a topic with a title like that.

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. 

[JOHN BUTLER]

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Due to this gracious response, you have restrained me from highlighting John's words "I am not you mate" and letting them stand without comment. Thank you sincerely for this and for your overall help in getting me to reign in some of my hyperboles and occasional dignified barbs.

I have pointed out before that it is beneath me to resort to despicable trolling. I confine myself to engaging in dignified perusal of internet resources in search of fatheads to set straight.

If you are going to quote me Tom please get it right. I said 'I am not your mate' 

I didn't say 'I am not you mate' Very big difference. 

Apart from that, throw at me what you will. I'm a grown man, i can take it. I won't go crying to the Org. 

But remember that Jesus said, 'Love your enemies and pray for them'. 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

6 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

 you are going to quote me Tom please get it right. I said 'I am not your mate' 

I didn't say 'I am not you mate' Very big difference. 

You know, you are right. My apologies.

[JOHN BUTLER]

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I have read and saw the deposition on behalf of Brother Jackson. I don’t find any inconstancies with what the Brother understood. I do understand there is always a difference when it comes to interpretations. I believe the offer from Gone Away “Not sure I understand your question fully.” Certainly has that appeal.

P. 37 highlights as you suggest, the thought behind Mr. Toole acceptance of mandatory reporting for all states, that Brother Jackson stipulated would be much easier.

There would be no misapplication as Brother Jackson asserts some do when dealing with gathering information and its source. This stipulation can be found within the Australian government’s own laws. I do not see an issue with this understanding.

I recall a case where there was physical evidence when a mother and daughter ran into a kingdom hall. The 3 elders in charge rushed them into a back room, and soon after, they escorted the two outside. Outside were two sheriff officers. The two were screaming at the Elders, this was not what they wanted and cursed them for calling the police. This, of course, was in the late 80’s.

The outcome, the person was jailed with no further judicial intervention since this individual was not part of the organization. This person received a two-year sentence for rape. 11 months into his sentence, he was stabbed and killed by other inmates. Once again, the 2 women came to the hall cursing the very ground those 3 Elders were standing on. The elders received a civil court summons by those 2 women for disclosing private conversations those two had prior to the authorities being called. The court ruled in favor of those Elders.

My question to you. Under those conditions, what fault can you personally find with some of the answer given that reflect a certain divisiveness? This is for physical evidence. In general, how should the Watchtower commit itself for each case?

Very sad case indeed. I cannot understand why any mother and daughter would not want to call the police when one of them has been raped. As for the rapist being killed in prison, that is of no fault of the Elders is it.  I think the elders did what was right. Their actions not only protected the victims but also protected the general public, as the rapist might have committed more of such crimes. As I've said before, a 'duty of care' to everyone, JW's and outsiders, is surely important. 

[Anna]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(you had already defended yourself very well) a few hundred posts back in this thread.

Well at least it's popular