Jump to content

Shiwiii

Forced "new light", but only slightly

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Shiwiii -
JOHN BUTLER -
127
1466

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

Why does it take the Inquisition into the CSA by governments around the world, lawsuits in many countries and  the threat of non-profit status in a few countries to FORCE the wt/gb to amend the CSA policy?  The article is in the May 2019 WT and the title of the article is "Love and Justice in the Face of Wickedness". 

 

 

"13 Do elders comply with secular laws about reporting an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities? Yes. In places where such laws exist, elders endeavor to comply with secular laws about reporting allegations of abuse....So when they learn of an allegation, elders immediately seek direction on how they can comply with laws about reporting it."

 

I can see that they still won't enforce reporting to the police each and every CSA case only if required by law.  Key word is "REQUIRED" .

 

"14 Elders assure victims and their parents and others with knowledge of the  matter that they are free to report an allegation of abuse to the secular authorities. But what if the report is about someone who is a part of the congregation and the matter then becomes known in the community? Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God’s name? No. The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God’s name."

 

Finally, they finally get it that it is the wrong doer who is the bad guy and not the reporter.......but, I'm sure this is just lip service. And here's why:

 

 

16 When they learn that someone in the congregation is accused of child abuse, elders endeavor to comply with any secular laws about reporting the matter, and then they conduct a Scriptural investigation. If the individual denies the accusation, the elders consider the testimony of witnesses. If at least two people—the one making the accusation and someone else who can verify this act or other acts of child abuse by the accused—establish the charge, a judicial committee is formed. 

    Hello guest!

 

And there you have it, two witness rule still in effect and no mandatory reporting of CSA unless mandated by law.

However, what is the true gain here? Not much, but some is better than nothing, the fact that whoever reports is not the bad guy, the abuser is.  What a wonderful provision made by the loving Jehoverning body. I hope that one day the gb/wt will be on par with humanity in reporting ALL accusations of CSA or any abuse for that matter. 

Share this post


Link to post

CSA - the acronym - should be first written out, then referred to as an acronym later. If you mean child sexual abuse you are the one to say it first.

Initialism

  1. Canadian Space Agency
  2. Confederate States of America
  3. (UK) Child Support Agency
  4. (Northern Ireland) Central Services Agency
  5. (US) combined statistical area
  6. community-supported agriculture
  7. community service 
      Hello guest!

and many more, e.g.  .... Standards Association/Accreditation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

If at least two people—the one making the accusation and someone else who can verify this act or

I get the feeling things will remain the same until the GB is gone.   Rev 17:16

Share this post


Link to post

BUT I thought the Elders new ploy was to claim Clergy Privilege. 

Whereby they have the 'right' to keep it all secret. 

I'll have to look at that W/t. Probs good for a laugh. 

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

CSA - the acronym - should be first written out, then referred to as an acronym later. If you mean child sexual abuse you are the one to say it first.

Melinda,  Come on. This IS the wt we're talking about. Well known fact here what CSA means in wt world

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

Do elders comply with secular laws about reporting an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities? Yes. In places where such laws exist, elders endeavor to comply with secular laws about reporting allegations of abuse....So when they learn of an allegation, elders immediately seek direction on how they can comply with laws about reporting it."

I can see that they still won't enforce reporting to the police each and every CSA case only if required by law.  Key word is "REQUIRED" .

You are missing the point completely.

The WT has to make this situation clear, and it has all to do with the victims /survivors rights. This is because unless there is a requirement by law for elders to report, the reporting can be left up to anyone else, the victim, the victim's parents, the victim's family or anyone who learns of the abuse as per par 14. If the law says the elders are mandated to report, then the elder has to report even if the victim, the victim's parents, the victim's family or anyone else does not want them to report it. It's the same with child protection agencies and social workers. In states or countries where those people are mandated to report, then they have to, regardless whether the client wants it or not. In fact when counseling a victim/survivor the counselor has to warn them that they will have to report anything the victim/survivor tells them. Then it is left up to the victim /survivor to disclose or not to disclose. It has everything to do with confidentiality and the rights of the victim/survivor. Not every victim/or survivor wants it reported, so if it is not mandated by law,  as an elder/counselor you are leaving that right to the victim/survivor, but in order to be able to do that, you have to be clear on what the law says first!

So again I repeat: This is because of the confidentiality and rights of the victim/survivor not because the elders are trying to get out of reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Anna said:

You are missing the point completely.

This situation has to be made clear, and it has all to do with the victims /survivors rights. This is because unless there is a requirement by law for elders to report, the reporting can be left up to anyone else, the victim, the victim's parents, the victim's family or anyone who learns of the abuse as per par 14. If the law says the elders are mandated to report, then the elder has to report even if the victim, the victim's parents, the victim's family or anyone else does not want them to report it. It's the same with child protection agencies and social workers. In states or countries where those people are mandated to report, then they have to, regardless whether the client wants it or not. In fact when counseling a victim/survivor the counselor has to warn them that they will have to report anything the victim/survivor tells them. Then it is left up to the victim /survivor to disclose or not to disclose. It has everything to do with confidentiality. Not every victim/or survivor wants it reported, so if it is not mandated by law,  as an elder/counselor you are leaving that right to the victim/survivor, but in order to be able to do that, you have to be clear on what the law says first!

You are missing the point. 

The point is that people, especially children, are easily coerced into NOT reporting for fear of retribution from the offending person(s). This happens in a lot of cases involving not just CSA but domestic abuse. If these incidences are reported by mandate or not, but still reported, then the PROPER authorities can get involved and asses the situation. The elders/gb/wt/boe/ or ANY faction of the wt are not only ill qualified to handle such cases, they are incompetent at best. 

like I said, the ONLY thing gained here is that the wt now recognizes that the abuser is the bad guy and not the person reporting to the PROPER authorities.    

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

If at least two people—the one making the accusation and someone else who can verify this act or other acts of child abuse by the accused—establish the charge, a judicial committee is formed. 

    Hello guest!

 

And there you have it, two witness rule still in effect

Of course two witness rule has no influence on how secular authorities will handle the case. The two witness rule is merely applicable in a congregational setting, ie. the judicial committee.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

The point is that people, especially children, are easily coerced into NOT reporting for fear of retribution from the offending person(s).

Well then what is your point? If the victim doesn't speak out, then there is nothing to report, is there? And if someone has reasonable suspicions, then they can go to the secular authorities and the elders can't they?

20 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

The elders/gb/wt/boe/ or ANY faction of the wt are not only ill qualified to handle such cases, they are incompetent at best

like I said, the elders etc. are concerned with congregational matters. With regard to law enforcement, that is obviously left up to the relevant competent authorities. I do not see anything in that article stating otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Anna said:

Well then what is your point? If the victim doesn't speak out, then there is nothing to report, is there? And if someone has reasonable suspicions, then they can go to the secular authorities and the elders can't they?

So when the ms or elder molests a child and tells the child that he/she will kill them or their family or the family dog , scares them into submission, its ok because they didn't want to tell. Is this what you are saying? Or how about the wife that is getting the crap beat out of her and fears for her life, let it continue because she is scared to report for fear of more abuse? Riiiiight. Sounds like a good plan Anna. 

14 minutes ago, Anna said:

like I said, the elders etc. are concerned with congregational matters. 

Then leave crimes to the police instead of covering them up! Report the crime and THEN deal with the sin. 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Anna said:

Of course two witness rule has no influence on how secular authorities will handle the case. The two witness rule is merely applicable in a congregational setting, ie. the judicial committee.

Yes but if there are not two witnesses then there will be 'no case to answer', especially if the accused is an Elder. 

And if there is 'no case to answer' then there will of course be nothing to report to the authorities. 

And if the victim continues to make complaint against the Elder, then the victim will be disfellowshipped for slander. 

I have the mag up online now. 

" 15 In the congregation, before the elders take judicial action, why are at least two witnesses required? This requirement is part of the Bible’s high standard of justice. "

Is this really the case in Child Abuse ? Does it say this in the Bible regarding Child Abuse ?

I think not. I think it refers to a disagreement between two adults. 

I do not think God or Christ would put this pressure on young children. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

So when the ms or elder molests a child and tells the child that he/she will kill them or their family or the family dog , scares them into submission, its ok because they didn't want to tell. Is this what you are saying? Or how about the wife that is getting the crap beat out of her and fears for her life, let it continue because she is scared to report for fear of more abuse? Riiiiight. Sounds like a good plan Anna. 

This was not what we were discussing. We were talking about the elders being mandated or not mandated to report. What you have mentioned above has nothing to do with that. And I have no idea why you would think I thought it was ok for the victim not to report, if I wouldn't know there was even a victim in the first place? How can anyone do anything if they don't know about it? The perpetrator is not going to say anything, is he?

What you have described happens in ALL spheres of society, religious or non religious.

14 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:
29 minutes ago, Anna said:

like I said, the elders etc. are concerned with congregational matters. 

Then leave crimes to the police instead of covering them up! Report the crime and THEN deal with the sin. 

Who is covering up? If it is not up to the elders to report (by law) then it is up to the victim/survivor/family/friends/ or anyone else (like John Butler) to report. If these people do not want to report, as I have already mentioned, it is their right not to. And if it is someone other than the victim/survivor,  they will have to consider whether or not they will honor the wishes of the victim/survivor who does not want it reported.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I do not think God or Christ would put this pressure on young children. 

I agree with you, there is NOTHING Christ-like about allowing CSA or any abuse to continue because the "laws" of men don't require reporting it to the police. 

Can you even imagine, when the time comes, and Jesus is standing there asking each and every one of us about our life choices. When He asks, are some people really going to say "well, there wasn't a law stating we had to report CSA/abuse to proper authorities" 

Romans 14:10"...For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
    and every tongue shall confess[

    Hello guest!
] to God.”

12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God."

 

Share this post


Link to post

Any comments on JW Elders using Clergy Privilege to withhold information of child abuse ?

Just a paragraph form a report online :-

The two elders didn’t tell police. They, and the congregation, now face a lawsuit from the Delaware attorney general accusing them of violating the state’s mandated reporting laws. The defendants claim the elders were protected from having to report the abuse by a legal exemption for clergy.

Is this a massive loophole ? 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Anna said:

This was not what we were discussing. We were talking about the elders being mandated or not mandated to report. What you have mentioned above has nothing to do with that. And I have no idea why you would think I thought it was ok for the victim not to report, ...

Anna, it IS what we are discussing, what made me think this:  this:

38 minutes ago, Anna said:

If the victim doesn't speak out, then there is nothing to report, is there?

 

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

What you have described happens in ALL spheres of society, religious or non religious.

And so that makes it ok???????? are you serious?!?!?!?!?   As people who profess to follow the BIBLE shouldn't the conduct be that above other spheres of society? Or do you feel its ok because everyone is slime? so we might as well be slime too. Sheesh

 

4 minutes ago, Anna said:

Who is covering up?

the wt/gb/etc. For reference you can research all of the surrent and past court cases involving CSA in the US/Canada/Australia/England/Germany/Norway/......shall I continue? 

 

6 minutes ago, Anna said:

If it is not up to the elders to report (by law) then it is up to the victim/survivor/family/friends/ or anyone else (like John Butler) to report.

there is NOTHING Christ-like about allowing CSA or any abuse to continue because the "laws" of men don't require reporting it to the police. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Anna said:

If these people do not want to report, as I have already mentioned, it is their right not to. And if it is someone other than the victim/survivor,  they will have to consider whether or not they will honor the wishes of the victim/survivor who does not want it reported.

So when the ms or elder molests a child and tells the child that he/she will kill them or their family or the family dog , scares them into submission, its ok because they didn't want to tell. Is this what you are saying? Or how about the wife that is getting the crap beat out of her and fears for her life, let it continue because she is scared to report for fear of more abuse? Riiiiight. Sounds like a good plan Anna. 

Share this post


Link to post

Paragraph 17. What is the role of the judicial committee?

" The elders do not interfere with law enforcement; they leave criminal matters to the secular authorities. "

But they may withhold paperwork / documents /notes, from the police or authorities, even when requested to hand them over. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Any comments on JW Elders using Clergy Privilege to withhold information of child abuse ?

Just a paragraph form a report online :-

The two elders didn’t tell police. They, and the congregation, now face a lawsuit from the Delaware attorney general accusing them of violating the state’s mandated reporting laws. The defendants claim the elders were protected from having to report the abuse by a legal exemption for clergy.

Is this a massive loophole ? 

Of course it is. It is the MO of the wt in general. Sadly the good people who belong to this org can't see it yet. They will when the wt/gb pins the onus on the individual instead of the group. Loopholes are common in wt and often used in supporting their view of scripture. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Yes but if there are not two witnesses then there will be 'no case to answer', especially if the accused is an Elder. 

And if there is 'no case to answer' then there will of course be nothing to report to the authorities. 

Do you think secular authorities need some kind of proof? I am sure you know they do. You have experienced that yourself.

Let's think of a hypothetical case. Let's say a single mother of a child, whom she knows well, notices that her child has been acting strangely recently. She becomes suspicious something is not right, and eventually her mother's instincts tell her someone has been messing with her child. She has no idea who, or she might have suspicions. She talks with her child, and eventually the child tells her that elder "touchy-feely" has been putting his hand up her skirt. She finds out more details, like perhaps since when, and how often and, where. All this depends on the age of the child of course. What do you think the mother should do now?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

If the victim doesn't speak out, then there is nothing to report, is there?

Ok. What would you do if the victim doesn't speak out?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Anna said:

Ok. What would you do if the victim doesn't speak out?

you're taking us down a hypothetical right? 

If nothing is said and no one knows anything, then yes on your technicality there is nothing to report ( see John, its the loophole thing again). However, we're NOT talking about hypothetical, we're talking about real life and real people and real situations, or else there wouldn't be any lawsuits....right?   

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

you're taking us down a hypothetical right? 

If nothing is said and no one knows anything, then yes on your technicality there is nothing to report ( see John, its the loophole thing again). However, we're NOT talking about hypothetical, we're talking about real life and real people and real situations, or else there wouldn't be any lawsuits....right?   

We are  talking about real life, you said it yourself:

47 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

 *So when the ms or elder molests a child and tells the child that he/she will kill them or their family or the family dog , scares them into submission, its ok because they didn't want to tell. Is this what you are saying? Or how about the wife that is getting the crap beat out of her and fears for her life, let it continue because she is scared to report for fear of more abuse?

therefore as you say: "If nothing is said and no one knows anything, then yes on your technicality there is nothing to report" And that's all that I was saying. It wasn't my technicality was it? Read your quote above*

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Anna said:

Do you think secular authorities need some kind of proof? I am sure you know they do. You have experienced that yourself.

Let's think of a hypothetical case. Let's say a single mother of a child, whom she knows well, notices that her child has been acting strangely recently. She becomes suspicious something is not right, and eventually her mother's instincts tell her someone has been messing with her child. She has no idea who, or she might have suspicions. She talks with her child, and eventually the child tells her that elder "touchy-feely" has been putting his hand up her skirt. She finds out more details, like perhaps since when, and how often and, where. All this depends on the age of the child of course. What do you think the mother should do now?

Go directly to the police or a local authority. Do not go to the body of Elders. Trust no one, but know that God allows those secular  authorities to be there to do His work. 

Now I'm presuming that the single mother and child has good standing in the congregation of course, so that no accusations can be 'slung' at them by the Elders in retaliation. 

Not so in my case, as I've already been accused of slander and was threatened of being disfellowshipped before i left..  

I never did hear back from the Police that i contacted online. :( 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Anna said:

We are  talking about real life, you said it yourself:

 

so then there you have it, it should be reported because it is abuse and sometimes the victim will not come forward based on fear of more abuse. How is that to happen in your scenario? not a single person knows of the abuse, not one. But when elders do know about it they refuse to report based on no mandatory reporting laws. 

Again, there wouldn't be lawsuits if this weren't real. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Shiwiii said:

it should be reported because it is abuse and sometimes the victim will not come forward based on fear of more abuse

OMG! How are you going to report it if you don't know about it????

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Anna said:

OMG! How are you going to report it if you don't know about it????

Did you even read what I wrote? 

 

In your scenario, no one knows.....no one.......nada....zilch....none. So it cannot be reported.  And how in the world do you even consider this to be a supporting factor in the discussion? Its like saying if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? 

 

In mine, maybe I failed to mention the part of someone going to the elders, but someone DOES know and still refuses to report it.  

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Go directly to the police or a local authority. 

Then we are in agreement.

6 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Not so in my case, as I've already been accused of slander and was threatened of being disfellowshipped before i left..  

I never did hear back from the Police that i contacted online. :( 

Whether you have been accused of slander or not makes any difference to the secular authorities. So that shouldn't worry you. Plus you are no longer JW. But what does it tell you that the Police haven't got back with you yet?

Share this post


Link to post

(paragraph) 6 A sin against the congregation

"We do not tolerate in our midst individuals who unrepentantly commit wicked deeds and who bring reproach on the good name of the congregation."

Um, how is it then that some Elders have been found to have commited sex offencies against more than one child and a lot more than once per child, in a congregation ? 

Court cases prove this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Anna said:

Then we are in agreement.

really? Or is it only the part before and not this part:

 

10 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Do not go to the body of Elders. Trust no one, but know that God allows those secular  authorities to be there to do His work. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Anna said:

Then we are in agreement.

Whether you have been accused of slander or not makes any difference to the secular authorities. So that shouldn't worry you. Plus you are no longer JW. But what does it tell you that the Police haven't got back with you yet?

I suppose it tells me I should walk into a Police station and tell them directly. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Shiwiii said:

In mine, maybe I failed to mention the part of someone going to the elders, but someone DOES know and still refuses to report it.  

Well that is not what we were talking about. You said the victim is afraid to come forward. Maybe that is a little technicality you maybe should have mentioned earlier but didn't.

But as you said, when someone knows, there is nothing stopping them from reporting it

In your own words: Finally, they finally get it that it is the wrong doer who is the bad guy and not the reporter 

And as for your argument that this is just lip service because of the two witness rule, then no, the two witness rule only applies in order to form a judicial meeting. No one has to have two witnesses to bring it to the authorities.

I don't have time for anymore of this rubbish, just going round in circles. You either have a hard time comprehending, or you are purposefully taking my time up.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Anna said:

there is nothing stopping them from reporting it

There is,  you know it as well as everyone on this forum.  Your cognitive dissonance is showing. 

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

In your own words: Finally, they finally get it that it is the wrong doer who is the bad guy and not the reporter 

And as for your argument that this is just lip service because of the two witness rule, then no, the two witness rule only applies in order to form a judicial meeting. No one has to have two witnesses to bring it to the authorities.

I don't have time for anymore of this rubbish, just going round in circles. You either have a hard time comprehending, or you are purposefully taking my time up.

yes, and I stand by my comments. Finally there is a change, albeit a slight one, but still some change. Sadly this is knee jerk reaction to the piling up lawsuits. 

No, technically no one needs another witness to bring anything up to the proper authorities, but this is just a play on words with you. You know right well what we are talking about, but choose to hide behind words and technical definitions to convey your support for the org as well as your possible disgust of CSA and to save face with normal people. You have been trained to play words to create loopholes, just as John was talking about. 

Anna, I agree we cannot continue this conversation based on technical definitions of words and the ambiguity of your position based upon whom you are talking to or about, instead of the actual topic and PROBLEM at hand. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Melinda,  Come on. This IS the wt we're talking about. Well known fact here what CSA means in wt world

Never saw CSA in a publication. Seems you will be soon be using USA however you like.  CSA means Canadian Standards Association, along with the others mentioned above.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

"We do not tolerate in our midst individuals who unrepentantly commit wicked deeds and who bring reproach on the good name of the congregation."

Um, how is it then that some Elders have been found to have commited sex offencies against more than one child and a lot more than once per child, in a congregation ? 

I guess that's because those individuals fooled the elder body into thinking they were repentant. It obviously wasn't because the elder body wanted more children to get molested.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Anna said:

I guess that's because those individuals fooled the elder body into thinking they were repentant. It obviously wasn't because the elder body wanted more children to get molested.

No, it's probably because it WAS ELDERS DOING THE ABUSING. and as I've found out from experience, the Elders stick together to hide situations. 

Hence when i accused one elder of a serious thing, I got called a slanderer by another Elder and threatened with disfellowshipping if i didn't retract everything i said.  

Personal experience, in my opinion, goes far deeper that theory. But you tend to like to make up 'pretend situations'. 

Please remember court cases in the USA and here in UK have proved so much, that it is no longer theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But when I mention the reality I get told off for fault finding or criticism

You are obviously saying you are not fault finding or criticizing, just stating facts. Some people don't like to hear facts, especially if it goes against what they believe to be true. Nobody likes to be called out. The wisdom for you is to say your piece, and leave it. A bad idea is to keep harping on about it like you are the judge of all things. Don't think people don't hear you, they do, and it's up to them to process it.

I am not talking about forums like this one, you can harp on about things to your hearts content here, I am talking about face to face with people. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Anna said:

You are obviously saying you are not fault finding or criticizing, just stating facts. Some people don't like to hear facts, especially if it goes against what they believe to be true. Nobody likes to be called out. The wisdom for you is to say your piece, and leave it. A bad idea is to keep harping on about it like you are the judge of all things. Don't think people don't hear you, they do, and it's up to them to process it.

I am not talking about forums like this one, you can harp on about things to your hearts content here, I am talking about face to face with people. 

The ones that I would like to talk to face to face, are too frightened to talk to me. ... Now that is either, frightened because they may get reported to the Elders, or, frightened that what i have to tell them will take them out of their comfort zone. 

And I am quite reserved on here actually. There are some on here that i don't even bother replying to. Because A. I think they are just a wind up, and B, I would totally lose self control, then probably get banned. 

I do have a tiny amount of common sense :) 

As for fault finding, I don't generally go looking for things but things just seem to crop up. Lots of people are mentioning 'faults' that i didn't even know existed in the JW Org. I have my main concern but that has been talked about enough unless any 'new light' appears. And I'm not meaning that new Watchtower.. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The ones that I would like to talk to face to face, are too frightened to talk to me. ... Now that is either, frightened because they may get reported to the Elders, or, frightened that what i have to tell them will take them out of their comfort zone. 

Yes, you are not in a good position to talk anymore. It's too late. The time to say anything is when you are still a member of the congregation. And that's when what I said in the previous post applies. I still think you were too hasty in your assessment of the child abuse issues. When something is going on, that I feel is not good, I always think of this scripture: "For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open" Mark 4:22

When the Australian Commission inquiry first started, I spoke with a faithful, long time sister in Australia, I wanted to know what she thought about it, and she quoted that same scripture to me.

What I am saying is there is no reason to jump ship. We may not agree with something, or may believe something is downright wrong. But we have to put things into the right perspective. The worldwide brotherhood has many many good things, and most brothers and sisters have genuine love for each other and a desire to walk modestly with their God, and a desire to live a good clean life according to the Bible. If we stick with our brothers and sisters, and wait on Jehovah to sort things out, that need sorting out, we cannot lose. And IF the leadership (GB) would go down, so what, we still have our brothers and sisters and most of all Jehovah.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Anna said:

Yes, you are not in a good position to talk anymore. It's too late. The time to say anything is when you are still a member of the congregation. And that's when what I said in the previous post applies. I still think you were too hasty in your assessment of the child abuse issues. When something is going on, that I feel is not good, I always think of this scripture: "For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open" Mark 4:22

When the Australian Commission inquiry first started, I spoke with a faithful, long time sister in Australia, I wanted to know what she thought about it, and she quoted that same scripture to me.

What I am saying is there is no reason to jump ship. We may not agree with something, or may believe something is downright wrong. But we have to put things into the right perspective. The worldwide brotherhood has many many good things, and most brothers and sisters have genuine love for each other and a desire to walk modestly with their God, and a desire to live a good clean life according to the Bible. If we stick with our brothers and sisters, and wait on Jehovah to sort things out, that need sorting out, we cannot lose. And IF the leadership (GB) would go down, so what, we still have our brothers and sisters and most of all Jehovah.

Don't know if we are off topic here, but the topic is wide anyway :) and someone put my name on it. 

You are missing the collateral damage issues and that abusers are still hidden in the congregations. So i could not be active in the field ministry, trying to bring people into the Org which is a dangerous environment. Bring in lambs amongst wolves. 

Was it you that once said, that a person who is not actively against something, is actually a part of the problem. Well i felt like that anyway. Not being against it in an active way made me part of the problem. I was hoping that thousands of brothers and sisters would leave the JW Org.  

There was just too much involved. The congregants were not being warned in any way. They should have been told to be careful in case there was 'trouble' in the ministry because of people's anger due to the child abuse situation. But no, no warning was given. 

And you know that it was too dangerous for me to tell people inside the congregation because I would have been disfellowshipped for 'causing a division in the congregation'. Then the Elders would have been happy to say i was an Apostate. 

Wasn't one of the GB saying that it was all lies and all Apostate propaganda ? So what chance did i have in telling folks ? 

True that God will sort it all out in the end, but meanwhile thousands of children are suffering child abuse, physical abuse and emotional abuse, some of it by their own parents in the JW org. 

As for me not being in a good position anymore, it's quite the contrary. My position is now safe for me to talk. It's other people's problems if they are too frightened to want to listen. They know where I live if they want to talk to me.

People don't answer my emails, that is their choice. My conscience is clear. I' not offering children to Molech. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Wasn't one of the GB saying that it was all lies and all Apostate propaganda ? So what chance did i have in telling folks ? 

I think you must have missed my post about that.

Lett didn't say child abuse was apostate lies and propaganda, he wasn't denying there was a problem. What he said was that us denying there is a problem, and ignoring child abuse, is apostate lies.

I will reply to the rest of your post later. I can't right now.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You are missing the collateral damage issues and that abusers are still hidden in the congregations.

I am assuming you are talking about your personal experience in your congregation hiding an abuser?

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So i could not be active in the field ministry, trying to bring people into the Org which is a dangerous environment. Bring in lambs amongst wolves.  

I am sorry John, but you make it sound like there is a pedophile lurking in every congregation. Let’s get real here, people from the “outside” are more at risk of being raped and their children molested than inside a congregation. Also, most of the cases have been familial, as you mention later on, which means it would have happened regardless of being part of a congregation or not. Just because someone claims to be a faithful JW doesn't make him so.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Was it you that once said, that a person who is not actively against something, is actually a part of the problem. Well i felt like that anyway. Not being against it in an active way made me part of the problem. I was hoping that thousands of brothers and sisters would leave the JW Org.  

First of all, to be effective in being against something you have to have all the facts about that something. It’s no good throwing accusations around based on limited information. Then you’d be like the tabloid newspapers, all about sensationalism and misleading selective quotes. And no matter how much objective information you've read, and how many court cases you've studied, you still will not have all the facts. You'd only have those if you were a fly on the wall.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

There was just too much involved. The congregants were not being warned in any way. They should have been told to be careful in case there was 'trouble' in the ministry because of people's anger due to the child abuse situation. But no, no warning was given. 

So are you here talking about your congregation? Or in general?

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And you know that it was too dangerous for me to tell people inside the congregation because I would have been disfellowshipped for 'causing a division in the congregation'. Then the Elders would have been happy to say i was an Apostate. 

I disagree with you there. I am not sure how you dealt with it, I know you wrote a letter, but did you give the elders a chance to explain themselves? No one is disfellowshipped for being worried and showing genuine concern. Especially when they take this worry and concern to the elders, rather than the congregants. It’s the elders who are responsible for the congregation. They are the ones who need to know.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

True that God will sort it all out in the end, but meanwhile thousands of children are suffering child abuse, physical abuse and emotional abuse, some of it by their own parents in the JW org. 

We can add other atrocities, incurable ailments, and all kinds of tragedies. This is the legacy that Adam and Eve have left mankind. Remember, the whole world is lying in Satan’s power. No one is immune.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As for me not being in a good position anymore, it's quite the contrary. My position is now safe for me to talk. It's other people's problems if they are too frightened to want to listen. They know where I live if they want to talk to me.

True, you can talk all you like, but it’s not going to be effective if no one listen, is it? And I thought that was your motive, for people to hear you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/1/2019 at 1:33 PM, Shiwiii said:

Not much, but some is better than nothing, 

In fact, the problem is solved and everyone not completely unhinged knows it.

Witnesses have always been free to report. The unsettling aspect of the CSA cases is that many chose not to do it because they thought they might be bringing reproach on God’s name. Now, beyond any possibility of misunderstanding, it is spelled out for them and for elders that they are not. The problem is solved.

There are always going to be ‘What ifs.’ At some point one must have some confidence in the power of parents to be concerned for their children. It is not easy to get between a mama bear and her cub. You make it sound like a walk in the park. Reporting to authorities has now been endorsed. The two witness rule becomes irrelevant, as it always was to outside authorities 

In the rare situation that nobody has payed the slightest attention to Christian values taught, if wrath or revenge is feared, mama bear may have to flee the house. This has always been the case with in abusive families. The point is that she now knows she has a green light to do it, and can summon whatever authority there is for domestic violence and she need not think she is failing God, the congregation, her family, or anyone else.

Sometimes I think that these virulent opposers will not be satified until there is a cop stationed in every Witness home.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Only that he sells books for a living :)  

He does not. He would like to, but his last two books, because they address things important, will always be available free in some digital format.

Obviously, this undermines any efforts to make a living via selling books.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Anna said:

Lett didn't say child abuse was apostate lies and propaganda, he wasn't denying there was a problem. What he said was that us denying there is a problem, and ignoring child abuse, is apostate lies.

He said, "As an example, think about the apostate-driven lies and dishonesties that Jehovah’s organization is PERMISSIVE” toward pedophiles.”

How can you dispute this?  Because of their permissive stand, they were called in front of the ARC for not reporting 1006 perpetrators to the police.  Is this not permissiveness?  They are in the courts continually, or settling outside of the courts simply because they have been permissive toward pedophiles residing in the organization.  It appear that a pedophile's behavior did not, does not warrant enough disgust over the damage done to the victim, to turn them over to the police...unless...unless, state laws requires them to.    

Yes, the organization is permissive toward pedophiles.  Their actions prove it.  What's very sad, is JWs believe GOD WILL FIX IT.  People are to "fix" their actions, their beliefs, and approach God on how to do it through Christ.  It is not God's responsibility to correct an organization that is corrupt.  It is our responsibility to correct ourselves by turning to both Christ and the Father.  There's nothing to wait on but judgment, and whether we served God according to Christ's teachings by rejecting the continually failed doctrine of men and their made up "decrees". 

What is "unclean"?  Pedophilia and its permissiveness in the organization.  Leaders who give false "prophesies". Leaders who have muscled their way in between Christ, the anointed, and all.  Giving an earthly entity the title of "salvation".  Disfellowshipping and shunning those who realize NOT TO TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN.  2 Cor 6:17

Does this sound like an organization that has gained God's approval???    

Our "brothers and sisters" cannot save us from the wrath of God.  As much as we want to support them, we each stand before Christ to answer for our choices.  What did the early prophets do?  They spoke a message not favorable to their "brothers and sisters".  They were "sanctified by truth" and they spoke truth, no matter how difficult and how perilous to themselves it may have been. John 17:17  That should be the desire of each one of us, and it is how we walk in the path of Christ.  

The organization is a delusion, a scam, a deceitful "machination" to lead us AWAY from Christ and the Father.  2 Thess 2:9-12   But each heart will make their choice.

 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;  but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.  So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”  Matt 13:24-30

Would the "wheat" remain where all those things that are detestable to God, are practiced?  Or, would they turn to Christ?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Witness said:

As an example, think about the apostate-driven lies and dishonestys that Jehovah’s organization is PERMISSIVE” toward pedophiles.”

 adjective: permissive

  1. 1.
    allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior.
    "the permissive society of the 60s and 70s"
    synonyms: liberal, broad-minded, open-minded, nonrestrictive, free, free and easy, easygoing, live-and-let-live, latitudinarian, laissez-faire, libertarian, unprescriptive, unrestricted, tolerant, forbearing, indulgent, lenient; More

 

No, Jehovah Witnesses have never been permissive or tolerant towards immorality of any kind. Anyone practicing these things is disfellowshipped.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Reporting to authorities has now been endorsed.

Sadly it has taken the secular courts in many countries to force this to happen. Not by the desire to protect,  not the pleas of the victims, and not because of what is right, it is solely because of the loss of money. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

But the cops might be immoral too, or even pedophiles also.Who knows. Would create a bigger problem.

 

But it is their job right? They are trained professionals,  right? Unlike any person called a wt elder. 

Share this post


Link to post

Why the heck is WT trying to assert the clergy-penitent privilege to allow elders to NOT report to authorities?

Exhibit A: (State of Delaware v. Laurel Delaware Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Joel Mulchansingh and William Perkins)[

    Hello guest!
).

Relevant quote from the case, the JW crew being the defendants:

Defendants assert that all communications among the Elders, Juvenile Member, and Adult Member are subject to the clergy/penitent privilege. Additionally, Defendants argue that the State's claims are barred by the First Amendment to the United States and Delaware Constitutions. Finally, Defendants argue that they are exempt from a reporting duty pursuant to Section 909.

Does that sound like the organization is 'endeavoring' to report abuse? They are 'endeavoring' to legally NOT report abuse. That's how the hell they're trying to comply with secular laws.

I'm sorry for the language, but these *%&$*()*$ are writing articles to the general JW with the obvious intent of making it look like they're TRYING to report abuse and they're not. They're simply not.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Anna said:

What he said was that us denying there is a problem, and ignoring child abuse, is apostate lies.

 

3 hours ago, Witness said:

He said, "As an example, think about the apostate-driven lies and dishonesties that Jehovah’s organization is PERMISSIVE” toward pedophiles.”

S. Lett delivered message how WT and JW members are "holy people" who respecting Bible moral standards and teachings about sexuality. By that reason JW people condemns depravity as pedophilia. 

What S. Lett didn't said is, that WT policy and rules, instruction how to handle inside cases when own members molesting JW kids, are very questionable and how such weak, inadequate, misguided approach to pedophiles, shows that WT is not capable of solving problems in their own home. 

Another thing that S. Lett didn't said is, from where coming expression "permissive". Who, what ex-JW individual or group used terminology "permissive" in this context? What You-Tube video or individual letter accused WTJWorg for "permissiveness" about pedophiles? 

As i can conclude from YT videos i saw, ex-JW or pedophiles victims talking about wrong treatments of elders and WT rules that are in fact working in favor to wrongdoers and leaving victims without "justice", and even put victims to be as guilty part because they are not "able to prove accusations", or even contribute to be a victims.

Such WT policy can be seen as "permissive", and it is, no matter what was the intentions of WT Creators when making rules about how to handle and processing child molestation accusation

S. Lett, (with some other TV preachers on JWTV) made another manipulation on Public JWTV. Never told about Court cases and out of Court deals, and how much money WT gave, by Court decision or by settlement, to victims. Omitting to talk about it, on JWTV as worldwide instrument to share spiritual food and instructions to Brotherhood, WT leaders showed and still showing sort of "permissiveness", not so much to pedophiles, but to own Wrong Ideas and Teachings and to themselves as Pioneers who created bad administrative regulations on issue, and now they do not want to admit their own guilt.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Anna said:

I am assuming you are talking about your personal experience in your congregation hiding an abuser?

I am sorry John, but you make it sound like there is a pedophile lurking in every congregation. Let’s get real here, people from the “outside” are more at risk of being raped and their children molested than inside a congregation. Also, most of the cases have been familial, as you mention later on, which means it would have happened regardless of being part of a congregation or not. Just because someone claims to be a faithful JW doesn't make him so.

First of all, to be effective in being against something you have to have all the facts about that something. It’s no good throwing accusations around based on limited information. Then you’d be like the tabloid newspapers, all about sensationalism and misleading selective quotes. And no matter how much objective information you've read, and how many court cases you've studied, you still will not have all the facts. You'd only have those if you were a fly on the wall.

So are you here talking about your congregation? Or in general?

I disagree with you there. I am not sure how you dealt with it, I know you wrote a letter, but did you give the elders a chance to explain themselves? No one is disfellowshipped for being worried and showing genuine concern. Especially when they take this worry and concern to the elders, rather than the congregants. It’s the elders who are responsible for the congregation. They are the ones who need to know.

We can add other atrocities, incurable ailments, and all kinds of tragedies. This is the legacy that Adam and Eve have left mankind. Remember, the whole world is lying in Satan’s power. No one is immune.

True, you can talk all you like, but it’s not going to be effective if no one listen, is it? And I thought that was your motive, for people to hear you.

 

@Anna It feels to me as if you are angry with my comments and therefore need to tear them to shreds.

Dissecting my words does not make them less true. 

The sun is shining here and I'm going out in my classic car, I'll answer comments later after the sun has gone down :) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Witness said:

Anna, were all 1006 perpetrators disfellowshipped?

Nope.  Would there have been an inquiry by the ARC if all were disfellowshipped?  Would there be one lawsuit against the WT if a victim's plea for justice was well respected, and decisions were made according to Christ's words to "love your neighbor as yourself"?  

Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 2 Tim 2:14-16

However, is the GB "ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when they are punished, says the LORD."   Jer 8:12

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Anna said:

I think you must have missed my post about that.

Lett didn't say child abuse was apostate lies and propaganda, he wasn't denying there was a problem. What he said was that us denying there is a problem, and ignoring child abuse, is apostate lies.

I will reply to the rest of your post later. I can't right now.

Arrived home 2pm, 52 emails in my 'box'. don't know where to start. 

I'll quote your bottom line  "I will reply to the rest of your post later. I can't right now. " :) 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In fact, the problem is solved and everyone not completely unhinged knows it.

Witnesses have always been free to report. The unsettling aspect of the CSA cases is that many chose not to do it because they thought they might be bringing reproach on God’s name. Now, beyond any possibility of misunderstanding, it is spelled out for them and for elders that they are not. The problem is solved.

There are always going to be ‘What ifs.’ At some point one must have some confidence in the power of parents to be concerned for their children. It is not easy to get between a mama bear and her cub. You make it sound like a walk in the park. Reporting to authorities has now been endorsed. The two witness rule becomes irrelevant, as it always was to outside authorities 

In the rare situation that nobody has payed the slightest attention to Christian values taught, if wrath or revenge is feared, mama bear may have to flee the house. This has always been the case with in abusive families. The point is that she now knows she has a green light to do it, and can summon whatever authority there is for domestic violence and she need not think she is failing God, the congregation, her family, or anyone else.

Sometimes I think that these virulent opposers will not be satified until there is a cop stationed in every Witness home.

Quote "The unsettling aspect of the CSA cases is that many chose not to do it because they thought they might be bringing reproach on God’s name." 

The unsettling TRUTH is that it seems that MANY were TOLD it WOULD bring reproach on God's name. Now who would tell them such things ? Elders maybe ? 

Quote "It is not easy to get between a mama bear and her cub. You make it sound like a walk in the park. "

Now i'm sure most of you do not believe a word I say, or even a word any victim says BUT It seems to have been proved in court cases that Elders take children on the ministry, and, Elders do private Bible study with children. 

The JW Org gives the appearance of being a 'Safe Place To Be'. A place where people can be trusted because they are 'serving God'. 

So, people trust others to spend time with their children. So yes it can be a 'walk in the park' for a prdophile. 

Quote "The two witness rule becomes irrelevant.. " How blind you pretend to be.

In places where reporting Child Sex Abuse is THE LAW, it would rely on that Two Witness rule.  Because the Elders would say 'no  case to answer' without Two Witnesses, so the Elders would say 'nothing to report'. 

And of course you end your comment with sarcasm, trying to belittle us that complain and to mock the situation.

Unfortunately i'm seeing that as typical JW stance now. 

But that W/t is proof that the GB are worried, not about people of course, about the money it's costing in fines. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

But the cops might be immoral too, or even pedophiles also.Who knows. Would create a bigger problem.

 

Um, Scripture, SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES ARE IN PLACE BECAUSE GOD WANTS THEM THERE. THEY ARE DOING GOD'S WORK IN THIS OLD SYSTEM OF THINGS. THEY ARE THERE TO PUNISH THOSE WHO BREAK THE LAW. 

Sorry it's all capitals but you seem a bit blind. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Anna said:

 adjective: permissive

  1. 1.
    allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior.
    "the permissive society of the 60s and 70s"
    synonyms: liberal, broad-minded, open-minded, nonrestrictive, free, free and easy, easygoing, live-and-let-live, latitudinarian, laissez-faire, libertarian, unprescriptive, unrestricted, tolerant, forbearing, indulgent, lenient; More

 

No, Jehovah Witnesses have never been permissive or tolerant towards immorality of any kind. Anyone practicing these things is disfellowshipped.

 

 

 

 

@Anna  you live in a dream world, brainwashed, deluded, by the JW Org. 

 I wish i had a much better memory,  because I thought it was you, a long time ago, that was telling me about cases you have known about. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Jack Ryan said:

To be clear:

The new rules now allow elders (para. 15) to go to the authorities once an allegation of CSA has been made without fear of retaliation by headquarters. AND two witnesses aren't needed to do this (even though two witnesses are still needed for judicial action🙄). In addition to this, emphasis is given that the reporting party will not bring reproach on jehovahs name. Para. 14- "But what if the report is about someone who is a part of the congregation and the matter then becomes known in the community? Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God’s name? No. The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God’s name."

The new rules now ALLOW Elders, are now there's the rub, ALLOW. It only allows them to, but if it is an accusation against a fellow Elder they might not want to report it to the outside authorities. So nothing gained. 

And if there are not Two Witnesses then elders may feel there is 'no case to answer' as there is no real proof. Remember that they have been indoctrinated for years. New rules might not make any difference to their attitudes. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Um, Scripture, SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES ARE IN PLACE BECAUSE GOD WANTS THEM THERE. THEY ARE DOING GOD'S WORK IN THIS OLD SYSTEM OF THINGS. THEY ARE THERE TO PUNISH THOSE WHO BREAK THE LAW. 

Sorry it's all capitals but you seem a bit blind. 

I am sure you won't wish a cop living in your home. In any case it was not a serious suggestion by Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

I am sure you won't wish a cop living in your home. In any case it was not a serious suggestion by Tom.

I apologise, I didn't link your comment with TTH's comment. And I can now see where you were coming from.

Ops, sorry. :( 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/2/2019 at 1:02 AM, Melinda Mills said:

Never saw CSA in a publication. Seems you will be soon be using USA however you like.  CSA means Canadian Standards Association, along with the others mentioned above.  

you ridicules other, so  why not to ridicule your ridicules.

  Canadian Soccer Association is right choice  ....

Canadian Snowbird Association is better choice....

but if you continue in looking more on list, you will finally come to CONTEXT :))))))) 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

But the cops might be immoral too, or even pedophiles also.Who knows. Would create a bigger problem.

 

.... you are so right, ..... well why not to thing the same about JW elders, according to same logic????

Share this post


Link to post

 

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Never told about Court cases and out of Court deals, and how much money WT gave, by Court decision or by settlement, to victims. Omitting to talk about it, on JWTV

What do you think they should say?

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Witness said:

Would there have been an inquiry by the ARC if all were disfellowshipped? 

Yes, there would have still been an inquiry. The ARC wasn't concerned about church discipline or ex- communication. The ARC wanted the police informed. Which practically no one in society did in those days. This is why the ARC was set up in the first place, to address a national problem, so that the government could put specific laws in place so that the issue of child abuse could be addressed better. 

You didn't answer my question: Do you have all the facts and detail regarding those cases?

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Anna said:

 

What do you think they should say?

- truthful information's about all cases from past to today

- put free space for listeners to make own conclusions and possibility to express it in responding comments, letters, talks, etc.

- list of those who are dfd for molestation's 

- list of those who are sentenced by Courts for molestation's

- how much money was payed for various expenses  

- collectively asking for forgiveness, apologize to victims

 

I am sure how some of this points you would support too. :))    

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Anna said:

You didn't answer my question: Do you have all the facts and detail regarding those cases?

This...

9 hours ago, Witness said:

Nope.  Would there have been an inquiry by the ARC if all were disfellowshipped?  Would there be one lawsuit against the WT if a victim's plea for justice was well respected, and decisions were made according to Christ's words to "love your neighbor as yourself"?  

Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 2 Tim 2:14-16

However, is the GB "ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when they are punished, says the LORD."   Jer 8:12

 

...was meant for you.  I inadvertently quoted myself.   

As far as answering questions, there are approximately 6 in my return comment to you, made Thursday at 9:48 AM .  I hope that you reason from scriptures; those above and those on the topics in Thursday's comment.  You appear to ignore their message.  

Share this post


Link to post

Before I respond, I would like to say, and I am sure you would agree, the main objective of ANY action would be to protect children by preventing child abuse from happening.  So in view of that:

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

- truthful information's about all cases from past to today 

How would that help?

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

- put free space for listeners to make own conclusions and possibility to express it in responding comments, letters, talks, etc.

How would that be helpful in preventing child abuse?

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

list of those who are dfd for molestation's ...... - list of those who are sentenced by Courts for molestation's

Would this list be posted on JW.org? And would their addresses be there too? I am sure this is actually illegal, at least in the United States. Only the Police have the right to make such a list, it's called the sex offender registry. Do you have something similar in Croatia?

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

how much money was payed for various expenses   

How would that protect children?

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

- collectively asking for forgiveness, apologize to victims

This is one point I agree with.  I do know that elders have apologized to victims on an individual basis if they have mishandled a case. But it's unrealistic and unfair to have to apologize in all instances. How can elders apologize for the sexual misconduct of a father against his children, especially if the elders have no idea such molestation has been going on? Because remember, molesters do this in secret and they are very good at hiding what they do. It may be years later, when the child grows up, that the elders find out. As for collectively, as an organization....perhaps it will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Anna said:

But it's unrealistic and unfair to have to apologize in all instances. How can elders apologize for the sexual misconduct of a father against his children, especially if 

Of course. This demand for public apologies is largely a PR event. It is worth noting that when Australia apologized and opposers praised that apology to the heavens because they thought they could thereby embarrass JWs, the victims nonetheless rejected it as ‘too little, too late.’

I think it also fits in well with a certain legal strategy in that it constitutes a clear admission of guilt, thereafter better enabling lawsuits. Few things are done for the noble ‘window-dressing’ reasons that are given.

Share this post


Link to post

Because remember, molesters do this in secret and they are very good at hiding what they do.

I would like everyone on here to take note of @Anna 's comment above. 

Read it 3 times. Remember repetition for emphasis ! 

Now how does this relate to the TWO WITNESS RULE ? 

Share this post


Link to post

@Anna  Quote "  .. the main objective of ANY action would be .. "

Yes of course the main objective would be to try to prevent further occurrences of child abuse within the JW Org. 

BUT, that would be the main objective, not the only objective. 

The GB still hide behind 'laws of the land'. They only walk the one mile that have been ordered to walk (as in the scriptures) 

But the Bible says Walk two miles when ordered to only walk one. Go the extra mile. 

Anna answered Srecko's comments from her one selfish viewpoint and she made it so clear that she in only interested in sticking up for the JW Org and it's GB. 

Sorry Anna, Srecko made some good recommendations and you tried to shoot him down. 

And one answer in 'How would it help stop further child abuse' is simple.

It would make the naive congregants FULLY AWARE of the Child Abuse / Pedophilia problem within the whole Earthwide JW Org. 

Whereas right now most of then DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT 

Why ? Because they are TOLD not to visit such forums as this. Not to use internet websites that may be 'of the wrong influence' etc... 

They are either wrapped up in cotton wool, or, they are fenced in with threats from spying Elders. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/3/2019 at 1:33 AM, Shiwiii said:

Sadly it has taken the secular courts in many countries to force this to happen.

Everything in life is action/reaction and it would be foolish to deny the substance of this remark. That said, the parallels hold true in almost all groups, the Boy Scouts even exploring bankruptcy, with but one notable exception. With Jehovah’s Witnesses, it was members engaging in CSA and leaders were deemed lax in reporting. With almost everyone else, it was the leaders themselves committing the abuse, something rare with Witnesses.

I will credit crusaders that their activity had brought this about. Once ones leave the faith, people lose track of them. It is easy to say ‘out of sight, out of mind,’ and they did not allow this to happen. They should seriously congratulate themselves.

Many have publicity stated that their ‘opposition’ is only so that Jehovah’s Witnesses will fix their ‘broken’ policies. Now that they have been fixed, one wonders if their opposition will stop, or even turn into advocacy in view of the overall benefits of the Witness faith.

Members have been given the clearest possible direction that there should be no obstacle or objection to their reporting whatever allegations or realities they feel should be reported. Few observers will hold out for elders marching them down to the police station at gunpoint to make sure that they do, even if the most determined opposers will insist upon it. Few in lands where there is respect for freedom of worship will require that elders be agents of the state.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Everything in life is action/reaction and it would be foolish to deny the substance of this remark. That said, the parallels hold true in almost all groups, the Boy Scouts even exploring bankruptcy, with but one notable exception. With Jehovah’s Witnesses, it was members engaging in CSA and leaders were deemed lax in reporting. With almost everyone else, it was the leaders themselves committing the abuse, something rare with Witnesses.

I will credit crusaders that their activity had brought this about. Once ones leave the faith, people lose track of them. It is easy to say ‘out of sight, out of mind,’ and they did not allow this to happen. They should seriously congratulate themselves.

Many have publicity stated that their ‘opposition’ is only so that Jehovah’s Witnesses will fix their ‘broken’ policies. Now that they have been fixed, one wonders if their opposition will stop, or even turn into advocacy in view of the overall benefits of the Witness faith.

Members have been given the clearest possible direction that there should be no obstacle or objection to their reporting whatever allegations or realities they feel should be reported. Few observers will hold out for elders marching them down to the police station at gunpoint to make sure that they do, even if the most determined opposers will insist upon it. Few in lands where there is respect for freedom of worship will require that elders be agents of the state.

 

Are you deliberately avoiding the point. The TWO Witness rule is still in place. 

And I quoted Anna as saying that Pedophiles do it in secret, hiding what they do. 

So in fact the JW Org is no further forward. The Org will still allow it to happen because Pedophiles will still know that they can get away with it within the congregational setting.  

A question. If the Police / superior authorities can work on such cases without two witnesses, what can't the Org work on such cases likewise ? 

Is the GB telling it's congregants that the 'two witness rule' honestly applies to Child Victims of Child Sexual Abuse ?

If that is so then the GB are not Christian in there thoughts or actions.  Matthew 18 v 6.

 But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have hung around his neck a millstone that is turned by a donkey and to be sunk in the open sea.

Now this scripture could have two meanings, a, literal children, b, spiritually young ones / new to the wisdom of God.

However, in both cases it applies here. Physically young children would be spiritually young children too. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Now that they have been fixed, one wonders if their opposition will stop, or even turn into advocacy in view of the overall benefits of the Witness faith.

Hang on just a second Tom. Do you really think this is fixed?  I mean, now it ALLOWS reporting without repercussion and not instructed to report. That is not quite the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I am happy to see that they are now allowing it to be reported, but it isn't the fix. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Anna said:

Before I respond, I would like to say, and I am sure you would agree, the main objective of ANY action would be to protect children by preventing child abuse from happening.  So in view of that:

Agree in intention you want to have, but disagree in your reasoning, how publishing all possible  information's about problem is of no benefit for such a goal.

- truthful information's about all cases from past to today 

- put free space for listeners to make own conclusions and possibility to express it in responding comments, letters, talks, etc.

Disclosure info about this will help JW members to understand magnitude of this evil, and how this is reality not only in "worldly system under satan power", but is also devastating disease inside JW church with many JW members who suffer because of that. JW members, as i had seen before my left JW, in few short conversations, are rejecting this as problem, and never heard nothing similar had happened (here in Croatia, or in Germany, as one bro in telephone call from Hamburg area told me).

So, as firstly, THIS WILL HELP in that way to introduce how problem EXISTING inside JW congregations.

AFTER that, when information's made circle around all JW worldwide, they will need some time to absorb information's, and after they will need to share personal feelings, thoughts, etc. about issue. For this reason WT need to give FREE HAND for all those who want to talk about it. People will and must to come to state of awareness, awakened emotions and state of confusion and disbelief. For that reason those who "controlled their spirituality health" must give them space to TALK ABOUT. And NOT to Suppress. And not to Misguide them.

This can help JW community to take curse in which consciousness rises to a higher level, a spiritual awakening emerges from drowsiness from false security (false, conceited, imagined attitudes about self righteousness), catharsis comes, spiritual and thinking/rational purification can take position to replace most or all what is wrong. 

By this you open the door to new era. To new heart. And that would give a chance to those who seeking the truth. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Anna said:

Would this list be posted on JW.org? And would their addresses be there too? I am sure this is actually illegal, at least in the United States. Only the Police have the right to make such a list, it's called the sex offender registry. Do you have something similar in Croatia?

I do not see need for giving addresses. Is it legal to announce the names? This is interesting legal question  for sure. Maybe initials of name and numbers how many people in this and that country made crime.

But, here comes to my mind, is it legal to announce the name of Dfd or Diss person in front of congregation if such individual not gave his/her written permission that his/her name can be publicly  announced by elders from platform ????!!!!  Does Judicial Committee asking for such permission in US or elsewhere ?????  :))))

12 hours ago, Anna said:
21 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

how much money was payed for various expenses   

How would that protect children?

Money would not protect children in that way, of course.

But, your question in this form about context is something i would not expect from you !! :)  

 

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

Hang on just a second Tom. Do you really think this is fixed?  I mean, now it ALLOWS reporting without repercussion and not instructed to report. That is not quite the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I am happy to see that they are now allowing it to be reported, but it isn't the fix. 

Everyone knows that it is fixed. The only people not knowing it are those who are convinced that Jehovah’s Witnesses are evil incarnate whose charter purpose is to abuse children, and they will not be convinced until there is a cop in every Witness home.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Everyone knows that it is fixed. The only people not knowing it are those who are convinced that Jehovah’s Witnesses are evil incarnate whose charter purpose is to abuse children, and they will not be convinced until there is a cop in every Witness home.

regardless what I think about jws in general, there is a big difference from being allowed and requiring. 

Here, for your entertainment Tom: 

 

Johnny boy is allowed to recycle his plastic, glass bottles and aluminum cans in the State of Arizona

 

in California (in certain cities) Johnny boy is required to recycle his plastic, glass bottles and aluminum cans.

 

Is this the same thing? Is the practice of  recycling "fixed" in Arizona?  

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

regardless what I think about jws in general, there is a big difference from being allowed and requiring. 

 

The real problem is that people have children. This should not be allowed. Most parents have children only so that they may abuse them. Produce children in factories instead, and raise them in communal settings where supervisors have been vetted by authorities* so as to avoid any possible occasion for abuse.  Sheesh.

*and have certificates to prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The real problem is that people have children. This should not be allowed. Most parents have children only so that they may abuse them. Produce children in factories instead, and raise them in communal settings where supervisors have been vetted by authorities* so as to avoid any possible occasion for abuse.  Sheesh.

*and have certificates to prove it.

Why do you dodge simple truth in order to divert the topic to something irrelevant for the sake of sarcasm when you could just answer straightforward?  

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

8 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Because remember, molesters do this in secret and they are very good at hiding what they do.

I would like everyone on here to take note of @Anna 's comment above. 

Read it 3 times. Remember repetition for emphasis ! 

Now how does this relate to the TWO WITNESS RULE ? 

I don't see a problem there at all. The two witness rule is irrelevant when it comes to reporting to the police, as has been mentioned several times already. The two witness rule is only for elders handling the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

t would make the naive congregants FULLY AWARE of the Child Abuse / Pedophilia problem within the whole Earthwide JW Org. 

Whereas right now most of then DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT 

If some don't know anything abot it, they will by now, or at the latest in July.

    Hello guest!

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

JW members, as i had seen before my left JW, in few short conversations, are rejecting this as problem, and never heard nothing similar had happened (here in Croatia, or in Germany, as one bro in telephone call from Hamburg area told me). 

So, as firstly, THIS WILL HELP in that way to introduce how problem EXISTING inside JW congregations.

 

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

For this reason WT need to give FREE HAND for all those who want to talk about it. People will and must to come to state of awareness, awakened emotions and state of confusion and disbelief. For that reason those who "controlled their spirituality health" must give them space to TALK ABOUT.

Same answer I gave to John:

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Anna said:

 

I don't see a problem there at all. The two witness rule is irrelevant when it comes to reporting to the police, as has been mentioned several times already. The two witness rule is only for elders handling the issue.

The Elders won't handle the issue without two witnesses because they will call the victim a liar or slanderer. Then if the victim keeps complaining the Elders will have the victim disfellowshipped for either of the above reasons.  

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Anna said:

If some don't know anything abut it, they will by now, or at the latest in July.

    Hello guest!

 

But the congregants still only get one side of the story, not a true side either. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

does not convey the EARTHWIDE problem within the JW Org which includes pedophile Elders.

What part of the world do you think it conveys, if not the whole earth?

"those who are a part of the congregation" excludes elders?

Share this post


Link to post

Wow TTH and Anna working together to undermine TRUTH, and disrespect God and Jesus Christ.

Well TTH is an author and I suppose whatever sells his books for him.

And Anna has her head in the sand and is just hoping the situation will just blow over and go away.

Neither have any thought for any of the victims of Child Abuse. 

And it seems to be the American way to just live with collateral damage. Just push those people underground and forget about them. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The Elders won't handle the issue without two witnesses because they will call the victim a liar or slanderer. Then if the victim keeps complaining the Elders will have the victim disfellowshipped for either of the above reasons.  

Paragraph 15   :................ Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Wow TTH and Anna working together to undermine TRUTH

I expect nothing less from those who defend the practices of wt/gb about CSA. 

on a good note though, truth has a way of planting a seed and It WILL grow, it will grow on their conscience in due time.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Anna said:

Paragraph 15   :................ Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime.

 

You really cannot be bothered to understand what I'm saying so i cannot be bothered to continue answering you. 

If you feel completely happy with the Gb and it's Org, so be it.  It seems you are beyond help.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You really cannot be bothered to understand what I'm saying so i cannot be bothered to continue answering you.

I am very bothered, please explain. What is it that I misunderstood?

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Anna said:
1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The Elders won't handle the issue without two witnesses because they will call the victim a liar or slanderer. Then if the victim keeps complaining the Elders will have the victim disfellowshipped for either of the above reasons.  

Paragraph 15   :................ Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime.

 

36 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:
42 minutes ago, Anna said:

* Paragraph 15   :................ Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime.

You really cannot be bothered to understand what I'm saying so i cannot be bothered to continue answering you. 

Please explain what you mean.

* Paragraph 15, last sentence:  

    Hello guest!

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Well TTH is an author and I suppose whatever sells his books for him.

You know better than this

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And Anna has her head in the sand and is just hoping the situation will just blow over and go away.

She’s funny that way. When I worked with her in service, she hadn’t even washed it out. When I scolded her, she dismissed me by saying (breezily) that the wind would blow it clean.

 

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Neither have any thought for any of the victims of Child Abuse. 

What have you been smoking?

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And it seems to be the American way to just live with collateral damage. Just push those people underground and forget about them. 

Not at all. Just because policies are fixed does not undo previous suffering. They are having their day in courts, having selected that means of comfort—the same as in scores of organizations where, unlike JWs, the leaders were the abusers.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Neither have any thought for any of the victims of Child Abuse. 

What have you been smoking?

I didn't even bother replying to that. It's just too ridiculous...

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Anna said:

image.png

 

Yes, Shiwiiiiiii, let’s go at this again:

4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

regardless what I think about jws in general, there is a big difference from being allowed and requiring. 

 

I repeat, the problem is solved. Where law requires it, elders report & any concern that might make members reluctant to do that has been removed.

Where is it not required? If, with all the worldwide outrage over CSA, you cannot get it mandated, then it is time to give up all hope and admit that the world you have chosen will never rise above the civilization where it finds roots—ancient Greece, where CSA was an enshrined practice in society.

Moreover, when confronted with an issue with obvious legal implications, I know of no other scenario where consulting with one’s attorney first would be spun as an evil, as it is when BOE’s speak with WT Legal first. This is done, not to evade law, but to ensure compliance with it. Unless there has been human error, JWs always act in compliance with law, but the outrage over CSA (and the disillusionment with religion) triggers reinterpretation of law to present it that they did not.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

She’s funny that way. When I worked with her in service, she hadn’t even washed it out. When I scolded her, she dismissed me by saying (breezily) that the wind would blow it clean.

Lol

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yes, Shiwiiiiiii, let’s go at this again:

ok sure, answer this: 

 

Johnny boy is allowed to recycle his plastic, glass bottles and aluminum cans in the State of Arizona

in California (in certain cities) Johnny boy is required to recycle his plastic, glass bottles and aluminum cans.

Is this the same thing? Is the practice of  recycling "fixed" in Arizona?  

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

ok sure, answer this: 

 

Johnny boy is allowed to recycle his plastic, glass bottles and aluminum cans in the State of Arizona

in California (in certain cities) Johnny boy is required to recycle his plastic, glass bottles and aluminum cans.

Is this the same thing? Is the practice of  recycling "fixed" in Arizona?  

See this previous comment:

13 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If, with all the worldwide outrage over CSA, you cannot get it universally mandated, then it is time to give up all hope and admit that the world you have chosen will never rise above the civilization where it finds roots—ancient Greece, where CSA was an enshrined practice in society.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, @Shiwiiiiiiiiiiiiii:

Did you hear the one about the ‘prosperity gospel’ preacher who tried to lure them in with Beatles tunes and got stuck on the first line?

“You never give me your money.

You never give me your mohuhuny.

You never give me your muhuhuhuhuhoneeee.”

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The Elders won't handle the issue without two witnesses because they will call the victim a liar or slanderer. Then if the victim keeps complaining the Elders will have the victim disfellowshipped for either of the above reasons.  

My comment from the other thread:

“Everyone knows that it is fixed. The only people not knowing it are those who are convinced that Jehovah’s Witnesses are evil incarnate whose charter purpose is to abuse children, and they will not be convinced until there is a cop in every Witness home.”

The threads are careening wildly, showing a shocking lack of organizational ability from The Librarian (the old hen) and BOTH are now in CSA territory. (The only topic EITHER of them should be concerned about is discussion of my book, where I have several chapters on the topic—soon to be updated, since you can do that with an ebook.) It is at the point now where one must flip from one to another to follow the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post