Forced "new light", but only slightly

[Anna]

@JOHN BUTLER

I wanted to know why you were so upset over this conversation we had about the two witness rule:

19 hours ago, Anna said:

20 hours ago, Anna said:

20 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.  

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.

Read more  

 

20 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

20 hours 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. 

Read more  

Please explain what you mean.

* Paragraph 15, last sentence:   https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/love-justice-face-of-wickedness/

 

 

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

@JOHN BUTLER

I wanted to know why you were so upset over this conversation we had about the two witness rule:

 

 

Well, to quote a fave' group/band of mine  "You can't always get what ya' want "

[Anna]

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Well, to quote a fave' group/band of mine  "You can't always get what ya' want "

I was just trying to remind you of our last conversation that we had, since you said you were lost....

[JOHN BUTLER]

37 minutes ago, Anna said:

I was just trying to remind you of our last conversation that we had, since you said you were lost....

Not that lost. I do remember saying that I would not bother conversing with you on the matter as you seemed to deliberately 'not understand' my viewpoint. 

Anyway you and TTH seem to have it all sewn up  . Bodyguards for the GB  

And as i love to say to folks. We will have to agree to differ. 

[Anna]

24 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Not that lost. I do remember saying that I would not bother conversing with you on the matter as you seemed to deliberately 'not understand' my viewpoint. 

 

Ok, you don't want to discuss it, fair enough, although you were the one who brought the two witness rule up and said it was a problem.

So I will reiterate for others in case it is not clear to them either:

The two witness rule only applies to the elders handling an accusation of child abuse in the congregation. The two witness rule does not prevent anyone from taking the matter to the police as stated clearly in par 15 of the study WT May 2019 : https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/love-justice-face-of-wickedness/

which says: .".......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.

I am not quite sure, because John won't explain, so I will have to guess: Despite this clear black on white statement in the WT, it seems that John's concern was that elders would not actually follow through. Well....I would think that since this WT article is going to be studied by almost all of Jehovah's Witnesses, then I would think that any one of those Jehovah's Witnesses would feel free to report an allegation to the authorities even if there were no two witnesses, in other words even if the elders were unable to handle the situation congregationally because of a lack of two witnesses. So IF an elder for some reason would feel that a publisher should not report it, because there isn't enough evidence, (two witnesses) then all the publisher has to do is show him this clear statement in the WT. Done.

[JOHN BUTLER]

20 minutes ago, Anna said:

Ok, you don't want to discuss it, fair enough, although you were the one who brought the two witness rule up and said it was a problem.

So I will reiterate for others in case it is not clear to them either:

The two witness rule only applies to the elders handling an accusation of child abuse in the congregation. The two witness rule does not prevent anyone from taking the matter to the police as stated clearly in par 15 of the study WT May 2019 : https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/love-justice-face-of-wickedness/

which says: .".......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.

I am not quite sure, because John won't explain, so I will have to guess: Despite this clear black on white statement in the WT, it seems that John's concern was that elders would not actually follow through. Well....I would think that since this WT article is going to be studied by almost all of Jehovah's Witnesses, then I would think that any one of those Jehovah's Witnesses would feel free to report an allegation to the authorities even if there were no two witnesses, in other words even if the elders were unable to handle the situation congregationally because of a lack of two witnesses. So IF an elder for some reason would feel that a publisher should not report it, because there isn't enough evidence, (two witnesses) then all the publisher has to do is show him this clear statement in the WT. Done.

( WELL you are the one now using my name so i will respond to 'others' in case it is not clear. )

And if an Elder should want to hide or destroy evidence in the form of written notes he will. And i think that a video was put up on this forum to show a brother in some position of authority telling elders to destroy evidence. That brother used the excuse that 'satan was coming after the organisation'.  Of course what he really meant was 'this is going to cost the Org lots of money and give it a really bad name' ... '

Also I believe that in the Netherlands, Police invaded the HQ and some Kingdom Halls and a couple of homes, searching for such evidence / documents, as proof of Child Abuse happenings. 

At the headquarters of Jehova's Witnesses in Emmen, an invasion took place on 19 November due to a large-scale investigation into sexual abuse.

Two church buildings, also known as kingdom halls, have also been investigated. One of them is in Dordrecht, the location of the other is still unknown. Four houses were also examined. The police were looking for documents from internal lawsuits, that reportsRTL News . 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My son watched the film 1984, and he said those in charge would say there was 'a variation' in different things, but it actually meant there was a lesser amount being offered for the same cost... When our rent goes up the Council use that same word 'variation' instead of rise in cost. Do you understand where I'm coming from ?  The GB of JW Org is just doing the same thing as the world does, playing with words to serve their own purpose..

There are 'whistleblowers' in the world to show us how bad the ruling classes treat the lower classes. 

I am very pleased that there are 'Whistleblowers' within the JW Org too, to prove how bad the GB and the Org really is.

TTH pretends all is well and Anna backs up his every comment like a parrot. But in truth we know, nothing has changed. It's just playing with words. Something which TTH loves to do. 

So i will repeat. IF AN ELDER COMMITS CHILD ABUSE AND THERE ARE NOT TWO WITNESSES TO PROVE HE DID IT, THEN HE WILL GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE HIS FELLOW ELDERS WILL RALLY ROUND HIM TO 'PROTEST' HIM.  THERE WILL NOT BE A PROPER ENQUIRY / INQUIRY TO THE SITUATION AS THE ELDERS WILL SAY THERE IS NO INTERNAL CASE TO ANSWER. THEREFORE THE ABUSER ELDER WILL STILL KEEP HIS 'STATION' AND HIS STATUS. THE VICTIM WILL BE SEEN AS A LIAR AND / OR SLANDERER AND WILL BE SHUNNED BY OTHERS IN THE CONGREGATION. IF THE VICTIM CONTINUES TO COMPLAIN THEY WILL BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED. 

Simple enough for you all to understand I hope. I thought some of you needed capitals as you seem to find it difficult to read and understand things. 

 

[Anna]

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

BECAUSE HIS FELLOW ELDERS WILL RALLY ROUND HIM TO 'PROTEST' HIM.  THERE WILL NOT BE A PROPER ENQUIRY / INQUIRY TO THE SITUATION AS THE ELDERS WILL SAY THERE IS NO INTERNAL CASE TO ANSWER. THEREFORE THE ABUSER ELDER WILL STILL KEEP HIS 'STATION' AND HIS STATUS.

I thought that the main concern is that there is an inquiry done by the authorities, as most on here commented that: THAT is a proper inquiry: "leave it to the authorities who are qualified" . So even if elders used some kind of buddy system to cover up for each other, the authorities would perform their own PROPER inquiry and investigation, the elders sticking up for one another and saying there is no internal case to answer will make no difference to the authorities who are qualified to investigate these matters because an allegation has been reported to them, and they will do their work.

[Evacuated]

11 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I thought some of you needed capitals as you seem to find it difficult to read and understand things. 

No, it's actually the spelling that creates a bit of a problem here, but no matter, it all comes clear in the end.

[Witness]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

So even if elders used some kind of buddy system to cover up for each other, the authorities would perform their own PROPER inquiry and investigation, the elders sticking up for one another and saying there is no internal case to answer will make no difference to the authorities who are qualified to investigate these matters because an allegation has been reported to them, and they will do their work.

It all sounds well and good, except in many "rogue" halls, it has been and will continue, to be done according to the will of the elder body.  It think this has been proven more than once.   If elders fail to follow the new guidelines, will they be disfellowshipped?  Just asking.  Will they suffer at the hands of the Watchtower as the victim did?

A jury in northwestern Montana handed down a $35 million award Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by two women against the local Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation and its worldwide headquarters.

The decision came down after a three-day trial. The Thompson Falls congregation and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the church’s institutional center in New York and Pennsylvania, will pay $4 million in compensation and $31 million in punitive damages. The monetary award applies to only one of the women who sued the church in 2016.

The women said Max Reyes, a member of the Thompson Falls congregation, sexually assaulted, molested and raped them over a 13-year period in the 1990s and 2000s, both before he was severed from the congregation and after leadership reinstated him 14 months later.

Watchtower, the church’s worldwide center, is the headquarters for the religious leadership and the church's institutional operations, such as policy making and financing. Each congregation is legally connected to Watchtower as one entity.

Earlier in the case, Judge James Manley ruled that Reyes’ criminal acts were foreseeable to the church leadership when they allowed him to return and that the congregation’s elders were not exempt from Montana’s mandatory reporting law when they learned of the allegations against him and didn’t turn him over to law enforcement.  From the "Missoulian"

 

Jesus simply said, "love your neighbor as yourself".  Is this so hard to understand?   Even those few words are incomprehensible to the leaders in the organization.  They are not obedient to Jesus' teachings, nor the law, but only to their selfish desires to do things their way. 

[Anna]

36 minutes ago, Witness said:

sexually assaulted, molested and raped them over a 13-year period in the 1990s and 2000s,

You are talking about a historical case. I am talking about today.

44 minutes ago, Witness said:

except in many "rogue" halls, it has been and will continue, to be done according to the will of the elder body. 

Even if that were the case, this has nothing to do with the authorities handling the matter and convicting the perpetrator. After all, that is what we want isn't it? For the perpetrator to be put on a sex offender registry, (and possibly serving time in prison) so that everyone, including the general public, are warned and protected from further harm.

 

[Witness]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

You are talking about a historical case. I am talking about today.

What are you saying, historical because of it being a possible rarity, which I don't agree with; or, historical according to time?  The court case happened just this last fall; which in my book is "today".  

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Even if that were the case, this has nothing to do with the authorities handling the matter and convicting the perpetrator.

If the same pressure by these "rogue" individuals is put upon a victim, threatening them not to go to the police saying they will handle it in house, how will the authorities know to convict the perpetrator?   What you are saying sounds like the perfect plan, but it is a plan that will not work throughout the organization, and it's individual congregations.  

[Anna]

 

3 hours ago, Witness said:

What are you saying, historical according to time?  The court case happened just this last fall; which in my book is "today".  

Yes, historical according to time. Doesn't matter that the court case happened "today" because it was discussing a historical case that happened:

6 hours ago, Witness said:

over a 13-year period in the 1990s and 2000s

 

3 hours ago, Witness said:

If the same pressure by these "rogue" individuals is put upon a victim, threatening them not to go to the police saying they will handle it in house,

Well, then those elders  don't have a leg to stand on do they?

paragraph 14:  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/love-justice-face-of-wickedness/

" 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".

Does anyone need it clearer than that???

Also:

@JOHN BUTLER

In chapter 12 of the 2019 shepherding the flock book is this statement:

"One who reports an accusation to the police, the court, the elders,

or others who have authority to look into matters and render

a judgment would not be viewed by the congregation as guilty

of committing slander. (it-1 p. 990) This is true even if the accusation is not proved".