Jump to content

TrueTomHarley

The Reproach of Child Sexual Abuse Falls on the Abuser

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

TrueTomHarley -
Space Merchant -
116
2478

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

In Jehovah’s Witness congregations, victims, parents, or anyone else, have always been free to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police. The troubling reality is that many chose not to do it. They alerted congregation elders and went no further. Why? Because they thought that by so doing, they might be bringing reproach on God’s name and the Christian congregation.

That situation has been resolved. The May 2019 study edition of the Watchtower, reviewed via Q & A participation at all congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses—it will escape nobody—addressed it specifically: 

“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,” states the magazine.

The problem is solved. Can one bring reproach on God or the Christian congregation by reporting child sexual abuse to police? No. The abuser has already brought the reproach. There will be many who had long ago come to that conclusion, but now, unambiguously, in writing, for elders and members alike, here it is spelled out.

From the beginning, child sexual abuse controversies as related to Jehovah’s Witnesses have been markedly different from those of nearly anywhere else. Incidents have mostly been within the ranks of the general membership, come to light because the Witness organization takes seriously passages as Romans 2:21-22, and investigates wrongdoing within its midst so as to “keep the congregation clean” in God’s eyes, something that they think He demands:

“Do you, however, the one teaching someone else, not teach yourself? You, the one preaching “Do not steal,” do you steal?  You, the one saying “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery?” (Romans 2:21-22)

Elsewhere it is the leaders being looked at exclusively. Usually, no mechanism at all exists that the wrongdoing of religious members comes to light. When the police nab John Q. Parishioner, it is as much news to the church minister as it is to the public. When was the last time you read of an abuser identified by religious affiliation unless it was a person in position of leadership?

As I write this, it now appears that the time has come for Southern Baptists to take their turn in the hot seat. Just eight days prior to this writing, a Houston Chronicle headline (February 10, 2019) announces: “Abuse of Faith - 20 years, 700 victims: Southern Baptist sexual abuse spreads as leaders resist reforms.”

Who are the victims? Entirely those who were abused by leaders. The latter “were pastors. ministers. youth pastors. Sunday school teachers. deacons. And church volunteers.” Were any of them just regular church members abused by other regular church members? No. There is no apparatus for that to ever come to light. The church preaches to them on Sunday but otherwise takes no interest in whether they actually apply the faith or not. Doubtless they hope for the best, but it is no more than hope. Only a handful of faiths make any effort to ensure that members live up to what they profess.

It has always been apples vs oranges. That is what has long frustrated Jehovah’s Witnesses. With most groups, if you want to find a bumper crop of pedophile abusers, you need look no farther than the leaders. With Jehovah’s Witnesses, if you “hope” for the same catch, you must broaden your nets to include, not just leaders, but everybody. It is rare for a Witness leader to be an abuser, the rotter in San Diego being a notable exception. It is the rule elsewhere. The most recent Witness legal case, involving a lawsuit in Montana, involves abuse entirely within a member’s step-family that did not reach the ears of the police, which the court decided was through leadership culpability.

To account for this marked difference in leadership personal conduct, this writer submits a reason. Those who lead among Jehovah’s Witnesses are selected from rank and file members on the basis of moral qualifications highlighted in the Bible itself, for example, at Titus 1:6-9.  In short, they are those who have distinguished themselves in living their religion. Leaders of most denominations have distinguished themselves in knowing their religion, having graduated from divinity schools of higher education. They may live the religion—ideally, they do, but this is by no means assured—the emphasis is on academic knowledge.

Add to the mix that Jehovah’s Witness elders preside without pay, and thus their true motive is revealed. Most religious leaders do it for pay, and thus present conflicting motives. One could even call them “mercenary ministers.” Are they untainted in their desire to do the Lord’s work or not? One hopes for the best but can never be sure.

Confounding irreligious humanists who would frame the child sexual abuse issue as one of religious institutions, two days after the Southern Baptist exposé, there appeared one of the United Nations. On February 12, the Sun (thesun.co.uk) reported that “thousands more ‘predatory’ sex abusers specifically target aid charity jobs to get close to vulnerable women and children.”

“There are tens of thousands of aid workers around the world with paedophile tendencies, but if you wear a UNICEF T-shirt nobody will ask what you’re up to. You have the impunity to do whatever you want,” Andrew Macleod, a former UN high official stated, adding that “there has been an ‘endemic’ cover-up of the sickening crimes for two decades, with those who attempt to blow the whistle just getting fired.” Sharing his data with The Sun, Mr. Macleod “warned that the spiralling abuse scandal was on the same scale as the Catholic Church’s.”

All things must be put into perspective. Child sexual abuse is not an issue of any single religion, much less a tiny one where otherwise blameless leaders are perceived to have bungled reporting to police. It occurs in any setting in which people interact with one another. The legal system being what it is, one can prosecute child sexual abuse wherever it is encountered. The tort system being what it is, one prosecutes primarily where there are deep pockets. Arguably, the child sexual abuse issues of the Southern Baptists have taken so long coming to light is because that denomination is decentralized in organization, presenting no deep pockets.

With the May 2019 Watchtower mentioned above, finally the reporting issues of Jehovah’s Witnesses are fixed. Anyone who knows of abuse allegations may bring those to the attention of the police, and regardless of how “insular” or “no part of the world” Witnesses may be, they need not have the slightest misgivings about bringing reproach on the congregation. Both goals can proceed—that of societal justice and that of congregation justice—and neither interferes with the other.

Witness opposers were not at all gracious about this change, that I could see. Many continued to harp on the “two witness” rule of verifying abuse, for example. It becomes entirely irrelevant now. Were it a “40-witness” or a “half-witness” rule, it wouldn’t matter. It is a standard that guides congregation judicial proceedings and has absolutely no bearing on secular justice.

“Well, it only took a landslide of legal threats around the world to force their hand on this,” opposers grumbled, as they went on to claim credit. Why not give them the credit? Likely it is true. Everything in life is action/reaction and it would be foolish to deny the substance of this. Once ones leave the faith, people within lose track of them. It is easy to say: “Out of sight, out of mind,” and opponents did not allow this to happen. They should seriously congratulate themselves. Many have publicly 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.

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 journalists will hold out for elders marching them down to the police station at gunpoint to make sure that they do, even if their most determined opposers will settle for no less.  There are some experiences that seem to preclude one’s ever looking at life rationally again, and perhaps child sexual abuse is one of them. The only people not knowing that the situation is fixed 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.

With a major “reform” making clear that there is absolutely no reproach in reporting vile things to the authorities, some of the most virulent of Witness critics lose something huge to them, and the question some of them must face is a little like that of Tom Brady—what on earth is he ever going to do with himself after he retires? A few face withering away like old Roger Chillingsworth of the Scarlet Letter, who, when Arthur Dimmesdale finally changed his policy, “knelt down beside him, with a blank, dull countenance, out of which life seemed to have departed. ‘Thou hast escaped me!’ he repeated more than once. ‘Thou has escaped me!’

This will not be the journalists, of course. Nor will it be the legal people. Nor will it even be Witness critics in the main. But for some of the latter, former members who are vested in tearing down what they once embraced, it will not be an easy transition. They almost have no choice but to find some far-fetched scenario involving “rogue elders” that could conceivably allow something bad to yet happen and harp on that till the cows come home. 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, and for community to handle occasional lapses, particularly since governmental solutions have hardly proven immune to abuse and miscarriages of justice themselves. It is not easy to get between a mama bear and her cub.

All told, it would appear that even if the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses practiced child sexual abuse themselves, their “contribution” would be the tiniest part of an overall endemic. But since they do not—since their alleged sins are failing to report on what some members have done, the efforts of their apostates to paint them as a prime source of the degradation is but vengeful. They deliberately construct a damning and inaccurate picture of the faith that others in lands less enamored with human rights act upon. 

    Hello guest!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor old Tom. He makes statements that he cannot prove. He paints all ex-JW's with the same colour as he is too frightened to look at them as being individuals. He generalises so much that he makes himself look stupid. 

And for an author that wants to be taken seriously he really lets himself down with his over emotional rant. 

Anyone taking Tom seriously and anyone believing Tom's words needs to get back into the real world. 

It would be too easy to shoot Tom down on what he has written above, but for those that want to believe Tom it would not make any difference. It looks to be out of emotional guilt that he needed to write so much. Poor Tom. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It looks to be out of emotional guilt that he needed to write so much. Poor Tom. 

 

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There are some experiences that seem to preclude one’s ever looking at life rationally again, and perhaps child sexual abuse is one of them. 

I had you in mind when I wrote the above, John, and I honestly feel sorry for you.

Though apparently wrapped in a newfound ‘personal relationship with Jesus,’ you have acknowledged that your conduct has worsened since leaving Jehovah’s Witnesses.

You should strive to get your act together on this, and salvage what remains. In time, you can once again make progess in actually applying Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In Jehovah’s Witness congregations, victims, parents, or anyone else, have always been free to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police. The troubling reality is that many chose not to do it. They alerted congregation elders and went no further. Why? Because they thought that by so doing, they might be bringing reproach on God’s name and the Christian congregation.

The "Keep yourselves in God's Love" book page 223. This is from the 2008 edition.  This book was studied in the form of a question and answer at the book study, and is a book that is studied with those wishing to get baptized. Unfortunately, as you say, some chose not to go to the authorities because of worry of reproach, and host of other worries (

    Hello guest!
Even as late as 2014, one of the elders testifying at the ARC expressed similar sentiments to one of the two adult survivors who wanted to testify, by asking her: "why would you want to drag the organization through the mud?".  To keep child sexual abuse from the authorities however has never been JW policy. But Tom, you can't reason with the unreasonable.

Thankfully, as we know, the ARC turned out to play a key part in what we all see as a welcomed improvement. Not so much in our policies, but in their clear transparent presentation to ALL Jehovah's Witnesses (and anybody else who is interested).

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TrueTomHarley    Quote "I had you in mind when I wrote the above, John, and I honestly feel sorry for you."

Nice of you to think about me Tom. Thank you. But feeling sorry for someone is such a negative attitude, and in your case i feel the sorrow is not genuine. Why ? 

Quote "Though apparently wrapped in a newfound ‘personal relationship with Jesus,’ "  That is sarcasm Tom and shows your lack of 'feeling sorry for me'  I do not have a 'personal relationship with Jesus', nor do i pretend to have.  Can you quote me as saying that i have ? 

I have always thought that individuals should pray to God through Jesus Christ. And surely all Christians should pray in such a way on a daily basis ? I went into our back garden early this morning and put food out for the birds, and when birds arrived i thanked God for the happiness those birds bring to humans. Just watching those birds in the garden, such a simple thing, but it gives me such pleasure. Now God must have built that into humans to like or love animals / birds / creatures. So in that way you could say we all have a 'personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ', or would you not agree ? 

If you don't agree that people can have such a relationship with God and Christ then it seems as if you are saying that a person can only give praise twice a week, that being at JW meetings............. Now that creates a Clergy Class doesn't it ? 

But oh yes that reminds me Clergy Class, Clergy privilege. 

The clergy–penitent privilege, clergy privilege, confessional privilege, priest–penitent privilege, clergyman–communicant privilege, or ecclesiastical privilegeis a rule of evidence that forbids judicial inquiry into certain communications (spoken or otherwise) between clergy and members of their congregation.

I do believe that Elders are using this 'excuse' to refuse to give evidence in court cases. Am I right in this thinking ? 

But of course the JW Org does not have a 'Clergy Class' does it ? Contradiction i think. 

Quote " applying Christianity. "  That phrase means different things to different people Tom.  If all those Pedophiles in the JW Org had applied Christianity then all the aforementioned on this topic would not exist. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the rest of you that feel the need to rally round and stick up for the ones you worship. The GB and it Org.

You are completely missing the point of this Watchtower. It is aimed at the Elders.

It is not so that congregants can know what to do. IT IS TO TELL THE ELDERS TO BACK OFF. TO TELL THE ELDERS. NOT TO TELL THE CONGREGANTS TO KEEP QUIET. 

BECAUSE IT SEEMS THE ELDERS WERE TELLING THE CONGREGANTS NOT TO REPORT THINGS TO THE POLICE OR THE AUTHORITIES. 

UNLESS AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, YOU ARE CALLING ALL THE VICTIMS LIARS. 

And for the Kid, yes Kid experience is better than second hand information, but Kid i have both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Really, I don’t see it. You’re just a waste of time. I believe TTH made it to where he thinks you still have a viable soul. I don’t. You lost that right to call yourself a Christain. Therefore, you are once again a tax collector (Pagan). That’s why your mockery and inclinations are meaningless. Please! downvote me. I find your hypocrisy humorous. 😂 

You don't see it.  What don't you see and what should i have to prove to you ? You are a funny person Kid. 

Once again you make sweeping statements which mean nothing. And you judge me as if you have been given that right by God Himself. You are so so funny Kid. So immature. 

Tell me oh clever one. How did I lose the right to call myself a Christian ?  

And you seem to have got mixed up with your definition of Tax Collector. A Tax Collector was an Israelite that worked for the Romans collecting taxes from other Israelites. They were not Pagans... Matthew was a Tax Collector yet Jesus called Matthew to be his follower. 

Hope you get better soon Kid. Try losing the bitterness in your heart, it does show through so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You are completely missing the point of this Watchtower. It is aimed at the Elders. 

Obviously it's aimed at everyone, otherwise the elders would receive this information in the form of a letter to the body of elders. So I don't know what point you are trying to make...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I do believe that Elders are using this 'excuse' [clergy-penitent privilege] to refuse to give evidence in court cases. Am I right in this thinking ? 

No more than the motorist uses the posted speed limit sign as an “excuse” to explain why he was driving that fast.

Clergy-penitent privilege, like doctor-patient and lawyer-client privilege, has long been part of law, on the supposition that these three relationships cannot work without the expectation of confidentiality. Elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who for legal purposes correspond to clergy, use this law where appropriate, as do clergy, doctors, and lawyers everywhere. Ironically, barristers have managed to whittle down two of the three applications. The only one still standing is their own.

I know of no other scenario on earth where, when confronted with an issue with obvious legal implications, 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. In some instances, the plain equivalence of Witness elders to clergy has been denied, partly on the basis that they are “not paid.” An irreligious world can relate to spiritual things only if they can be reduced to what is easily understood—money. The concept of serving out of love for God and humanity is completely beyond them and they are apt to spin it as a matter of wanting power or control.

9 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

That is sarcasm Tom and shows your lack of 'feeling sorry for me'  I do not have a 'personal relationship with Jesus', nor do i pretend to have.  Can you quote me as saying that i have ? 

I might have inferred this based upon your constant remarks that one does not need an organization or GB, and that just following Jesus is enough. I do have a soft spot for sarcasm, which is not necessarily good, because it can backfire. That said, when I engage with virulent opposers on this site, I do not patiently reason with them over all their grievances. One advantage of a worldwide organization is that you know what other people have done, not on an individual basis, but cumulatively. To ones who have sailed past all efforts to reconcile that exist in all circuits, I do not imagine that I am the one to turn it all around.

Nor, beyond a tentative attempt or two, do I imagine myself a therapist. You have revealed some very personal tragedies, and usually I respect that due to the bravery required and the assumed motive of helping others. @Annaactually did rise to the occasion as a therapist for a few comments, and her reward was for you to hurl everything back in her face and call her a hypocrite without a conscience. You have seemingly learned nothing at all from your suffering and you use it only to justify continual hysterics and obnoxious displays.

You continuously reveal yourself an unreasoning animal on this topic, an enraged bull that charges at each red GB flag, and impales himself each and every time with unhinged tirades that would embarrass you if you were capable of it. Of course I wish that you would get over it, for then you would be less ugly here. But I also wish that you would get over for your own sake, for you will not find peace until you can approach your experiences with more rationality, perspective, and forgiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Anna said:

Obviously it's aimed at everyone, otherwise the elders would receive this information in the form of a letter to the body of elders. So I don't know what point you are trying to make...?

I think the word is diplomacy. But basically 'if the cap fits wear it'. 

It's letting the congregants know that the Elders are being told.

What's that saying. 'It's not enough that justice is done, but that justice has to be seen to be done'. The congregants need to have some sort of confidence restored it seems. 

Also, as all 'Letters to Elders' are now freely available online, it would be seen as accepting that the Elders have very often been the cause of the suffering of the victims. 

Remember that the JW Org is just like a political party looking for votes. The difference is that the JW Org needs congregants that will pour money into the Org. So it is important for the Org to clean up it's act. This Watchtower is just one way of making it look like the GB are actually doing something positive. 

Does it mention destruction of evidence in this Watchtower. Or does it mention The clergy–penitent privilege, clergy privilege, confessional privilege, priest–penitent privilege, clergyman–communicant privilege, or ecclesiastical privilegeis a rule of evidence that forbids judicial inquiry into certain communications (spoken or otherwise) between clergy and members of their congregation. ??? 

Probably not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote @TrueTomHarley "No more than the motorist uses the posted speed limit sign as an “excuse” to explain why he was driving that fast."

Here we can see how Tom calmly compares a speeding motorist with a Pedophile that has abused a young child. What does this tell you of his lack of feeling for other people ? Where is his personal application of the scripture that talks about 'Looking after widows and orphans'. Where is his idea of protecting children in the JW Org ? Nothing, it's just like speeding motorist to him. 

Tom and others, the JW Org has said it does not have a Clergy Class. But it uses the Clergy privilege to avoid giving evidence in court. That is hypocritical. 

Now as for : Quote "I might have inferred this based upon your constant remarks that one does not need an organization or GB.." 

Actually I've constantly said 'if God wants to use the JW Org then God will clean it out properly' and I've said that the GB should consist of 12 or 13 men from different countries around the Earth. I've said that the current GB should be replaced. 

Was it Rutherford or Russell that said an organisation was not needed ? Whichever it wasn't me. Unless you can quote me as saying it ? 

As for Elders serving because they want 'power and control', yes i think many of them do. Especially the ones that are Pedophiles. 

When an Elder is using a dating website and using the name Yogi Bishop, and using a pretend 'hometown',  then I would think he is not an Elder for the right reasons. (That's one for the Kid, one of the real life issues that i know about). 

For me there is no bravery in telling people that I've been sexually abused, physically beaten up and emotionally abused as a child / teenager. It has a purpose. If I'm a pain in the bum, then people will know why. It's because it is impossible to 'get over it'. 

That is why I don't like seeing it happen to others. But it seems that a lot of you just see it as collateral damage.  You see it as, well it's only a few hundred out of 8 million, so in your eyes it doesn't matter. And even those few hundred you basically call liars. 

It's Your conscience. If you are happy with your gods, the GB and it's Org, then so be it. Yes i can understand that Almighty God needs a means of communication, But He needs a pure clean organisation and at this time that is not the JW org. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It's Your conscience.

Not only did Anna serve as therapist to you. In his own way, @JW Insiderdid also, by plainly stating it when he thought you were right, and by impartially supplying you with information that he deemed accurate, regardless of what you might do with it. His reward was the same as Anna’s—to be called a hypocrite without conscience.

Admittedly, I have not overly belabored with taking the “high road” with you, if high road it truly be. It certainly didn’t get them anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well. Keep serving your GB and the JW Org. God will decide whom He will use and whom He won't use. 

TTH gets his kicks from writing stories and the Kid gets his kicks from just being plain nasty. 

Anna seems to sit on the fence as I'm sure she has told me of things that she knows about, that are just plain wrong in the Org. But then she seems to condemn me for saying similar things. 

In truth we can only tell it as we each see it. 

Tom i do wish you would show me some of these things you 'quote' about me. Otherwise it's all pie in the sky. 

I generally comment on one comment at a time. Therefore if someone says something i agree with I will upvote it, and if that same person says something i totally disagree with i will down vote it. I am not interested in praising or knocking a person. i praise or knock a comment. I do not worship people. 

I walked away from worshipping people when i left the JW Org. Of course i didn't realise that I was worshipping people at the time I was in the Org. It's only when i saw the contrast of being out of the Org that it made sense. The not believing every word I had been taught was a great relief. However you people cannot have that relief, and that is clearly seen by your attitudes. It must be difficult for you all having to keep up this defence of the GB and it's Org, when you know in truth that the GB are not who they pretend to be and the Org has so many faults. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

. @Annaactually did rise to the occasion as a therapist for a few comments, and her reward was for you to hurl everything back in her face and call her a hypocrite without a conscience.

I've given up now, as I am sure you will shortly. But what I do want to know from you @John Butler is any news on your report to the Police?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Anna seems to sit on the fence as I'm sure she has told me of things that she knows about, that are just plain wrong in the Org. But then she seems to condemn me for saying similar things. 

Just noticed this post John. Yes, I acknowledge the org. has made mistakes, and I am sure no Witness on here would deny that the org. has made mistakes, why, even the org. itself acknowledges it has made mistakes. But you on the other hand are saying that the org. is tantamount to Satan's spawn. I don't think that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing for certain. In this day and age there are certain folks out there who embrace pedophilia and in one recent situation, a specific group was in question. More of them will enter into schools and churches and the problem is going to expand and explode, on the other side of the spectrum, those who are also in support of pedophilia have been defending their own among the rich and powerful.

In the end, we must educate, which is effective, and people need to talk, and there are those with that syndrome out there, so more people have to be informed.

@Anna I wonder the same thing, granted, as this much time had passed, some information would be out already, granted the situation itself is child abuse, at least a story or two of an alleged attack and the mention of the mentally ill person who has committed the attack, and so forth. But the one who professed such and showing his true colors afterwards, it tells you something. That being said, I guess it is time to do the initiative and do some digging, which I am doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Anna said:

Just noticed this post John. Yes, I acknowledge the org. has made mistakes, and I am sure no Witness on here would deny that the org. has made mistakes, why, even the org. itself acknowledges it has made mistakes. But you on the other hand are saying that the org. is tantamount to Satan's spawn. I don't think that.

 

 

What I'm saying quite clearly is that the GB and It's people in positions of responsibility including the Elders have not only made mistakes, but have deliberately taken action to hide Pedophiles within the JW Org / Watchtower Soc'. And deliberately misused scripture.

Now if you choose to translate that into Satan's spawn (which actually means nothing to me) then that is your choice. 

I do think the Devil is working within the JW Org by misleading the GB, many Elders and others. I am not saying that the JW Org could not be saved however. 

Look, keep in mind that the Nation of Israel literally offered children in the fire to Molech, a false god. Do you honestly think the JW org is untouchable by Satan ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I understand why you admire JWInsider.

I don’t admire him. I use him. And I think he is okay with that.

I also have sought to understand him.

If anything, I admire you & and a few other very similar personas, for the tenacity to defend the current governing arrangement, which I also defend. But admiring or not admiring has little to do with anything. If my goal is to admire and not admire and to demonstrate my loyalty or lack thereof, then I hang out exclusively with the real flesh and blood people of my circuit, who all like me, barring perhaps a few who think me a windbag. (but how can they be faulted for that?)

He spills a lot of dirt. I would never spill the dirt that he does. And lest John B start frothing over this, it must be pointed out that everyone everywhere in every field of activity has some dirt that they could spill. It will always be a question of whether they choose to do it or not.)

But the fact is that he is not going away. So how do I come to grips with that? Should I simply repeat ‘Liar! liar!’ when the tone of his writing does not suggest lying? Notice what I said (and you quoted):

20 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In his own way, @JW Insiderdid also, by plainly stating it when he thought [John] you were right, and by impartially supplying you with information that he deemed accurate,

I didn’t say that his information was accurate. I said that HE deems it accurate. I didn’t say that John was right. I said that there were times when HE thought he was right.

There is much I like about JWI, but also much I don’t like. I think he is too swayed by the pretentions of journalism that the cockroaches disappear when you shine the bright light of journalism upon them. I think they just go somewhere else, leaving the illusion that something has been solved, which presently enough generally turns out to be but an illusion.

I hate to say it. I really really really really hate to say it, but I think someone I might truly like in person is @James Thomas Rook Jr.if you could only muzzle him, which seems unlikely at present. He is unpretentious, and that is a quality I am drawn to.

The Internet is not the congregation. You cannot make it behave as though it is. Brothers look like fools when they insist upon it. In a sense of strict organizational loyalty, none of us should be here, you no more (or less) than JWI. (or me)

I hope that the brothers enjoy what I write, but rarely are they my main intended audience. Nor, when I address villains, are they my intended audience. It is the unaligned & often misinformed people that I seek to address, and the relative success or futility of this will probably never be known.) To that end, I sometimes distance myself from certain loyal ones who declare their loyalty (often with heat) but otherwise bring little to the table. (and I don’t think of you as one of them- you bring plenty to the table) In real life, I would hang out with them. But the Internet is not real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So listening to you all patting each other on the back I conclude that all of you are saying that everyone that says they are a Victim of child abuse in the JW Org is actually a LIAR. They all made it up, every one of them Earthwide. 

So in your eyes, the GB never refused to hand over evidence to the courts. The Elders have never been told to destroy evidence because 'Satan is coming after us'. The Two Witness rule has never been misused . Victims have never been called liars. Children have never been forced to face the accused Child Abuser.  Nobody has been disfellowshipped for continuing to complain about abuse they suffered not being dealt with properly.  Everybody in a congregation is made aware that there is a Pedophile with in it.  

And the biggest one of all, you think Victims are only in it for the Money.  

And most of you use the GB tactics of saying I'm mentally disturbed. 

Um, it's proving to me more and more that the JW org brain deadens people. 

But you don't care because to you lot it's just collateral damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And the biggest one of all, you think Victims are only in it for the Money.  

 

No. 

Having said that, I live in New York State, and the governor has just signed into law a bill greatly lengthening the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse.

By far, the greatest sponsor of programming I watch is now a legal firm seeking clients. They have even eclipsed other legal firms of accident litigation running non-stop ads of how: “[so and so law firm] got me $3 million dollars, 15 times what the insurance company offered!”

The typical person congratulates the client on their extraordinary bonanza. Then they open their insurance premium bill.

The world is a lawyers playground, with massive transfers of money flowing in all directions, with barristers netting a third, they being the only consistent beneficiaries.

 It is similar to some statesman I disremember saying that democracy cannot endure because eventually the common people discover that they have power over the public purse, after which they spend themselves into oblivion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TrueTomHarley I don't agree with massive payouts but i do agree with a payout of a reasonable amount, and an apology would be nice too :) . However I suppose everyone's idea of reasonable is different. 

I would be lying if i said I wouldn't accept payout for what I suffered, but those responsible are probably dead and gone and will get a resurrection like anyone else. Money can't bring lasting happiness but it could take away the pain for a while.  

And i also think that it should be made easier for anyone wanting to return to the 'fold'. Not that i want to but some might. I cannot see any basis for having to attend a KH for weeks whilst no one is allowed to talk to you, and everyone looks down on you, until the Elders give the signal that it's ok. Where is the love there ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Um, it's proving to me more and more that the JW org brain deadens people. 

But you don't care because to you lot it's just collateral damage. 

No one calls for justice;
    no one pleads a case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments, they utter lies;
    they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.

Their feet rush into sin;
    they are swift to shed innocent blood.
They pursue evil schemes;
    acts of violence mark their ways.
The way of peace they do not know;
    there is no justice in their paths.
They have turned them into crooked roads;
    no one who walks along them will know peace.

So justice is far from us,
    and righteousness does not reach us.
We look for light, but all is darkness;
    for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows.
10 Like the blind we grope along the wall,
    feeling our way like people without eyes.
At midday we stumble as if it were twilight;
    among the strong, we are like the dead.
11 We all growl like bears;
    we moan mournfully like doves.
We look for justice, but find none;
    for deliverance, but it is far away.

12 For our offenses are many in your sight,
    and our sins testify against us.
Our offenses are ever with us,
    and we acknowledge our iniquities:
13 rebellion and treachery against the Lord,
    turning our backs on our God,
inciting revolt and oppression,
    uttering lies our hearts have conceived.
14 So justice is driven back,
    and righteousness stands at a distance;
truth has stumbled in the streets,
    honesty cannot enter.
15 Truth is nowhere to be found,
    and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey.  Isa 59:4,7-15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I would be lying if i said I wouldn't accept payout for what I suffered

I would be lying if I said I wouldn’t accept payout for merely being TrueTom.

When the rules of the game change, you can hardly blame the small players for adjusting to accommodate them. There was a time, I think you will remember it, too, when nothing was so crass as for lawyers to advertise. It was against their universal code of conduct, possibly even against the law. It explains the phrase “ambulance chaser” - you actually had to chase an ambulance to sign up a client before another lawyer did. You couldn’t just broadcast to the whole wide world that you were scouring the earth for clients.

Someone dear to me was sued several times with regard to rental property, in another matter that had a very long statute of limitations. When what proved to be the final lawsuit came in, the person sought to make defense through his own lawyer. That lawyer contacted several times but could not get a response from the firm bringing suit. Finally that firm admitted that they were having a hard time locating their client. In other words, they were leaving no stone unturned in desperately seeking business and had finally found “aggrieved” ones who’s cases were so tenuous that they couldn’t even be bothered to show up.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

i cannot see any basis for having to attend a KH for weeks whilst no one is allowed to talk to you, and everyone looks down on you, until the Elders give the signal that it's ok. Where is the love there ?  

This may be your interpretation. I have seen many disfellowshipped ones go through the process and return. Nobody looks down upon them. It causes pure joy to the congregation that normal association may soon resume.

Think of it as a game, if you like, admittedly silly in some respects, but forced upon humans because they cannot read hearts. It is like a teen I knew very well who was disfellowshipped. He lived in the family home throughout. When on one super-cold morning he parked in the KH lot and strode toward the building without a coat, I broke all protocol and said “I know that there’s no contact and all, but did they even have to take your coat?”

He liked that one, and in not too long a time he was reinstated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019 at 3:33 AM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Back then, secular authority was dismissive of many things that they take into account now. This person remained an Elder until 2006 when the girls were able to speak with the local judicial committee where this person resided. They came to the conclusion the girls were credible enough to remove this person as Elder and never hold a position of congregational responsibility ever, within the organization.

So sorry for the abuse and extended trauma of your relatives.

Quite true that secular authority was much more dismissive in the past. Some secular authorities are still dismissive today. Even US Attorney Acosta broke the law by hiding the plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein (wealthy hedge fund manager) after at least 30 underage female victims came forward. There are indications that the actual number of victims may have been in the hundreds along with rumors that he escaped prosecution for years by flying recruited underage girls to a private island Epstein owns.

Acosta claims that his actions, although obviously illegal, were signed off by 'all levels of government.' That's an odd or even loaded expression when there are pictures of Trump and Clinton with Epstein. I don't think either of them ever denied flying to his personal island with him. Trump even made Acosta his Labor Secretary after the Epstein cover-up. Of course, this doesn't mean criminal behavior by Trump or Clinton. It could just be a coincidence.

But this is just a high-level case. I've heard of high school students molesting younger students and schools trying to hide the case from police, even recently. When it's a teacher, or coach, there is often a network of their peers and administrators who will cover for them. I know of a local case where police declined to arrest/investigate a coach when the crimes seemed obvious. Hopefully this is changing for the better everywhere.

I'd have to agree that sometimes in the past, this dismissive attitude by secular authorities has limited how far a congregation felt they could reasonably investigate a case, too.

19 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

That is far from the truth. Even Bro. Knorr got to weigh in on a case about child abuse. A case, your good friend and confidante should be well aware of. Why has he kept silent? What is his motive?

Just in case this supposed "good friend and confidante" was me, I'll weigh in. The truth is I had no idea what you were talking about with Knorr weighing in on a case about child abuse. It seemed quite possible, so I don't doubt that he may have involved himself in one one or more such cases.

But I googled some of the content you included about that case and only found it on watchtowerdocuments.org which is a site run by ex-JW Barbara Anderson. I looked at the particular case and see that you are mistaken about it.

This is not a case about child abuse. It's a case where the Astoria, Queens, NY congregation had a Bethelite (Brooklyn) assigned to it who had broken off an engagement with a sister there, and admitted to loose (brazen) conduct during the engagement. He had evidently done something similar (broken 'promises' to a sister along with loose conduct) back in his 'home' congregation before being invited to Bethel. He was dismissed from Bethel as of September 19th 1970 (and replaced as Book Study servant by a 19 year old brand new Bethelite in the next couple of months). The Astoria, NY congregation had announced his "probation" and quoted the direction they got from Knorr to the South Carolina congregation where the brother had just moved, letting them know about the case and that it would be OK to announce that he had been dismissed from the Bethel family (per Knorr's letter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I cannot see any basis for having to attend a KH for weeks whilst no one is allowed to talk to you, and everyone looks down on you, until the Elders give the signal that it's ok. Where is the love there ?  

I know it’s my second shot at this and that you did not argue with the first one. 

But I wonder where you got this from. It’s quite the opposite. Not only are they not looked down upon, but they are greatly respected because congregation members know what is involved.

There are two possibilities. 1.) You read it somewhere, or 2.) You think it yourself.

If you read it somewhere, then I would submit that it is deliberately planted by those who dislike Jehovah’s Witnesses in order to dissuade anyone who has left from returning.

If you think it yourself, then I would suggest that your perception is off. I do not blame you for it. I also would not categorically state that there are not yo-yos here and there that might give cause for that perception, but it is not the reality. It only hurts you to think it.

 It is not true, but my point to you is that even if it were, it is only true in your case if you accede to it. Don’t, if at all possible.

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The only one still standing [of clergy-penitent, doctor-patient, and lawyer-client privilege] is their own. [the lawyer’s]

I’ve given thought to this. Strip them of it. Why should they be allowed to enable child sexual abuse?

Make them report to police anything they learn from a client as soon as they learn it.

If the profession actually cares about children, it will promptly accede to this.

Of course, they would scream to high heaven that they have noble reasons not to do this. I would agree with them. It makes their job (that of defense attorneys) all but impossible. 

The point is that there are noble reasons for the other two relationships to exist, as well. Exercising them does not automatically make you a lover of child abuse. 

And I keep coming back to that November 20th, 2011 Democratic and Chronicle article (which unfortunately is now behind a paywall - if anyone has access, I would appreciate if a pertinent line or two was fair-use quoted) that two thirds of all professionals who ARE mandated by law to report child sexual abuse fail to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom I'm an EX JW. I don't need to read it anywhere. I saw it regularly at Honiton, East Devon, England, Kingdom Hall.  

As I've said I'm not interested in returning to the place. I thought I had friends, but they were just 'brothers and sisters', not friends. I would never trust any of them again. And I never trusted the Elderes anyway. I don't trust any policemen in the Org or out of it. 

There is no point in me telling you stuff as it just gets me accused of being a liar, or off making it up. (It gives the Kid something to whine about too)  But, the reason being that you and others have your minds set on the Org being full of good people. Truth is, the Org is not full of good people Tom. It seems full of people that just want to serve the GB through the Elders. So if the Elders are bad then the congregation are bad. 

I've seen a congregation in Bristol England that was run by two Elders. A father and his son. All the other Elders just did as they were told. 

Anyway Tom you are giving it your second shot. So give me three scriptures that directly say that no one should talk to a ex-JW when they walk into a Kingdom Hall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

. I thought I had friends, but they were just 'brothers and sisters', not friends. I would never trust any of them again. And I never trusted the Elderes anyway. I don't trust any policemen in the Org or out of it. 

Yes, but it means nothing. You have frankly said that you don’t trust anybody in any capacity, anywhere, at all. Everyone has some whom they they trust. You have admitted to having no one. It long pre-dates any association with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It’s very sad and you are taking no actions to fix that situation here.

Moreover, you do not perceive that such a tragedy may just have resulted in warped judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yes, but it means nothing. You have frankly said that you don’t trust anybody in any capacity, anywhere, at all. Everyone has some whom they they trust. You have admitted to having no one. It long pre-dates any association with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It’s very sad and you are taking no actions to fix that situation here.

Moreover, you do not perceive that such a tragedy may just have resulted in warped judgement.

Actually Tom i do agree with you about warped judgement.

Because all humans are mentally unbalanced. Because we are all imperfect. Any one that thinks he/she is mentally all good, is only deceiving themselves. It's one reason we cannot judge ourselves correctly. Because we only see what we want to see or judge by what we ourselves know. I've long since given up on trying to figure myself out. 

However i haven't given up on trying to warn other people about things that i have personal experience with. I might not trust anyone but it does not mean i hate everyone. It just means that i have no warm feelings toward anyone. I could never love anyone. There is a neutral point, a non feeling. Some of us have to have that to survive Tom. 

So my happiness comes from small things, like seeing birds in the garden, driving one of my cars, walking on the beach in the sunshine, exercising, the list is endless. I don't need people to make me happy. I do wonder however, 1. If  i will get a resurrection, and 2. how i will cope with people in the New World'.  If 1. doesn't happen then 2. won't be a problem. And the KId tells me I'm beyond hope. 

But, just a question Tom. How many people do you think have been sexually abused within the JW Org Earthwide in the last 50 years? 

Because most of them will now have a 'warped judgement' about life. 

And they will have been sexually abused by a JW that had a warped judgement about their right to abuse another human. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2019 at 2:09 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

And I keep coming back to that November 20th, 2011 Democratic and Chronicle article (which unfortunately is now behind a paywall - if anyone has access, I would appreciate if a pertinent line or two was fair-use quoted) that two thirds of all professionals who ARE mandated by law to report child sexual abuse fail to do it.

A research package I have through a university alumni account only provides the basic subscription to NEWSPAPERS.COM but does not include the "Publisher Extra Newspapers" unless I travel a couple hundred miles and access it from on the premises. But it does tell me that it's here:

    Hello guest!
and that this is page 19 of the 11/20/2011 Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, NY).

I can't get all the text from it without paying, but I can tell you that you will also find the identical quote you are looking for below, where anyone can access it for free. (It matches the quote as found in your book.)

    Hello guest!

Reporting abuse

It is a mistake to think that the failure of Penn State authorities to report abuse is a rarity, child abuse educators, prosecutors and investigators say.

Studies across the country over the past two decades have consistently shown that nearly two-thirds of professionals required to report all cases of suspected abuse fail to do so. That is because they are uncertain of whether abuse occurred, are fearful of making false accusations or are unsure of their obligation.

"Mandated reporting of abuse only works as well as the people it's reported to," said Dan Gleason, a retired Rochester Police Department investigator who is now a private investigator.

"People sometimes try to be judge and jury when the victim discloses. If they don't believe it, they don't report it."

Every state has a law that requires professionals to report all suspected cases of child abuse or maltreatment they encounter professionally.

Under New York's law, enacted in 1973, mandatory reporters include physicians, nurses, teachers and school officials, social workers, police officers, daycare and social service workers, and therapists.

Lawmakers in Albany have proposed closing what they see as a loophole in the state's mandated reporting statute that, unlike the law in Pennsylvania, excludes college coaches and administrators in the belief that colleges have little contact with children.

Meanwhile, watching what has been happening at Penn State and Syracuse leaves Scuteri angry and exasperated.

"Who's in charge, and who's doing what?" he said. "What's going on?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

You know, you could be right

Thanks.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe the theme here is also consistent, that the Watchtower has NEVER made any recommendations toward child abuse.

That's certainly not a theme I would agree with. It's inconsistent with the facts. One of the earliest mentions of child sexual abuse was in a 5/15/1970 Watchtower, and there was a previous mention in the 1960's, I forget just where it was now.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

On May 6, 1970, the congregation committee of the ___Unit, New York N.Y. , congregation, met to review the charges and the admittance of ____to indecent exposure of his sexual parts before____, the 15 year old daughter of his wife, ___. After hearing this matter in the presence of_____, the decision of the committee was as follows:

I had a feeling that this was case you intended. If you read it carefully, of course, you can see that this was not the case that Brother Knorr got involved with.

During his tenure as president, Brother Knorr became involved in every case where a Bethelite had to be dismissed. The rest of the Bethel family would often hear the reasons why at breakfast, no matter how distasteful. But it was a good reminder that the organization should be kept clean, and that it was good to stay alert to the fact that persons at all levels of responsibility within the organization could become involved in immoral, illegal, and even criminal behavior. This indecent exposure case, however, was not about a Bethelite and we read nothing about N.H.Knorr getting involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree that it is all very difficult to deal with, for the Org and for the victims. Do i know any answers, no I don't. 

It's just such a shame that the JW Org is in such a mess. 

And like you say Billy it seems the lawyers are just using the victims as a way of earning more cash for themselves. 

Yes the sun is shining here, I'm in a better frame of mind. :) Have a good day all. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The problem with everything legal, people don’t see the downside of the government’s action. It’s always the victim and the perpetrator.

It's very true that government (police, investigators, prosecutors, judges, child protection services, etc.) often fails to do their job correctly. 

15 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Then, vultures disguised as lawyer’s go after an institution without giving the failures of the government, and the responsibility they had to a certain situation any thought of their role and accountability.

True again. It's so typical of lawyers to go after an institution when it's not even the fault of an institution, just because that's where the money is. As you know, this goes for a lot of legal issues, even those unrelated to child sexual abuse. Of course, if it can be shown that an institution had hidden the abuse to protect their own assets (coach, priest, cardinal, bank account) or to protect their institution's reputation (a college, a football team, a diocese, a religion) then there should be culpability. In some few cases these vultures swoop in to exact a kind of punishment where the "system" failed, but there is no real justice for all, because this very much a 'hit and miss' process. 

There are cases against the Watchtower that really have absolutely nothing to do with the Watchtower, and should focus just on getting justice for the victim from the abuser. And there may be cases where congregation elders have made a mistake that has nothing to do with their training as elders and they should have known better. Some of these cases should have nothing to do with the Watchtower Society or the organization.

37 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Although Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare had investigated the claim in 1998, as in 2002 nothing of consequence was done about it.

True. Powerful and monied interests can be leveraged on behalf of both persons and institutions, and that can make even good police investigative work meaningless. Victims are typically poorer and abusers can use their own power and influence to buy attorneys that can bully those victims. Victims can be talked into exonerating the abuser, or settling cases with a sack of money and a gag order.  I have a feeling that the HBO documentary on Michael Jackson which may be aired next month will show how money can buy the kind of lawyers and threats that protect abusers. Acosta/Epstein is another case in point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

game.jpg

I was really steamed at how Joe Paterno took the primary hit on this for fulfilling his legal duty but failing “to go beyond the law.” The man’s lifelong reputation had been sterling. He was to become villain of the year, fired from his decades-long career where he had garnered nothing but praise , and he was dead in two years.

A similar scandal broke a short time later with regards to SU coach Jim Boeheim. He initially said a very perilous thing, but he quickly did an about face and managed to redeem himself.

I posted about both these events:

    Hello guest!

I even have a personal anecdote about Boeheim. I was once a part of a student news production team that rotated positions weekly. When it was my turn as ‘sportscaster’ I interviewed the coach in the stands with the team practicing below as a backdrop. I didn’t know the first thing about basketball, yet he patiently answered all my ‘questions.’ He may have even suggestd a few.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BillyTheKid46 Another problem is that the powers that be are covering their own even though they know who is the abuser. They will allow those at the bottom to seek out and go after a whole institution for the actions of a few, which we see today in schools and churches. Something of which I was adamant about is to teach people, to prevent abuse and or harm.

Abuse of this nature, by any means, cannot cease from the face of thee earth, only God can wipe that all away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2019 at 3:37 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

But, just a question Tom. How many people do you think have been sexually abused within the JW Org Earthwide in the last 50 years? 

I would think quite a few. That is not contested. Anthony Morris has stated that at one time, we were all a little naive over the magnitude of the problem. By “we,” he may mean society in general or Witness society in general. Either one fits.

On 2/24/2019 at 3:37 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Because most of them will now have a 'warped judgement' about life. 

You know, I want to be careful on this. I certainly don’t want to minimize it. But neither do I want to pronounce it the certain kiss of death to ever again being a complete person. 

Maybe it is like certain things that frequently result in cancer. Many succumb to the cancer. Yet many overcome it. And many don’t get it in the first place. 

I mean, there appears to be nothing more common than CSA. And it is not particularly new. Ancient Greece is embraced as a pillar of Western civilization. Nothing then was more common there than pedastery. It was an entrenched value of that society, a universal practice never condemned. Some considered it the highest form of love. So, bad as it may be, it cannot be THAT much the unrecoverable kiss of death.

To be sure, Richard Dawkins was speaking of non-penetrative abuse, but he has written in his book The God Delusion that he thinks the whole impact of CSA is vastly overstated. It happened to him and he got over it. Is he right? Who knows? At the very least, his remarks shed light on the prevalent thinking of a time not too long ago, that we now try to adjudicate based upon today’s standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be sure, Richard Dawkins was speaking of non-penetrative abuse, but he has written in his book The God Delusion that he thinks the whole impact of CSA is vastly overstated. It happened to him and he got over it.

Did he get over it though ? Does anyone get over it ? 

In my opinion, everything that happens in our lives shapes who we are. So even if we can 'handle a situation' it does not mean that the situation has not shaped our lives a little bit. 

Once again if a person writes a book to earn themselves money, why should I trust their opinion ? 

Ecclesiastes 12 v 12

 As for anything besides these, my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

“As for anything besides these, my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.”

This is true for every book, with the exception of my own, where each new word is a refreshing delight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This is true for every book, with the exception of my own, where each new word is a refreshing delight.

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ This time next year you'll be a millionaire :)  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019 at 11:35 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Why did the ARC fail to submit these findings into their legal brief? Why do ex-JW’s refuse to see what’s before them? Why do witnesses continue to insinuate, when they don’t have the full facts?

I do not know if the ARC did or didn't submit these findings to their legal brief. What I do know is that those letters had a very limited audience. Regular publishers had no idea about these letters, they had no idea how elders were supposed to handle these situations. They were completely in the dark. As a consequence, regular publishers were at the "mercy" of the Elders. The ARC changed that. Now everyone knows the procedure and can be on the same page. It's a pity this transparency didn't happen sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Lies and cover-ups ALWAYS lead to MORE lies and MORE coverups ... and there are no exceptions.

We should be proud of EVERYTHING we do, and where we screw up ... fess up, take a beating, and keep on keeping on.

That's how it works with men of integrity, which in the GB, seems to be in short supply....

...if it involves money.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2019 at 9:51 AM, JW Insider said:

There are cases against the Watchtower that really have absolutely nothing to do with the Watchtower, and should focus just on getting justice for the victim from the abuser. And there may be cases where congregation elders have made a mistake that has nothing to do with their training as elders and they should have known better. Some of these cases should have nothing to do with the Watchtower Society or the organization.

Yes, I agree,  that's how it should be, but as you mentioned, Lawyers want to go where the money is, and abusers probably don't have the kind of money they want. JW child abuse cases are attractive to them because of jw.org. Also, I didn't realise but many lawyers go hunting for cases. For instance someone I know is being sued by a credit card company and as soon as the lawsuit was filed with the court she has been receiving numerous letters from different lawyers who want to represent her. Apparently they go down to the courthouse to find cases. Similarly, child abuse lawyers go hunting for survivors so they can represent them in court. This was one reason I believe Zalkin wanted the names of all the alleged abusers held by the org. so he could sift through them and find anything that he could use for himself. And once they find a "suitable" survivor, they no doubt persuade her/him to the effect that they shouldn't feel bad about suing, since they will be suing the organization, and the organization has plenty of money. Then they (the lawyers) go about finding ways to incriminate the org. It's all about making money, but often the survivor comes off worse, especially when there is a settlement. I believe the lawyers take the biggest lump, and since with a settlement there is also a gag order, the survivor can't even complain about how little they got. It's all a big scam and all about lining the lawyers pockets. There is no justice really. The only justice will be with Jehovah. So when someone says "wait on Jehovah" when it is apparent that nothing that can be done for the moment, then that makes perfect sense. Of course it goes without saying that that should never be used as an excuse not to do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The site crashed when I had a rant going , and it was lost.

Probably a good idea .... it was a doozie!

Synopsis:

We have NO RIGHTEOUS RIGHT to ask anyone to keep the quest for Justice secret.

It subverts Justice, and dishoners Jehovah God.

I have no sympathy for plaintiffs who agree to,  or defendants who pay for secrecy in the quest for Justice.

.... only contempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anna  I'm laughing Anna. You really do seem to sit on both sides of the fence, or maybe you are the sensible one looking at things from both sides. 

However your last comment is very judgemental of lawyers with no proof to back up what you say. 

Yes I suppose it is good money making for them, but then the Victims need a good lawyer if they are going to achieve anything. I would think the JW Org has good lawyers, so good they are prepared to tell lies in court it seems. Or at least bend the truth to suit themselves. As for the victims getting less than the lawyer, very doubtful as surely the lawyer can only take a smaller percentage. Any sensible person would want in writing exactly how much they would receive before settling out of court.... The Victims are not stupid people, they are just people that made the mistake of trusting some JW's at the time.

As for, 'abusers don't have that kind of money'. In my opinion abusers should be 'wiped out' financially. Obviously it would have to be proved without any doubt that they were guilty, but then take all they have and leave them penniless. A totally non Christian viewpoint i know but ................  I don't think Jesus meant forgiving Pedophiles 77 times. 

JTR Jr who would take part is a duel between the pedophile and the victim. The Victim has already suffered enough.  Why not just hang the pedophile :) . Joking of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

JTR Jr who would take part is a duel between the pedophile and the victim. The Victim has already suffered enough.  Why not just hang the pedophile :) . Joking of course. 

You missed what I was trying to say completely, John, so it was a good thing you were joking.

Comedy is sometimes best left to professionals .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As for the victims getting less than the lawyer, very doubtful as surely the lawyer can only take a smaller percentage. Any sensible person would want in writing exactly how much they would receive before settling out of court.

I believe it works that the lawyers charge a certain percentage, no less than a third. However, costs of the trial come out of the client’s share, not the lawyer.

Legal costs can be astronomical. “Expert witnesses” of various sorts do not testify for free, nor do any sort of private investigators, nor fact-finders, but often make a very lucrative living out of so testifying. 

Everyone has their hand out, and I have heard of cases (anecdotal evidence only, and unrelated to CSA) in which the client’s net share is very small indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that the W/t has said anyone can report anything they want to any authority and not be in trouble for it, yet now it seems Billy is saying 'mind your own business'. Contradiction me thinks. 

If every one just turned the other way and minded their own business then no murderers would be caught, no Peodphiles would be caught, no criminals would be caught at all.

And i personally think that everyone should watch and question the leaders of their faith.  It's a bit like the Police that keep an eye on people, but who is keeping an eye on the Police ? So it is with the GB right down to the Elders. They keep an eye on the congregations, but who keeps an eye on them ? 

Sorry Billy not with you on this one. And if the Watchtower 'had been on top of certain situations' then certain situations would not be costing the JW org / Watchtower so dearly now. Not just in money but in reputation.  

Most of you would have seen the latest news about the Catholic man of 'high standing' and his past deeds. Yet do you ever consider that a member of the GB may have a similar past ?  So easy to condemn people of a different religion, but it must hurt to even consider it of your own religion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

It's the business of the victim and those they wish to include. The Watchtower has not stood in the way of people taking their allegation to secular authority. However, what business do you think you have with an individuals decision to talk to, secular authority.

According to court transcripts, and testimony from Witness victims and their families, this is patently UNTRUE, 

Evidence from Australia, to California, to Deleware, to England supports this.

I am not calling you a liar, BillyTheKid46. because I know you believe this to be true.

People have been disfellowshipped, and THREATENED with disfellowshipping for taking such things to secular authorities, for the past 50 years or so that records have been kept.

I don't believe ANYONE at "face value", but I have seen a lifetime of agenda driven attitude that DOES contribute a vast warm  petri dish environment for this.

...and the cover dish is open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

1 Peter 4:15

15-Indeed, none of you should suffer as a murderer or thief or wrongdoer, or even as a meddler.

One easy way to look at it, do you meddle in the affairs of state in a daily bases? Does the Watchtower meddle in your personal affairs in a daily bases?

This is the culpability of witnesses forcing the organization to make changes. Is that a good thing when it’s written in scripture?

One of the great philosophical treatises on "meddling", "minding another person's business", and being a "busybody" is in the John Wayne movie "BIG JAKE", when he wanders onto a group of cattlemen, about to lynch a sheep farmer ... for being a herder of sheep ( who eat grass down to ground level, whereas cattle do not ....), and he tells the cattlemen that it is none of his business if they want to hang the sheep farmer. 

The whole movie, as many of John Wayne's movies were, and are, is a cultural morality tale ... worth watching and learning from.

Best Character Introduction in Cinema History - John Wayne - Big Jake.mp4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to court transcripts, and testimony from Witness victims and their families, this is patently UNTRUE, 

This was my feeling too @James Thomas Rook Jr. . 

So which is it. Did the GB / Wt / JW org tell the Elders to tell congregants not to report ?

Or, Did the Elders, of their own initiative, tell congregants not to report ? 

Or, is every victim and victim supporter telling complete lies ? 

If it is proven that this 'order' did not come down 'from the top', then should individual Elders be sued by victims ? 

And in my opinion, if someone has complete knowledge about a CSA incident, though not being the victim, they should still report it to secular authorities.  However I'm talking about knowing all the details and having first hand information. 

Quote "However, what business do you think you have with an individual's decision to talk to secular authority"

What that individual does is their choice. But protecting children should be everyone's responsibility. A Christian attitude i would have thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Direct me to that video, or post it here. I can understand when people misinterpret something. If it's from the ARC, don't bother.

    Hello guest!

 

I'll look for the video, it's been posted on this forum before.

 

    Hello guest!

This is the best  i can find at the moment

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Or, Did the Elders, of their own initiative, tell congregants not to report ? 

That is what happened. But NOT every elder was of that opinion. Those who were, based their reasoning on WT 73/11/15 and related topics to do with 1 Cor 6: 1-7. The brothers applied it too broadly and applied it to where it shouldn't have been applied! I have underlined the quotes that the elders applied, and then I highlighted in red the misapplication. 

Questions From Readers    WT 73/11/15
Do Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a Christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?—U.S.A.
The apostle Paul’s inspired admonition is: “Does anyone of you that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones? Or do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you unfit to try very trivial matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? Why, then, not matters of this life? If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down upon in the congregation that you put in as judges? I am speaking to move you to shame. Is it true that there is not one wise man among you that will be able to judge between his brothers, but brother goes to court with brother, and that before unbelievers? Really, then, it means altogether a defeat for you that you are having lawsuits with one another. Why do you not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?”—1 Cor. 6:1-7.


Here Paul was showing the Corinthian Christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between Christians before secular tribunals. The judges would be men who were not governed by the lofty principles of God’s law and whose consciences were not trained through a study of his Word. As many of the judges at that time were corrupt and accepted bribes, Christians had little reason to believe that their judgment would be just. Paul referred to them as “unrighteous men.” Were Christians to take their disputes before such men, they would be ‘putting in as judges’ men whom the congregation looked down upon as lacking integrity.
Then, too, in taking matters before unbelievers for judgment, they would, in effect, be saying that no one in the congregation had the wisdom to judge “matters of this life” among Christians. This was wholly inconsistent with the fact that spirit-anointed Christians as heavenly associate rulers of the Lord Jesus Christ would be judging, not only men, but also angels. And by dragging fellow believers before pagan judges, they would bring great reproach upon God’s name. As outsiders would be led to believe that Christians were no different from other people in being unable to settle differences, the interests of true worship would be injured. It would have been far better for individual Christians to take personal loss rather than to injure the entire congregation by bringing their disputes to public notice.
In view of the foregoing, would dedicated Christians today go before secular courts if that were to injure the advancement of true worship or misrepresent it in the eyes of outsiders? No. Of course, as all other people, true Christians are still imperfect humans. They make mistakes, and problems arise in connection with business matters and the like. But differences of this nature ought to be settled within the congregation, for God’s Word provides the needed guidelines and there are men in the congregation who are well grounded in the Bible.
However, if a Christian refuses to correct a serious wrong when it is made clear to him by elders serving in judicial capacity in the congregation, such a one would be expelled. This is in line with Jesus’ words: “If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” (Matt. 18:17) Thus, for example, one who defrauded his Christian brother or who failed to provide materially for his wife and children would find himself outside the congregation if he did not repent.—1 Tim. 5:8.
The injured party could thereafter decide whether legal action should be taken in an attempt to force the guilty one, now disfellowshiped, to rectify matters. Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worth the time and expense as well as whether the congregation could still come into disrepute by bringing to public attention the actions of one of its former members. If the wronged Christian conscientiously felt that God’s name would not be reproached and legal action was definitely needed, he would not necessarily be acting contrary to the spirit of Paul’s counsel if he were to take to court one who was no longer a part of the Christian congregation. Jehovah God has permitted secular authority to serve as his instrument in bringing lawbreakers to justice, and in this case the one wronged would be availing himself of legal help after exhausting the intracongregational means to have the wrong corrected.—Rom. 13:3, 4.
There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers. This might be to obtain compensation from an insurance company. In some countries the law may specify that certain matters have to be handled in a court, such as wills that may have to be probated by courts. But this does not create adverse publicity or bring reproach upon the congregation. In handling such legal matters that would not affect the congregation adversely, Christians can be governed by what they consider to be best under the circumstances.
However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God’s Word on this matter, such one would not be “free from accusation” as a Christian. He would not be one who has “a fine testimony from people on the outside” of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

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

So, the bottom line is; some elders thought that the act of  letting authorities know that one of Jehovah's Witnesses is a child molester would bring reproach on the Congregation and Jehovah, and show that Jehovah's Witnesses were no different to anyone else. It's obvious that this was the case, otherwise the latest WT wouldn't need to clarify this by saying: "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. So obviously the Christian who reported was made to feel that way by some misguided elders. And some elders went as far as  threatening disfellowshipping of the reporter for slander (if there was inconclusive proof about the perpetrator i.e. other witnesses). The other problem was that dispute never meant child abuse, because child abuse always was and is a crime. So this is why the latest WT also makes this point: "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." and also: " The absence of a second witness does not mean that the one making the accusation is untruthful. Even if a charge of wrongdoing cannot be established by two witnesses, the elders recognize that a serious sin may have been committed, one that deeply hurt others.

So yes, some elders completely got the wrong end of the stick. This was evident when one of the elders testifying at the ARC embarrassingly said if he heard a report that someone in the congregation committed a murder, he would not report it to the police!

Q.  If a different crime, to take the most extreme, murder.  If you were told that a member of the congregation had killed someone else, would you report that to the police?

A.  We would encourage the person to do that.

Q.  Would you do it yourself?

A.   No.  I would try very hard not to - not that I would try very hard not to, but I would encourage the person continually to do that.  That's a decision they need to make.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anna So it looks to me as if you are showing evidence here from a 1973 Watchtower that the GB or the Writing department said :

And by dragging fellow believers before pagan judges, they would bring great reproach upon God’s name

whether the congregation could still come into disrepute 

However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God’s Word on this matter, such one would not be “free from accusation” as a Christian. He would not be one who has “a fine testimony from people on the outside” of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

Complete with threats too. would not be “free from accusation” 

this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

And this was in a Watchtower.  I think that is proof enough thank you. 

So how can anybody say that this direction did not come from the 'top', the GB is supposed to proof read this stuff yes ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

If you can’t find the video. Secretly instant message James. He likes to post manipulated content from apostate sites.

 

 

I did post a video that was in an article.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

    Hello guest!

 

 

Thanks for posting that. It doesn't prove anything you said, in fact it indicates this may be "all apostate lies"

"While the BBC’s report is correct that all Kingdom Halls were given direction about the destruction of certain internal documents, there is some debate and many unanswered questions as to whether this was a “change of policy” specifically intended by the Watchtower Society to prevent the Commission’s access.

Watchtower branch officers in the UK claim that this was not the case – and there is some evidence to support their claim. On the other hand, the Watchtower’s critics claim that the instructions regarding document destruction were specifically designed to complicate and frustrate the Commission’s investigation.

Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders did prepare a formal response to the BBC Radio 4 Broadcast (as read near the end of the program) that stated:

“We are pleased to confirm that our direction to all congregations in England and Wales is compliant with the terms of the Goddard inquiry…”

One would think that if this statement can be trusted, then Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders in the UK must have checked with the proper authorities before making such a claim. If  Jehovah’s Witnesses elders and officers were compliant with the terms of the Goddard inquiry, and innocent of the charges made on the BBC broadcast – namely that they ordered congregations to destroy IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS – then the credibility of the accusers will certainly come under further scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

@Anna So it looks to me as if you are showing evidence here from a 1973 Watchtower that the GB or the Writing department said :

And by dragging fellow believers before pagan judges, they would bring great reproach upon God’s name

whether the congregation could still come into disrepute 

However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God’s Word on this matter, such one would not be “free from accusation” as a Christian. He would not be one who has “a fine testimony from people on the outside” of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

Complete with threats too. would not be “free from accusation” 

this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

And this was in a Watchtower.  I think that is proof enough thank you. 

So how can anybody say that this direction did not come from the 'top', the GB is supposed to proof read this stuff yes ? 

Well you obviously didn't get it either! Because ALL of this was talking about disputes, such as business disputes, not crime. Crime is not a dispute; Theft is not a dispute. Rape is not a dispute. Child molestation is not a dispute. Murder is not a dispute. These are ALL crimes. The subject of the WT was not crime.

So John, if you had been an elder you would have applied it wrongly too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Anna said:

 

Thanks for posting that. It doesn't prove anything you said, in fact it indicates this may be "all apostate lies"

While the BBC’s report is correct that all Kingdom Halls were given direction about the destruction of certain internal documents, ..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:
47 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I'll look for the video, it's been posted on this forum before.

If you can’t find the video. Secretly instant message James. He likes to post manipulated content from apostate sites.

Billy46:

This Video is available on YOUTUBE.

No one needs to go to "apostate sites" ... it is all in the public domain.

By the way ... the Original Video being analyzed for content was NEVER made available to us who paid for it,  through official channels ... but it was leaked by someone who thought we should KNOW.

....after all.... WE paid for its creation and production !

It came from JW.ORG

(Sans analysis....)

JW.ORG Satan's Coming After Us! Destroy Those Records!.mp4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Thanks for posting that. It doesn't prove anything you said, in fact it indicates this may be "all apostate lies"

While the BBC’s report is correct that all Kingdom Halls were given direction about the destruction of certain internal documents, ..

 

The key word is CERTAIN documents. The accusation is that these are documents needed by the commission. What if they are not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Anna said:

Well you obviously didn't get it either! Because ALL of this was talking about disputes, such as business disputes, not crime. Crime is not a dispute; Theft is not a dispute. Rape is not a dispute. Child molestation is not a dispute. Murder is not a dispute.

So John, if you had been an elder you would have applied it wrongly too!

I don't think it gives specifics. And it talks about pagan judges, when God has put them judges in their place to do God's work as scripture tells us. So the GB / Writing dept' are actually going against God's rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anna said:

The key word is CERTAIN documents. The accusation is that these are documents needed by the commission. What if they are not?

What if a police officer is arresting you for being a drunk driver, and you only have a bad case of the flu?

Refuse to be taken to jail?

Same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And it talks about pagan judges, when God has put them judges in their place to do God's work as scripture tells us.

It's talking about pagan judges, judging on matters (disputes) that should be figured out by the congregation who use the Bible which is superior (God is judge) as their guide. They're not talking about "pagan" judges, judging a criminal case. Don't keep mixing the two up. Does it need to give specifics? It clearly says disputes. Of course unless like some elders you believe child molestation is a dispute....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I don't know for sure if it was a Watchtower production. If it was, it is a poor production piece when many things are omitted for the worst. I don't believe the Watchtower would pay for something like that. I'd rather trust the writing. But, as usual, people tend to use internet content, that may or may not be the whole original piece.

Gimme a break!

If you are not already a Watchtower Lawyer ... you should apply. 

With your talent they would probably pay for your legal education, as they did for a son of a GB member, if memory serves.

Watch the whole video I posted from Youtube ... THEN... you are entitled to a sane opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Billy46:

This Video is available on YOUTUBE.

No one needs to go to "apostate sites" ... it is all in the public domain.

By the way ... the Original Video being analyzed for content was NEVER made available to us who paid for it,  through official channels ... but it was leaked by someone who thought we should KNOW.

....after all.... WE paid for its creation and production !

It came from JW.ORG

(Sans analysis....)

 

The problem with the video is that the commentator (by that I mean the critic) is obviously slanting it towards child abuse. I am not saying it may not apply, but it is a general video about all areas of function. America is the land of lawsuits, and it forces one to protect oneself down to ridiculous minuscule specifics. What if this.....what if that..... Sometimes it's things that a normal person wouldn't even think of (well not a European person for sure). It was only recently that I found out that the reason many landowners put no trespassing signs up is not necessarily because they want privacy, but because they are worried about lawsuits. What if someone walking through their land twists their ankle on a twig? Yup, that person can sue. And the more money a defendant has, the better. So it makes logical sense to destroy drafts and notes which may be used as evidence against you. I would not want someone reading my drafts, they may get a completely wrong picture of what I am trying to say.

The important thing is that approved content is not destroyed. Those kind of records have to be kept. So the accusation that records have been destroyed needs to be specific. Were these drafts of records or content approved records? This is the question that the BBC report is asking. So far apparently the evidence is that content approved records have not been destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

So, blame the UK government for the Watchtower complying with secular law. 😉 The legal department caters letters that pertain to individual governments and their laws. It's not one size fits all.  🙂

That is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If you are not already a Watchtower Lawyer ... you should apply.

I wrote about this video:

At a supposedly confidential 2017 meeting of elders, leaked for Internet perusal by a self-styled freedom fighter—a meeting dealing with the ramifications of child sexual abuse litigation, a Witness representative stated: “Well, we know that the scene of this world is changing, and we know Satan’s coming after us, and he’s going to go for us legally. We can see by the way things are shaping up.” It is not hard to imagine what certain ones are doing with the explanation that “Satan’s coming after us.”

How could he say it? With religion in general, it is the misconduct of leaders that has come home to haunt them. With Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is misconduct of members whose cases allegedly were mishandled. God help us if the members of other faiths are put under the magnifying glass, as with Jehovah’s Witnesses. On the other side of the world, Jehovah’s Witness are banned in Russia for reasons having nothing to do with child sexual abuse—the topic was entirely absent, as government and media partnered to whip the public into a froth, hurling many virulent accusations against the faith—but never that one.

There, it is “professing the superiority of one’s religion.” There it is being Western spies disguised as a religion. There it is blood transfusions, and should a Witness refuse one and thereafter die, the death is invariably attributed to the refusal, with leaders of the faith likened to murderers. Surely, somewhere along the line it should be acknowledged that Jehovah’s Witnesses have absolutely no deaths at all attributed to illicit drug abuse, overdrinking, and tobacco use, save only for when someone is slipping into old habits. All things considered, they are, far and away, the ‘safest’ religion out there. Yet they are said to be the murderers.

Keep in mind that we are speaking of the faith whose members are universally recognized as ‘pacifist,’ who will on no account resort to violence or support war efforts. It is highly unusual for a large group of people to have absolutely no blood on their hands in this regard, but they do not. Is it so crazy for the Witness spokesman to say: “Satan is coming after us?” Given the foregoing, it would be crazy for him not to. One thing that we know about opposers: they will always overplay their hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

To defend the TRUTH, you do not even need any lawyers at all. NONE To defend property and treasure, and your position ... you need a LOT!

dt890603dhc0.gif

Still, I’ll put off the verse for as long as I can.

they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, while they were in need, in tribulation, mistreated;  and the world was not worthy of them. They wandered about in deserts and mountains and caves and dens of the earth.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Violence is in the mind of the beholder ..... If I should shoot someone to death for trying to kill me or mine, I have STOPPED violence.

First theirs.

Then my own.

If I had a dollar for every comment that has invoked a 1984 scenario with regard to Jehovah’s Witnesses, I could retire wealthy. Can you think of anyone who has made those comparisons?

As it turns out, the only ones actually fulfilling 1984 are Witness enemies in Russia.

If memory serves, wasn’t Mr. O’Brien, on the surface, a pleasant and refined man, posing as Winston’s friend, before revealing his true character?

Does that remind you of any current Witness opposers here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If memory serves, wasn’t Mr. O’Brien, on the surface, a pleasant and refined man, posing as Winston’s friend, before revealing his true character?

Does that remind you of any current Witness opposers here? 

I would not be a good judge of that, even if I wanted to, as I am neither pleasant, nor refined, by choice.

My only claim is to be a Barbarian, interested in Truth and Justice, and fairness.

And I have no love whatsoever for "Big Brother", wherever, and in whatever form,  he may be found.

....   since we are extrapolating with fictional characters, may I remind you of Ferengi Rule of Acquisition No. 48 ... "The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:
22 hours ago, Anna said:

Well you obviously didn't get it either! Because ALL of this was talking about disputes, such as business disputes, not crime. Crime is not a dispute; Theft is not a dispute. Rape is not a dispute. Child molestation is not a dispute. Murder is not a dispute.

So John, if you had been an elder you would have applied it wrongly too!

I don't think it gives specifics. And it talks about pagan judges, when God has put them judges in their place to do God's work as scripture tells us. So the GB / Writing dept' are actually going against God's rules. 

John, further to our discussion, here is a 2002 letter to the BOE in the UK. Although it upholds the two witness rule, which still stands today, notice that paragraph 7 states this:

"Our position is that secular authorities deal with crime while elders deal with sin. To
avoid a miscarriage of justice, elders must not interfere with, prevent, or impede any secular
investigation into child abuse. The elders are directed to ensure that secular laws are adhered
to.
(Romans 13:1) To that end, they are instructed to contact the Legal Department at Bethel
whenever they receive information from even one person who alleges that child abuse has occurred.
When a report is received, guidance is given by the Legal Department to ensure that
(1) the alleged victim, and other potential victims, are protected from possible abuse, and
(2) that counsel is given to report crime to the proper authorities and to comply with any additional
legal requirements. The elders know that it is the absolute right of the victim, his or her
family, or anyone else, to report the matter to the authorities if they so choose.
Galatians 6:5"

As a side point; some critics assume that  the reason the legal department is contacted is so that loopholes are found where one does not have to report. That is a very unintelligent thing to assume. For one, there are no loopholes. You are either mandated to report or not report. Regardless of which it is, the objective is always to prevent further abuse, and not propagate it, and if that means reporting to the appropriate authorities, then that is the advice that will be given. Two, since the objective is to prevent further abuse, (for the sake of the victims, and also for the sake of further reproach brought on the organization by the perpetrator, and lawsuits) why would one try to find loopholes to get out of it in the first place? Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation?

    Hello guest!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote @Anna " Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation? " 

Let me give you an example which unfortunately i cannot give you full details of as it's much too personal. BUT :-

I reported an Elder for doing something very wrong. In fact that Elder used his position of Elder to do that wrong.  He basically acted like a Catholic priest, using his 'authority' and thinking he would not be questioned.  I reported him by writing a letter to the Body of Elders. However it seems, if other elders tell the truth, that the whole body of elders didn't get to see the letter. So I was called to the Kingdom Hall for a meeting with the 'Elders', but when i got there only two Elders were there.  One questioned me whilst  the other sat behind me and just listened and probably took notes. The one questioning me didn't listen to my replies, just butted in and said I would be disfellowshipped for slander if i didn't retract all the accusations I was making. Yes i stated all this before i know. BUT: -

The Elder I was accusing and the Elder questioning me were the only two Elders in the congregation that were 'businessmen'. The Elder i was accusing had shares in a Gold Mine, and the Elder questioning me owned / owns around ten properties, one of which is a farm. Those two Elders were good friends, not just brothers in the Org, they had more in common than that. So the Elder questioning me made sure that he didn't listen to me, so that he didn't have to take any action against the other Elder. Instead he threatened me with being disfellowshipped. 

So please don't ask such a silly question as " Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation? "  Because the simple answer is that that in many cases it is Elders protecting other Elders. 

You and others talk to me as if i've had no experience in the JW Org. But I've had years of it, and I know of other things which I just cannot mention on here as it would get other people into trouble.

And I would think here in the UK is very tame compared to America. I really dread to think of what goes on in American congregations. The things hidden between Elders in the USA must be much worse than here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote @Anna " Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation? " 

Let me give you an example which unfortunately i cannot give you full details of as it's much too personal. BUT :-

I reported an Elder for doing something very wrong. In fact that Elder used his position of Elder to do that wrong.  He basically acted like a Catholic priest, using his 'authority' and thinking he would not be questioned.  I reported him by writing a letter to the Body of Elders. However it seems, if other elders tell the truth, that the whole body of elders didn't get to see the letter. So I was called to the Kingdom Hall for a meeting with the 'Elders', but when i got there only two Elders were there.  One questioned me whilst  the other sat behind me and just listened and probably took notes. The one questioning me didn't listen to my replies, just butted in and said I would be disfellowshipped for slander if i didn't retract all the accusations I was making. Yes i stated all this before i know. BUT: -

The Elder I was accusing and the Elder questioning me were the only two Elders in the congregation that were 'businessmen'. The Elder i was accusing had shares in a Gold Mine, and the Elder questioning me owned / owns around ten properties, one of which is a farm. Those two Elders were good friends, not just brothers in the Org, they had more in common than that. So the Elder questioning me made sure that he didn't listen to me, so that he didn't have to take any action against the other Elder. Instead he threatened me with being disfellowshipped. 

So please don't ask such a silly question as " Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation? "  Because the simple answer is that that in many cases it is Elders protecting other Elders. 

You and others talk to me as if i've had no experience in the JW Org. But I've had years of it, and I know of other things which I just cannot mention on here as it would get other people into trouble.

And I would think here in the UK is very tame compared to America. I really dread to think of what goes on in American congregations. The things hidden between Elders in the USA must be much worse than here. 

 

We have two situations going on here.  One to do with the organization/GB, and the other of a personal nature. I was quoting a letter from the organization, and therefore I was referring to organizational direction when I said "Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation"? The accusations by opposers are that the Organization, by means of its instructions, protects child molesters. There is ample evidence from letters to the BOE and other instructions that this is not true.

Then we have your experience, an entirely different matter.  The organization/GB has no direct knowledge or ability to control what individual elders do or don’t do. You will agree with that surely?  There can be corruption in the congregation, there is no doubt about that.  But to blame the organization for it, and for the corrupt elders you talk about, is not exactly fair is it? And this is what you have been doing for the most part. Directing all blame at the organization/GB, and when someone defends the organization/GB you get upset.  If it is truly as you say, then why didn’t you rely on Jehovah, who sees what man cannot see, and who will eventually reveal all that is hidden? Or have you lost trust in Jehovah too?  You are not the only one who has experienced something like this you know. Our family and friends have also had to deal with corruption, favouritism and nepotism by elders in the past. Currently, many members of a congregation I know are leaving and g