REPROOF FROM THE PLATFORM

[Matthew9969]

I've heard the rumor mills fire up after someone was reproved, so usually I always felt they were guilty of everything.

[JOHN BUTLER]

On 5/17/2019 at 5:15 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Well, I do. I tracked her down and addressed her post, both on her forum and mine.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/05/misrepresenting-jw-child-abuse-policy.html

The difference is, SHE is saying CONGREGANTS are not told, the Org is saying PARENTS are told. 

So she is not telling lies or misleading anyone, you are TTH. 

As I've mentioned before, grandparents and others are quite often responsible for children in the congregation. I've known people bring other people's children to meetings. There was even a mother in my ex congregation that would drop her children at the front door of the KH, because the mother was Dis/fed but she still wanted her children at the meetings. She was obviously there to pick the children up at the end of the meetings. But her three children were there without parents, being looked after by other congregants. Yes a strange arrangement, but the mum is now back in the Org. 

So i still ask, why are the GB and Elders still protecting Pedophile  ?  The Apostle Paul wasn't frightened to make things known about people. 

Why do the Elders not announce it directly from the platform. After all it seems they do a 'talk' about it weeks later.

It is all too obvious that the GB and it's JW Org do not follow Bile principles. 

The GB and it's Org are actually frightened of reality.

When you look at the Bible accounts of the early Christians, what they did, what happened to them, how they 'obeyed God  as ruler rather than men', it shows that they had complete trust in God through Christ. 

The GB are just old men living a comfortable lifestyle, not prepared to go to the limits that early Christians did. 

I do sometimes wonder if God looks down and thinks that no one on this earth is taking Him seriously enough. 

Reminds me of when the Nation of Israel was frightened to go into the Promised Land, so God gave them 40 years in the wilderness.

It certainly seems like the GB and it's Org is in a wilderness, but totally lost with no guidance. 

Unfortunately it is all run from America. It's all about business and legality. Americans love to sue each other. Big money earner. Hence the GB / Org is frightened to be totally honest about those who are 'members'.  

If you cannot see how far away from true Christianity the GB and it's Org is, that is because you are not a true Christian.   

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As I've mentioned before, grandparents and others are quite often responsible for children in the congregation

Maybe, just maybe, juusssstttttt maybe,.....the parents will tell the grandparents.

At any rate, I cannot run these things by Alexandra. After a furious exchange, in which she was more shrill even than you, she blocked me. 

That makes three. Four, if you count Lloyd, who did not block me on Twitter, but did ban me on his website. These people do not like dissent. I have never been rude to any of them.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

WDS

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

WDS

 

Right the internet gives lots of different meanings to this WDS idea.

So please explain what exactly you mean by it as it could be one of many things. 

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Maybe, just maybe, juusssstttttt maybe,.....the parents will tell the grandparents.

At any rate, I cannot run these things by Alexandra. After a furious exchange, in which she was more shrill even than you, she blocked me. 

That makes three. Four, if you count Lloyd, who did not block me on Twitter, but did ban me on his website. These people do not like dissent. I have never been rude to any of them.

TTH, you do come across as, A.sarcastic, and B. thinking of yourself as someone special.... You are an author, and deny it as you might, being an author serves you two purposes, it earns you money and gets you recognition. 

Now maybe, just maybe, those people that you disagree with know exactly you reasons for disagreeing with them, and maybe they don't 'take the bait' that you want them to. You do tend to make it known that you use most of your interactions for content in your books. Doing so also makes you seem less honest, or at least have less honest intentions. It's like saying, "the only reason I'm talking to you is to use you in my book to earn me money". For my part, if you use me in any of your books I think it's funny, but to some people that have a more serious outlook they may find it offensive. (I think Billy child finds it offensive that you use comments off here in your books  ). 

As for your idea of 'parents telling grandparents' yes but that could be seen as gossip and that can be seen as 'causing a division in the congregation'. Surely you can understand that if people in the congregation start accusing others of being a pedophile, that would cause upset. You still haven't answered my question of 'Why can't it be announced directly from the platform ?  Or is it because of the problem of being sued. If the pedophile knows that the parents in their  congregation have been told then said pedophile will be aware that it will be spread around anyway, even though according to JW 'rules' it shouldn't be spread around. It really makes a comedy show of all of it.  The Org needs people like the Apostle Paul in every congregation. Get everything out in the open. Wash the inside of the dish or bowl before trying to clean the outside, as Jesus said.

Probably nothing new here for your book sorry  

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You do tend to make it known that you use most of your interactions for content in your books. Doing so also makes you seem less honest, or at least have less honest intentions. 

Most of the New Testament is in the form of letters written to someone else. Those recipients, too, could have voiced similar complaints. I just find I write better when I am responding to a specific person or group of persons. I don’t deliberately set them up. I just write after the fact. Paul did too, apparently.

As for money, I haven’t make enough yet to offset the outgoing expenses. Maybe that will change someday—I too, have a light bill—but I have resolved that the two most recent ebooks of opposition in Russia and in the West will always be free in some electronic format. That does not mean that other formats will be, or even that every ebook format will be, though it is so now. I would be surprised if I ever make any serious money, though if I do I will buy me a Cadillac-ac-ac-ac-ac.

As for recognition, no matter how many people read these books, it is not enough. To my knowledge, both are the largest (and perhaps only) significant compilations of relevant subject matters.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I think Billy child finds it offensive that you use comments off here in your books 

Billy finds everything offensive. Anyone who makes any comment on social media meant to be public is fair game for rebuttal.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You still haven't answered my question of 'Why can't it be announced directly from the platform ?  

Until the late 70s, it was standard practice that anyone reproved would have that fact announced publicly—the reproof, not the wrongdoing that triggered it. At that time it was reasoned, that since a reproved person is such because he has been seen to be repentant, and the goal therefore become his healing, will he really be helped to recover by being exposed to everyone as a “practicer of sin?” 

(“Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest.” 1 Timothy 5:20)

The “onlookers” was taken to mean not the whole congregation but those who knew of the wrongdoing, which might be just two or three. Only in cases where the wrongdoing was known or would soon be known to everyone would the reproof be made public. I think the policy you object to is just an application of the above, with the added caution that those who would truly need to know, parents of minors, would be notified. They could be trusted to pass it along to anyone who might need to know, such as a guardian.

Don’t forget that this only is for those deemed repentant—cut to the heart and with expressed resolve to turn around. Rarely, if ever, are we speaking of forcible rape here, but some lesser form of molestation.

Any degree of premeditation or grooming would cast serious doubt on any claim of repentance. This would almost certainly be the case with rape, and these ones are generally disfellowshipped, not reproved. When that happens, the same ones here that claim disfellowshipping is horribly cruel and excessive claim, in this case, that it is only a slap on the wrist and means nothing at all.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

14 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

WDS

Right off the bat, she demanded a retraction and apology. She had not charged that we have no policy, she said. She had a point. She had not said it, but the implication was plain as day.

However, she shot back that she had not implied it, either. I responded that had she but included the online paragraph, even to criticize it, her vows of pure honesty would be more believable, for it is clearly the most relevant writing on her topic.

At that, she fired off a couple of zingers and then blocked me. If you want to block, just block. From my point of view, that is the sure sign of a desperation—to throw a new charge and then block any reply. 

Of course, JWs have mechanisms that amount to blocking, too. The difference is that we don’t pretend otherwise. There comes a time when you simply have to muzzle some people:

(“It is necessary to shut their mouths, because these very men keep on subverting entire households by teaching things they should not for the sake of dishonest gain.” Titus 1:11)

These folks, on the other hand, are constantly on the prowl for JWs to engage with.

[JOHN BUTLER]

@TrueTomHarley Do you believe ANY of the cases, from ANY country in this earth, that say an Elder was allowed to keep his position and status and his conduct was kept hidden, so he was able to abuse more children or abuse the same child on a regular basis ?  Do you actually believe that this did happen in some cases ?  Or are you saying that the JW Org is so so so clean and so well organised that those things would / could never happen ? 

Honest reply in as few words as possible please. 

[TrueTomHarley]

7 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Honest reply in as few words as possible please. 

Nothing is foolproof.

I don’t follow every single case.

Shooting them is foolproof. My side doesn’t have that authority. Nor yours.

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Most of the New Testament is in the form of letters written to someone else. ........ I just write after the fact. Paul did too, apparently.

I found this interesting. Did they, (Bible) Writers of Private Letters to someone, were Inspired to wrote text about something, or did they just made Description (Fact, Advice, Lesson, Judgement etc.)  about something what people of those time has done? ..... Just as you TTH doing today. Do you find yourself Inspired for writing books? 

 

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

will he really be helped to recover by being exposed to everyone as a “practicer of sin?” 

Question has their place, of course.  But then, we can ask in similar manner - If exposing the name of a sinner to public is not pedagogically  sustainable,  in same logic somebody can argue how excommunication is also questionable method to bring someone back to right path.

 

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

the added caution that those who would truly need to know, parents of minors, would be notified. They could be trusted to pass it along to anyone who might need to know, such as a guardian.

This is something strange. Elders, as legal body, are authorized to tell to particular individual or few of them, The Confidential Information. After that this individual or few of them, according to my understanding of your words, could be trusted  to pass it along to anyone... Strange thing again.

How does non authorized individuals ( rank and file members) can be in same category, in such Delicate issue, as Elders who, supposedly, have all important information about case and was faced with matter in wider range? 

 How is possible that congregants have to believe and trust HearSay information from second hand, from Brother (or Sister :)))) aka Parents who are not The Elder/Elderessa . 

 

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Rarely, if ever, are we speaking of forcible rape here, but some lesser form of molestation.

? ....confused about meaning.

 

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

ones here that claim disfellowshipping is horribly cruel

Crime we talking about (sexual crimes and child molestation) are cruel. To put such one in hand of Justice is not cruel. If that including Report to police, DFD from church or Fired from job looks as normal reaction of society.

[JOHN BUTLER]

20 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Nothing is foolproof.

I don’t follow every single case.

Shooting them is foolproof. My side doesn’t have that authority. Nor yours.

Spoken like a true JW.