I Almost Wish That There Was More Public Kickback From WT Regarding CSA Charges

[TrueTomHarley]

I told CC that, while I don’t quote items designed to be confidential, there were some exceptions. One of them—actually the only one that I can recall—is in the ‘Money’ chapter of ‘Dear Mr. Putin—Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia.’ There, opposers were quoting some confidential letters from the WT to elders regarding financial matters that they presented as though it were the ‘smoking gun.’ In fact, I pointed out (and I could only do so by reproducing what was already out there) they were exactly what one might expect of an organization guided by scripture. It is scripture that the grumblers had a problem with, and they tried to disguise that with their protests of JW policies plainly grounded in scripture. 

It is the same with the Flock book. Quote every single line of it, if you like, and it will simply show a people taking the lead who are determined to follow scripture in doing so. In fact, the book is almost entirely on matters of shepherding, taking the lead in the ministry, not lording it over, treat the flock with tenderness, and so forth, so that if you actually kept up and immersed yourself in scripture and what had been published for the general congregation—which is almost everything—and strove to apply the spirit of them, you would find much of it boring repetition. I know I did. I mean, it was good to be in the atmosphere of godly shepherds discussing how best to fulfill the work they had reached out for—don’t get me wrong. But there was barely anything that was new.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In any organization of any sort, there is always information not meant for general distribution. That does not mean that it is thereby the ‘smoking gun.’

I agree, again.

But why would words that carry Moral and Ethical obligation for all (elders and rank and file members),  ... why there is a need for such selection about "spiritual food" for elders that is not allowed to be read by all other members ("Shepherd book" is what i have in mind at moment)? 

 

 

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

" Quote every single line of it, (the Shepherd the Flock book ) if you like, and it will simply show a people taking the lead who are determined to follow scripture in doing so. 

What it shows is 'a people' (Elders ) taking orders from 8 men in America, of whom none are inspired of Holy Spirit. Therefore none of them truly understand the meanings of the scriptures at all. This is clearly shown by the Two Witness rule, by the no blood/ blood fractions rule, by the accusation of fornication toward brothers and sisters that are just friends. By the shunning rules, the false reasons for disfellowshipping, the list is never ending. 

" so that if you actually kept up and immersed yourself in scripture and what had been published for the general congregation "

Well if a person immersed themselves in scripture they would soon find how the GB and the JW Org misuse scripture to suit their own agenda. 'This Generation' comes to mind, and 'Superior Authorities' in the past.

But if a person 'kept up' with 'what had been published for the general congregation', all they would get is more of the same falsehood, lies, mistakes, which the GB admit to. ( not inspired so may err ) . 

So, trying to play the Shepherding book down doesn't cut it. It just proves you are a company man Tom. 

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

54 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Just like the ARC asked Bro Jackson if the Branch Office “seek to obey” the GB, the answer was “first of all” the branches seek to obey God and since the GB are a central body of spiritual men that give spiritual direction, then the assumption is to follow that spiritual direction unless someone can show just cause biblically there is an error in scriptural application.

As we see, it is very well known in JWorg , who can be that "someone" who are "entitled" to show error or give spiritual application, direction and clarification. That is GB.

So, please. G. Jackson showed only "art of conversation" with ARC. But because video of his (or any of GB members and WT lawyers depositions and documentations)  will never be revealed on JW TV, it is very clear who want to have last word in conversation and not want to put words on day light for every JW member to see, to hear. 

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

ARC Stewart: Leaving aside the question of overriding mandatory law from the civil authorities,

Ask yourself why.

Good point. I recall having missed this obvious point when I first listened to the ARC videos. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/04/pedophiles.html alerted me to it, too. It's in the blog post (from TTH) and part of his Putin book, of course. It was a difficult read at first because it treads on some dangerous ground and I cringed too much at first, thinking TTH was walking too close to the edge of a cliff. (I still cringe at a couple of points made there.) But I think the blog/excerpt explains and expands on that particular point pretty well. Thanks for the reminder, CC.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Oh CC what big lies you tell. Quote "In my experience .... "

Well it just proves you don't have much experience then doesn't it, or that you just tell lies because the GB say its ok to tell lies.  

Quote "What you are claiming here is nothing more than ex-witness propaganda.."

That was the same excuse that the GB used about Child Sexual Abuse.

Quote "First and foremost, every true witness is loyal to God not Elders, or the GB"

If a person is loyal to God they would not be a JW at this present time. What does truth have to do with lies, or morality with immorality. You cannot serve two masters.

Quote "and since the GB are a central body of spiritual men that give spiritual direction, .."

Um, how can the GB give spiritual direction as they are not inspired or guided by God or Christ ?

Stupidity such as the 'Overlapping generations' proves it. And more seriously the 'Two witness rule' for Child Sexual Abuse. 

Quote " to follow that spiritual direction unless someone can show just cause biblically there is an error in scriptural application." 

I just have, twice.

I do fully understand that many 'boots on the ground' congregants can be lovely people, and may even have the best intentions. I do not think all JWs are paedophiles or criminals or actually bad people, but the problems come from those that are in complete control. The GB / Lawyers, then down from the hierarchy ranks to the Circuit Overseers and Elders.  None of them seem to question anything. They seem to act like zombies or robots. I think its mainly because of fear of losing position, power, rank, family and friends. 

And the boots on the ground congregants can only eat what they are fed from the JW  table. Because its all they know. 

 

 

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

That has been the assumption since at least 1950 when the watchtower was in full control of JW’s.

The same thing goes for Elders and the branch office.

I'm not sure what you meant was so special about "since at least 1950" and the remark about "when the Watchtower was in full control." But there were a couple times between 1976 and 1982 when all the various Branch Overseers were flown in to Bethel, for several weeks at a time, and there were special times set aside when many of the Branch Overseers would give talks and give experiences. Some of the local NYC congregations also gave up their Sunday talk, and sometimes a "Book Study" meeting to replace it with talks and experiences from them. Some added a Saturday night meeting. I must have heard at least 40 different Branch speakers, and I even invited a couple of them to a congregation in Queens and once accompanied an overseer and his wife to a meal there. Most of them reminded me of "District Overseers" who had worked their way up from Gilead missionaries to "elders" to "Circuit Overseers." I got a good impression of their humility and love for the brothers in their various countries. I was very impressed with the fact that, even though they were all white American/European, they were clearly involved so closely with the brothers and sisters in their various assignments that they saw themselves not as paternalistic, patronizing "leaders," but humble servants.

But I also never got the impression that any one of them would ever have questioned a doctrine coming from headquarters. I doubt that any would have ever recommended a change to a doctrine. Doctrines were never part of their talks except to highlight how loyal the local brothers always were to any articles about neutrality, etc.

4Jah2me has just reminded us of the mistake Rutherford made about "superior authorities" which was not corrected back to Russell's view until the 1960's. And it made me think that hundreds of brothers, like branch overseers, district overseers, circuit overseers, and elders (whether anointed or not) could easily have known that the teaching was wrong. It seems impossible that any Witness anywhere could read the Bible and not see that this was a mistake. But none of these persons, evidently, had the idea that it would be OK to mention the need to correct this doctrine.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

ARC Stewart: Leaving aside the question of overriding mandatory law from the civil authorities,

I almost wish Bro Jackson would have interjected at this point, “I wish you wouldn’t leave it aside, for it would solve the problem.” It would have looked good in the record. Our best lines invariably occur to us too late. (but maybe it would have got their backs up even more than what did happen)

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

It was a difficult read at first because it treads on some dangerous ground and I cringed too much at first, thinking TTH was walking too close to the edge of a cliff. 

I kind of like the writing, and the book overall, but it certainly could use a good editing which it will probably never receive, for reasons of time and self-discipline. Even if the book was terrible, I would still think it good because there is nothing else like it. Baran (a non-JW) wrote the book on JW persecution from WWII to her date of publication—2007, I think. Dear Mr. Putin takes it from that point up to the present. There is nothing else exclusive to JWs. 

Much of Part 2 (a defense against the unspoken reasons for persecution in Russia) is in the form of posts first made here and stitched together. Alas, the stitching often shows. I should hoe out about 30-50% from all those chapters. The book is too undisciplined. CSA never once arose as an accusation there, which I pointed out, but I was on a roll and so I stated that it was part of the overall picture, if not there specifically.

The CSA stuff is even more a part of TrueTom vs the Apostates—it may form a good quarter of Part 1 (Part 2 consisted of post from my archives, written years ago, but relevant to opposers in one way or another)—too much, really, but I was just driven by accusations of the day, and that one was (as is) huge. If there is a TrueTom vs the Apostate-Part 2, I won’t make the mistake again.

Is there too much pedo stuff in Dear Mr Putin? Well—maybe. Even I have to concede that I threw in everything but the kitchen sink. But with the opposers pushing for all they are worth their version of things and achieving some success in that regard—say what you will about opposers, they are not lazy—I thought I’d take all their charges and then some and spin them my way—my way is the actual way, I think. 

The speaker last Sunday—a very respected and experienced older man who has long filled in for the CO when needed, made that point about how we want to watch what we put into our minds because it affects us physically—it’s good to take in what calms us,  It’s the same as another recently quoted the verse ‘whatever things are true, of serious concern, righteous, chaste, lovable, well-spoken-of, virtuous, praiseworthy, continue considering these things.’ Doubtless, that is a large unpinning to present counsel not to go there—grumblers always want to drag you in to the morass—don’t let them. 

In any topic of consequence, there will be disagreeable aspects that can be focused on. Focusing on them for reasons of countering argument does help you to kick back at the scoundrels, but it’s not particularly soothing to your own psyche as you do so. Maybe I’ve done it too much. It’s hard to know the balance. There is always something sordid somewhere, and people love to dive into it, supposing that they will supply the true analysis. I have a strong instinct to come to the defense of what is under attack, and I like to spin it as a virtuous strength, but it may be just a habit I picked up because, as a teen, I constantly had to defend my Dad’s choice of automobiles—AMC products—a sure source of ridicule from fellow teens.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I recall having missed this obvious point when I first listened to the ARC videos.

By the way, that first came to my attention from Anna. She supplied the exerpt

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What you are claiming here is nothing more than ex-witness propaganda about, Witnesses don’t think for themselves. An error in judgement and an incorrect assumption.

Perhaps some JW's think more and some think less. Nothing is wrong with that. We have different minds and different reactions on "propaganda", mine or WT's. 

JW members put trust in GB who put trust in Jesus who put trust in JHVH and vice versa JHVH put trust in Jesus who put trust in GB and that is reason for every JW's to put trust in GB. Gerrit Lösch made clear propaganda manipulation on JW TV about this. I don't have no need about own judgement because GB member GL made general judgement with own public presentation. He showed how GB are in need to be trusted by members and how members have to be dependable on every "spirit that coming from their mouth" - because Jesus trust them. :)))

You mentioned ARC lawyer. How can you blame Angus Stewart's tactic with G. Jackson and in the same time don't see "tactics and methods" made by GB members in many fields, about religious doctrines and secular, courts issues???   

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But I also never got the impression that any one of them would ever have questioned a doctrine coming from headquarters. I doubt that any would have ever recommended a change to a doctrine. Doctrines were never part of their talks except to highlight how loyal the local brothers always were to any articles about neutrality, etc.

4Jah2me has just reminded us of the mistake Rutherford made about "superior authorities" which was not corrected back to Russell's view until the 1960's. And it made me think that hundreds of brothers, like branch overseers, district overseers, circuit overseers, and elders (whether anointed or not) could easily have known that the teaching was wrong. It seems impossible that any Witness anywhere could read the Bible and not see that this was a mistake. But none of these persons, evidently, had the idea that it would be OK to mention the need to correct this doctrine.

Thanks!

Geoffrey Jackson testimony before ARC in 2015 about, how every (average) JW in the world can, may and want, by individual reading of own Bible to see possible errors made by GB and WT  published doctrines and be disobey or even to give personal Amendment on instruction and doctrine - IS statement FOR secular public ONLY.

Why this particular "inspirational teaching" and "public testimony" never been presented on JW TV as Public Call to Brotherhood for sending Letters to HQ about some issues they have with "spiritual food"? 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I almost wish Bro Jackson would have interjected at this point, “I wish you wouldn’t leave it aside, for it would solve the problem.” ... (but maybe it would have got their backs up even more than what did happen)

@JW Insider—That same speaker I spoke of Sunday also made much of the verse:

“Even if you pound a fool with a pestle...his foolishness will not leave him.“ (Prov 27:22)

This is NOT to suggest that the ARC judge was a fool, but only to suggest how you ought respond to ones suspicious of you, or even hostile. The speaker didn’t use it in this context. He was speaking abut the need for elders to counsel in love, He raised the notion of that one hypothetical brother or sister—they always exist—who behave so outrageously that you wish the elders would lay down the law with them—tell that person off!—put him in his place! The reason they do not do so, he says, is on account of Prov 27:22.

Speak harshly to him and he is still a fool—his foolishness has not left him (even though you pound him with a pestle!)—“the only difference is that now he can’t stand you.” No, you have to counsel in love—maybe somehow you will reach him and he will change himself. 

There is no way that we should be passed off as rational beings. At most, you might concede that there is a component of rationality with each of us. One traumatic experience, or one unique upbringing, all but guarantees that we will never see eye to eye with someone of a different background and experiences. See how very seldom people cross the aisle on any hot topic of which there are two or more distinct sides. The heart sees what it wants and makes a grab for it. Afterwards, it charges the head to devise a convincing rationale, giving the illusion that the head is running the show—but it is the heart all along.

If the fool does not change himself with counsel—and if the matter is serious enough, a violation of God’s law, then you must give him the heave-ho. The speaker did not say this, but he did go on to speak of disfellowshipping. It is ”an act of love,” he said, “though it is very difficult to see it that way at the time.” A person’s relationship with Jehovah is on the line, if not severed, and maybe the shock of disfellowshipping will prompt him to restore it. See someone who’s heart has stopped, see rescuers use a defibrillator on him—see him jump. “That’s terrible!” Is your initial response, but it works to save lives. Christianity is not unsure of itself, and THAT is sure to trigger hostility in a world that is. It is sure to trigger hostility in a world that insists that human wisdom should be the driving force.

He also spoke to the challenge of giving people counsel. Many are very sensitive about it in this day and age. Suppose he sees in the parking lot that a brother has a flat tire. He wants to caution that brother because it is a safety issue—he doesn’t want that brother, his loved ones, or anyone else, to get hurt. “Um, brother, your car has a flat tire,” he says.

”Oh yeah?! Well, yours has a dent in it!” comes the reply.