Jump to content

TrueTomHarley

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

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

TrueTomHarley -
TrueTomHarley -
94
860

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

If there has been kickback on manipulation and ‘control’ charges, and if there has been kickback on ‘flip-flopping’ charges, then I would like to see kickback on charges that Witnesses ‘cover up’ child sexual abuse. A good place to start is by pointing out that leaving reporting up to the involved parties is not the same as ‘covering up.’

Instead, the Witness organization states that it “abhors child sexual abuse,” which, in combination with its reluctance to go there otherwise, is spun by determined enemies as though they love the stuff. Not all will do what reporter Elizabeth Chuck did 

    Hello guest!

Why do they not respond in more detail? It may be that the sheer wickedness of the charge takes their breath away and makes them look like deer caught in the headlights. Yes, they know well the verse, “every sort of wicked thing will be lyingly said about you” but this—this is the wickedest thing of all! And the proactive arrangement started with such good intentions. Not so many years ago the notion of a religion “policing its own” was lauded as the ultimate in practicing what one preached. 

It wouldn’t be hard to do—to provide a brief defense of criticisms leveled at them. It might start with points such as:

  1. “Covering up” is not the same as leaving it to the digression of ones affected to report.
  2. There wouldn’t be anything to be accused of covering up had not the Witness organization practiced what almost nobody else did—policing its own. Countless persons are arrested with regard to child sexual abuse. Their religious affiliation or lack of is never reported. The reason that it is so with Witnesses is that they tried to do something about it among their own.
  3. Unlike virtually anywhere else, where the leaders of an organization are themselves the abusers, the leaders of the Witness community are accused of botching the handling of instances—bad, perhaps—history will judge—but nowhere near as bad as being the ones who commit it.

That’s a few for starters. More could be added, such as

  1. The current “gold standard” of child sexual abuse to “go beyond the law” will inevitably cause you problems with those who, not surprisingly, expect you to abide by law.
  2. Child sexual abuse would appear to be the primary gross planetary product—30 years into all-out war against CSA and barely a dent has been made. Therefore efforts to prevent it ought to be given at least as much creedence as efforts to secure the barn door after the cows have fled. Nobody, but nobody, has done what the Witness organization has done, gathering every member in the world to consider detailed scenarios in which child sexual abuse might occur so that parents, obviously the first line of defense, can be vigilant. This was done as part of the program of the 2017 Regional conventions. 
  3. The reason that the greater world will never make inroads with regard to child sexual abuse it that it feeds with one hand what it is trying to punish with another. The TicTok app taking young people by storm has been described as a pedophile’s dream come true. Though it is parallel and thus not exactly the same thing, the 2020 NFL halftime show demonstrates that objectifying woman is the force that makes the world go round—the MeToo movement is doomed from the start. 
  4. The matter of CSA does not go away. It is not being solved. Rather, each month brings some new revelation of how the very elements of this world keep it firmly entrenched as a societal ill. It’s intricate involvement with the Child Protective Service agencies recently was reviewed in a story I must have missed. “We have 

      Hello guest!
    ” said Newsweek in January 2018:

    And the latest scandal—pediatricians! “Sheds light on a problem that could rival priest scandals,” 

      Hello guest!
     just how many there might be. And to think I got into a squabble with that nasty O’Mally, determined to put down the Caleb and Sophia video “Protect Your Children,” while she heralded one that specifically said that it was okay for a doctor to touch you in private areas. “Ask the young women of the U.S. Gymnastics Olympic team which video they think would have offered them more protection,” I told her.

    Just a few basic tenets of defense for those who would like to have some response to when workmates, schoolmates, or neighbors hit them over the head with what they just saw on TV. It doesn’t cover every tiny thing—just the general outline. The nature of critics everywhere is that they would like their complaints on center stage, to the exclusion of whatever else used to be there. Maybe its not a good idea to indulge them so. Maybe it’s enough to correct matters that need it, such as making it crystal clear to members

      Hello guest!
    to police, since the abuser has already brought about the reproach. Maybe it is enough to focus on creating an atmosphere where CSA is less likely to happen. 

    Maybe. But sometimes you do wish there was more (or any) of a public response.

    I did like the WT attorney’s words at the reversal of the Montana verdict. “There are no winners in a case involving child abuse. ‘No child should ever be subjected to such a debased crime....Tragically, it happens, and when it does Jehovah's Witnesses follow the law. This is what the Montana Supreme Court has established.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If there has been kickback on manipulation and ‘control’ charges, and if there has been kickback on ‘flip-flopping’ charges, then I would like to see kickback on charges that Witnesses ‘cover up’ child sexual abuse. A good place to start is by pointing out that leaving reporting up to the involved parties is not the same as ‘covering up.’

You are right in conclusion how "involved parties" are those who may decide.

WT elders, when came to position to hear about something  comes to be also "involved parties" because they have information. Even more, they alone examining such information and classified them into "truth" or "lies". Well, if this serious men, elders, have such crucial knowledge about crime act, what making them to be without responsibility toward - truth, justice, involved parties and victim first?

Do we have to mention advice's made by many of this same elders, not to go to "worldly courts" because of god's name and organization honor?

Perhaps "public" is all those people who don't know nothing or not know enough about CSA and Court cases in JWorg? Then will have at least two class: 1) JW people Public and 2) Worldly people Public. Which of this two groups will be more devastated after WT "kickback"? Or will these WT kickback be presented in two envelops, one for worldly public and one for JW public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear @TrueTomHarley I quote  " Countless persons are arrested with regard to child sexual abuse. Their religious affiliation or lack of is never reported. 

But then I quote " Unlike virtually anywhere else, where the leaders of an organization are themselves the abusers.." 

Um, Catholic church comes to mind Tom. But Tom you said  "Their religious affiliation or lack of is never reported." .... So if their 'religious affiliation' is never reported, then how come the Catholic church was being reported on long before the JW Org ?  

Quote : The current “gold standard” of child sexual abuse to “go beyond the law” will inevitably cause you problems with those who, not surprisingly, expect you to abide by law.

Which law Tom, God's or man's ?  Those people that love God and Christ would expect the GB and it's Org to obey God as ruler rather than men.  Whose 'law' and 'rules' and 'principles' do you live by Tom ? God's or man's ? 

Quote  " Therefore efforts to prevent it ought to be given at least as much creedence "

TOM, wake up. It hasn't been efforts to prevent it. It has been efforts to hide it. Elders have been allowed to remain in their positions even though it was known that they had been and still were sexually abusing children. 

Tom you are back to your old trick, but it does not work. There is NO POINT AT ALL comparing the GB and it's rotten Org to the world which belongs to the Devil. You should compare them to God's standards required for His people.  

Quote: .Tragically, it happens, and when it does Jehovah's Witnesses follow the law. 

Which law Tom, God's or man's ? And which law should they be following ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Oh dear @TrueTomHarley I quote  " Countless persons are arrested with regard to child sexual abuse. Their religious affiliation or lack of is never reported. 

But then I quote " Unlike virtually anywhere else, where the leaders of an organization are themselves the abusers.." 

Um, Catholic church comes to mind Tom. But Tom you said  "Their religious affiliation or lack of is never reported." .... So if their 'religious affiliation' is never reported, then how come the Catholic church was being reported on long before the JW Org ? 

You noticed this very well. Thanks !

How we would know it is about Catholic priests if news reporters didn't mentioned their religious affiliation? :))

Perhaps Tom thinking about rank and file Catholic members ? But rank and file Catholic are mere "laity". Inside JWorg rank and file members are not "laity" :)))

Share this post


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

In many court cases world wide, the WTB&T Society has represented, under oath, that all Jehovah's Witnesses are ordained ministers, and are therefore clergy.

... even the newly baptized 8 year old girl, who thinks "clergy" is some kind of nasal congestion.

Yes, and this bring more confusion. JWorg don't have clergy-laity distinction, but have heavenly and earthly class, also have priesthood and not priesthood class, anointed and not anointed class, males as Heads and females as not Heads - BUT all are (male and female) ordained ministers. :))

Share this post


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

Yes, and this bring more confusion. JWorg don't have clergy-laity distinction, but have heavenly and earthly class, also have priesthood and not priesthood class, anointed and not anointed class, males as Heads and females as not Heads - BUT all are (male and female) ordained ministers. :))

JW Org pretends not to have clergy - laity distinction.

And some of the anointed are female whilst here on earth. It seems that spirit persons do not have a gender.

However, were all angels that appeared as humans on earth, men ?  

Quote Srecko. " BUT all are (male and female) ordained ministers. :))"  Um, but is this after they are baptised, or is it when they put in a Report sheet for doing ministry ? 

The plot thickens. 

Share this post


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

In many court cases world wide, the WTB&T Society has represented, under oath, that all Jehovah's Witnesses are ordained ministers, and are therefore clergy.

The problem stems because the world has no concept of how to do spirituality as Jesus did it. Religion for them is a commodity. It is a product to be hawked, just like one might hawk soap, or used cars, or real estate, or anything. Religion is a career path for them. Your school guidance counselor might advise you, in view of your religious aptitude, to follow the career path to become a church minister or priest. No way would he ever advise you follow the career path to become  an elder or a Bethelite, because it isn’t a career to them—they don’t make any money. 

Go to seminary, take some courses from Professor Ehrman, so that you do not actually believe the stuff, and then go look for a church that will hire you as minister—it is a booming job market out there.

Victor Blackwell called them “mercenary ministers”—they do it for pay. It is the only model that the world recognizes. He would represent pioneers and special pioneers and congregation servants (back when it was 100+ hours) during WWII when they applied for draft exemption due to minister status. Church ministers never had the slightest difficulty in landing such exemptions, he reports. Pioneers, special pioneers, congregation servants, anyone associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses, were invariably denied. Judges recognized only ministers who 1) “had a church” and 2) got paid.

So what do you do when it is necessary to interact with the legal system of the world? In a world where there is some respect for God, the organization role of elders is what will be recognized as the equivalent of clergy, notwithstanding that elders do it for free. But as the world loses respect for God, then it is the salary that becomes the determining factor—do they make a living with it or not.

You’d almost think that one claiming to be a Witness could get his head around the distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTH:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, among other things.

What this means is that if inside any particular religion they want to believe that God is a flying spaghetti monster, and call their people Giraffes, and slaughter goats and bathe in the blood, or play with snakes  ... the government is FORBIDDEN to interfere with that ... unless ... unless it is against public policy, and is a clear and present danger.

The Governing Body has declared that all Jehovah's Witnesses are ORDAINED Ministers of the Gospel ... a practice I believe was started during the Vietnam War to try and get Draft deferments. At least it was in place when I reported to the draft board in 1965 at the Armed Forces Entrance and Examining Station (AFEES), in Richmond Virginia, and a legal theory that I presented to those from my community who interrogated me in the Draft Board conference room with, if memory serves, 12 people whose job it was to classify me as to my Draft status.

I understand what you are saying, TTH and MOST of it is true, but that is COMPLETELY beside the point.

If you claim to be a hippopotamus, and you are RECOGNIZED as an ordained  hippopotamus,  don't be surprised that you are not allowed to book a room at the local Hotel.

Further, if you claim to be a hippopotamus, the by extension, your children are hippos,  you cannot without being a hypocrite deride anyone for looking at you, and looking at your son or daughter, and observing correctly that you are not.

Particularly ... and most importantly, if the culture of your religion has declared that "hippopotamusity" is a "snare and a racket", and that organized herds of hippos are "Babylon the Great", and that their "ordained" leaders are agents of Satan.

As a teenager, and in my early 20's, my best friend growing up used to Pioneer, and he bragged to me that he could go into prisons almost any time he wanted to "minister" to the inmates there by representing himself as "clergy", which I thought was "juking" the system.

Later, he and my first wife ran off together ... but I digress.

The Governing Body has repeatedly represented themselves to Courts as ministers, and to get special legal privileges, by representing themselves as clergy.

BUT ... you and I have read NOTHING about this in any of the Society's publications .. and heard NOTHING about this at the Kingdom Hall or at any Assemblies or Convention .... while at the SAME TIME telling us that the GB and Elders, and Branch people and we ourselves here at the bottom of the food chain ... ARE ALL EQUAL. (Let's all hold hands in a circle, and sing the Pepsi song).

Either we ARE all equal .... or we are NOT.

If we are in reality (gimmee a break!) then the newly baptized 8 year old girl is not only an ordained minister ... but is entitled to the legal privileges of "clergy", because she is in fact a "clergy person"

Either we ARE all equal .... or we are NOT.

THAT is what we have represented as fact ....under sworn oath before God in courts of law ... when  JWs demand the rights of "Clergy".

So ... on one hand we declare inwardly that we are NOT clergy, despicable agents of Satan as they are, perverting the Word of God, but are all equal ordained ministers at the Kingdom Hall ... from the Governing Body, all the way down to the little 8 year old baptized Sister ... and to the courts we declare that we ARE clergy.

Either we ARE all equal .... or we are NOT.

I guarantee that any rank-and-file Jehovah's Witnesses of my generation that heard that would be ashamed, and nauseous at the very idea that we shared legal privileges with the "serpents and vipers".

According to that ... the little 8 year old Sister has the legal right to be privy to people's secrets of every sort, confessed to her, and is legally protected from divulging those secrets to ANYBODY, if she so decides to do so.

You can't have it BOTH ways.

Can't Have It Both ways.gif

SOMEBODY is being conned ... either the courts ... or us.

There is no third choice.

Either we ARE all equal .... or we are NOT.

You can't have it BOTH ways.

 

Share this post


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

What this means

Do you feel that Victor Blackwell was wrong, then, to legally defend my brothers? 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He would represent pioneers and special pioneers and congregation servants (back when it was 100+ hours) during WWII when they applied for draft exemption due to minister status. Church ministers never had the slightest difficulty in landing such exemptions, he reports. Pioneers, special pioneers, congregation servants, anyone associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses, were invariably denied. Judges recognized only ministers who 1) “had a church” and 2) got paid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the time that the supposed Hunchback of Notre Dame swung from the bells in the bell tower, CLERGY has been afforded special dispensations by the civil authorities.

Even the civil authorities are in many governments referred to as "ministers".

In Richmond Virginia, circa 1965 Pioneers, those who spent 100 hours a month in the ministry .... and BEFORE the idea was promoted that we were "ordained" ministers .... and LONG before the GB started promoting the idea that those involved in lawsuits were "Clergy", these Brothers WERE granted exemption to military service with a "4-D" classification as "Ministers of Religion"

I WAS THERE AND SAW IT.

I was threatened with five years in the Federal Penitentiary, and when I told them I was ready to go ... I got the "I-O" classification, and exemption as a conscientious objector.

 

Share this post


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

Since the time that the supposed Hunchback of Notre Dame swung from the bells in the bell tower, CLERGY has been afforded special dispensations by the civil authorities.

Even the civil authorities are in many governments referred to as "ministers".

Do you feel that Victor Blackwell was wrong, then, to legally defend my brothers? 

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He would represent pioneers and special pioneers and congregation servants (back when it was 100+ hours) during WWII when they applied for draft exemption due to minister status. Church ministers never had the slightest difficulty in landing such exemptions, he reports. Pioneers, special pioneers, congregation servants, anyone associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses, were invariably denied. Judges recognized only ministers who 1) “had a church” and 2) got paid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where have you been TTH? Your pal Evans is on a quest to suggest all kingdom halls are dangerous places and all witnesses are evil pedophiles. An echo of 4jah2me aka John butler.

No wonder I love the Org. It is one organization that is hated so much, ex-witnesses here think the word “hate” is not part of their vocabulary, even though they prove it at every time. I love this site, the humor is overwhelming!

CSA is a global pandemic like the influenza. Everyone is susceptible to the infection, but only ex-witnesses scream bloody murder with disgruntled witnesses agreeing with manipulated and orchestrated facts.

Let alone them not understanding the rules of secular law, even though they just need to google.

There is no redemption for these people TTH, it's a waste of time!

Share this post


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

So what do you do when it is necessary to interact with the legal system of the world? In a world where there is some respect for God, the organization role of elders is what will be recognized as the equivalent of clergy, notwithstanding that elders do it for free. But as the world loses respect for God, then it is the salary that becomes the determining factor—do they make a living with it or not.

Perhaps WT lawyers should go against secular legal laws and system in this issue about terminology and fight for same "privileges" as Christendom Priests, but not to be named as "clergy". And with such act put existing religious hypocrisy on Next Level. :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Evans is on a quest to suggest all kingdom halls are dangerous places and all witnesses are evil pedophiles. An echo of 4jah2me aka John butler.

I don’t follow him as a matter of routine—once in a while I peek—because if I do so I am tempted to respond and if I do that he is nothing but taunting and contemptuous. It is not as though I cannot hold my own & make even inroads but there is hardly any point to it. It is a been there/done that. Besides, I told the elders that I will not do that anymore (not regarding him specifically) and if they ask me again I don’t want to be tempted to lie. Should I cave a time or two, I will readily forgive myself—not to worry on that score—but I would rather not cave by putting the temptation before myself constantly. “Some people just needs ‘Killeen ’” says JTR, but that doesn’t mean you ought be the one to do it. It has a way of sucking out large chunks of time that can better be used elsewhere. There are a few here that I have come to put in the same category as Evans and at most hastily skim their remarks because if I do more than that I am tempted to respond—with the same drawbacks as with he.

Today detractors charge what they do before a worldwide audience—the very people whom we are trying to reach, and they at least can be expected to mull it over because there is nothing to counter it. Granted, there are so many other horrific things to monitor in the world that it is hard for anti-JW activists to put their ‘good news’ on the front burner, but it would be silly to say that it has no effect. It wouldn’t take much to counter it. Even a talk parallel to what Bro Losch just gave at the annual meeting regarding dates that failed to come true might do the trick. Once a matter is spoken or written about once, you can keep referring back to it. 

The idea is not to silence opposers, for that cannot be done. The idea is to give some who may be swayed by them, even some of our own, something to offset their charges. The organization may choose to do that someday. Or maybe not—time will tell. It certainly is not the ‘whatever is righteous, whatever is chaste, true, lovable,’ etc where we like to remain, so that is good reason to avoid it. But there may be some who feel some sort of defense would come in handy.

Opposers will always have limits to their efforts because they have nothing to replace what they would take away, and most people became Witnesses in the first place because they felt exploring the world that is yourself only goes so far as a philosophy of life.  Still, I have seen people gleefully saw off the branch on which they are sitting and laugh with victory as they crashed to the ground, like the Dr. Strangelove cowboy who rides the nuke down to destruction, whooping and waving his hat as he drops, so some generalized pushback might be in order to prevent that whenever possible. Is Lloyd doing what you say, trying to paint Kingdom Halls as dangerous places and JWs as dangerous pedophiles? Good. Nasty people usually overplay their hand and in so doing torpedo their own case—never before their followers, of course, but before anyone of sense, it happens.

I’m not suggesting anyone get into a play-by-play scenario with the ‘good news‘ of those who oppose. I was struck by how, after the first Montana verdict, there were persons who wanted to rub my nose line by line into that first verdict so as to point out how the courts ruled JWs violated law! and then after reversal of that verdict, they said, ‘well, what do you expect? Witnesses follow the law—it’s the law that is not written right.’ People like to follow play-by-play in ongoing court trials these days to the extent that I almost say, ‘Well, send the jury home, then—they don’t want to be there anyway. Put it all on social media and decide the matter by ‘likes’. I never weigh in on developing matters—it is nothing more that common sense modesty to realize that since you can see but 1% of what the judge or jury sees, it is a fool’s mission to go there.

I’m not speaking of anything detailed as a defense, because details will not be constant from one situation to another. They represent non-repeatable human idiosyncrasies, and I have no problem accepting that people can do and say wrong and dumb things. No. Just something like the generalized facts I outlined in the post, so that if anyone wants to research our stand on matters, they will have more to research than a statement that we “abhor child sexual abuse.”

I am usually shouted down when I bring up Anna’s example—the kumbaya site practically chased me out with pitchforks (though not everyone)—but her example strikes me as a very sensible one—to familiarize herself with “apostate” ideas, so that, in the event her teenage son stumbles across them one fine day and is stumbled, she is able to help him. It is only icing on the cake that the kid is now an adult, has apparently never wobbled, and wonders why is mom is blowing so much time with those crazies on the internet. If there were a few resident experts at each Kingdom Hall, people who knew how to keep tabs on what is bad and knew that doIng so you does not require you to watch every Jerry Springer episode on the topic, and you don’t want to because if you immerse yourself in what is sordid in any subject it affects your well-being—you know, balanced people—that it would be a good thing, not a bad thing, because then you might be able to help ones stumbled.. 

You don’t want to encourage people to go there, just like you don’t want to encourage people to go anywhere that toxic people hang out. These days, pop psychologists win approval by telling you do dump friends and even family members who are “toxic” in favor or those who are not. But to all but forbid people to go produces a strange effect of fleeing from the apostate as one would flee from the bogeyman. You have scenarios like that played out in the drama where the Russian brother inquires of his old friend only to hear that the old friend succumbed to reading literature critical of the organization and is no longer serving Jehovah—as though that’s all it takes to derail decades of service to God—read a few brochures and you are toast. It’s ridiculous. Better to say, in my view, ‘go there if you must and be on the lookout for the unforgiving slave, for Demas, for the ones who went out because they are not of our sort, for the one fixated on the straws in others’ eyes, for the slave that buried the talent because his master was harsh, effectively saying ‘You want disciples? Go out and make them yourself! I’ve got things to do!”  Any drama is better, easier to follow, and easier to appreciate, when there are bad guys in the plot.

But won’t some go there and decide the ‘bad guys’ are actually the good guys? Probably. But I suspect no more than when we counsel so strongly not to even glance in a certain direction, and by so doing we appear exactly like a cult to people brought up in its modern definition. Drop down a notch to ‘investigate with caution if you must’ and the perception disappears. Amber Scorah has “her eyes opened” only when she goes into missionary work in China and begins correspondence with an “apostate” for whom it appears that she later dumped her husband In order to run off with? She should have had “her eyes opened” a long time ago, and if she had, that ridiculous phrase would have disappeared from the vocabulary by now. She herself would not be saying that she had her eyes opened—she would be saying that she went off because, like Demas, she prefers the world that JWs have fled—that JWs allowed her to see both plainly, and she chose the pathway that they did not.

The reason that this change of tactics will happen only by small degrees, if it happens at all, is due to what the scriptures say about those taking the lead. They are like the loyal shepherd who sees the wolf climbing the fence and holds the sheep out of harm’s way. They are like the farmer who knows that when you look behind, your plowing goes awry and the rows get all funny. They are like the strategist who says that they will slam you no matter what you do, so ignore them and press the pedal to the metal. They are like the doctor who says to keep away from what will raise your blood pressure and knot your stomach in favor of what is soothing to the soul. They are like the pop psychologist who says you should dump those toxic relationships. They are like the nursing mother who treats the flock tenderly and with protectiveness. They are not like the mom who says, “Alright, lean on that hot stove—see if I care! HA! Burned yourself, ya little snot? That’ll teach ya!” And they certainly are not like the brainwasher who says don’t go there, —‘all the better for me to manipulate you, my dear, hehehe:))))))’ even though that is the only way opposers, and to an increasing respect, the overall world sees it. Why play into their hands? Why go out of our way to prove Jesus’ words that the sons of this system know which way the secular wind blows but the sons of the light wouldn’t even know how to tie the laces of a secular shoe if you gave them one?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Where have you been TTH? Your pal Evans is on a quest to suggest all kingdom halls are dangerous places and all witnesses are evil pedophiles. An echo of 4jah2me aka John butler.

No wonder I love the Org. It is one organization that is hated so much, ex-witnesses here think the word “hate” is not part of their vocabulary, even though they prove it at every time. I love this site, the humor is overwhelming!

CSA is a global pandemic like the influenza. Everyone is susceptible to the infection, but only ex-witnesses scream bloody murder with disgruntled witnesses agreeing with manipulated and orchestrated facts.

Let alone them not understanding the rules of secular law, even though they just need to google.

TTH, it's a waste of time!

CC I notice you only joined in November last year. I wonder what name you were using before that ?

It's strange you need to join me to someone else to make yourself feel good. Does it boost your confidence or just give you a kick. 

However, yes, Kingdom Halls can be dangerous places if people are not aware of the CSA situation within the JW Org. 

Most victims will say that once Sexual Abuse has happened to them, it cannot be forgotten. And of course most JWs that have no idea about being Sexually Abused, will say that it can be easily forgotten. 

JWs are taught to have an emotional on/off switch. Such a drastic switch that it spends 90% of it's time turned off. Hence they have no fellow feeling, no love.

As for Paedophiles, it only takes one in a congregation of 150 people, especially if that one is an Elder.  No matter what the GB or the Org say, Elders and others do spend time alone with children from the congregation. 

Part of the 'way of life' in JW Org, is to trust one another. It is 'advertised' as a 'safe place' and the Elders are 'advertised' as 'rocks' or 'pillars of strength' to protect the congregants. That is how it is so easy for an Elder to abuse a child. 

In most other churches the people in the congregation hardly even talk to each other. They are not in their church chatting half hour before and half hour after the service.

Hate. It seems to be a word that JWs on here love to use. Some JWs, including CC and TTH it seems, have a need, a longing, to form this opinion about anyone that dares to find fault with the GB and the W/t and JW Org. 

In my opinion, it only shows that the JWs using the word 'hate', are the ones that feel that way toward anyone that criticises the GB Org etc. As for me I have no hate toward any human in general. If a reason came up for me to hate someone it would need to be a very serious reason. 

CSA is global yes. And it is global within the JW Org.  Otherwise why are so many countries now involved in doing investigations into JW Org and W/t.

This forum is a JW forum, hence it concerns only JWs / GB / JW Org / W/t. Hence it is not 'picking on' the JW Org, it is all about the JW Org. 

As for law. I'm more interested in God's laws than man's. 

Quote "There is no redemption for these people" So, CC, has Jesus Christ made you the judge already :)

You who talk of hate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one area where detractors have some validity is in saying that the children of JWs do not make the same choice as did their parents. The parents searched, sometimes for decades. They weighed both paths carefully before choosing the pathway of serving God over the pathway of pursuing the common goals of the world. Their children have never made this search—they were ‘born into the truth’—something we portray as a great asset, and yet something that contains the same drawbacks as being born into wealth. We probably are naive to think that ‘born into the truth’ does not make one vulnerable in some respects. 

The first generation makes the wealth and is thereafter grounded in life. The second generation inherits it, and deprived of that values-forming experience, becomes insufferable, unappreciative, profligate, isolated from the common people—some combination of the foregoing. It doesn’t have to work that way, but it does enough times for the pattern to become a stereotype. 

What’s a wealthy person to do? Cast his son out to live in the refrigerator box until he earns his own wealth? Obviously not. Better to be born into wealth than into poverty. Better to be born into a spiritual paradise than into a spiritual dessert. But the wealthy parent that has any sense makes his son experience what he did himself to the degree possible—makes the kid start on the factory floor as a regular worker, for example—makes the kid earn privileges, doesn’t just hand him things—makes him work his way into his inheritance. 

The Witness parent who simply expects the offspring to ‘make the truth your own’ without allowing him a glimpse into the other side—well, couldn’t that be likened to the wealthy parent who expects his offspring to ‘make the family wealth your own’ without allowing the character-building and adversity-overcoming experiences that formed he himself?

It is a matter of degree as to how that is done—I would not suggest that nobody is doing it—and each family must find its own. Since the beginning of time, parents have endeavored to bring their children up in principles they have convinced themselves are true. Since the Industrial Age at least, general society has tried to pull those children away into its own paths. There certainly is no educational reason that children should be schooled away from their parents at ages as young as 4. It is for societal reasons that compulsory public schooling began. Children ought be separated from the pernicious influence and prejudices of their parents, the thinking went, to make them more compliant to the greater aims of whatever times they live in.

So Witnesses are going to train their children in godly principles—that is only to be expected. It is not the case that if you leave children untrained, they will grow up free, unencumbered, and when of age, with choose their own values from the rich cornucopia of life’s offerings. No. All it means is that someone else will train them. The anti-JW activists are only bellyaching because they want to be the trainers—they do not raise the same protest with regard to the children of anyone else.

 

Share this post


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

Witnesses follow the law—it’s the law that is not written right.

As it is well known, JW's have to follow two sorts of laws. One is Law expressed in Jesus teachings and commands .... and simultaneously , next is Secular law (under "satan" influence, as it is explained and understand by bible scholars). 

Obviously, every law have some moments when paragraphs don't give explanation and guidance how to resolve something. For example, blood ban in Bible talking how eating blood is forbidden, but this law have nothing to say about transfusion and saving life. So, people who want to pleased god, making deep thinking and bring human commands about bible's law. 

Secular law also have same problematic. Life making new challenges and need for new details in law making production of various paragraphs. 

JW's are blessed in all this confusion. When one law don't have clear guideline about something, perhaps another one has ..... and vice versa.

In other words, JW people have no excuse about, because of any sort of shortage in this two kind of Laws, what and how to act in difficult situation.

:))

Share this post


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

We probably are naive to think that ‘born into the truth’ does not make one vulnerable in some respects. 

You have several recent posts here that would fit right in to the recent topic that Anna started in the closed club. 4J laughs at it, to be sure, but he holds a perspective that reflects his admitted lack of trust for just about anyone and anything. But, I just wanted to say that I suspect you are giving this whole idea a lot of very good and deep thought. Not that I'm the best judge of such things, but it's a matured perspective, too, I'm thinking. I hope you are planning to put it together into a very accessible format to refer to again (like a book/blog/etc). And I should add that I'm glad it's out here in the open for a little more public scrutiny.

I have personally avoided Evan's videos and site(s). But I paid attention for a bit when The Atlantic published something that appears to have come from someone associated with him. There were issues with bias in the article, and outright mistakes of fact. I think this was actually not Evans himself, but it reflected a lot of "bald" hatred of elders and the whole arrangement that supplies them. Like you say, it's as they've tasted something that the rest of us see as good, and they see it all as bad. I lose interest quickly when thinking becomes so black and white that they focus ONLY on the extremes and don't even think about what is generally going on.

Like going to a huge banquet/picnic where hundreds of items of great food are available to choose from, but because someone brought some tainted potato salad, they go around screaming that everything has been poisoned.

Share this post


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

Like going to a huge banquet/picnic where hundreds of items of great food are available to choose from, but because someone brought some tainted potato salad, they go around screaming that everything has been poisoned.

Because of possibility (proved until now) how some dishes are indeed poisoned on the table with other food, what will be advice, how to give warning to people around the table to not eat specific food?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

In my opinion, it only shows that the JWs using the word 'hate', are the ones that feel that way toward anyone that criticises the GB Org etc.

I don't know, of course, what sort of feeling and in what degree, level, is in soul of JW members while obeys commands about not speaking, greeting with ex-JW. Is that hate, animosity, anger, pride ...? But, it is condition, human relation that need to be book written about it.  :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I lose interest quickly when thinking becomes so black and white that they focus ONLY on the extremes and don't even think about what is generally going on.

Like going to a huge banquet/picnic where hundreds of items of great food are available to choose from, but because someone brought some tainted potato salad, they go around screaming that everything has been poisoned.

It all goes back to..."A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit."  Matt 7:18

Jesus' thinking on this matter was purely black and white.  

 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits."

 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit." 

 "Therefore by their fruits you will know them."

Matt 7:15-20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Witness said:

"A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit."  Matt 7:18

Jesus is that source of truth, and does not produce bad fruit. We as humans must try to imitate Jesus and follow to the best of our ability. But even a piece of good fruit has flaws when you look at it too closely.

You appear to be interpreting this statement as if it is saying:

(Matthew 5:48) . . .You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

But this is mitigated by another statement from the same Sermon on the Mount:

(Matthew 6:14-15) . . 14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 whereas if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

If everyone must be perfect, and can never produce bad fruit, then what's the point of asking for forgiveness of our trespasses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Secular law also have same problematic. Life making new challenges and need for new details in law making production of various paragraphs. 
JW's are blessed in all this confusion. When one law don't have clear guideline about something, perhaps another one has ..... and vice versa.

The admin should come up with a new emoji/response that means you have said some very interesting thought-provoking things, and some of them are obviously right, but that there's enough I disagree with that I don't want to give it a full up-vote.

Share this post


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

4J laughs at it, to be sure,

There are some people whose heads would be laughing at you if the wheelbarrow was carting them off from the guillotine.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm thinking. I hope you are planning to put it together into a very accessible format to refer to again (like a book/blog/etc).

I have made my opening remark the ‘pinned’ post on my blog, and it will in time include links elsewhere. Some posts made here have not yet appeared on my site, and by the time they do I will have refined them a little. There may someday be a TrueTom vs the Apostates—Round 2!’ But I have a few other irons in the fire as well, and my wife still thinks I should mow the lawn or snowblower the drive from time to time—strange woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Jesus is that source of truth, and does not produce bad fruit. We as humans must try to imitate Jesus and follow to the best of our ability. But even a piece of good fruit has flaws when you look at it too closely.

You appear to be interpreting this statement as if it is saying:

(Matthew 5:48) . . .You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

But this is mitigated by another statement from the same Sermon on the Mount:

(Matthew 6:14-15) . . 14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 whereas if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

If everyone must be perfect, and can never produce bad fruit, then what's the point of asking for forgiveness of of our trespasses?

Human life is made of, at least, two aspects (this is limited view, of course): What we want to do and what we doing. 

About producing: spiritual food  (fruit). If Jesus is Source of truthful spiritual food  that is made, presented and spread TODAY through humans as tools, as agents, as means of transmission, then it would be normal to believe how such "fruit" is (have to be) without blame.

About producing: physical and verbal deeds (fruit). If People are imperfect free will individuals who can't do nothing without errors, than we need to give and ask for forgiveness. 

But because nothing is Black and White and nothing about Organized Religion is clear, we shall never have (i am sort of pesimist) nothing that is flawless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The admin should come up with a new emoji/response that means you have said some very interesting thought-provoking things, and some of them are obviously right, but that there's enough I disagree with that I don't want to give it a full up-vote.

I am fully agree how only this 7 emoji can't present our reactions on something :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JW Insider  quote 4J laughs at it, to be sure, .." :) 

I laugh at dear old Elder Tom because he is deliberately using thousands of words to say what could be said in two sentences.  He is trying to blind people with words. Words that have no real meaning. 

Tom's words  " detractors, The anti-JW activists are only bellyaching, Opposers will always have limits to their efforts because they have nothing to replace what they would take away, "

Why is Elder Tom so worried that he has to go on so much ? 

It's not as if he is being constructive. 

And you JW I, say "You have several recent posts here that would fit right in to the recent topic that Anna started in the closed club.."

Well now we know what goes on in the 'closed club' then. So funny JWI. :) 

Can you not see why I laugh ? 

Dear Elder Tom.

If i had the power and authority and the desire, and if the JW Org were the true servant of God

I would replace the CSA  in JW Org, with Child care and love.  To look after widows and orphans as per scripture

I would replace the GB with true Anointed Ones that would receive true guidance through Holy spirit. 

I would replace the wicked elders with true servants of God.

I would replace the lies taught in JW Org with truth and true guidance. 

I would build a true united people to bring glory to Almighty God and to prepare those ones for the coming trials that of course will come before the Judgement. 

Now, Jesus Christ has the power and authority to do those things. But does he have the desire to do those things in JW Org ? If Armageddon is 'so close' why is JW Org in such a mess ?

Is Jesus holding back for some reason ?  Is Holy Spirit being blocked because of the sins of the GB and others of 'high rank' in JW Org ?

But elder tom will call this belly aching, because he hates to face the truth about the poor poor Org. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Well now we know what goes on in the 'closed club' then. So funny JWI. :) 

So far, very little has gone on in that club. There were a few discussions of what people liked or didn't like about recent and/or upcoming Watchtower studies. It was probably considered better to discuss such things without every topic being turned into: "Yes that's true but you also have a CSA problem." You might not believe it, but we had a guy here once who could take any topic, even one about how you might pronounce YHWH, and would still find a way to weave in a dig about CSA.

Share this post


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

It was probably considered better to discuss such things without every topic being turned into: "Yes that's true but you also have a CSA problem." 

Given my newfound resolution, I am exploring whether I feel that there any value whatsoever in starting threads on this open JW forum. I am not sure that there is. The ones who object are not doing any more than they have done from Day one, but just rubber-stamping what they have said many times in the past—they get me worked up to no purpose. I do like to keep my finger on the pulse of what the opponents are up to, and I have benefited in some cases by seeing where they are coming from—still there are many many ways of keeping up to date.

I mean, when you repeatedly see such remarks as “dear old Elder Tom because he is deliberately using thousands of words to say what could be said in two sentences,” I have to bite my tongue every time so as not to scream, “the problem is that you are too stupid to read more than two sentences!” Or as when he commends Witness, though saying some of her thoughts were “over his head,” not to hit back with “anything is over your head!” Who needs the aggravation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

CC I notice you only joined in November last year. I wonder what name you were using before that ?

It's strange you need to join me to someone else to make yourself feel good. Does it boost your confidence or just give you a kick. 

You have only yourself to blame when you gave yourself away John butler by mentioning Billy the Kid.

Share this post


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

I don’t follow him as a matter of routine—once in a while I peek—because if I do so I am tempted to respond and if I do that he is nothing but taunting and contemptuous.

What puzzles me TTH is, you want people to show you their false representation of facts, yet Anna, JWinsider and even you have never submitted the following from the Watchtower, why is that?

That would be my question.

In rare instances, one Christian might commit a serious crime against another—such as rape, assault, murder, or major theft. In such cases, it would not be unchristian to report the matter to the authorities, even though doing so might result in a court case or a criminal trial. 2009

Does this mean the phrase “child sexual abuse” needed to be included in order for this statement to be of value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

What puzzles me TTH is, you want people to show you their false representation of facts, yet ... you have never submitted the following from the Watchtower, why is that?...”In rare instances, one Christian might commit a serious crime against another—such as rape, assault, murder,

It’s a valid point. Thank you for making it. In fact, it is less than two sentences. It is just one. Maybe 4jah is on to something, after all, when he calls me a windbag.

In my ‘defense,’ if that statement is in the Shepherd the Flock book not meant for general distribution, then I would not quote from it even if I had read it. It is a little silly, I know, to avoid what others have already put out there, and I don’t criticize anyone doing it with good motive. But I am still old fashioned that way and inclined to respect ‘confidential talk.’

I’m not a stickler in that regard. There is an example or two of the contrary in ‘Dear Mr. Putin’ But in general I stay away from what has not been made public. For all I carry on about wishing there was more access to what is critical, I am sparing in how much I go there myself. I don’t chow down on the stuff. For the most part, I agree with the expression, “You are what you eat.”

Share this post


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

In my ‘defense,’ if that statement is in the Shepherd the Flock book not meant for general distribution, then I would not quote from it even if I had read it.

Understandable and sad at the same time. Why, I can see you not wanting to misrepresent the flock book like ex-witnesses usually do here. Sad, because I thought those of you would be more well versed in watchtower publications.

At least, that's the impression JWinsider gives. He is your library to everything Watchtower.

“Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” page 223

Share this post


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

Jesus is that source of truth, and does not produce bad fruit. We as humans must try to imitate Jesus and follow to the best of our ability. But even a piece of good fruit has flaws when you look at it too closely.

You appear to be interpreting this statement as if it is saying:

(Matthew 5:48) . . .You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

But this is mitigated by another statement from the same Sermon on the Mount:

(Matthew 6:14-15) . . 14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 whereas if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

If everyone must be perfect, and can never produce bad fruit, then what's the point of asking for forgiveness of our trespasses?

Before Matt 5:48 –

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

 

What makes an individual “perfect” according to these scriptures?  Love, which fulfills the law.  Can you see the WT leaders practicing anything that Jesus stated in these scriptures?  JWs are taught to love their own.   If anyone is ousted, they are considered “dead”. John 16:2; Rev 13:15 Those who leave the organization are mostly wiped out of the brain of their loved ones.  Do the leaders of the WT love their brothers and sisters in Christ if these ones approach their leaders about their flaws in understanding scriptures…if they suggest that their doctrine is wrong?   What happened to Ray Franz?  Is the label of “apostate”, called loving one’s neighbor as yourself?  Ray Franz did not sin; yet the proverbial sword came down upon him, and he was labeled as “dead”. 

“Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous.”  1 John 3:12

The only example JWs have for the production of “fruit”, is that of their leaders who claim to be anointed. The scriptures in Matt 7 pertain to teachings.  The anointed are “inspired” by Holy Spirit – it is “poured” into one’s heart.  Rom 5:5  If that gift is not used, one can lose it.  Matt 25:19-30 The reason the GB admit they are not inspired, is because the leaders of the organization made judgment calls not based on Holy Spirit’s guidance, but on their own speculation – their own wisdom, and not that of Christ. They have to hide the fact somehow, so the falsehood is created that anointed are not inspired.  The truth is, they have lost Holy Spirit that was once in their heart.  1 Pet 2:8; 2 Pet 3:17; 1 John 2:19; Rev 8:10,11

They are your only examples of receiving any “fruit” that they claim is derived from Christ.  Matt 24:24

Our own assumptions, actions, attitudes can lead to sin.  Paul and Barnabas had an argument over Mark.  Yet, both men spoke the truth of Christ. Obviously, love won out because Mark was mentioned by Paul later on.  Refinement from sin takes time. Learning obedience to the Father and Jesus doesn’t happen overnight.  Even Jesus was “perfected” through his endurance while on the earth.  Not that he sinned, but that he “learned obedience”:

“Although he was the Son, he learned obedience from what he suffered. 9 After he was perfected, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him”  Heb 5:8,9

“he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death -- even to death on a cross.”  Phil 2:8

Two things appear to bring about perfection.  Loving one another, and obeying God’s laws fulfilled in Christ.  They are tied together.  Mark 12:28-31

"I sanctify myself for them, so that they also may be sanctified by the truth.”  John 17:19

“Sanctify” - to make holy, i.e. (ceremonially) purify or consecrate

All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.18 We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them. 1 John 5:17,18

Are the WT leaders “sanctified/purified by the truth” through their obedience to Christ’s direction?  Not if they teach falsehoods and excuse them as minor bumps on the historical road of the WT’s existence! (G. Jackson’s latest with the barking dog)  Not if they refuse to budge on falsehoods set in place.    

Even though Jesus had to learn obedience to the Father, he still taught only truth from God while on earth. He is our pattern to follow.   (Col 2:5; 2 Tim 1:7; Titus 1:8; Rev 3:19) The Holy Spirit is the source of truth. John 16:3  Preaching falsehoods is evidence of an anointed one segregated from the vine of Christ.  No one can claim to be a “faithful slave” of Christ, if they preach an untruth!

“Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for youThis is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.”  John 15:4-8

Once again, this “fruit” is speaking about truth from God.  A faithful one in Christ will produce truth sourced in Holy Spirit which flows from the vine, to the branches – to the heart. 

A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.  Luke 6:45

It is important to remember that the anointed have inscribed upon their hearts, the laws of God; again, fulfilled in love.  Heb 8:10; Rom 13:8; Gal 5:14   Additional rules, laws, regulations, staunch adherence to the “two witness rule”, are not the workings of the Holy Spirit, but purely the admonitions made by men.  The organization carries around two bibles – one, barely used but is “inspired” by God, and one totally leaned upon, and is inspired by the hearts and minds of men.   

"They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'"  Matt 15:9

"These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings."  Col 2:22

The two "bibles" combined, will not work for the common good, as is evident in the court system today.  


 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

So far, very little has gone on in that club. There were a few discussions of what people liked or didn't like about recent and/or upcoming Watchtower studies. It was probably considered better to discuss such things without every topic being turned into: "Yes that's true but you also have a CSA problem." You might not believe it, but we had a guy here once who could take any topic, even one about how you might pronounce YHWH, and would still find a way to weave in a dig about CSA.

The point is though @JW Insider that people in the JW Org, general congregants that is, don't know much about CSA in JW Org. Because if they did I'm sure they would find Watchtower studies and Pubic Talks quite funny.... Those that do know, including JWs on here, don't want reminding of it. I suppose the closed club is a nice quiet place where you can all convince each other how wonderful JW Org is and what a great job the GB are doing. Enjoy it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote @TrueTomHarley  ( talking about me )  “the problem is that you are too stupid to read more than two sentences!” 

And " anything is over your head! "   Tom doesn't stop does he :) 

Well I read both of the previous long comments you wrote, hence I know that they said nothing of importance. You were just bashing on at those people that have proof of how bad the GB and JW Org really is. 

But you and others tend to lump all those who find fault with the GB and the Org, together. You do it for convenience of course, as an excuse, because you cannot justify many things the GB and Org do. 

You tell me I'm too stupid. That's just you trying to make me appear stupid.  Just like the GB tried to say it was apostates telling lies about CSA. You say the same thing about me, about anything on the web, about anything that shows up the GB and it's Org for what it really is. 

Another quote from dear Tom  "  if that statement is in the Shepherd the Flock book not meant for general distribution, then I would not quote from it even if I had read it. "

No Tom, Elders love to keep secrets from the 'boots on the ground' congregants. It's the only way of keeping people in the Org. To tell them the truth would be like asking them to leave JW Org. 

Share this post


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

Can you see the WT leaders practicing anything that Jesus stated in these scriptures?

Sorry, but the answer is yes, I have seen most Watchtower leaders practicing love among one another, especially to the flock, and also practicing love to those we might otherwise consider our enemies when it comes to a preaching, and giving of our time to take a message of hope to them.

The kinds of elders or leaders who end up being involved in disfellowshipping those who disagree with doctrine are only working on one part of what they consider to be a Christian duty. I agree that it might show a lack of love with some, but only in that one activity, and not because most of them realize the lack of love. To most it's just a painful job that someone has to do. I know for a fact that elders sometimes cry during and after a judicial meeting. They imagine they are doing an act of sacred service.

(John 16:2) . . .Men will expel YOU from the synagogue. In fact, the hour is coming when everyone that kills YOU will imagine he has rendered a sacred service to God.

But sometimes we must forgive them, for they know not what they do. And other times, perhaps most of the time, they are doing the right thing. They ARE performing an act of sacred service. There is a scriptural basis for different versions of this practice.

Share this post


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

At least, that's the impression JWinsider gives. He is your library to everything Watchtower.

All right, if you insist:

*** lv p. 223 [Keep Yourself In God's Love] Resolving Disputes in Business Matters ***
There are also cases in which a brother might feel compelled to countersue in order to protect himself in a lawsuit.*
If such lawsuits are pursued without a spirit of contention, they may not violate the spirit of Paul’s inspired counsel. Nonetheless, a Christian’s priority should be the sanctification of Jehovah’s name and the peace and unity of the congregation. Christ’s followers are marked first and foremost by their love, and “love . . . does not look for its own interests.”—1 Corinthians 13:4, 5; John 13:34, 35.
[Footnotes]
* In rare instances, one Christian might commit a serious crime against another—such as rape, assault, murder, or major theft. In such cases, it would not be unchristian to report the matter to the authorities, even though doing so might result in a court case or a criminal trial.

*** w05 8/1 p. 14 When Is There a Basis for Taking Offense? ***
In our time, rape is also a major crime with severe penalties. The victim has every right to report the matter to the police. In this way the proper authorities can punish the offender. And if the victim is a minor, the parents may want to initiate these actions.

*** g05 8/8 p. 9 Freedom From Fear—Is It Possible? ***
Reporting your husband’s abuse to the authorities and seeking their protection may also be an option. The Bible teaches that all must face the consequences of their actions. (Galatians 6:7) Of governmental authority, the Bible says: “It is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear.” (Romans 13:4) Assault is as much a crime at home as it is on the street. Stalking is also a crime in many countries.

*** g93 10/8 p. 9 If Your Child Is Abused ***
Some legal experts advise reporting the abuse to the authorities as soon as possible. In some lands the legal system may require this. But in other places the legal system may offer little hope of successful prosecution.

What, though, when the abuser is one’s own beloved mate? Sad to say, many women fail to take decisive action. To be sure, it is never easy to face the ugly reality of a mate who is a child abuser. Emotional ties, and even financial dependency, can be overwhelmingly strong. The wronged wife may also realize that taking action could cost her husband his family, his job, his reputation. The hard truth is, though, that he may just be reaping what he has sown. (Galatians 6:7) Innocent children, on the other hand, stand to lose much more if they are not believed and protected. Their whole future is at stake. They do not have the resources that adults have. Trauma can scar and shape them adversely for life. They are the ones who need and deserve tender treatment.—Compare Genesis 33:13, 14.
Parents must therefore make every reasonable effort to protect their children! Many responsible parents choose to seek out professional help for an abused child. Just as you would with a medical doctor, make sure that any such professional will respect your religious views. Help your child rebuild his or her shattered self-esteem through a steady outpouring of parental love.

*** g91 2/8 p. 11 What Comfort for the Victims? ***
Realizing the pain that such loss causes, many authorities work for laws or conditions that might reduce the shockingly high number of casualties each year. For instance, one official pointed to character weaknesses in those guilty of drinking and driving and suggested setting up reporting centers for them where, through education and job and drug counseling, they ‘could be reinforced and strengthened’ to overcome their weaknesses.
What Is Really Needed?
However desirable this may be, no human or human agency can erase the hurt inflicted on the victims, nor can humans bring back the dead. What is needed to undo all the damage is far more than what humans can provide. What is really needed is an entirely different arrangement in the world, one that would not be based on today’s selfish and destructive ‘thrills at any cost’ concepts that take so many lives.

*** w91 11/1 p. 5 Is Vengeance Wrong? ***
Should a crime victim, then, sit back and passively take the abuse? Not necessarily. When our person or property is violated, there are authorities to turn to. You may wish to call the police. At work, go to the supervisor. At school, you may wish to see the principal. That is one reason they are there—to uphold justice. The Bible tells us that governmental authorities are “God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad.” (Romans 13:4) Justice requires that the government exercise its authority, stop wrongdoing, and punish the wrongdoers.

*** g00 7/8 p. 29 Watching the World ***
Reported cases of child abuse in Japan soared 30 percent during fiscal 1998, compared with the previous year, says Asahi Evening News. Experts attribute this to “mounting stress borne by mothers, many of whom were carrying the entire burden of rearing their children,” as well as to “a heightened awareness among the general public” of their responsibility to report abuse or neglect.

*** g93 4/8 p. 31 Victims of Pedophile Priests Speak Out ***
“DURING the past decade, some 400 Roman Catholic priests have been reported to church or civil authorities for sexual abuse of children,” according to U.S.News & World Report. Recently, a national gathering of survivors of such abuse was held near Chicago, Illinois. Many spoke openly of how they had been victimized by pedophile priests. . . . suing six religious orders for $1.4 billion in damages.
Interestingly, though, the aforementioned U.S. attorney, who represents 150 victims of pedophile priests in 23 states, says that he has never yet had a client who was eager to go to court. Each one first tried to seek justice “within the pastoral context of the church.” NCR concludes: “Survivors go to the courts, it appears, not as a first resort, but as a last resort.”

*** w97 12/1 p. 31 Is All Complaining Bad? ***
Did you note from the above examples that complaints should be made in the proper spirit and to the proper authority? For example, it would be pointless to complain to the police about a heavy tax burden or to a judge about one’s physical ailments. So, too, it would be inappropriate to complain about some situation either inside or outside the congregation to a person that had no authority or ability to help.
In most lands today, there are courts and other appropriate authorities that can be appealed to in hopes of gaining a measure of relief. When the student mentioned in the beginning of the article took his complaint to court, the judges ruled in his favor, and he was reinstated with an apology from the school. Similarly, the female worker who was sexually harassed found relief through a working-women’s union. She received an apology from the school board. Her employers took steps to stop sexual harassment.

*** g94 3/22 p. 29 Watching the World ***
But the paper adds that these phony confessions “demonstrate the real confusion, inadequacy, and indulgence of a good part of the 36,000 Italian priests, who often seem more interested in sexual rather than social sins.” Pino Nicotri, one of the writers, found that of the 49 priests to whom he “confessed,” only one refused him absolution and told him to report his crime to the authorities. Commented La Repubblica: “As far as the others are concerned, either bribes are not a sin, or else it is useless to go to a judge, since what counts is pardon from God.”

*** g73 4/8 p. 30 Watching the World ***
The FBI says that 85 out of every 100,000 female residents of major U.S. cities are rape victims. Rape also appears to be the least reported crime. Many women do not want to discuss their case with male policemen or otherwise risk the possible shame of revealing they were raped. Newsweek observes: “The conservative estimate is that a phenomenal 75 per cent of all sexual attacks on women go entirely unreported to the authorities.”

Share this post


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

Understandable and sad at the same time. Why, I can see you not wanting to misrepresent the flock book like ex-witnesses usually do here.

I don’t have the book. I could get it, but I haven’t. I once served as an elder, but that was 20 years ago. I know precious few in Bethel and I keep up with nobody there.

An advantage to all this is that I can come across as a regular person. Another reason that I have been slow to leave the open forum for the closed one—and would not if there was more of a range of personalities here—is that I don’t like to be just singing to the choir. I like the challenge of discussing mature Witness topics, such as submission to authority, before people who find the notion very strange because it does not reflect the way the world is today.

Many Witnesses are not much good at speaking with non-Witnesses without going into ‘preaching mode.’ I even had someone shush me upon spotting the RING internet doorbell. “What! Do you think I’m telling dirty jokes here?” I said. “I hope he does hear me talking about regular things because then he will know that I am a regular person.”

I will say, however—and this is only for 4Jah’s consumption—that after I served as a congregation elder I was whisked away to Bethel where I am now such a high-up secretive honcho that even the Bethelites you see on TV do not know me. They sense my presence, of course, at times the force is quite strong, but they can’t quite identify me in my deep state top assignment.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

At least, that's the impression JWinsider gives. He is your library to everything Watchtower.

You’ve got it all wrong, CC. I am his father and if he ever successfully completes the assignments I’ve given him—I never saw a pupil drag his feet the way he does!—we will rule together

 

81B1C190-648C-461B-A98B-7D6206B0DA6F.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I can’t wrap around myself with that, logic. Whether it is an open forum or a closed forum, the conversation remains the same.

The only difference is, the freedom there is in the closed forum to criticize the watchtower without being personally criticized.

However, when did you stop believing you and JWinsider aren’t already rulers of this Forum, lol! 😉

Share this post


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

I agree that it might show a lack of love with some, but only in that one activity, and not because most of them realize the lack of love. To most it's just a painful job that someone has to do. I know for a fact that elders sometimes cry during and after a judicial meeting. They imagine they are doing an act of sacred service.

Only one activity? (although there are more) The very activity that brings people to consider suicide?  The very activity that brings WT’s sins to light – before the world’s eyes? The very activity that breaks up families?  We’re not talking about just a few people who have suffered from this “one” activity, but thousands.  I’m not referring to gross sin such as murder, where that someone that should be in jail.  Or pedophilia, where that someone, should also be in jail (but we know in innumerable cases, is not).    

It is men, unrighteously judging men as in the case of Ray Franz – one of thousands who met with the same outcome for rejecting lies.  Who is at the root of this judgment, this decree, but those who set the guidelines for it?  Rev 13:11,12

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

John 16:2) . . .Men will expel YOU from the synagogue. In fact, the hour is coming when everyone that kills YOU will imagine he has rendered a sacred service to God.

John 16:3,4 – “They will do such things because they have not known the Father or meI have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them.

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them  Matt 7:15,16a

We recognize them by their teachings, their human doctrines, that always fail. Jesus warned of those who would carry out John 16:2, and that they are “false prophets” found “among” his anointed ones – his “elect”. 

Another way it is said,

 “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect”  Matt 24:24

The love shown for one another in the organization is conditional.  It is not the love that Christ taught through his teachings. 

"If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"   Matt 5:46,47

Only through the complete anointed Body of Christ's priests, would love be manifested by the utilization of their gifts of Holy Spirit.  They would be teaching the people God’s laws in Christ.  Mal 2:7; 1 Pet 2:5,9; Rom chapter 12.  They would not be removed for disagreeing with the GB.  Matt 24:48-51; Rev 13:11,12,15   If the Body was working as one under Christ, showing love and respect toward each other, everyone would benefit from that love and guidance. 

But, instead, a huge army of “Gentile” elders stumble over their judgments and cause families to be crushed. Joel 1:3-9; Rev 9:7-10  It would be disingenuous to realize this, and then dismiss it by saying, “but sometimes we must forgive them”, and that it is an act of sacred service, a “Christian duty”.   No!  Not at all.  It is blasphemy.  It is blindness to Christ’s teachings and God's standards toward His priesthood.   Sacred service is to be offered by God’s priests of His Temple, not by those who claim to “represent” them; trampling them into submission. Ezek 44:6-9; Matt 24:15,16; 2 Thess 2:3,4; Rev 11:1,2  For those elders who cry, I hope beyond hope, that they wake up, and remove themselves from the organization. They are working against their conscience, why?  Out of fear of losing status?  Out of fear of losing family?  Why do they cry?

God sees all of this.  He sees victims of a prejudiced justice system that destroys.  Jesus knew his people would come against an authority that would unrighteously judge them. Satan is behind it, and God allows it.  Luke 22:31; 2 Thess 2:9-12

I’ve quoted this before, and I remember once you also did, I suppose when warning of what the organization should not be like, but correct me if I'm wrong.  

“A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles (“Gentile” elder body) lord it over them (over  JWs); and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors (GB). 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.” 

To be “like that” obviously, is not based on Christ’s love.  But, it is “like that” – exactly like that – in the organization.  Luke 22:24-27  The “Gentile” elder kings lord it over JWs, and those who exercise authority over the elders, are the members of the GB - “Benefactors”. 

People in the world are not blind to the organization’s hypocrisy.  It is the majority of JWs who refuse to see it.  For those few who do see it, one must ask why they support hypocrisy. 

 Beasts are known to destroy.  Dan 7:23; 8:10; Rev 13:1,2,5-8,11,12,14-18

 

 

 

    Hello guest!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote @TrueTomHarley  " I will say, however—and this is only for 4Jah’s consumption—that after I served as a congregation elder I was whisked away to Bethel where I am now such a high-up secretive honcho that even the Bethelites you see on TV do not know me. They sense my presence, of course, at times the force is quite strong, but they can’t quite identify me in my deep state top assignment."

Why does Elder Tom find this necessary ?  I find it funny of course. Funny that he is so 'concerned' about me. 

BUT, if anyone cannnot see why Tom needs to keep doing this then you are blind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JW Insider   I haven't a clue how to work out the references such as  g93 4/8 p. 31

I presume the end bit, p 31 is a page number, but the rest of it means nothing to me. 

Is it possible to get a complete list of reference letters and numbers and their meanings ? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

g93 4/8 p. 31

g=Awake! (g refers to fact that Awake! started out as the Golden Age)

93 is the Year, then 4/8 means month and day. (Awake! in those days came out on the 8th and 22nd of every month)

So it's the April 8, 1993 Awake! magazine, page 31.

w=Watchtower, which works the same way, except that the Watchtower, until very recently, came out on the 1st and 15th of every month.

lv=Keep Yourself In God's Love, a publication that was released in 2014.

You can find the full list on the Watchtower Library "CD" which can be downloaded from jw.org.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, César Chávez said:

In rare instances, one Christian might commit a serious crime against another—such as rape, assault, murder, or major theft. In such cases, it would not be unchristian to report the matter to the authorities, even though doing so might result in a court case or a criminal trial. 2009

"...it would not be unchristian to report the matter to the authorities.."

All people sometimes need advice, support, opinions on some of the things they are facing. It is evident from this segment that the WT Organization has raised generations of members who seeking permission for some activity in their own lives because they do not dare to make decisions on their own, without organization, which perhaps may "embarrass God and his visible organization."
Would it be interesting to find out how that came about? Why can't members exist without their leaders and their instructions, and why can't leaders stop deciding for their members?

 

20 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In my ‘defense,’ if that statement is in the Shepherd the Flock book not meant for general distribution, then I would not quote from it even if I had read it. It is a little silly, I know, to avoid what others have already put out there, and I don’t criticize anyone doing it with good motive. But I am still old fashioned that way and inclined to respect ‘confidential talk.’

:))) general distribution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes 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.’

BUT all JWs are supposed to be equal. No clergy class or all clergy class .  All brothers. 

No hierarchy. And it's supposed to be 'the truth'.  So why would you need hidden information ? 

After all its not supposed to be an organisation of the world is it ? 

But remember Tom the whole Elders book is available to read online so we know it is a 'smoking gun'. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" 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. 

 

 

Share this post


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

All people sometimes need advice, support, opinions on some of the things they are facing. It is evident from this segment that the WT Organization has raised generations of members who seeking permission for some activity in their own lives because they do not dare to make decisions on their own, without organization, which perhaps may "embarrass God and his visible organization."
Would it be interesting to find out how that came about? Why can't members exist without their leaders and their instructions, and why can't leaders stop deciding for their members?

In my experience, someone who got “raped” didn’t automatically go to the elders for advice on how to deal with that situation. They contacted “secular authority” first, made a criminal report, went to the hospital to get checked out and to gather evidence, and then after all said and done, go to the Elders for “spiritual support”.

I could say the same thing about child sexual abuse. In my experience, the process was the same, ending with secular convictions and congregational disfellowship. This applied to either within the Org or coming from the outside world.

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.

The same erred assumption you made about how the watchtower should just allow secular authority take control of allegations when Bro Jackson asked for just that and it didn't even make it to the Australian parliament for debate and consideration. How could they when the supposed watchdog ARC itself bushed it off as you can see with Stewart's response,

Jackson:  So if the government does happen to make mandatory reporting, that will make this dilemma so much easier for us, because we all want the same goal that children will be cared for properly.

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

Ask yourself why.

First and foremost, every true witness is loyal to God not Elders, or the GB. The aforementioned are there to “guide” witnesses in spiritual matters.

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. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

    Hello guest!
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

DA6E56E0-369D-4A8E-8D2B-CB48B0C50E4A.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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???   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


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

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.

Seems like the application is more like the lack of value that a foolish person might recognize in some very good counsel. Pearls and swine. That's not so different from his application. You can make it work among the brothers, but it sounds much more like our relationship with some in the world for whom we need to shake the dust off our feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to put a few quote togethr here.

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

Quite myself  "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. "

And myself again "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. "

Now JWI :-

Quote @JW Insider " 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 "

I'll leave it to you to have your own views here. I've proven my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

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.

I go by, what my experiences are John, not by what propaganda I have read over the internet or by secondhand information that is "hearsay" by any legal standing. If you want to excuse your behavior try harder! 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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.

That's why true witnesses follow the watchtower constitution not men as you continue to indicate. That's solely an ex-witness assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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.” 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)

Even if he had, the outcome would have been the same. The ARC was not interested in changing laws but making new guidelines that everyone could follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Jah2me 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.

I have no idea what you are trying to get at, like I said, I don’t recall a time when an elder or the Branch office thought the word of God was misrepresented by the GB.

Do people say that, yes! Puts that’s their opinion.

Do others since 1950 noticed a view by the Bible Students in conflict with scripture, yes! A simple one would be the cross and crown. That’s why we are now JW’s NOT bible students. A conflation you seem only to eager to equate.

The JW doctrine is the Bible. People that believe the Watchtower has erred in interpretation of scripture are those opposed to the truth and seek their own independent understanding of scripture. When the bible mentions to test, these are the areas where a Christian should test those that carry an independent view of scripture.

This is why true witnesses understand the authority is God and Christ as inscribed by scripture. That in itself doesn’t prevent God from having an earthly channel to dispense spiritual food. Only you and opposers believe there is no such thing. A view that is in contradiction of scripture.

Therefore, the “superior authority” is God and Christ. However, there are spiritual men “appointed” in their dew course to instruct. If you can’t comprehend that or refuse to accept it, then you are defying God’s superior authority.

I have yet to see a flaw in biblical interpretation by the Watchtower. But don’t change the subject, TTH wants to hear from opposers why the Watchtower is reluctant to speak out about ongoing court cases that not even secular authority does just to please a few.

That’s how the watchtower views superior authority as written in scripture. This is why Bro Jackson mentioned the GB are fellow workers alongside the brothers, but with an added responsibility they have before God, Russell understood it, Rutherford understood it, the Watchtower understands it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Do others since 1950 noticed a view by the Bible Students in conflict with scripture, yes! A simple one would be the cross and crown. That’s why we are now JW’s NOT bible students. A conflation you seem only to eager to equate.

JWI wants nothing of the sort.

But if you are going to do one of these things where you go on an attack with false "facts" again, then someone ought to point out at least a couple of them. First of all, you are conflating the Bible Students and the JW's if you think that the cross and crown was a view noticed "since 1950." The cross-and-crown pins were declared to be objectionable as early as 1928. The English Watchtower got rid of the symbol from its covers in 1931. The pin was objectionable because it was religious jewelry associated with Russell and the Bible Students, not because it showed a cross. The WT still taught that Jesus died on a cross up until about 1936.

Remember that the English name for the "Bible Students" still associated with the WTS was changed to Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931. Some Branches with the delay due to language translation lagged behind with the new name "Jehovah's Witnesses" and their redesigned Watchtower covers. (The Branch in Spain still had the cross-and-crown on their tablecloth design until 1932, and their Spanish Watchtower redesigned the covers in 1932.) Recall that in Germany the usual name was still Bibelforscher (Bible Students) from 1933 and beyond, and was used so much in Germany that many people didn't recognize that the Bibleforscher were the same as the Jehovas Zeugen (Jehovah's Witnesses) even after WWII. In fact, many of the Bibelforscher in concentration camps were not Jehovah's Witnesses but were Bible Students no longer associated with Rutherford and the Watchtower Society.

So this cross-and-crown change had nothing to do with the 1950's, even though a bit of confusion might still have occurred in the mind of outsiders about the Bible Student name up until then, as this Watchtower experience shows:

*** w92 6/1 p. 30 After Buchenwald I Found the Truth ***
In 1954, I was visited by two of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I subscribed to the Awake! magazine. . . . During the discussions that followed, I remembered the Bibelforscher in Buchenwald who were so true to their faith. Only then did I realize that these Bibelforscher and Jehovah’s Witnesses were one and the same people. Thanks to a Bible study, my wife and I took our stand for Jehovah and were baptized in April 1955.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

People that believe the Watchtower has erred in interpretation of scripture are those opposed to the truth and seek their own independent understanding of scripture.

You have made this statement several times, seemingly forgetting that it is the Governing Body who have declared that the Watchtower erred in interpretation of scripture. You are so blinded in your anger against anyone who might admit this simple truth, that you are inadvertently claiming that the GB are opposed to the truth and seeking their own independent understanding. I don't believe they are opposed to the truth, nor do I think they are seeking their own independent understanding.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This is why true witnesses understand the authority is God and Christ as inscribed by scripture.

After 1929, Jehovah's Witnesses (since 1931), not just the Bible Students, believed that Romans 13:1 did not refer to the secular authorities:

*** w50 11/15 p. 442 par. 12 Subjection to the Higher Powers ***
On the clergy interpretation of Romans 13:1 has been based the Roman Catholic doctrine of the “divine right of kings”. Man-made governments since the flood of Noah’s day stem from Nimrod’s government at Babel or Babylon.

Since 1962, Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Romans 13:1 to refer to the man-made governmental authorities. As you have tried before, you try to be slick with your opposition to the truth of such matters, and as usual, it has led you to attempt some wordplay again. You try to divert with your wordplay to make it ambiguous about "why true witnesses understand the authority is God and Christ as inscribed by scripture."

Let's try to keep the facts straight:

*** w96 5/1 pp. 13-14 pars. 12-14 God and Caesar ***
As early as 1886, Charles Taze Russell wrote in the book The Plan of the Ages: “Neither Jesus nor the Apostles interfered with earthly rulers in any way. . . . to offer no resistance to any established law. (Rom. 13:1-7; Matt. 22:21) . . .  This book correctly identified “the higher powers,” or “the superior authorities,” mentioned by the apostle Paul, as human governmental authorities. (Romans 13:1, King James Version) . . . .
In 1929, . . . it was felt that the higher powers must be Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. . . . Looking back, it must be said that this view of things, exalting as it did the supremacy of Jehovah and his Christ, helped God’s people to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout this difficult period.
In 1961  . . . the words used not only in Romans chapter 13 but also in such passages as Titus 3:1, 2 and 1 Peter 2:13, 17 made it evident that the term “superior authorities” referred, not to the Supreme Authority, Jehovah, and to his Son, Jesus, but to human governmental authorities. In late 1962, articles were published in The Watchtower that gave an accurate explanation of Romans chapter 13 . . . .

It was correct in 1886, under Russell, until it was changed due to what Rutherford "felt" about it in 1929. Finally in 1962, it was changed back to Russell's correct view so that it was an "accurate explanation" again. So this had very little to do with "Bible Students" as you tried to imply. I was referring to "Jehovah's Witnesses from 1931 to 1962.

Just a side note: For some reason the Watchtower added that "it must be said" that moving from a correct explanation to an inaccurate explanation of Romans 13:1 "helped." This makes one wonder why we no longer need the "help" of an incorrect explanation. Is it because we will no longer need to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout any more difficult periods in the future? That can't be the real reason.

The real reason is clear. It was a mistake. We can be humble about it, instead of trying to use weasel words and other ambiguous wordplay to try to avoid being humble. We can't keep trying to give the impression that we avoid honesty to avoid admitting a mistake. It makes us look haughty. It makes us look like we are opposers who oppose the truth.

(Proverbs 12:17) . . .The one who testifies faithfully will tell the truth, But a false witness speaks deceit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, César Chávez said:

People that believe the Watchtower has erred in interpretation of scripture are those opposed to the truth and seek their own independent understanding of scripture.

This was already answered by @JW Insider. I need to say how you have strange way of perception and conclusion about this issue. You try to defend WT Society and GB who making clear and loud statements about own errors and wrong religious teachings.

16 hours ago, César Chávez said:

When the bible mentions to test, these are the areas where a Christian should test those that carry an independent view of scripture.

?? Fantastic!  Testing people who have independent view of Scripture. If you already know that individual has "independent view" (you obviously think how bad must be to have Independence), why waste time with testing person? You already know difference between "good and bad" view. :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites