Furuli's new e-book: "My Beloved Religion - And The Governing Body"

[Arauna]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Anyway, I only went off topic here to show that it's too easy to claim that WTS defense attorneys are constantly being dishonest

Well said. 

I sympathize with all victims but with the latest laws the government has shifted the responsibility of bad legislation onto all the organizations working with children.

The government changed the laws so the victims can go after old cases retroactively now they are adult and can talk and testify better and take the ' organization ' to court.  This means that the government is shifting its responsibility on the organizations who work with children. But many of these organizations have closed.... like boy scouts etc. We are still active.

There are not many JW cases but because it is JW, those who hate us blow up these cases as if we are all child molesters..... when most of us live clean, honest lives and hate these crimes.
They are not going after the perpetrator because they know it is too hard to convict.  They go after the organization - which in most cases did not have the resources ( child psychologists etc) to go after the perpetrator.

We are an organization which tries to create a safe environment for children but we are not a crime fighting organization. This is the job of the police and government. They should take these cases and get a conviction and put the perpetrator behind bars - not retroactively after 20 or 30 years put it on the organization.  

In this way the perpetrator is still walking free and JWs carry the shame. Perpetrator ....... does he have any consequences for his actions with this legislation! 

[Srecko Sostar]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yet, destroying extraneous notes is (and often should be) common practice in organizations of all types, so that the findings are highlighted, not the messy process.

If "messy" process lead to "right" findings that would be sort of miracle. A chaotic sequence of events consequently produces harmony.  :)) Sometimes it could be possible, but each and every time?

The destruction of the notes must be supervised and there must be exact instructions as to what is being destroyed and after how long time. Some notes, especially those explaining why and how the members of the legal (judicial) committee came to extremely important findings and conclusions should have a very long lifespan in some cases forever (or as long as the parties involved are alive). Especially when it comes to cases that are legally punishable.

Elders received, as i can conclude from general understanding, directive from Bethel, Legal Department or some other WT Deportment, you would know better, to destroy some sort of notes about this and that subject. But all those elders, they do not know what the regulations and procedures are when extracting and destroying archival and registry material. I am very sure they making big mistakes in this matter.   

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

What rubbish you people talk @JW Insider  @TrueTomHarley @Arauna 

Especially Tom as he can only make, what he thinks are jokes. His mind doesn't seem capable of sensible thinking. Poor man.

As for JWI, making very weak excuses for the GB and their Lawyers.  It just doesn't cut it. No one with any sense will believe you.

And i note you are using the WTS, not the CCJW. However the Leaders are in control of both, but pretended they are not connected to either, in court if I remember correctly. 

The Leaders of the CCJW / JW organisation made the rules that Child Sexual Abuse was to be dealt with internally and that outside authorities and the Police were not  to be notified. They also made the rules that Paedophiles were to kept hidden in the congregations. No announcement was to be made to the congregation and no name was to be given out. They also made the rule of using the Two Witness rule against victims. They also made the rule that Victims had to face the Paedophile that they were accusing. They also made the rule that the victim could not have a person to support them in the room whilst they were being questioned or when they had to face the Paedophile. A child had to be 'alone' without support, in a room with the Paedophile that had assaulted them, and also being questioned by three men. 

NOW YOU TELL ME THAT THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE. What rubbish you talk. 

Remember that the money was there in the Org when these things were taking place. That money was probably invested and grew much profit. It's not all new money. So those that were victims of CSA deserve an apology and a payout. BUT no, the GB think it is their money. And you JWI said  "In most cases they are just using the law to protect the financial interests of the client." YES JWI, you have it in one. 

BUT they are misusing the law by directly telling LIES. And the GB / Lawyers have no interest in honesty, love, mercy or justice. It is all just Collateral Damage, so as to keep the money pot full in the CCJW. Mr Rook knew that too. 

What hypocrites you people really are. To pretend to people that the CCJW is such a safe place and so loving, when you know it's so untrue. Never mind, Almighty God will sort the GB out and form a true religion with the True Anointed. 

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

How would that be a contradiction of scripture. Explain?

As I mentioned before, in comment to Arauna, my primary response is about WT Lawyer and his false presentation of reality about dfd and shunning ! If you have something about it we can continue with conversation. Have no interest, temporary, arguing about this JW religious ideology and doctrine. Thanks!

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Now, the mix you point out is between "spiritual needs" and "personal life". .........Therefore, you need to justify your intent here.

WT Lawyer David Gnam explicit claim and argument in court is how the words “shun and shunning” do not exist in the vocabulary and practice of the JW church.

He mixing spiritual and personal needs/life, but that is not problem, because both is not separate. Must exist together . And i do not have to "justify" nothing about it because of same reasons.  

Siting near other persons and singing together with other persons (David Gnam statement) and much more than this two, belongs to that same category you named - "spiritual and personal". Why you need me to make "explanation" or "justification" on this?? I really don't understand.

What i "don't understand"  is, why lawyer David Gnam Exposé  on Court about JW religious beliefs and practice is opposite of what JW doing !!

 

[Arauna]

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

In this way the perpetrator is still walking free and JWs carry the shame. Perpetrator ....... does he have any consequences for his actions with this legislation! 

Typical, 4Jah did not like this sentence.  He just likes the JWs to carry the blame to fulfill his hate-ocd.  He is not really interested in justice.... the perpetrator can go free and the JWs must 'pay' the penalty...… that is HIS kind of justice... (capitals deliberate).  The typical unreasonable guy I would NOT like to have as a friend.

 

[Arauna]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

shun and shunning” do not exist in

And these words do NOT  exist in our vocabulary. We use a different word which indicates that the person can still associate but without the privileges they had before.. So what part of this is hypocritical? The fact that you do not like that people do not have ALL the priviledged they had before?

Here you remind me of the parent who does not put the child in time-out as he said he would.  He still loves the child but the child needs consequences for actions taken....... 

[Witness]

3 hours ago, Arauna said:

And these words do NOT  exist in our vocabulary. We use a different word which indicates that the person can still associate but without the privileges they had before..

Here, the word “shunned” is interchangeable with “disfellowshipped”:

"We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped. W 13/8/1

 

 

 

[Witness]

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What i "don't understand"  is, why lawyer David Gnam Exposé  on Court about JW religious beliefs and practice is opposite of what JW doing !!

Definition of a hypocrite:

 

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

 

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

And these words do NOT  exist in our vocabulary. We use a different word which indicates that the person can still associate but without the privileges they had before.. So what part of this is hypocritical? The fact that you do not like that people do not have ALL the priviledged they had before?

Here you remind me of the parent who does not put the child in time-out as he said he would.  He still loves the child but the child needs consequences for actions taken....... 

I really don't get why you need to involve other people's, mine in this matter, emotions. I am speaking with you and other people here, not because i like you or not like you. We discuss, at the moment, about how WT lawyer represent your organization on what he use to "prove" your activity and practice. 

Your publications, edited, printed, published by WTJWorg and scattered with help of members and internet shows (i put some of them in previous comment) without any doubt that words "shun" and "shunning" are part of "clear language" in JW "spiritual paradise". Why you have need to contradict and deny it ?? It’s easier to admit and then we’ll start a new topic.   

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

And these words do NOT  exist in our vocabulary. We use a different word which indicates that the person can still associate but without the privileges they had before.

@Witness referenced a recent Watchtower article from 2013 that shows that the word "shunning" is interchangeable with "disfellowshipping."

It was also in the same 2013 Watchtower where an article was referenced on jw.org:

*** w13 8/1 p. 2 Table of Contents ***
READ MORE ONLINE | www.jw.org
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES—Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?
(Look under ABOUT US > FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS)

The Frequently Asked Questions section is still there, but that particular article has been removed. You have to go to the Wayback Machine (internet.archive.org) and look for the article that was picked up 62 times between August 30, 2012 and February 6, 2019. (There have been 16,777 captures from the jw.org website on the Wayback Machine from 2012, and the most recent was today). The article in question says:

Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?

...

We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped.

And we can go back to the 1970's up through 2016 (and website up to 2019) to see that the word "shun" was commonly used as part of our vocabulary for how we should shun disfellowshipped persons. The 1988 case has been mentioned above as it was reported in the 1988 Watchtower.

The shunning article was removed from the website in February 2019 about 15 months after the Canadian case in 2017. Just before the Canadian court presentation in 2017, the October 2017 Wathtower said this:

*** w17 October p. 16 par. 19 The Truth Brings, “Not Peace, But a Sword” ***
For example, Jehovah instructs us to “stop keeping company” with unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.

This is exactly at odds with Gnam's claim that normal family life goes on.

2017

*** lvs chap. 3 p. 40 par. 19 Choose Friends Who Love God ***
He may choose to leave the congregation himself, or he may have to be disfellowshipped. If this happens, the Bible clearly says that we should “stop keeping company” with him. (Read 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 John 9-11) This can be very difficult if he is a friend of ours or a member of our family. But in a situation like this, our loyalty to Jehovah must be stronger than our loyalty to anyone else.—See Endnote 8.

2019

*** od p. 200 Part 2: Christian Living ***
17. If an announcement is made that someone is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, how should we treat him?
• “Stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.
• “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.”—2 John 10.

2016

It was in the 2016 Assembly where the following part of the program even included a dramatic example of how family members don't allow family life to go on normally:

But the actual word "shun" disappeared from the website in 2019 (so far).

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But the actual word "shun" disappeared from the website in 2019 (so far).

I think i would "agree" with GB who said how internet (in fact :)) JWorg official site and JW library), is very dangerous place for true Christians aka JW members. WTJWorg IT experts can remove "spiritual food" from your "table" (a well-laden table of nourishing spiritual food served at the right time.) which is coming "from JHVH through Jesus through GB" and make it to disappear. That it looks as if something has never even been spiritual food  available for hungry and thirsty individuals who are "poor in spirit" as Bible said. When "this generation" (people who have good memory and know what was before and what was after) pass, not one of JW member in the future will never know nothing about this and other "clarifications".  

Amazing thing, internet! A supreme means of deceiving, cheating the people.