...just finished watching it for the first time, not sure what to think of it.
The most interesting was the end and elder's flip-flopping of what is current truth what is an old truth and what is apostate material .... or is it all the same, lmao
JW Court Testimony
by zagor 8 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
crazyblondeb
How the heck do you get the video playing? It says "now playing" but I don't see anything!!
Another blonde moment?
shell
-
VM44
Click on the following link to save a copy of the flash video to your hard disk.
http://youtube.com/get_video.php?l=165&video_id=e2O4lbgX81U
Change the name of the saved file to something like "Elder_Video.FLV".
Download and install the free Flash Video player at:
http://www.martijndevisser.com/blog/article/flv-player-updated
Now you will have your own local copy of the video.
--VM44
-
brandon
~ sigh ~ how did we ever swallow that? he sounds so stupid, he can't even say yes or no - he has to preach to them. oh my - thank you for the reality check!!
-
zagor
not sure why you're having problems. To me it starts playing moment I open the page
-
zagor
brandon welcome to da' board
He probably knows to say 'yes' or 'no' but is trying to sugarcoat everything because straight yes or no would be way too incriminating, which is truly what reality really is.
-
Leolaia
If you want the video in a different format (MPEG) that can easily play in Windows Media Player or most other players, you can download it from here:
-
Oroborus21
Greetings,
thanks for posting this. I don't know if this has been around on the Net before but it was the first time that I saw it.
It seems evident that this was divorce proceeding, with some children involved i think and the elder was called by the man (JW) as an "expert witness."
a couple of comments about the elder's testimony:
- His testimony that disfellowshipping is considered during the baptismal preparation/questions with bible studies gives the impression that the subject is covered in depth. While there is or might be some very superficial covering of the topic, usually in the light of how the DF'ng both set's JWS apart from other orgs and also how it helps to "keep the congregaton clean" - the fact is that the social, mental, emotional and psychological ramifications are never fully discussed with new or potential converts. This remains a big area in need of further discussion and reform with how it is covered in the indoctrinating process.
- Further along those lines, the elder testified that DF'ng (shunning) was as far as he knew a common practice among many other religions. It is a practice among many religous faiths and churches but it is also a very rare practice among some of these and among most others excommunication or DF'ng is either not a practice or only the very exceptional cases. Further, a difference could have been highlighted the woman's attorney which would have illustrated that a JW could and probably would be DF'd for speaking against the church but in most others the members would not be.
- They spent a lot of time on the Christmas issue when that is such a minor thing compared to Blood Doctrine
testimony that should have been brought out by the attorney for the woman: (granted not sure this testimony wasn't brought out by other witnesses or the parties but still while they had the elder on the stand they should have brought this out.)
- he missed the opportunity to explore the specific and likely situations that might arise. He could have asked question such as "How would you advise or what would be your advice to Mr. so-and-so (the man) if his wife wanted to baptize their child in another religion or take them to religions services, or celebrate holidays, or MOST IMPORTANTLY authorize a blood transfusion for the child
- No testimony on the blood issue?
- The attorney could have easily had one of the Kingdom Ministries handy where the availability of the child-custody package was announced as being available from Bethel. He also could have had the package and shown it to the witness. Since he had none of these it made him lose some credibility and that whole testimony was pointless
- Simlarly, it illustrated that attorneys (especially those who are going to be attacking JW witnesses need to have and cite the exact publication. With the exact citation, or better yet the publication in hand, it would be hard for a witness to deny or circumlocute away the questioning. The attorney referred to the "Organizatonal manual" which might have meant the old Organized book, the new publication or maybe even the Flock book, or something else. Again, by not citing the publication correctly, the year published etc. it did nothing for his client. On the other hand providing that citation (or the child custody package together with the announcements of it in the Our Kingdom Ministry), if the witness denied the existence of such, it would take away from his "expertise" and if he recognized them or acknowledged them, then presumably there was a further point to be made or explored.
comments on the attorneys:
- personally I thought both attorneys were terrible at handling this witness. they both could have made even better use of the witness.
- I was really surprised that the judge allowed the attorney to remain near the witness and question him like that, normally, they want you to return to the lectern, (actually you are supposed to have a copy for the witness and your own at the lectern. he said that it was his only copy which is why I suppose the judge allowed him some leeway to remain standing there, but a few times, I foudn his presence antagonisic and if I were the opposing I would have asked the judge to have him return)
- I also found his slouching at the lectern to be pretty unprofessional, but maybe these guys are all well-known (judges and attorneys) and since there was no jury to impress it didn't matter much, but I would be concerned about it if I were the woman and that was my attorney
other:
Thanks again for the info. after seeing, this I want to first ask the Forum whether there are any attorneys or even non-attorneys who have already prepared a "counter-guide" to the Society's child-custody package for opposing counsel? Blondie? Randy/Dogpatch? West? anyone?
If not, I am interested in developing a counter-guide for use in divorce and child-custody cases for attorneys. Would the other attorney forum participants be interested in such a project? Interested in co-authoring with me or in reviewing? Kim? (those who have told me in private that they are attorneys?) If so please pm me.
thanks again,
Eduardo
-
Cindyrenee
Those of us going through child custody battles are dependent upon our attorneys. Most "worldy" attorneys have good intentions of helping us, but have no idea how JW's think, or how to handle them. When talking with your attorney, you try to explain to them how JW's answer questions with a question, how they lie, with out actually "lying", you say "Don't let them talk!" You try to explain how cunning they can be, you tell them to only ask yes or no questions, but our attorneys don't get it, until afterwards! If you can come up with anything to help us, I know I would be forever grateful. Loving parents are being torn from their children; their children are being taught they will die if they love the parent who is no longer a witness. JW's represent themselves to be loving parents, their love is conditional and abusive. They only love them if they remain in "the truth". The parent who often loses the children is the one who has already lost everything; so called friends, the only friends they have ever known, their trust, their self esteem, their families, they all turned against them when they got the courage to leave the org., banded together with their facade of fresh scrubbed, smiling faces, to destroy the apostate . They attack them morally, try to ruin their reputation, often accusing them of mental instability, manipulating the court into believing vicious untruths. In reality the only "crime" commited by these parents is they left the org, and they love their children. Thank you.