by jwleaks 25 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
One thing I'm curious about - when the elders became aware of the child abuse conviction in 1998 as Watchtower stated they did - did they at this point inform the parents of the congregation?
If not, it would show that even if they knew of the conviction in 1993 they still wouldn't have informed anyone.
They won't inform parents for the most part. Why? They believe that they ( Stars of Revelation ), and the Holy Spirit have it covered. The delusion of a " Spiritual Paradise " is so powerful, it blinds them. There is no paradise. To follow Christ is to carry a cross. The only promise given is the promise of no "spiritual" breaking point, even in the face of death.
I have had an Elder tell me about an accused/suspected/alleged/past sexual offender AFTER I confronted him about why I was not informed. Had I not found out through other means, I doubt they would have warned me, or other parents. It was up to ME to notice that this person only went in service with Elders. They are so blinded by corporate/legalistic thinking. I could be their downfall.
>> The delusion of a " Spiritual Paradise " is so powerful, it blinds them<
BS. The BILLION DOLLARS in brooklyn real estate blinds them.
I was quite new in the 'truth' and my witnessing was saturday afternoon. I often got stuck with a car load of kids/young people and i had the responsibilty for them. Where were their parents? Home alone enjoying time together. (!)
Other groups went out as family and never let nor took anyone in on their little group.
First thing that popped into my mind when reading Plaintiff's previous brief:
"I don't remember them arguing that. What are they doing?"
The new Appellant's brief has a point: Plaintiff suddenly switching from a nonfeasance argument (failure to act), which the original trial entirely revolved around, to a misfeasance argument (wrong resulting from an affirmative action) is a big shift, and probably a mistake IMO.
The evidence for misfeasance is much shakier and more scant than the evidence for nonfeasance, relying solely on inferences from second hand testimony that is directly contradicted by other testimony. It wasn't even well fleshed out in the original trial briefs and was barely touched upon. Why Plaintiff would want to switch to this strategy and give up her advantage I have no idea.
