WT Public Information-Position On Murder

by silentlambs 49 Replies latest jw friends

VeniceIT

________
I also do not believe the Society's position is for a JW to completely ignore evidence of a molestation, nor for the elders to tell people to be quiet and cover it up. Certainly some elders have done this, but is that the current policy from HQ?
________
I wish this was true, but unfortunately it isn't. There was a case of a pedophilia in our hall several years back. My best friends two younger brothers were molested as were others in the hall. When this was brought to the elders attention they did investigate it immediately. We had the police knocking on our door asking dad about this situation, and dad was on the phone to WTS legal and they told him "YOU CANNOT REPORT IT" Dad said 'I have the police here right now" they told him DO NOT REPORT IT. The police said there was a $2000 a day fine for not turning in a pedophile, so dad asked WT who was gonna pay that fine if they wouldn't let him turn the guy in. The refused to comment but told dad he couldn't turn him in. Fortunelty one of the abused kids father was not a JW so he could go and turn the guy in, which he did. This was to say the least very disturbing to my father. I remember much of what happened, and it was so sick.
There were a few other cases dad went out on a limb to investigate when the WTS told him not to, because they don't wanna get involved. The WTS is only concerned about themselves and they're name and don't care how many kids they have to sacrifice to keep it. Those are the facts!!!! and that was directives STRAIGHT FROM HEADQUARTERS, From Brother Greg Olles (sp?).
Ven
VeniceIT

just wanted Cyggy to see this
hawkaw

well, I don't know if cyggy read it or not but I just did.
Thanks for sharing Ven.
hawk
SixofNine

Just got to thinking about why they might have handled matters as Veni described above in the past; I wonder if it was again just a matter of what they gambled was fiscally less exposure for the Borg? IOW, I wonder if the thinking was that they could be sued successfully if they breached clergy confidentiality standards?
hillary_step

Six,
The rot is at the top.
Some members of the GB have involved themselves in what is legally defined as criminal activity in a number of ways that have yet to be exposed publicly.
They know it. Legal knows it. Some on the Service Desk know it.....I know it....they don't know me.
Hence the policy - "No surrender".
They are now busying themselves setting up the congregation elders as the 'soft target' to deflect the focus from themselves. They are also fully aware according to one Senior member of Legal, that they will be heavily sued over the next few years.
What worries them mostly though, is the paper-trail that has been left behind them over the years. It is hard to put a PR spin on written evidence of criminal intent.
For example elders have been contacted and instructed not to use photocopies that leave behind a residual image, not to use photocopies in public places, never to scan anything into computers etc. etc. Low level CIA training, information no doubt gifted to them by an ex-FBI buffoon, now a JW. The same person who threw his weight around mightly at Mill Hill last year.
The Brits, thankfully recognised a fool when they spotted one.
HS
one

1.Their policy is not scripturally based, (it may require more discussion to prove it)
2. their writting and their action do not harmonize. See Ven story above
3. Cygnus is married to a jw who he loves.
4. Cygnus do not have children, (nor the GB)
How you feel when someone continuosly lie to you?
killed morally, or phisically your relative? Deut 19:6 (AVENGER)
Have you seen how most Judges react when a defendant try to fool her/him?
How reacted Bush to the 911?
No down playing, No child game...
hillary_step

One,
I am presuming that this post was directed towards me - I apologize in advance if it was not, but frankly I find your posts a little cryptic and hard to evaluate.
1.Their policy is not scripturally based, (it may require more discussion to prove it)
Their policy is based on scripture. We may have a different view of what the scriptures that they use to justify their actions actually mean, but we cannot deny that their policy is scripturally based. I believe you might mean that their application of scriptural precedents is not accurate? If so it might be an idea to evidence this for the readers of this post.
2. their writting and their action do not harmonize. See Ven story above.
I agree entirely.
3. Cygnus is married to a jw who he loves.
Well, in that case I have nothing but respect for the man. To hold together a marriage when his views of life are obviously quite different from his wife’s, especially given that many have not been able to do so, shows in my estimation a great character. Are you suggesting that Cygnus is sympathetic to the WTS because he is married to a JW and therefore his arguments are tainted? I personally do not agree with you, but you may be correct. Cygnus would be the best person to deal with that issue.
4. Cygnus do not have children, (nor the GB)
Are you suggesting that because he does not have children, he is less capable seeing the enormity of the issue of child molestation? I totally disagree with what is a rather disingenuous view of a person you probably do not know very well.
How you feel when someone continuosly lie to you?
Not very happy. How do you feel about it?
killed morally, or phisically your relative? Deut 19:6 (AVENGER)
I would feel deeply disturbed. I would also like to feel that I would seek out and confront the individuals responsible,.
Have you seen how most Judges react when a defendant try to fool her/him?
Well I have, but I am not sure what you are trying to say. Can you clarify your question?
How reacted Bush to the 911?
Bush reacted it is true. Many would suspect that he reacted rather than thought, but again I am puzzled as to what you are trying to say.
No down playing, No child game...
One, I suspect that this is supposed to be insulting to me. If it is, it is completely wasted on me.
Please play with facts, not with words.
Best regards - HS
Cygnus

Hi Venice :)
The situation you describe was indeed unfortunate. Bill Bowen's recorded phone conversation was also poor judgment by whoever he was talking to. But I highly doubt that the policy >>>today<<< is that of which you describe.
one,
Yes my wife is a JW, but that has little to do with my motives. I am friendly with certain liberal JWs that know how to take care of themselves without asking Watchtower what to do all the time. I admire that they have faith, but buck the system, and yet remain in good standing. I admire You Know in that regard as well (although his claims against apostates are ridiculous). Honestly, I feel pity for JWs who get told stupid advice from elders or the Society and don't have the guts to make their own decision if they feel the advice or direction they were receiving was inadequate or even just downright wrong.
hillary,
Thanks again for your posts.
one

HS,
Sorry for the long post but you said:
***" I am presuming that this post was directed towards me - I apologize in advance if it was not, "
My post is driected to the argument ("x") qutotation will tell where i coming from. Most of the time i dont check who did the posting
You reaffirm:
***"Their policy is based on scripture."
My use of the word "based", if you read the inmediate context, in my post, i mean it is not supported/approved/ the 'spirit of the letter' is not there.
then you said:
*** "but frankly I find your posts a little cryptic and hard to evaluate."
like what?
(funny your words remaind me of some bible verses )
I may elaborate, but if you REALLY following the topic you will notice i making reference to 'something' previously mentioned in the thread OR very revelant to it and obvious to a good jw.
and you continue:
*** "I believe you might mean that their application of scriptural precedents is not accurate? If so it might be an idea to evidence this for the readers of this post. "
I did provided some "evidence" which i wont repeat. One of them in fact require the reader to go and read the scripture, better if the NWT. The green one you know.
My style is to let the reader do most of the thinking... if reader is hungry she/he will do the rest. Or at least will ask for more.
*** "Well, in that case I have nothing but respect for the man."
I respect him no less.
*** ", shows in my estimation a great character. "
yes, maybe greater than most of us.
btw when he mentioned he was going BACK to the jw, several weeks ago, i posted supporting him...
I TRIED to do that myself (go back) many years ago. But did not have the stomach.
*** "Are you suggesting that Cygnus is sympathetic to the WTS because he is married to a JW and therefore his arguments are tainted? "
Not really, I just presented the facts, which may be unkown to this audience, you (the audicence) reach your own conclusion.
*** "Cygnus would be the best person to deal with that issue. "
Let it be.
*** "Are you suggesting that because he does not have children, he is less capable seeing the enormity of the issue of child molestation?"
Your question have been answered BEFORE you asked. Read what Alan said about it. He is by far more elocuent than my "cryptic" style. THAT is what i mean by "following the topic".
*** I totally disagree with what is a rather disingenuous view of a person you probably do not know very well. "
What did i stated? I merely presented a rethorical question.
*** Not very happy. How do you feel about it?
I feel like should not beleive her/him/wt anymore, to say the least.
***I would feel deeply disturbed. I would also like to feel that I would seek out and confront the individuals responsible,.
Good, THAT is what Bill is doing. But Cygnus think he is not doing right, AND he also thinks that this board is not reacting properly to the issue. This board is "deeply distturbed" I dont know what Cynus is expecting from disturbed people. Oh yeah i remember he expects this board to question Bill, Bill might be the one lying or misrepresenting the facts AND our duty is to find out.
WHY WT DID NOT SHOWED UP AT DATELINE? let them do the questioning BUT IN FROM OF TV CAMERA. It is public issue you know.
*** "Well I have, but I am not sure what you are trying to say. Can you clarify your question? "
Well my rethorical question do not drill.
It was an analogy, you see, this board is the "Judge."
MAD.
*** "Bush reacted it is true. Many would suspect that he reacted rather than thought, but again I am puzzled as to what you are trying to say. "
A reaction could be a 'thought', a mad action, an strong action, I beleive Bush was more than...
" What i am "TRYING TO SAY" is that this board have bee reacting accordingly, Cygnus do not agree or condone. His disavantge is that the Judge is COLLECTIVE, his opinion is listened to but collective common sense is dictating.
"...insulting to me. If it is, it is completely wasted on me. "
Anything may be insulting, you (the listener decide), but it may NOT be a socially accepted insult.
*** Please play with facts, not with words.
shoe me how, virtually.
CYGNUS,
Ii cant belevie you said:
*** "Honestly, I feel pity for JWs who get told stupid advice from elders or the Society and don't have the guts to make their own decision if they feel the advice or direction they were receiving was inadequate or even just downright wrong."
May be you want to revisit your comment above, any changes wellcome. EDIT.
hillary_step

One,
My post is driected to the argument ("x") qutotation will tell where i coming from. Most of the time i dont check who did the posting.
Then I must presume that Cygnus *is* the argument as half your questions seemed to insinuate things of a personal nature. Ie. his marriage to a JW women and his lack of children, rather than an assessment of his arguments on an intellectual level.
You reaffirm:
***"Their policy is based on scripture."
My use of the word "based", if you read the inmediate context, in my post, i mean it is not supported/approved/ the 'spirit of the letter' is not there.
I have read all these posts *very* carefully since the beginning of this thread, One. I always do when I am posting. The WTS does have scriptural support in the Hebrew scriptures for its stand. I have read your posts, but you provide no evidence for your own interpetation of Deut 19, apart from saying that the Hebrew rule did not specifically mention child abuse. In theological terms this argument is nonsense.
*** "but frankly I find your posts a little cryptic and hard to evaluate."
like what?
Like all the things I mentioned to this effect in my previous post and that you are now having to clarify in your ‘long post’
(funny your words remaind me of some bible verses ) I may elaborate, but if you REALLY following the topic you will notice i making reference to 'something' previously mentioned in the thread OR very revelant to it and obvious to a good jw.
I am following the topic carefully as I have stated. My position is clear, frankly much clearer than your own, which muddles personal attack with very few accurate facts.
and you continue:
*** "I believe you might mean that their application of scriptural precedents is not accurate? If so it might be an idea to evidence this for the readers of this post. "
I did provided some "evidence" which i wont repeat.
You may need to as it was not evidence it was your opinion and frankly it did not seem to be very carefully thought out.
One of them in fact require the reader to go and read the scripture, better if the NWT. The green one you know.
Please note that I have read the scripture that you noted in Deut 19. My comments are made in my post above. You must view this problem from a theological viewpoint in order to truly understand its substance,
My style is to let the reader do most of the thinking... if reader is hungry she/he will do the rest. Or at least will ask for more.
lol…My ‘style’ is to present an argument as accurately as possible, evidence it with facts and not opinion, and then let it rest. Why not give this style a try? It may help to clarify any confusions that may have developed between us.
*** "Are you suggesting that Cygnus is sympathetic to the WTS because he is married to a JW and therefore his arguments are tainted? "
Not really, I just presented the facts, which may be unkown to this audience, you (the audicence) reach your own conclusion.
In that case to your own admission, you have tried to influence the reader by cheap innuendo. This is not ‘style’, though it is rather spiteful.
*** "Are you suggesting that because he does not have children, he is less capable seeing the enormity of the issue of child molestation?"
Your question have been answered BEFORE you asked. Read what Alan said about it. He is by far more elocuent than my "cryptic" style. THAT is what i mean by "following the topic".
One, because I have disagreed with a number of points that you have *tried* to make, does not mean I have not followed the topic. Let me show you how *you* have not followed the topic, and I do this by quoting Alan for you, as you seem to respect his views so much. Now read this very carefuly.
The Society has two serious problems in its application of the two-witnesses rule: (1) the rule is ancient and outmoded; (2) it does not strictly follow the rule. …..(1) The rule was probably ok within the confines of the simple society of pastoral Israelites. Today there are sophisticated forensic tools that allow someone's guilt to be established even when there are no witnesses. Today we have DNA evidence and so forth. Thus, the biblical two-witnesses rule is not particularly applicable today
Alan is clearly accepting that the WTS *does* have a basis in Scripture for their stand on the issue of ‘two witnesses’. What he clearly notes, as I have, is that these principles may have worked in the desert many millenia ago, but they do not not work now.
*** I totally disagree with what is a rather disingenuous view of a person you probably do not know very well. "
What did i stated? I merely presented a rethorical question.
Yes, you stated that Cygnus had no children, clearly attempting to devaluate his argument by insinuation. You may try to play the innocent in this regard, but I suspect the readers can see what you were trying to do.
But Cygnus think he is not doing right, AND he also thinks that this board is not reacting properly to the issue. This board is "deeply distturbed" I dont know what Cynus is expecting from disturbed people. Oh yeah i remember he expects this board to question Bill, Bill might be the one lying or misrepresenting the facts AND our duty is to find out.
Cygnus presented a viewpoint which is a common one in many JW’s mind over this issue. His motives for doing this do not concern me, what does concern me is whether his argument has any merit. That is why it needs to be debated in a honest fashion, which if you note my point above, you do not seem to want to do.
WHY WT DID NOT SHOWED UP AT DATELINE? let them do the questioning BUT IN FROM OF TV CAMERA. It is public issue you know.
Why ask me? Why not ask them?
It was an analogy, you see, this board is the "Judge."
This Board can only judge if a two side to an argument are presented, Cygnus is attempting to bring another side into play, so that the 'judges' have something to judge!. The reason that I involved myself in this thread was to try to ensure that there was not a rush to judgment over Cygnus lone voice.
A reaction could be a 'thought', a mad action, an strong action, I beleive Bush was more than... " What i am "TRYING TO SAY" is that this board have bee reacting accordingly, Cygnus do not agree or condone. His disavantge is that the Judge is COLLECTIVE, his opinion is listened to but collective common sense is dictating.[quote]This One, is entirely your opinion. Collective common sense may indeed be alive and well on this Board, though I suppose many would argue with this statement as well. Just because the majority has a view, does not make them right in their arguments or even morally acceptable against the backdrop of history, remember in the late 30’s ninety-eight percent of Germans voted for Hitler. I have met many Germans in my life, but strangely have never met any who voted for him…lol All the Germans I have met claim to have fought on the Eastern front….lol[quote]Anything may be insulting, you (the listener decide), but it may NOT be a socially accepted insult.
lol....Can you give me an example One, of a ‘socially accepted insult’. Embodied in the word 'insult' is its socially unacceptable status….lol
Best regards - HS

WT Public Information-Position On Murder

Share this