Out right lies by the Australian Branch Coordinator T. O'Brien

by Crazyguy 10 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Crazyguy
    Crazyguy
    I just started reading the transcript from a 2013 hearing the Australian government had with the branch coordinator and their attorney and man the lies just on the first page:;

    The CHAIR — My question is: does the church maintain records on the number, nature and extent as well

    as the outcomes of any allegations of child abuse?

    Mr T. O’BRIEN — Yes, they do.

    I'll post more when I can Satan is messing with my computer,lol

    The CHAIR — If so, what does that data tell you? Can you explain a little bit more about those records, the

    nature of the abuse and what you actually do about that?

    Mr T. O’BRIEN — The purpose in retaining the records is, one, to make sure if a person has been

    disfellowshipped or disciplined in the past for child sexual abuse, then it would be extremely unlikely they

    would qualify to be used as a minister in the organisation. If there is even a report of an accusation, we maintain

    a record of that, because if someone was to move to another congregation, for example, and a similar accusation

    came from there, even if it is only based upon one witness, there are two accusations from two different

    witnesses. That would be sufficient for us to act further.

  • Crazyguy
    Crazyguy

    Ozgirl posted this transcript on another thread, way to go girl. The lies continue.

    The CHAIR — What does that mean in relation to acting further? What would you do?

    Mr T. O’BRIEN — If there were two independent witnesses to the same type of offence — say child sexual

    abuse of some kind — then a judicial committee would be formed.

    The CHAIR — Do you report that to the police? Sexual abuse is of a criminal nature; would you report that

    to the police?

    Mr T. O’BRIEN — As we understand, that is within the decision making of the victim, not the minister.

    We would encourage the victim, if they want to report it to the police, to certainly do that. The elders would

    cooperate fully with the police, and we would never discourage anyone from reporting it to police, but without

    mandatory reporting we do not feel that as ministers of religion that is our obligation to do that.

    This is just from the first page!!!!!

  • zeb
    zeb

    The Royal Commission inspection of the wt starts on the 27th July and is on streaming.

    Go to Google,

    Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse, Sydney Australia.

  • TheOldHippie
    TheOldHippie
    I find no lies there. What are the lies in your opinion?
  • Splash
    Splash

    This is a slippery discussion.

    Mr D. O’BRIEN — Just a final question on the process. You mentioned the family a lot. What is the situation in relation to what I might call whistleblowers or people who wish to report on any deficiencies or systemic practices in your church, including people who wish to depart from the church? How are they treated?

    Mr T. O’BRIEN — People are free to be Jehovah’s Witnesses, or if at any time they wish to discontinue for whatever reason, that is a personal choice. If the person simply decides to become inactive and no longer associate with Jehovah’s Witnesses, then they are just viewed as they were before they became one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But if somebody is, what we refer to as being disfellowshipped, or if they disassociate themselves because of whatever reason — their activity, their disagreement with scripture or whatever the case — that puts them in a situation that the scripture has outlined where we would disassociate with them and they would come into the category of what we refer to as ‘disfellowshipped’ or ‘disassociated’. But they are free to believe whatever they like. If they want to challenge the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, there are plenty who do. You only have to browse the internet to see that. People are free to express themselves against any religion or any organisation.

    Mr D. O’BRIEN — Would that include criticism of some of these practices, perhaps relying on the Shepherding textbook at that point? Is that the sort of thing that you would encourage people to make internally, or is that something that could be grounds for disfellowship?

    Mr T. O’BRIEN — People can come and question teachings or procedures. They are quite at liberty to approach the elders to talk about that.

    Mr D O’BRIEN — Sorry to interrupt, but I am conscious of getting to the point. Are they able to make public statements criticising the practices and, in a sense, the democratisation of the rules and practices of your religion?

    Mr T. O’BRIEN — People do; they are entitled to do that. That does not mean that we will become a democracy because some individuals do not like it. They are free to come and go, as we all are.

    Mr D. O’BRIEN — Can that be grounds for disfellowship if they are seen to criticise the practice for some reason? It is a whistleblowing activity I am particularly directing my attention to.

    Mr T. O’BRIEN — If it was teaching against scripture, then that would be a basis for disfellowshipping, but it would not necessarily be disfellowshipping — that would be their decision. They would be disassociating themselves from the organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses because they no longer agreed with the teachings.

  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    The WTBTS lawyers are masters at legalese. What Old Hippie fails to realize is the very real "code red" mentality of the WTBTS/GB.

    To be fair, there aren't too many outright lies ( legally speaking ), but there are many examples of dishonesty. For example, when O'Brien says that it would be unlikely that an Elder would be reappointed after molesting someone, that's true. However, "unlikely" doesn't mean "never" as the R&F believe.

    The "code red" comes I to play when an "unqualified" R&F reads the Shepherd Book and then has the audacity to tell others that molesters can be appointed to positions of oversight/authority within the WTBTS.

    They have exposed a discrepancy in "Jehovah's" bible-based rule book. This cannot be allowed to take place. A "code red" will happen. The accused will either submit or be DF'd, or disassociate themselves, or perhaps fade. Either way, mission accomplished for the WTBTS, ZERO TOLERANCE of dissent.

    DD

  • Crazyguy
    Crazyguy
    Just look at my first post last comment by Obrien, he's totally LYING! THEN keep reading my second post and tell me how he's still not lying? It's not suttle at all.
  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    Crazyguy, the problem is that SOME BOE's do what Mr. O'Brien claims. They will investigate, they will use another instance of abuse from another KH as a second witness and they won't discourage reporting by the victim. It's just not the WTBTS's standard operating procedure, as Mr. O'Brien claims. The WTBTS interferes with the actions of good Elders in order to protect the corporation.

    Is he dishonest or deceptive? Yes. Is he "lying" in the legal sense? No. That's the problem with legalism. It produces an enviroment that promotes dishonesty, or theocratic warfare.

    The WTBTS lawyers are trying to take instances where Elders did the right thing, and make that seem like corporate policy. It won't work. With enough time and the right questions, the truth will come out. That's why Gerrit Loesch dodged his court appearance.

    DD

  • Crazyguy
    Crazyguy
    So again tell me this guy is not lying.
  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    There you have it, folks.

    "Whistleblowing" - like accepting a transfusion - is a disassociating action.

    No JC even necessary.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit