by Derrick 26 Replies latest jw friends
I wonder what the psalmist meant when he said, "Do not sin. Do not let the sun go down on your anger."?
You reckon he meant that before the sun went down THAT DAY that you go make it right with some party with whom you've been at odds THAT DAY?
I bet it does.
And I bet it means to apologize. And damn whether or not the bible uses the word.
francois
ballistic I am not inferring that this has stopped. It is a basic question. Pediphiles are a problem of our society and of mankind in general. This I know. My understanding is that silent lambs is seeking to change WT policy in dealing with pediphiles. Do they have a very recent case that shows that the WT is still using their silent appraoch to the problem? Has there been any new, recent cases that clearly demonstrate that the WT is still covering up for such things- going forward so to speak? The WT has claimed certain policies publicly. Silent Lambs has brought attention to many cases that occurred in years past and lawsuits are being brought. The WT may never make a bold statement that they have changed their policies but may quietly start moving in another direction to CYA. I would never believe that they would stand before Bill Bowen or anyone else and admit the need to change policy- but with my experience in the WT I would believe that they would quietly and maybe just orally give new direction in regards to the 2- witness rule. If such happened it could only be recognized from the handling of new cases. Of course then again- from a religious viewpoint they could legally abide by the 2-witness rule and still report all allegations of abuse to the police. What they choose to do within the congregation does in and of itself not effect the outcome of reporting to the police. So in reality, even though convicted in a secular court one could remain in good standing in the org if there are not two witnesses or even if there are 2 witnesses and the accused is judged to be repentant. I guess to me that means they could keep their 2 witness rule as long as they reported all allegations to the police.
My dearest Derrick: I echoed your sentiments exactly in my former post that you only partially quoted and did not link to. Here, please allow me to assist:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=39263&site=3
Ray Franz..is no longer in the hands of participants on this discussion board...Whether or not Ray Franz has any responsibility for the harm done to thousands of children because his fifteen years in New York is out of our hands.
That's what I said and that's what I meant. A lot more information has been gathered since this issue first appeared on this forum on August 7, 2002 (if not before). I believe there is a lot more information left out there to uncover. Where it will lead I do not completely know. But it is now in the hands of trained professionasl where it belongs.
The discussions here (those parts of it without personal attacks and name-calling, that is) are interesting, perhaps informative. But they no longer play a part in Ray Franz's fate. OUR ROLE IN THIS AFFAIR IS OVER. FINISHED.CAPUT.
My personal recomendation to anyone having any information that may shed light on this matter, is to take this information FIRST directly to the appropriate individuals or agencies, whoever that may be.
I also stated:
I personally am tired of beating a dead horse. My vote goes to the silent lambs. If they hold Ray Franz responsible in some way then I am on their side one hundred percent. If they do not, then I am on their side one hundred percent.
I am not taking sides with either man. I also am not affiliated with Silentlambs Inc. So I have no 'loyalty' with any organization nor head of it, in case it is any of someone's business.
I said silent lambs. I meant silent lambs. What I mean by that, for those who care, is:
A "silentlamb" is a person who has been discouraged from getting help when he or she has been molested or abused.
from www.silentlambs.org front page. It is customary these days for me to use the term with no caps and as two words.
I did not MEAN Bill Bowen and I did not SAY Bill Bowen, I did not MEAN Silentlambs Inc. and I did not SAY Silentlambs Inc.
IT IS OVER. IT WAS OVER at LEAST by August 7 when this issue came on this board. (If not before that.) Many people may still feel a need to talk about what they are feeling about the issue, the discussion boards would seem to have been a good place for EVERYONE to get together and vent and express themselves.
Time and again I have sat and watched from a distance as the silent lambs get run over and ignored, and not given what I think their proper due is. Whatever chips may fall, wherever the blame is laid, and whoever is held accountable by our courts of law, my loyalty is to these incredible men and women who are and will be:
SILENT NO MORE
I am not taking sides with either man. I also am not affiliated with Silentlambs Inc. So I have no 'loyalty' with any organization nor head of it, in case it is any of someone's business.I said silent lambs. I meant silent lambs. What I mean by that, for those who care, is:
A "silentlamb" is a person who has been discouraged from getting help when he or she has been molested or abused.from www.silentlambs.org front page. It is customary these days for me to use the term with no caps and as two words.
It is perhaps for this reason that the Australian "Sunday" program was entitled "Silent Witnesses". No reference was made to "silent lambs", whether with capitals or lower-case.
Cheers, Ozzie
Can I take sides with ozzie?
I am so sick of this subject !!! Ugggggggggggggggggg
jurs
kelsey007 said:
My understanding is that silent lambs is seeking to change WT policy in dealing with pediphiles. Do they have a very recent case that shows that the WT is still using their silent appraoch to the problem? Has there been any new, recent cases that clearly demonstrate that the WT is still covering up for such things- going forward so to speak?
The Watchtower Society is currently Disfellowshipping people who even talk about watching Dateline and agreeing that the Watchtower needs to change their Policy (I have seen some people on this Board who were Disfellowshipped for this reason).
So, based on that, would you say that the Watchtower has stopped their "silent approach"?
Dungbeetle - it is obvious from your comments that you are trying to imply that Ray Franz is guilty of something when you only have a very tenuous link to any involvement at all and even that is just being involved in writing a policy that wasn't specifically directed at child abuse.
I think YOU owe Ray Franz a big apology and are doing hard to the credibility of Silent Lambs or silentlambs by accusing anyone and everyone.
Who will you accuse next? Everyone who ever went to the KH because they 'supported the GB' ?
IslandWoman wrote:
BTW, this has nothing to do with the Bible it has to do with common decency and/or smart politics.
Although you contrast the Bible with "common decency and/or smart politics," in fact the Bible's wisdom leads to common decency. As for "smart politics," I'm amazed that anybody would lump that with "common decency."
Enron Corporation executives got rich using "smart politics."
Whichever BB chooses is fine with me.So if Bill decides to choose pure Bible wisdom, it is really "fine" with you, huh? IslandWoman, you're a card.Derrick
Its not a matter of "taking sides." This is a matter of clearing up a very serious charge against another. The word "apology" may not be a bible word, but "seeking forgiveness" and "confronting wrong" and "righting wrongs" are subjects throughout the Bible.
Everyone seeks to right a wrong and seek forgiveness in their own way. Ritualistically apologizing publicly is simply a superficial form of penance.
Whatever happened to the concept of free speech for many on this site? Bill expressed his opinion even often stating he was expressing his opinion about his comments regarding Ray Franz in all his posts.
I'm not defending Bill's comments because I haven't studied the particulars. I'm defending everyone's including Bill's right to express an adverse opinion about another person without others twisting that opinion into a serious charge of "slander" or "libel".
Imagine a world where the law required everyone to remain totally silent unless they had something NICE to say about someone! Otherwise, imagine the consequences in such a world if they openly stated a negative personal opinion about someone? They could be sued, lose everything, even be forced to publicly apologizing for not having said something nice.
An ironic after-thought came to mind. Sometimes the very people on this site who are quick to charge Bill with "slander" and "libel" themselves enjoy freedom of speech in criticizing others. But that's different. Like a friend of mine would always quip to a charge of hypocrisy such as this, he would respond, "but that's different."
"Why is that different?" I would quickly respond. "Because it was YOU who said it?"
With an arrogant tone of voice, he would shamelessly reply, "that's right!!!!!" And we would almost instantly break out in laughter at this parody of the garden variety hypocrit whose foolish brain always trips over his tongue.
Derrick
