by Stephanus 14 Replies latest jw friends
I imagine there's a gleeful rubbing of hands in Bethel, and lots of self-congratulatory statements circulating about how right disfellowshipping is and how how it keeps the congregation clean.
Meanwhile, silentlambs files continue to grow in number, thanks to the protection of paedophiles within the Org because of the application of the insane "two witnesses" policy.
no doubt.
I wonder what his "file" at bethel looks like! Also, I wonder why his family are'nt df'd for hanging out w/ him, etc. Oh, wait, I dont, they have a shitload of $$$$$. I hear Michael still contributes a large amt. of $$$ to the wts. Hush Money perhaps?
The JW's may jump on Michael Jackson (who hasn't even been proven guilty yet), but as you imply they ought to check their OWN organization first.
Michael Jackson wasn't DF'd, he DA'd himself in the mid-80's. They didn't clean him out, he got tired of their rules/restrictions. I guess.
Michael Jackson wasn't DF'd, he DA'd himself in the mid-80's.
Good point. Can you see Bethel not congratulating itself for "accepting his resignation"? LOL We all know the lengths they'll go to to put their PR spin on things. They'll still be sighing a collective sigh of relief that he's not in the org and making it look like a haven for paedophiles. THAT is the irony.
Michael Jackson (who hasn't even been proven guilty yet),
Very true - arrest doesn't equal conviction (except to the media ).
He left after "Thriller" was released.
I hear Michael still contributes a large amt. of $$$ to the wts. Hush Money perhaps?
I daresay he contributes money to lots of causes he'd consider "worthy".
I found this letter from the Watchtower regarding Michael Jackson's status.
Actually, I haven't heard a peep from any JW about MJ. And I've never been DFed for associating with my DFed sister. I think some bodies of elders leave this alone as a conscience decision.
thanks to the protection of paedophiles within the Org because of the application of the insane "two witnesses" policy.
Also, I see nothing wrong with the "two witness" policy. It's the non-reporting policy that is bothersome.
Also, I see nothing wrong with the "two witness" policy.
That they don't accept physical/medical evidence such as the presence of semen as a valid "witness" doesn't bother you?
