edited because it double-posted.
Watchtower Lies Hurt Victims
by silentlambs 23 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
silentlambs
in reply to yadirf,
i completely disagree with your take on this matter, as you will note i included two complete paragraphs regarding this issue from the 97 wt. the one line you quoted was:
"This does not mean, though, that he will qualify to serve in a position of responsibility in the congregation."
instead of focusing on the word "will" you should instead look at the word "not". if you take the word "not" out of the sentence, then the person has the chance to be used again. using "not" takes that opportunity away. when you consider that comment with the statement in the next paragraph it takes away all doubt. there is states:
"Hence, Paul’s counsel to Timothy applies with special force in the case of baptized adults who have molested children: “Never lay your hands hastily upon any man; neither be a sharer in the sins of others.” (1 Timothy 5:22) For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer or serve in any other special, full-time service.—Compare the principle at Exodus 21:28, 29."
The comments above thus clarify what "not" means. "never" has a certain permanance as well as "a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation." how would you define the word "not" in that sentence?
again the impression is given that a child molester would never have any privledges other than what was stated in the article. all rank and file were given this opinion when this article was written. this was and is, simply, a bald faced lie. my communicatoin with service dept proved that, in addition to the letter cited in the post. as further proof, any who attended the 97-98 elders school may recall a verbal comment given, that basically states, "if matters were kept confidential, a child molester could requalify." this was part of my notes taken at the school. it certainly sounded odd then, when offered with the information above, it helps to show how actual wt policy is in many cases never known by the rank and file till they become a victim, at this point they are silenced, humiliated, ostracized and isolated from the next victims to follow.so yes, this will go up as further proof of wt policy and how silentlambs are harmed and lied to.
-
Yadirf
Silentlambs
a man known to have been a child molester does NOT qualify for a responsible position in the congregation.
how would you define the word "not" in that sentence? again the impression is given that a child molester would never have any privledges other than what was stated in the article.--silentlambs.
I disagree that such an impression is given.
Question: Does that mean that the person would NEVER be considered for such a position?
If the analogy is used of, say for example, a person that has had their driver license taken away for having committed an infraction that deserved such a penalty: Simply because that person is said to NOT be qualified to possess a driver license at that point and time does not mean that the person will NEVER AGAIN be allowed to drive. Persons’ driver licenses are taken away because of having shown themselves unqualified to drive. Even though they might re-qualify later, just the same for the time being they are NOT qualified. Until they do re-qualify such a person is NOT allowed to drive, and this compares to the person that has committed the infraction of molesting a child, spoken about in the ’97 WT.
so yes, this will go up as further proof of wt policy and how silentlambs are harmed and lied to.
I still don’t see the “lie” that you claim is there.
Yadirf
-
CornerStone
Hello Silentlambs,
I can see your point of view about molesters NEVER qualifying for responsibilities because of the wording. The org does not continue with futher explanation or even suggest that at some point in the future a chance at redemption is possible. This is, ofcourse, EXACTLY what the org leaders want the R&F and the rest of the world to think while they feed alternate instructions to the "window washer" class, the elders. They have to give the professed molester SOME hope that they will get back into the good graces of the congregation. After all, responsibilities are the status symbol in every kingdom hall. Kind of like owning a mercedes while every one else has a honda.
To be fair however, I also see where Yadirf is coming from. The statements made by the org can suggest only a "present position" or a present condition that can change in time. However, the org did not elaborate on this because they wanted to, I believe, give the IMPRESSION that this was a permanent condition. Funny, I remember that when this article came out, the Catholic Church was taking a lot of hits concerning their moving around priest who were accused of molesting children. I knew right then and their that they, the org, was trying to take a preemptive strike against accusations of they doing the same thing. You mean to tell me that it took until 1997ad for the org to be roused up to do something "FOR THE PROTECTION OF OUR CHILDREN"? Yhea right! They were soooo concerned about "the children" that for over 100 years they did not do a dammed thing about it until the Catholics started taking heat for it!
My respects to Yadirf but I think Silentlambs has a more convincing point of view.
CornerStone
-
silentlambs
in response to yadirf,
i do not think a persons drivers license loss in any way compares to the actions of a child molester. a traffic violation can be lived down, a molested child is hurt for life. for wt to not define this clearly, in the banner article, on the long waited for stand on child molesters, smacks clearly of untruthfulness.
perhaps the best way to determine this would be to ask any rank and file witness if a child molester could ever be used in the congregation. the only answer would be an absolute NO! this being from the way the article was written. the basis of my judgement in this matter is because of that perception. if wt had of indicated they could be later used again, what is the point of the article? it would have been irrelevant. after any brother or sister considered that article they believed that they would never have a confessed child molester in an appointed capacity. your perception may be differant, but it in no way defends the position the wt sold to its members with that article. my purpose is not to try and convince you, but instead to help the rank and file to see they were sold a bill of goods that do not match up with what elders are told to do privately. sadly, it is to late when members find the hard way the way wt policy actually works.
-
MacHislopp
Hello everyone,
we all know that this topic touches
a very sensitive , expecially for those " victims ".
A little analysis is not too bad, but in the end we have
to face the point:(from Francoise):
"Parsing of words, splitting of hairs, and in all this the little six year-old girl this grown man has sexually exploited is doing WHAT?"
This is the REAL problem!
(from Cornerstone):
"The org does not continue with futher explanation or even suggest that at some point in the future a chance at redemption is possible. This is, ofcourse, EXACTLY what the org leaders want the R&F and the rest of the world to think while they feed alternate instructions to the "window washer" class, the elders. They have to give the professed molester SOME hope that they will get back into the good graces of the congregation."
As many of us have realized, the usual double-tongue as also
pointed out bt Somebody:"Did you notice the word SEEMS in that sentence? And if the Watchtower had an inkling about the definition of the word SPIRITUAL, or what it means, they wouldn't keep "rating" thir fellowmans' spirituality. Nor would they keep printing and publishing their so-called spiritual food. "
So thanks again for Silentlambs and his last statement:
"...to help the rank and file to see they were sold a bill of goods that do not match up with what elders are told to do privately. sadly, it is to late when members find the hard way the way wt policy actually works."
Agape to you all, J.C. MacHislopp
-
Yadirf
Silentlambs
i do not think a persons drivers license loss in any way compares to the actions of a child molester. a traffic violation can be lived down, a molested child is hurt for life.
That’s not hardly the point of disagreement under consideration between you and I. I started to cover that base in my comments, but I didn’t because I figured that you weren’t so desperate that you would go there. I had used that illustration because you asked me to "define the word not in that sentence". And now, after I used a way to make it clear, you seem to want to negate it into oblivion by choosing to talk about how that there is no comparison between a traffic violation and a molested child. That's obviously self-evident, with no need to emphasize it.
for wt to not define this clearly, in the banner article, on the long waited for stand on child molesters, smacks clearly of untruthfulness.
I believe that you’re grabbing at straws now. You’re now obviously manufacturing every excuse that you can in order to salvage your initial charge that the Society has lied to its people.
perhaps the best way to determine this would be to ask any rank and file witness if a child molester could ever be used in the congregation. the only answer would be an absolute NO!
According to YOUR opinion, yes. But how do you know that to be a FACT? What makes you so sure that “any rank and file witness” would have been impressed the same way by the comments in the ’97 WT as you have been?
this being from the way the article was written. the basis of my judgement in this matter is because of that perception.
And just why is YOUR “perception” necessarily have to be the same as everyone else’s?
if wt had of indicated they could be later used again, what is the point of the article?
For the purpose of making it clear that such a person’s “driver license” had been suspended.
it would have been irrelevant.
I still disagree.
after any brother or sister considered that article they believed that they would never have a confessed child molester in an appointed capacity.
I don’t think that you’re standing on solid ground in thinking that.
your perception may be differant,
I’m just one of the “rank and file” that you say would see things your way, but don’t.
but it in no way defends the position the wt sold to its members with that article.
So far, as far as I’m concerned, you haven’t established that the WTS sold its people such a “position”.
my purpose is not to try and convince you, but instead to help the rank and file to see they were sold a bill of goods that do not match up with what elders are told to do privately.
But like I’ve already said, I am a member of the rank and file.
sadly, it is to late when members find the hard way the way wt policy actually works.
I have no use whatsoever for a child molestor, unless the person is sincerely repentant --but you haven’t got a case regarding what you are saying here as far as I can see.
Yadirf
-
Yadirf
CornerStone
Sorry, but I only just now noticed your post. I appreciate you’re wanting to be fair, and thanks for your input on this subject.
However, the org did not elaborate on this because they wanted to, I believe, give the IMPRESSION that this was a permanent condition.
Of course another possibility is that in that particular article they just didn’t want to minimize the seriousness of a child molester’s offense by overemphasis on the future prospects that such a one might entertain.
I may have had more to say, but I absolutely gots to hit da sack.
Good nite … er, I mean good morning. (It’s 3:05 AM here … sheeeeeesh! I never will get in step with the rest of the world by staying up this late too often.)
Yadirf
-
silentlambs
yadrif,
you may have a great career working for wt pr. perhaps you are already doing so. your propensity to look at a well established fact among jw's and twist it to another meaning clearly smacks of not being entirely honest.i guess you were one of the folks who believes bill clinton told the truth when he said, "i did not have sex with that woman." to about everyone else in the world when it was found out what he clearly did, he was called a liar. yes, it was a play on words to present a dishonest conclusion. this is much the same in your needless picking of words with the 97 wt article. the truth of the matter shines clearly, that is, the wt was dishonest and did misrepresent its actual intent when it comes to using child molesters for added responsibility.
that is the truth, deep down you know it, as does anyone one else that looks at this material.
you of course have the right to believe bill clinton and the wt both never told a lie, but i do not think the vast majority of people will agree with your conclusions.
-
Yadirf
Silentlambs,
yadrif,
you may have a great career working for wt pr. perhaps you are already doing so. your propensity to look at a well established fact among jw's and twist it to another meaning clearly smacks of not being entirely honest.So now you’re going to resort to calling me a liar, are you? Because I see things differently ... different than you do, that makes be a liar does it? Have you considered the possibility that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of, but just can’t really see that you are?
i guess you were one of the folks who believes bill clinton told the truth when he said, "i did not have sex with that woman." to about everyone else in the world when it was found out what he clearly did, he was called a liar. yes, it was a play on words to present a dishonest conclusion. this is much the same in your needless picking of words with the 97 wt article.
I’m disappointed that you have to resort to such baloney in an attempt to defend your thinking.
the truth of the matter shines clearly, that is, the wt was dishonest and did misrepresent its actual intent when it comes to using child molesters for added responsibility.
You keep saying that, but have no convincing argumentation that I can see.
that is the truth, deep down you know it, as does anyone one else that looks at this material.
And so now you are in the business of saying you know what I know and don’t know. Could that also be the reason that you read things into that ’97 WT that weren’t there?
you of course have the right to believe bill clinton and the wt both never told a lie, but i do not think the vast majority of people will agree with your conclusions.
Your thinking what people will or will not agree with does not prove anything.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear one of these days that you’ve found yourself facing a lawsuit for defamation. Just my opinion. Would that awaken you? Or would you see it as persecution from “momma”? You seem to be taking a lot for granted with what we've been talking about in this thread. Sure, everyone is praising you for being so brave, which possibly helps to egg you on, but it will be you and you alone that may have to answer for your doings with regards to the issue here in this thread. Personally, I hope that you regain your senses and see, where I truly believe, that your thinking is off.
Yadirf