but still, they ask for more at every opportunity.
send in that ice cream money kids!.
http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/2015/12/4/sales-watchtower-headquarters-and-two-other-jehovah%e2%80%99s-witnesses-properties-could.
The only thing which has really changed with these sales is the date of them I think? Wasn't the big move out of Brooklyn, and the sale of the property, meant to have been 2017? But now they're moving even faster, which gets the money to them a year or thereabouts sooner.
Cynical me would look at the timings of their appeals for money and announcement of cuts and wonder if they've been deliberately done before the next big property sell-off hits the news though...
hi people,.
i want as much data as possible on the effect of the internet on the time captured by the cult.. please answer the three following questions about yourself or about someone you know (for example, if your parents or grandparents were jw's and left).
1) were you raised as a jw, or did you convert?.
1) Raised
2) 1995 (aged 18)
3) 1995, what is now called a fade began before baptism. Complex situation but should have been braver.
it is not obvious if someone has already put the responses and excuses to the findings of the royal commission, by watchtower on this forum somewhere, sorry if it is already posted.
click on the link below, and scroll down to 'submissions' near bottom of page and you can download the full document.
if this link doesn't work.
Agree with that Coded Logic. They are so willfully blind to what they're being told. Typical example, Angus Stewart's recommendations first.
Available findings on the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s policy on reporting
F57 It is the policy and practice of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in Australia to not report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police or other authorities unless required by law to do so.
F58 The basis for this policy is said to be respect for the ‘right’ of the victim to herself decide whether to make a complaint to the authorities.
F59 That basis has no justification where the victim is still a minor at the time that the abuse comes to the attention of the organisation, or where there are others who may still be at risk at the hands of the alleged abuser.
F60 Since the organisation cannot remove an alleged abuser from the family or take other positive steps to safeguard children in the family from continuing risk, the organisation should have a policy to report all allegations of child sexual abuse to the authorities unless an adult victim specifically requests that a report not be made and there is no appreciable risk of children being abused.
What they think it should say.
F.58 Jehovah’s Witnesses respect the right of a survivor or victim of abuse (or their parent or guardian) to decide for him or herself whether or not to report the abuse to the authorities.
F.60 The Scripturally-based beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses require that they obey the laws pertaining to child abuse. In jurisdictions that require it, they obey laws requiring the reporting of such allegations to the authorities. Elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses will obey any newly enacted laws requiring ministers of religion to report allegations of child abuse.
Gives the lie to Lett's broadcast statement:
If anybody takes action against someone who would threaten our young ones, and takes action to protect our young ones, it's Jehovah's organisation.
No. No, it really isn't Jehovah's organisation doing what it should to protect children.
hey, i just thought i let you guys know about these two books i read:jehovah's witnesses, what lies behind the truththe watchtower society, organizational misbehaviorboth books by gabriel h ibarra.
awesome!
awesome!
I recall somewhere else which got spammed with information on these two books.
Surprisingly little available on the background of the writer - he previously was offering a work called Hystory of the Gregorian Calendar on lulu, but that seems to have vanished now for whatever reason.
For £38, I'd expect an academic work from a small academic press, but no academic qualifications are given for why I should be buying these books and why such a high price on Lulu.
Not really sure what to make of this, but I'm certainly not even tempted to buy at that price.
Sorry Gabriel, you need to sell these better and give some reasons why anyone would want to pay £38 for your thoughts on JWs.
the org is now demanding money from the witnesses, via the latest letter sent to elders regarding the circuit's excess funds.
succeeded in getting elders everywhere to hand over their own congregation's "excess funds" - now their circuit's bank balances are going to be plundered.. the spineless and subservient elders will cooperate without a whimper, because they're afraid of losing their little bit of power which the org has bestowed upon them.
(john 11:48).
Not rocket science, but it does say they have money issues. Its not big funds.
a man yelling "this is for syria" slashed a strangers throat and was quickly tasered by police and arrested.
video avalible...looks like war is coming soon.
There are 2,500 firearms officers in London. Another 4,000 in the rest of the country. Total police in the country is 150,000. Our police do however use tasers a lot instead. It's usually sufficient. Even now it raises eyebrows to see police openly armed in public away from high profile protection or at obvious targets. Terrorism isn't a new thing in Britain. An idiot with a knife attacking people isn't something which makes me think 'what we're really missing is our entire police force being militarised'.
delete if already posted.. .
2015-november 19, boe.
.. re: review of circuit account balances.
i've quickly read through watchtower's submission to the royal commission.
seems like they aren't planning to change policy anytime soon.
they are critical of how the royal commission handled the situation.. the tone is of the submission is shear arrogance.
will just post the general findings by counsel for the commission (angus stewart) - case specific ones are prior to them.
in short, absolutely damning.. not been through every submission myself yet.
available for download here: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.aspx.
That's a good point AudeSapere. Think those of us who've been inside see how the WBTS uses words and how what things say isn't always quite what they mean. Classic case is the use of the word 'freedom'. To be told one is free to report sounds at least neutral-ish. But in the context of a religion which teaches 'freedom' is relative and uses examples such as 'one is free to jump off a cliff' then it takes on a very different meaning. Amusingly, Stewart, quite rightly, points out the GB's role in interpretation. The JW amendments change it back to 'the bible'. 'What Jesus evidently meant was...' vs 'What the GB currently think Jesus meant was...'.
Absolutely agree that there's no room for such silliness within child protection policies. They need to be clear, to the point, and if elders are not capable of following simple directions then education needs to be given so they know what they're meant to do when a child comes to them and reports abuse, or if they suspect abuse is happening.
i, like many others, was furiously emailing about deborah when the issue of only male elders came up.. it seemed curious that angus didn't address deborah, as he surely knew of it.. thankfully, ol' geoff, and wt, cannot resist trying to get in a last word, which opened the door for angus.
(he's one cool customer.).
341 in his written statement provided to the royal commission following the close of thepublic hearing, mr jackson offered the relevant scriptural references to which headverted but was unable to provide during the hearing.
The problem they have with trying to spin it that way is the context of women being part of a process where allegations of abuse are being made isn't really equatable to 'leading the tribes into warfare'. So a 'general sense' and 'a measure of judging' are perfectly adequate grounds for finding ways to take onboard what the commission are telling them.
The reality is that these are men who include Herd, who genuinely does believe that women are biologically incapable of making decisions when a man is present. So no matter how inconsistent and nonsensical the reasons they come up with for their view on this, the decision will stand because they can't get it into their heads that women aren't disqualified from decision making because they lack a penis.
