Posts by Mephis

60

Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing

by wannaexit in

jw
friends

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.

Mephis

In case of emergency, claim persecution...

"Jehovah’s Witnesses consider, however, that some of the criticisms made by Counsel Assisting go beyond what is necessary to assist the Commission in fulfilling its task or what is required by the Terms of Reference. They appear to be unjustified attacks on Jehovah’s Witnesses as a faith and the individual members thereof. These attacks seem to be the result of misinterpretations of the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses and of the Bible and the law."

Wryly amused that that they even try to disagree with points where the commissioner has already told them they have issues.

But morally bankrupt leadership yet again. They claim they assume elders will be moved by their conscience to report, whilst being absolutely adamant that they need mandated reporting because it's just too difficult for them to say it explicitly and actively put elders through a process to figure out whether or not they're legally obliged to report.

More of the same on other issues. Whitewashed graves as one chap was meant to have phrased it.

75

Australian Royal Commission Findings released

by Mephis in

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.

Mephis

I'm reading through the JW rebuttal, because that's what they've done, of the suggested findings. Incredible attitude from them. They're now claiming:

"Irrespective of whether a parent or guardian of an abused child takes responsible action, if a congregation elder believes that children are at risk, then the elder can inform the authorities so that children are protected." (which cites Jackson's evidence to support it)

"The safety of the victim and other children is paramount. In cases where the parent or guardian of a minor fails to take necessary measures to protect the child, a congregation elder can inform the authorities for the protection of the child or other children."

But they need mandated reporting, which allows no loopholes for them to avoid reporting, because they firmly believe in the right of the family to be free from interference in such matters? Which is it? The whole point of mandated reporting is to place child safety first. That's why we report. Because Brothers Dimwit and Footinmouth really aren't best qualified to be making those calls.

Deeply bizarre response from them. Not unexpected. But, even so, how can they be so willfully blind?

75

Australian Royal Commission Findings released

by Mephis in

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.

Mephis

Used an old account to upload to googledrive. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Yoi3LAtDtBeHdrN2pVcVhoZ0U/view

75

Australian Royal Commission Findings released

by Mephis in

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.

Mephis

You'd probably need to upload to an FB group, unless you wanted to mess about taking screenshots of a pdf and posting those. Other option is to upload to somewhere like google drive and link to there.

75

Australian Royal Commission Findings released

by Mephis in

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.

Mephis

Reason link is to the main link page for downloads from ARC is I know I don't particularly like hitting a link and finding large pdf files downloading. Other people's mileage may vary. There are also multiple submissions, including that of the JWs, available for download too.

75

Australian Royal Commission Findings released

by Mephis in

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.

Mephis

And this is just proves how clueless, and tacitly culpable, the governing body have been with this issue down the years - and to have the brazen cheek to go on their tv show and call it 'apostate lies'. They have no shame.

"F67 The practices and procedures of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation for the prevention of
child sexual abuse, and in particular for the management of the risk of an abuser reoffending,
do not take account of the actual risk of an offender reoffending and accordingly place
children in the organisation at significant risk of sexual abuse."

75

Australian Royal Commission Findings released

by Mephis in

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.

Mephis

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

Available findings on the authority of the Governing Body

F39 Mr Spinks’ evidence that the Australia Branch has full authority to produce documents,
seminars, letters to elders and letters to publishers without the approval or agreement of the
Governing Body is rejected.
F40 The Governing Body retains authority in respect of all publications in the name of the
Jehovah’s Witness organisation and any view or perspective contrary to that of the
Governing Body is not tolerated.

Available findings on the investigation process

F41 There are no circumstances in which the survivor of a sexual assault should have to make her
allegation in the presence of the person whom she accuses of having assaulted her, and,
contrary to the present position, the documents, manuals and instructions produced by the
Jehovah’s Witness organisation should make this clear.
F42 The requirement that two or more eyewitnesses to the same incident are required in the
absence of a confession from the accused, the testimony of two or three witnessesto separate
incidents of the same kind of wrongdoing, or strong circumstantial evidence testified to by at
least two witnesses (i.e. the two witness rule):
a) means that in respect of child sexual abuse which almost invariably occurs in private, very
often no finding of guilt will be made in respect of a guilty accused
b) causes victims of child sexual abuse to feel unheard and unsupported when it results in
allegations of child sexual abuse not being upheld
c) is a danger to children in the Jehovah’s Witness organisation because its consequence is
that very often nothing is done about an abuser in the organisation
d) does not seem to be applied by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in the case of an
accusation of adultery, which suggests that adultery is taken more seriously by the
organisation than child sexual abuse, and
e) needs to be revisited by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation with a view to abandoning it
or at least reformulating it to ensure that safe decisions as to someone being guilty of
child sexual abuse can be made more easily.
F43 The requirement that only elders (i.e. men) can participate in the making of decisions in the
investigation process on whether or not someone has committed child sexual abuse:
a) is a fundamental flaw in that process which weakens the decisions by excluding women,
and
b) needs to be revisited by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to ensure a meaningful role
for women.

31

2015-11-18-BOE--Credits to jwfacts!

by Atlantis in

thanks to mr. jwfacts we now have a copy of this letter.

i would have posted it on his thread but there was already 2 pages of replies and i didn't think the link would be seen.. thank you again mr. facts!.

.. click the green download button.. http://wwwb.fileflyer.com/view/bbduxaa.

Mephis

Part of the evidence uncovered by the ARC was a curious letter explaining how JWs massage their account figures to try and avoid certain legislation (I believe JWFacts ran into that with his attempts to get them to share his personal records). That may explain the accountants.

Legal staff, well, would seem to speak for itself. They do seem to prefer to have their inhouse teams deal with court cases - would suspect not least because a good dub will give the authorised answer provided to them rather than checking to ensure the answer actually meets the question being asked.

27

The Exodus confirmed..

by Crazyguy in

for those of you that don't research this stuff i will give a little back story.

we all know about the moses exodus, but history and archeology didn't seem to confirm this event.

the only exodus out of egypt ever recorded was that of a group of asiatic tribes that had taken over egypt for a bit over 100 years called the hyksos and the followers of the pharaoh akhenaten who perpetuated a monotheistic idea of worshiping only one deity the aten.

Mephis

Just with the Moses name thing, the idea is that Moses is a shortened Egyptian name, "son of...", and could include *any* Egyptian god in it. So Tutmoses, Ramoses, Ptahmoses etc. But it isn't certain Moshe does come from the Egyptian. There is a Hebrew root which could also explain it very reasonably.

I'd generally just caution against trying to pin too much 'history' to a narrative which really isn't about history. To take a neutral example, one can find historical fact in Homer's Iliad, but one wouldn't then want to use it as a full and accurate guide to Mycenae Greece and look for the 'historical' Helen. It's been done in the past, and it's failed! The setting is not as important as the story being told.

Exodus is very fuzzy on the whole history thing, and the aim of it isn't so much to give a historical record but to provide a religious narrative. There may be points where it matches history, or a distorted oral tradition of it, but trying to hammer on historical events is always going to be problematic. There were links between Canaan and Egypt for half a millenia and more before the supposed time period of Joseph and Moses and we know but the barest fraction about what was going on. There may be many events which could have seeded the idea of people coming and going from Egypt. Choosing the Hyksos is quite literally choosing just one we know about and hanging things from that. Fun exercise but ultimately futile without knowing which sources were feeding those writing by the rivers of Babylon and later.

49

Elder's letter requesting details of solicitors, barristers and accountants

by jwfacts in

there was a letter sent to elders in australia on 18th november 2015 asking for details of publishers that are solicitors, barristers and accountants.

what would be their motive for these details?

the rest of the letter outlines 8 specific pieces of information to compile and send to bethel's legal department, and reiterates to collect the information only be "as you understand, without consulting the publisher.

Mephis

Will you ignore the stigma we attached to you for being 'too worldly' as you obtained professional qualifications?

Will you take every word coming from Brooklyn and the Branch Committee as ex cathedra, even if it should trigger every professional warning in your body and may lead to judges asking why you misled them in presenting evidence?

Yes? Trade in your good career for one where you work for us for free.

Yours,

The Clowns answering a lot of awkward questions about finances and legal matters at an ARC.