ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
Fisherman: the moral thing to do would be to report abuse accusations to the authorities for investigation.
On the other hand it is not moral to violate ecclesiastical confidentiality and laws that protect it. Also, morality standards is subjective.
Also, if it is a moral issue, then secular Courts do not have subject matter. And laws should not govern morality.
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
So, basically, the Org wants the court to exempt them from reporting child abuse.Hi vidiot! Long time we don't argue (lol).I have tried to answer the question in my posts on this topic: The tension is on the legal definition of the word clergy and how it applies to JW. Clergy doesn’t apply to lawyers and JW claim that because they claim they don’t have a paid clergy, some laws that use the word clergy may not apply to them either. The Courts have to rule on this and they haven’t. Another tension that I pointed out is the legal conflict between the rights people have to ecclesiastical confidentiality and the mandatory statutes. Both laws are compulsory. JW elders must comply with the reporting laws and when they are accused of not complying, they are taken to Court. They can also be sued when they disclose ecclesiastical communications to law enforcement.
this can be confusing because the wts has adjusted from not having a clergy class to not having a "paid" clergy class.. "a congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity" wt 6/1/2001 p. 12, pp 11. still same idea in 2021 wt october, p. 20, pp.
7, but 2022 in the wt publication, frequently asked questions about jehovah’s witnesses, page 13, the wts inserts "paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid) "following the model of first-century christianity, jehovah’s witnesses have no clergy-laity division.
all baptized witnesses are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work.
Well, I don’t !
You slipped there ! 😛
Everyone in Bethel. Women and non Elders too. So the theory about wt paid clergy falls apart because the same allowance for everyone is not a paid clergy.
Keep in mind that Courts of law don’t try feelings or morality. If a person is offended by or doesn’t like somebody else’s legal conduct, too bad. The subject matter of secular courts is facts and laws. So if someone feels that JW shouldn’t be interpreting the word clergy the way they are doing, they can feel that way but feelings don’t mitigate rights and laws. I have already stated that Courts decide how to interpret the word clergy as it applies to JW and JW have the same rights as everybody else to defend their legal position particularly as the word clergy is legally being applied to them in any given case. It is not wrong and it is not illegal to do that. That is the point.
this can be confusing because the wts has adjusted from not having a clergy class to not having a "paid" clergy class.. "a congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity" wt 6/1/2001 p. 12, pp 11. still same idea in 2021 wt october, p. 20, pp.
7, but 2022 in the wt publication, frequently asked questions about jehovah’s witnesses, page 13, the wts inserts "paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid) "following the model of first-century christianity, jehovah’s witnesses have no clergy-laity division.
all baptized witnesses are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work.
Sorry, mate, our good friend Scholar JW did a better contest !
That is la logical fallacy. You didn’t falsify what I said. It is not about the chess player, it’s about the game.
this can be confusing because the wts has adjusted from not having a clergy class to not having a "paid" clergy class.. "a congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity" wt 6/1/2001 p. 12, pp 11. still same idea in 2021 wt october, p. 20, pp.
7, but 2022 in the wt publication, frequently asked questions about jehovah’s witnesses, page 13, the wts inserts "paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid) "following the model of first-century christianity, jehovah’s witnesses have no clergy-laity division.
all baptized witnesses are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work.
Haha, that’s called “shifting the goalposts”. 😀
No it is not. Not at all. The law is so crafted. And legal conduct cannot be construed as breaking the law for example invoking the 5th or not consenting to a warrantless search does not constitute concealing criminal conduct, it is rights afforded by law. If you get a summons and there is a conflict between the factual part and the accusatory part, there is legal grounds for dismissal. It is the law, it is not wrongful conduct.
this can be confusing because the wts has adjusted from not having a clergy class to not having a "paid" clergy class.. "a congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity" wt 6/1/2001 p. 12, pp 11. still same idea in 2021 wt october, p. 20, pp.
7, but 2022 in the wt publication, frequently asked questions about jehovah’s witnesses, page 13, the wts inserts "paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid) "following the model of first-century christianity, jehovah’s witnesses have no clergy-laity division.
all baptized witnesses are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work.
They receive a paid allowance, meagre I agree, but an allowance nontheless.
Not as a clergy class. Everyone gets a n allowance.
this can be confusing because the wts has adjusted from not having a clergy class to not having a "paid" clergy class.. "a congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity" wt 6/1/2001 p. 12, pp 11. still same idea in 2021 wt october, p. 20, pp.
7, but 2022 in the wt publication, frequently asked questions about jehovah’s witnesses, page 13, the wts inserts "paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid) "following the model of first-century christianity, jehovah’s witnesses have no clergy-laity division.
all baptized witnesses are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work.
They want it both ways. They want to be clergy when protecting themselves from the courts. But, when making their sales pitch to the gullible, they claim to have not have a clergy class.
Not at all since the word can have dubious meanings.
this can be confusing because the wts has adjusted from not having a clergy class to not having a "paid" clergy class.. "a congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity" wt 6/1/2001 p. 12, pp 11. still same idea in 2021 wt october, p. 20, pp.
7, but 2022 in the wt publication, frequently asked questions about jehovah’s witnesses, page 13, the wts inserts "paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid) "following the model of first-century christianity, jehovah’s witnesses have no clergy-laity division.
all baptized witnesses are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work.
paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid)
JW elders are not paid and are not clergy like the clergy of christendom either and the term paid clergy does not have to imply that JW have an unpaid clergy. It could simply mean that JW don’t have a clergy and that their ministers don't get paid as the clergy of christendom does. JW have stated on Court that they don’t have a clergy class. However, the law has applied the term clergy to JW elders when the law defines the term as any ordained minister, rabbi, or priest. The term can also mean the paid clergy of christendom. That’s what the Courts and legal proceedings are for, to interpret the law.
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
WTS is being deceitful, hiding behind the label "clergy." at the same time saying they are not a clergy.
The term clergy used in laws may represent all ordained ministers of a religious system including JW Elders that are not clergy as JWs view themselves, or it could mean the clergy of aka “Christendom” which the JW claim they are not part of. It is up to the Courts to interpret the law and apply the laws with the term clergy to the JW. That is not being deceitful.
at the 2021 annual meeting, samuel herd revealed new light and claimed the anointed will all have passed away before armageddon.
it has since been revealed that while they will die before armageddon, there will be some anointed still around that will witness the start of the great tribulation.. so the question is, how many years until the existing members of the governing body have passed away?.
im not a doctor, but based on their age and various stages of obesity, im thinking 10- 15 years- give or take, sounds about right.. with that in mind, the great tribulation could be announced any day.. the new understanding has now freed the org from the burden of having to identify a particular generation in relation to the date of armageddon.
Can you elaborate?
Hi Ozzi,
Does everybody goes to heaven?
