the watchtower has always, in its publications, talks etc warned against contact with spirit creatures!.
jws are notoriously terrified of anything that might even remotely be to do with spiritism.. however, i find it totally bizarre that they can accept 'spirit guidance from the 24 elders' as an explanation to how the holy spirit guides the fds!.
i would, in simple terms call this a form of spiritism.
Hasn't anybody in this discussion read COC?
According to Ray Franz, they just sit around the table and argue and then vote. No "contacting" the spirit world or even consulting their Bibles. It is all politics and 2/3 of all members, and not just of those present, carries the day.
Forscher
just wondering how many of us are nurses?
i'm a licenced practical nurse (working on my rn degree), and i work as a cosmetic dermatology specialist.
i see about 10 to 16 patients per day, doing things like laser hair removal treatments, microdermabrasion, chemical peels, skin care consultations, etc.
LPN
Not currently working. My bachelor's is in a different major.
Forscher
as you all know by now, i work in a bookstore in the religion section.
(i also shelve the philosophy and metaphysics sections.).
while straightening the bibles i was approached by a lady customer who seemed perplexed.
WOW!
It was mentioned earlier, but it sounds like that "expert got his "facts" from the Da Vinci code. I recently borrowed a copy from the library and have to wonder about that. I remember that some of its critics were worried that folks out there who were too lazy to do the research would take it as it potrays itself, factually based. I recon we have our answer here.
Forscher
in and old post by marvin, he provides a link to a wts response to blood treatment.
the wts society spokeman writes that blood transfusions may cause immunological disorders.
since modern medicine gave out thousands of infected blood transfusions in the past causing death and ravaging disease such as aids and incurable and horrible hepatitis to mention some, there is reason for concern.. how safe and effective is blood treatment today?
Yes indeed they are!
Setting aside the whole question of theology, what indeed are the risks. They are significant enought that virtually any new product coming to market with simlar risks simply would not be allowed to be used. Flurocarbons are officially kept off the market because of a lower increased risk of heart attacks in those who recieve them than the risks associated with transfusion.
The first risk comes from transfusing the wrong types. Okay, we know about that, but despite testing an unknown number die every year from transfusion reaction. I personally know of several who died because they got the wrong type of blood and the nurses who were supposed to be monitoring them didn't do their job. And guess what, neither death certificate listed "blood transfusion reaction" as the cause of death. I know that might well set the nurses on this forum to howling in protest, but it goes on.
Then there is the matter of diseases which may be transmitted by transfusion. The last time I saw an authoritative figure it was about 120 different diseases and climbing. Does anyone seriously think that the Red Cross, much less anybody else, tests for all those diseases, many of which are potentially fatal? Because the cost would be prohibitive they don't. but it gets even worse than that. Even though they do test for some of the most feared pathogens, it is not uncommon for the Red cross to go ahead and release the blood for use before the results are known. How does the phrase "crap shoot" sound?
There are also other ways one can be killed by transfusions. Thalesemics, sickle cell anemics, and others who require many transfusions of blood over a long time can be killed from volume overload, iron toxicity, and other problems related to the transfusions. Like I said, products with those kind of problems are not allowed on the market by the FDA, and yet blood is encouraged for the simple reason that a whole industry depends on the use of the product for its existence.
For those reasons, I have a brother, who is an RN and not a Dub, who insists that blood not be used on him except under the the most extenuating of circumstances and I don't blame him one bit. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing the rightness or wrongness of the theological position here. All I am doing is laying out the answer to the question posed. Simply put, blood is a biological product which is dangerous to use and it should not be used as casually as it is today. But then, with an industry dedicated to promoting its use, it is no suprise it is.
There's your answer, at least you can make a more informed decision now.
Forscher
has anyone on this board ever used john 5:23 when talking to jw's?.
unfortunately, one of my friends is currently in a "bible" study with the jw's (and has been since last year).
i asked my friend to ask the jw what john 5:23 means, so my friend did ask the jw who was conducting the "bible" study.
You hit upon one of those "little things" which kind of rolled around in the back of my mind for many years.
Setting aside the Trinity question, which I don't think was the intent of the thread, we all know that the priorities of the individual witness are supposed to be:
John 5:23 and others already mentioned kind of set that order on its head and that always bothered me. Personally, although I find the Trinity doctrine lacking in credence, I have no problem with giving Jesus equal honor with his father if that is what the scriptures say we should. I certainly don't have the problem that many have had through the years of according two "gods" honor as in my opinion he who holds the ultimate power can certainly elevate another to equal status if he darn well wants to. And he certainly doesn't need my permission to do so! When I think of it, it may well be the pride of men who seem to think they know better than he which gave us this whole mess of the Trinity doctrine to begin with.
The problem the Jews had with Jesus' claims no doubt stemmed their from understanding of his claim of sonship. In ancient times that may well been tatamount to claiming the firstborn's special position and double inheritence of all things. Can one imagine the proud Pharisees standing by while somebody else claimed what they likely saw as their own right to power? And especially one from so lowly position as a carpenter's son? not likely! Besides, we need to keep in mind that all this talk of "equality with God" was being made by Jesus' enemies, men who were already looking for any pretext they could find to kill him. That gives us the measure of the reliability of their words when attempting to determine the truth of the matter.
Still, We have John 5:23, Philipians 2:9-11, and others which indicate that God wills that we give his son equal, or nearly equal honor with him and the WTBTS's denial of that always had me wondering. But then, where do we find that the organization should be accorded the kind of status the WTBTS insists upon in God's word? Despite all the GB's sophistry in the matter I haven't found it yet. It is certainly something to think about. thanks for the topic.
Forscher
judicial committee preparation.
recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.
at a minimum i recommend the following:.
Forsher: I understand common law verses legislative or statutory and legal history, etc. You made some good points, but I disagree with some of your conclusions.
No problem, I can live with that Amazing.
TMS makes some pretty good observations. I agree with him on the tactics which are used by elders to deny their victims the right to confront their accusers directly, a right which is documented in the Flock book. They rely on the ignorance of their flock which arises from the secret nature of that book and other documentation of policies to mold the hearing to their own benefit. I once had an elder wave that book under my nose and tell me that the way he wanted to procede was WTBTS policy. When I demanded to see the relavent passage, I was denied it on the basis that the flock book was secret and mere publishers were not allowed to read any part of it. I later found out that the elder had lied about what the book said.
As I have mentioned elswhere, the best defense if one plans to go to a JC is to get a copy of that book (I personally have a PDF of the annotated copy which Richie Rich purloined and arranged to be made public) and be very familiar with its provisions. I see where Shilmer is going just as TMS does with this thing, he is wanting to inspire people to make a conscious effort to expand both the reach and the scope of the precedent which has been set in California. By posting the information he is hoping that attorneys doing their research or having this brought to their attention by members here will take the step of invoking the precedent in their jurisdictions and cases. For all the argument here that is what his core purpose is and it is a good play on his part as the argument with Amazing is keeping this thread at the head of the line where it can be read by more people. I salute him for that and would like to encourage him to bump this thread to the front periodically and rpovide complete citation of the case when he does. As more cases are decided on the issue it would be good for him to keep us up to date as well.
Respectfully
Forscher
my family's been having a lot of fun with this!
.
http://www.seabreezecomputers.com/startrek.
Your results:
You are An Expendable Character (Redshirt)
| Since your accomplishments are seldom noticed, and you are rarely thought of, you are expendable. That doesn't mean your job isn't important but if you were in Star Trek you would be killed off in the first episode you appeared in.  |
judicial committee preparation.
recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.
at a minimum i recommend the following:.
Naw Vitty
I like it!!
Forscher
judicial committee preparation.
recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.
at a minimum i recommend the following:.
Lets try to put this question as to the applicability of the case under question in perspective here.
What you are missing amazing is the nature of common law and stare decisis in american law. First let me say that I am not a lawyer but do have training in the law from both the legal and the social sciece perspectives. So while I cannot give legal advice, I think I can modestly address the issue.
First off let me point out that in the american legal system, the bulk of our law is based on the old English common law system. That is that our law rests firmly on case law more so than a formal law code (legal statutes, most of which are formally codified common law priciples anyway). That is why stare decisis, or case law often has greater weight than statute in the first place and may well be the origin for the "living Constitution" dogma in jurisprudence as well. Under common law, judicial principles are built up through an accumulation of decisions by judges on questions of law through time and court challenge and become firmly established as law only after a sufficient body of cases have built up which demonstrates a sort of consensus over time. The strength of such a system is that it is felxible and able to change to meet changed times and circumstances since yesterdays self-evident truth may well be tommorrows heresy. The weakenss of that system is that it is subject to political ideologies without the benefit of the consent of those governed by it.
So where does the foregoing apply to the question under consideration and where may you be going wrong? You argue too narrow an application for the precedent Jim. You see it as only applicable to California as to jurisdiction and child molestation cases as to scope. While you may be technically correct in what you say, you are ignoring the broader implications for the decision, which are what Schilmer is highlighting. Sure, it is now law in California specifically. However, its status in common law in that state now make it stare decisis, or case law, which can be appealed to and cited just about anywhere in the US, except maybe Lousianna which has Napoleanic law rather than common law as its basis, as a basis for breaching the wall of secrecy in the JC process. Sure, judges elswhere will have the right to decide for themselves whether they will accept it or not until other appelate decisions on the matter are registered, but the real importance here is that the California decision is a crack in the armor and has the potential to become firm principle across the nation in the future.
As to the scope of the decision, you state the limitations which one would have to state if they want to pass the state bar exam Jim. But like so many other things in life the stock answer for that does not reflect reality. You will learn when you come to practice law one day, and I wish you the best in that endeavor, that the scope can be applied mor broadly than you argue. In fact, we may well start to see that case cited as a precedent to breach clerical priviledge outside of the scope of child molestation cases in the not so ditant future. Again, as the scope is widened, judges wiil have the liberty to accept or not accept it, but some will, and appeals will be made to their decisions, and if those decisions hold up under appelate scrutiny, the the scope will be widened as a matter of course. That is how stare decisis works and american common law is built up.
I agree with the comment made by someone that the advise by Schilmer will only be effective in those areas where one might be able to intimidate a JC. One would have to weigh things carefully before throwing that particular roll of the dice. If one doesn't care whether they are intimidated or not and just wants to be confrontational (the old "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" attitude), then by all means do it, that way one goes out with a bang and if they choose to sue the elders then at least the elders can't say they weren't warned. I, personally, don't plan to give them the satisfaction of their delusions of power over me. But then, that is my personal choice if it comes down to that. Anyone who thinks they have a chance of not being DF'd would be wise not to follow Schilmer's advice if they think they have a chance at such a good outcome. Schilmer's advise is best for those who know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of not being DF'd and just want give back to the elders as good as they get.
Respectfully
Forscher
judicial committee preparation.
recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.
at a minimum i recommend the following:.
Well, I am back.
Now the Dubs have my address because some idiot ignored a confidentiality clause in the rent agreements here and gave one my apt. number. Oh well!
Now to get back to where I was before I was interrupted so rudely. I can't cite the case, but somebody took a congregation of the Worldwide Church of God to court over their practice at the time of announcing the reason behind disfellowshipping to the whole congregation. The local church lost big according to what I've heard because the announcment had the effect of blemishing that person's otherwise shinning character in the community. I do reember hearing shortly thereafter that the WTBTS sent strict instructions to the local BOEs that all such information from JCs was to be kept strictyl confidential.
There is a problem, though, that many elders that I know of just can't keep their mouths shut. I recall hearing details of a committee hearing I had been present at from the mouth of the son of an elder who had absolutely no business being privy to any of the information within days of that hearing. In that case, the elder's son wasn't even a Witness, but he knew all the intimate details of a rape case in which the girl was DF'd for fornication! I also know of cases where local elders told details of hearings to local gossips to be spread around in order to further humiliate and defame the tvictim of their action. What these elders are too arogant to see is that "ecclesiastical priviledge" can't be invoked when they spread it around for all to hear and they can find themselves liable for defamation in a big way, like Rutherford found out when he published the attack on Mr Miles. Therein lies a weakness in the practice among the Dubs which lawyers would be wise to look into and exploit.
By taking the measures Marvin suggests when confronted by a JC, one puts them on notice that one will not just rollover and let them have their way unchallenged. One also reserves one's right's, whatever they may be, to oneself if one plans to bare their claws. The best defense against any action is to be well-informed and insist on one's rights as outlined in the elder's manual. So before going into any hearing, if one plans to go, is to download a copy and be as familiar with it as the elders themselves. One can always make it look like they gone to another elder and found out what those rights were, that would set a fox among the hens!
So far, Barbara Anderson's case has had unexpected success because she is pursuing her action along lines the WTBTS's policies are vunerable, the defamation angle. To prevail she has to show that the action not only came from the top, but was also done maliciously, rather than simply in accord with "ecclesiastical law." That is the key, when one warns the elders that they could face consequences if they don't follow the rules to the letter and they go ahead and vindictively break those rules anyway, then they well and truly had. That takes, as the man siad in his title, PREPARATION!
Forscher
