Posts by JWdaughter

17

Analytical trend after broadcasts?

by juandefiero in

simon,.

i'm not sure if you ever share analytics data.. but i've been noticing a trend.

it seems that every time a new jw broadcast, we get a seeming increase in new members the week after.. does the data show that?.

JWdaughter

I loved the bread demo! It got me in the mood to bake and in one day I made Sesame bread, French Bread and Naan. Then I decided that cookies would be good and made pecan tea cookies. Yesterday was a good day for the men in my life:)

6

Regarding That "Tag-Line" of The X-Files

by titch in

i don't know if any thread has already been posted regarding this or not.

(if it has, then just disregard this posting!

) but, i thought about something with regards to the new, 6-episode stint of the famous show on fox, the x-files.

JWdaughter

Don't know about the tagline, but while watching the latest episode, I had a profound moment when I realized that "X-Files" is "Scooby Doo" for grownups (who may or may not be stoned).

This was the "Were Monster" episode. Made me miss my ex husband and I rarely miss anything to do with him, but our marriage may have survived as long as it did while it was on because it was something we could talk about besides our kids (yes, it is pathetic, I know it)

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

JWdaughter

Fisherman, do you understand what the genuine issues of material fact were, in this case?

It wasn't the status or religion of the clergy or the JWs. It was the fact that there was no indication that there WAS penitence happening and the fact that there was no expectation of privacy. They were able/willing to give leeway on a different church and even the fact that JWs were not "priests" and it wasn't in a confessional booth. The genuine issues were the fact that there was not really any penitence indicated(they were DFd after being drug to a juddical committee meeting) and there was no privacy given or expected in the process. The whole "clergy / penitent confidentiality" business can be flexible about the clergy, but this case clearly was missing some material facts for it to even BEGIN to come under 909. There was no surmounting them.

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

JWdaughter

Fisherman said: "Since government does not have any authority to interpret the Bible or any other religious code, it also lacks authority to interpret that "confession" is restricted to one clergy person. Government restricting "confession" to one priest or minister is unconstitutional because it is defining and interpreting and restricting how a religious act should be done. Who should impose the standard of how the religious act of confession should be done and with how many clergymen present? Funny that Delaware law uses Catholic shop talk.

In my opinion if this definition has to go to go all the way up to the US Supreme Court for clarification, the JW version of confession will continue to enjoy immunity same as a Catholic priest or clergy.

The WT organization enjoys a special kind of immunity from any criticism in the JW world. I think that you are under the illusion that they make the rules and can "redefine terms" for everyone else. Clergy confidentiality has a meaning. It can't become whatever is convenient for your organization. The entire law might well be illegal, but on the other hand, the purpose it serves deals with CLERGY (which you have none) and confidentiality (which you don't have as a JW, either). You want to totally redefine this to mean that a person can speak to any random person in their church and confess to anyone and they can't tell anyone-because that is how they choose to practice their faith. It is a limited exemption for a reason (that is fast going away as it doesn't serve a society well that has rule of law to deal with crime rather than only religious guilt holding people back from it).

When there are only two people in a room, there can actually be confidentiality. The minute more than one set of ears is privy to a confession of any kind, it becomes subject to gossip. A priest has his own religious duty to not say anything. A JW has HIS religious duty to tell other elders, tell the branch and announce it from the pulpit. Hence, the one ADMITTING guilt, is not expecting confidentiality.

Furthermore, the judge pointed out that these were NOT penitent situations. Those people (particulary the adult) were not confessing sin but admitting it when pressed (the boy by his mom and the woman by the elders). The woman didn't come to them in a way to get counsel, but because she was not given a choice.

Hopefully, there will soon be a removal of all clergy confidentiality laws on the books so the WT can't play this stupid disingenuous game anymore. We all know better-its a farce to protect the organization. They were not interested in helping either the child or the woman. they expelled them from the congregation. Who then were they protecting? Themselves, the reputation of JWs. Had they called in the authorities, her JWyness would have been exposed because of their relationship and the fact that she was in education. Can't have THAT!

46

The slow trickle has become a steady stream!

by freddo in

jw
friends

in the last few weeks it seems that instead of one or two new posters a week we seem to be getting several every day.

many seem to be long time jw's who are troubled by the path of the organisation.

this is really encouraging to those of us who have been here sometime.. welcome!

JWdaughter

How many of us came here or to other "apostate" sites/meetings/material with the express purpose of proving those wicked apostates WRONG??? I did. Decades ago. I was just a kid and it was before CoC. . . and TTATT was evident. I had spent the summer before vacation pioneering. I was all in. Years later, took another look (saw how stupid 15 year olds could be when my sister got up to some silliness)and wanted to make sure it wasn't age related stupidity that drew me out. By THEN, CoC had come out. I knew I would never go back after an assembly at the Tacoma Dome. It was so flipping stupid and my little boy was with me and I couldn't imagine trying to tell him any of it with a straight face, I couldn't imagine isolating him, making him fear and hate in that way. I walked out and didn't go back (infamous Tacoma Dome Parking Scandal happened that year, I remember them selling parking passes at hall)

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

JWdaughter

Fisherman, the only reason the law exists in the first place is because of the law of the catholic church and similar bodies. But even if you broaden the definitions, the original purpose WAS the purpose. You let that go, and we could extend it to any conversation, with any group of people, with any crime, and allow people an expectation of confidentiality. The WTS doesn't have confidentiality in ANY part of that process. Not in this or any other case. The WT doesn't have to change the way it practices religion in order to qualify for 909, they have to recognize that the entire process of judicial committee meetings is in no way applicable to that law from its very foundation. If the WT wants to have a confessional system, no one is stopping them, but a JC isn't one and never will be. It is a court tribunal, not a confessional. There is no confidentiality, there is no privacy inherent in the process. Nothing about it relates.

If the WT (even without calling their elders "clergy" had a confidential system in the structure of the religion, we wouldn't even be discussing this. But they don't. They never will. Its not something we need to debate about whether it is a better or worse way, it is just so inherently DIFFERENT that it is not even related vaguely. Its like saying "you should call this blueberry muffin an omelet. It doesn't have vegetables or cheese or meat in it like an omelet, and its filled with flour and blueberries and sugar, but gosh darn it, it has an EGG in it, so it should get to be an omelet, by golly!" Its not logical and it isn't unfair to the blueberry muffin to say it is not an omelet. No one expects a blueberry muffin to be an omelet. Muffins are muffins. If you want to be an omelet, lose the flour, leavening, blueberries, milk and sugar. (If you start trying to argue that they are the same by your definition, I won't be polite)

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

JWdaughter

Mephis, don't you think the WT would rather this just went away? If it goes to the Supremes, it will only be struck down or upheld as a law. If struck down, we do not live any longer in a culture or society that would accept them writing one that would exclude clergy in any religion from reporting. In no way would that law ever cover that particular situation or really any JC, so it is a lose-lose scenario from what I can discern (I could be missing something!). As long as they never push it that far, they can continue to play stupid every time and try to get away with it. I can't wait until Law and Order addresses this issue with the JWs and names religions directly like they have with other religions (catholics and ultra orthodox jews, for two examples) They have no clergy and it is a judicial committee, not a confessional, even if confessions happen. Not one JW has any expectation of privacy when there are two or more elders present and that is amply demonstrated here as people are constantly wary of being in the presence of two of them after they have faded or otherwise left the congregation without any formalities.

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

JWdaughter

Fisherman said: You mean the Court is wrong because that is what they decided in their "Opinion". They get to decide, and they determined that IT DOES APPLY TO THEM.

My post correctly represents the Court's decision.

I disagree. The court pointed out, in detail, all the reasons that even IF in a sense (being liberal with the interpretation) that the clergy privilege could be applied to religions other than the churches that actually have clergy and penitential confessions, NONE of what happened would have applied since one of the confessors was a victim and under 18, one or both were there speaking to the elders under duress, and both were disciplined publicly, not given any kind of absolution. Nothing about that situation, even if the law was applied in a broader sense, would come under privilege. Which is why the decision was made. It does not mean that the issue can't be discussed further in the actual trial though. I think the WT will make sure that it all goes away before that happens.

I read the ruling and if the court somehow gets the entire law struck down as unconstitutional, then the LAW will not exist to even be argued about unless the court makes ANOTHER law. NO CLERGY or RELIGIOUS personage of any kind will have sacramental confession (won't break my heart a bit!) privilege. If the law is struck down, the WT is really up a creek. If they interpret it in ANY way at all as other religions qualifying (which they usually do), there still has to be other conditions for the thing to apply and the WT doesn't meet any of them. There is NO way in any scenario that the WT can prevail on this one w/o payoffs. There is no privilege, no voluntary meeting instigated by the confessor, no absolution and the WT is just tough out of luck. The best they can do is have a law struck down, but while it is on its face seemingly unconstitutional, it was the straw they were grasping at in this case.

Fisherman, I'm curious about how you feel about this as a person, possibly a parent and possibly as a elder or just a JW? Do you think they are picking on JWs? Do you think the WT policy is great, ok or acceptable? I'm curious about the JW on the street, here. You seem to still be one.

106

Walking a thin line - Resigning Elder

by Sanchy in

jw
friends

warning of a long boring post ahead.

i feel like i need to vent my story out, as i feel quite helpless at the moment.. i'm 31 year old, married, father of toddler with another one on the way, due later this month.

i've been serving as elder for about 4 years now in a south florida congregation.

JWdaughter

Welcome. I have no good advice to offer. I was DA'd as a teenager-never even baptized. I will say I am hoping for the best outcome for your family, but I recognize how much of a challenge you are facing.

I notice how young you were when made an elder (and still so young!). We did not have a single elder under 40 when I was in, 35 years ago. Back then, young whippersnappers like yourself were lucky to be a MS! Except we said "fortunate" since" lucky" would get us a standard lecture. on the use of such a worldly word. I am sure they will miss you in the hall.

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

JWdaughter

this is an interesting case and I hope we get to hear what ultimately happens.

Here is the thing. There have been court cases that addressed this before. The kind of "confession" that the WT does is not unlike this one, other than the fact that others can be called in for judgement and possible expulsion from the congregation.

" Massachusetts: In Commonwealth v. Drake [(1818) 15 Mass., 154], it was argued on the one side that a confession of a criminal offence made penitentially by a member of a certain Church to other members, in accordance with the discipline of that Church, may not be given in evidence. These others (who were not clergy) were called as witnesses. The solicitor-general argued that religious confession was not protected from disclosure. He also took the point that in this case "the confession was not to the church nor required by any known ecclesiastical rule", but was made voluntarily to friends and neighbours. The court held that the evidence was rightly received (not protected)."

Chief justice Berger said this (and it speaks to why the WT does NOT qualify under this condition, ""The priest penitent privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive priestly consolation and guidance in return."

That has NOTHING to do with Judicial Committees. Never has, never will.