Posts by comment

14

Are the disassociated NOT to be shunned now?

by comment in

jw
friends

rado vleugel pointed out on another thread that the current response to "do you shun former members?

" on the jw-media.org site represents a more hardline viewpoint as far as treatment of disfellowshipped family members.

once it said, "disfellowshipping does not sever family ties.

comment

Rado Vleugel pointed out on another thread that the current response to "Do you shun former members?" on the jw-media.org site represents a more hardline viewpoint as far as treatment of disfellowshipped family members. Once it said, "Disfellowshipping does not sever family ties." Now it cites the scripture in 1 Corinthians: "Quit mixing with them."

However, there's been another noteworthy change in wording in the response to this question. And this one, on the surface, seems to provide a loophole for those who DISASSOCIATE themselves rather than being DISFELLOWSHIPPED.

http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm

The previous response began: "Those who simply CEASE TO BE INVOLVED IN the faith are not shunned."

The current response begins: "Those who simply LEAVE the faith are not shunned."

Is there not a significant difference between ceasing to be involved and leaving?

"Ceasing to be involved" could describe an inactive Witness who no longer participates in the field ministry or goes to meetings, for instance.

That person, however, has not LEFT the faith from the standpoint of the congregation. After being inactive for several years, he could return to his former activities without having to go through the reinstatement process. (Obviously his "congregation privileges" and so forth would be affected, but the point is that he'd still be considered a Witness when he walked back into the Kingdom Hall.)

"Leaving," though, would seem to apply to one who VOLUNTARILY SEVERS TIES with the organization. You're not "leaving" if you're disfellowshipped; you're kicked out! And I've already touched on why being inactive does not equal leaving. So this sounds as if it applies to someone who disassociates himself.

So, then, are disassociated people not to be shunned, while disfellowshipped ones are?

It is, of course, possible that this is just an instance of sloppy phrasing by whoever wrote the answer to this question. But you would think that the Society would take great care to get the right phrasing on this particular point.

Thoughts?

comment

37

SILENTLAMBS MARCH

by silentlambs in

jw
friends

[email protected]

if you need financial assistance to attend, please email as

[email protected]

comment

bttt

3

Additional BBC Panaroma Recording

by silentlambs in

jw
friends

jehovah's witnesses and child abuse .

the jehovahs witnesses are the latest in a succession of religious groups to come under attack for the way they have responded to allegations of child sex abuse within their ranks.

a panorama investigation to be shown on bbc1 tonight (sunday) reveals that a number of legal actions against the organisation are underway in america, but the problem is not confined to that country.

comment

I think the most telling moment in this report came when Paul Gillies of the British Bethel was asked something to the effect of "What kind of message does this two-witness policy send to molesters in the congregation"? Gillies was unable to provide a direct response to this question. (And after all, would you expect him to admit: "Yes, it pretty much leaves the door open for them to continue"?)

Instead, he fulminated for a minute about how the Society has a strong Bible-based policy to deal with such matters.

Which, of course, means that they use a star chamber of three volunteer men with a vested interest in keeping the organization's image clean and no police or psychiatrist training. In cases of one witness, they will choose that group's assessment over that of a court of law with checks and balances and a full, open review of the evidence.

More excellent exposure for this issue. Even Witnesses who don't own a TV or use the Internet usually listen to the radio.

comment

7

Major holes in J.R. Brown's Panorama response

by comment in

jw
friends

1) brown states: "you have been told that here in the united states we have compiled a list of 23,720 names of child abusers.

that is false.

first of all, the total number of names in our records is considerably lower.

comment

Just to name a few:

1) Brown states: "You have been told that here in the United States we have compiled a list of 23,720 names of child abusers. That is false. First of all, the total number of names in our records is considerably lower."

What does "considerably lower" mean? That is a very vague phrase, wide open to interpretation.

For instance, perhaps the person who gave Bill Bowen that number made an error in calculation, and the actual number is 22,720.

Playing games with semantics, Brown would thus be able to state that the number was "considerably lower": "Well, it's a THOUSAND less than Bowen said! How dare he exaggerate in such a fashion!" But as we see, the Society doesn't want to give out a specific number: "In addition, it is not meaningful to focus on the number of names we have in our records." So in other words, *they* have decided for everyone else that it is not meaningful. Others will beg to differ.

2) Brown states: "This is because our figures include the names of many persons who have only been accused of child abuse whereas the charges have not been substantiated."

At least from this we get the interesting tidbit that the Society has "many" names on file. It's also interesting that Brown says these "many persons" have "only" been accused of child abuse. The "only" serves to minimize the significance of the accusations. Obviously innocent people are charged with abuse in some instances, but the point is that the accusations should be taken seriously, not played down.

3) Brown keeps on repeating that their policy is based on the Bible, as if this were obviously a good thing. To the contrary, I think this will put them in quite a pickle.

It's obvious that the "two witnesses" rule does not work for child molestation cases. Even if they expand the definition to permit two separate accusations to stand as valid, as they now have done, this still does nothing to stop the father who secretly abuses his child but only that child, which certainly is not unheard of. A criminal investigation with modern forensic or surveillance techniques might nail the offender, but the Society's method of asking "Did you do it?" will shed no light.

We also know that the Society heavily indoctrinates Witnesses against going to the police or court system, and that trend will certainly continue overall. They're not going to start actively recommending it just because of the bad publicity they are receiving over child molestation.

So if the authorities start to crack down, they will either have to:

A) Admit that the "two witnesses" rule was not Scriptural and be prepared to take action in cases where there are NOT two witnesses.

Or:

B) Keep insisting that the rule is Scriptural and suffer the consequences from the judicial system.

To me, this is one of the most graphic and powerful examples of why trying to rigidly follow a 3,000-year-old book written by men for men is foolish.

comment

17

Panorama: outstanding!

by comment in

jw
friends

i didn't see all of panorama, but what i did see was outstanding.

in its depth and thoroughness, it surpassed what dateline had to offer.

it really highlighted some key points: .

comment

I didn't see all of Panorama, but what I did see was outstanding. In its depth and thoroughness, it surpassed what Dateline had to offer.

It really highlighted some key points:

1) The Society's failure to protect the children from molestation is based primarily on the organization-wide policy of "two witnesses" and its desire to keep the image of the congregation "clean," NOT the incompetence or willful corruption of a few local elders. Even if the Society is modifying its policies now, clearly they have years of coverups to answer for.

2) The brothers are unwilling to provide straightforward answers to questions about their policies. Were the questions posed by the BBC interviewer hard-hitting and even confrontational in a sense? Yes, but the fact is that nowadays the public expects accountability. To brush off a reporter, as Ted Jaracz did with his "we've got a written policy and we don't go beyond the things written," looks absolutely terrible on camera. And it speaks volumes about the Society's high-and-mighty attitude toward criticism of any sort.

I can only imagine that this program will prompt further investigation of the Society regarding its child abuse policy by the authorities in Britain and the United States, not to mention other countries where it is broadcasted.

comment

Edited by - comment on 14 July 2002 18:24:4

40

Ozzie's Weekend Poll #7

by ozziepost in

jw
friends

i'm sorry that due to "technical difficulties', last weekend's poll did not appear, but thanks to all those who enquired about why it was not posted.

glad you're enjoying them!

so, time to put your feet up, so to speak, and have some fun with this weekend's poll.

comment

I remember being at a circuit assembly not long after the "generation change" and discussing the morning program with a relative of mine during the lunch hour. He commented about how the circuit overseer's "Giving Attention to the Needs of the Circuit" part had placed such great emphasis on meeting attendance, which has been generally falling off in my country since the 1980's. He wondered what the cause of this might be. I said: "Do you think perhaps some of the brothers are disturbed about the 'generation change'?" He looked shocked and started shaking his head as if to rid himself of the idea: "Oh, no...no...I don't think it could be that...no...we now have a better understanding of Jehovah's purposes."

At the time, I was still trying to be a good Witness and had done my best to assimilate the idea. It did occur to me then, though, that if the "generation" was not to be tied to the lifespan of those alive in 1914, then this system sure could hypothetically drag on for a long time. Even if you tried to factor in the sealing of the 144,000 in heaven as a time marker, the number of Memorial partakers was mysteriously holding steady!

So I feel retrospectively that when I raised that question to my relative, I was questioning the new doctrine myself at some level. I might feel very clever and pleased with myself for being able to give a thumbnail sketch of it when I answered at the Watchtower Study, but it didn't sit right with me.

What seems particularly crude to me now is how they changed the doctrine 81 years after 1914--not coincidentally, I believe, one year after what the Psalms describe as the typical outer limit of the human life span: "Our years are seventy or eighty."

Where is the guidance of the holy spirit if it just comes down to saying, "Oh well, we're past 80 years now, so I guess we should discard our old teaching before the brothers start questioning"?

If they were God's organization, why couldn't they have gotten it right in 1975? Or 1955? Or even (wait with bated breath) right THE FIRST TIME?

comment

5

Winnipeg Sun: No 2nd chances for pedophiles

by comment in

some of us may wish to write to lyn cockburn about the society's conduct and policies regarding molestation, as recently documented on dateline.

it would seem very timely given her statements in the following column.. http://www.canoe.ca/columnists/cockburn.html.

june 5, 2002. no second chances for pedophiles.

comment

bttt

5

Winnipeg Sun: No 2nd chances for pedophiles

by comment in

some of us may wish to write to lyn cockburn about the society's conduct and policies regarding molestation, as recently documented on dateline.

it would seem very timely given her statements in the following column.. http://www.canoe.ca/columnists/cockburn.html.

june 5, 2002. no second chances for pedophiles.

comment

Some of us may wish to write to Lyn Cockburn about the Society's conduct and policies regarding molestation, as recently documented on Dateline. It would seem very timely given her statements in the following column.

http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/cockburn.html

June 5, 2002

No second chances for pedophiles

By LYN COCKBURN -- Winnipeg Sun

One is too many.

One is how many kids priests are allowed to molest in the past and still keep their robes. This according to the many recommendations in a report by the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse to be presented when bishops from around the U.S. meet June 13-15 in Dallas, Tex.

The report does recommend that in the future priests who abuse even once should be defrocked. About bloody time.

But past abusers may, under certain circumstances, remain in the priesthood. Ludicrous.

The "certain circumstances" include: treatment, examination to determine the priest was not a pedophile, public disclosure and the certainty that he was free of criminal or civil claims.

Now there's a clever little dance with a number of intricate steps which, should a priest be determined, he could learn to perform. Get some treatment, look chagrined, confess publicly and announce that you are "cured."

Just as pedophiles in other walks of life learn to do. For there is no need for the rest of us to be smug about pedophilia in the church -- it is an evil that permeates every area of society, particularly of course, those which involve children.

Teaching, volunteer work involving children, medicine, child care -- all have attracted their share of pedophiles. And still do. It's just that some professions, teaching for example, have been a little quicker, thankfully, than the church to institute a zero tolerance policy.

Yet society does not yet wish to grapple with the fact that pedophilia is not something that can be cured.

It is not a disease, it is not an addiction, it is not a passing phase. The Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary defines it as a "sexual perversion" while another says it is "deviant sexual behaviour."

There are no reputable sources which suggest it is a "curable" condition and all reputable sources are careful to state that there is a high rate of recidivism.

So if the docs at Harvard who are instrumental in compiling these medical tomes can't quite define it or suggest what to do about it (no disrespect intended to the docs because pedophilia is so horrible it may forever defy analysis), then the rest of us cannot be expected to understand it.

But all of us, doctors, laypeople, clergy, know this: pedophilia is wrong and it must be stopped.

We know that the sexual abuse of children is a crime.

And there are some crimes for which there can be no leniency. The sexual molestation of children is one of those crimes. Then or now.

There are some crimes for which there can be no statute of limitations. The rape and molestation of children is one of those crimes. It matters not how long it takes for an abused child to come forward and point a finger at the abuser precisely because those who are sexually abused often cannot deal with what happened to them until they are well into adulthood. And some are never able to deal with it. They drink, they do drugs, they go into a shell, they lead ruinous lives. And some commit suicide.

Perhaps if society in general and churches in particular were to publicly denounce and punish those who commit such crimes -- no matter when they were committed -- their tortured victims could begin the restorative process.

And there are some crimes so horrific that there can be no second chance.

Rob my corner store and I want you to do the time, but I do have some hope you've learned your lesson and won't do it again. Cheat your company out of buckets of money and I want you to go to jail too, but again, I suspect you'll smarten up.

Molest my child, once, and I want you locked up and then placed under surveillance for the rest of your life. And I want you barred forever from any occupation which puts you anywhere near children.

Because if you molest my child, chances are high you will do it again to some other child. And then you will do it again. And again.

I do not believe there are any one-time child molesters.

But just suppose I'm wrong and the Catholic church is right and there are some priests who have molested but one child.

The fact remains that one is too many.

Lyn Cockburn can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].
Letters to the editor should be sent to [email protected].

comment

3

Basic problems with JW molestation approach

by comment in

1. they may indeed have a policy.

but the policy is full of loopholes that can be exploited either by molestors wishing to escape punishment or elders who want to keep the congregation's reputation looking squeaky clean.

worse yet, they evidently don't follow even this flawed policy all the time either!.

comment

1. They may indeed have a policy. But the policy is full of loopholes that can be exploited either by molestors wishing to escape punishment or elders who want to keep the congregation's reputation looking squeaky clean. Worse yet, they evidently don't follow even this flawed policy all the time either!

2. The "two witnesses" rule, whether applied to molestation or other misconduct, is stupid and outdated. It doesn't reflect any sort of "divine wisdom." It just happens to be what people thought was the best way to administer justice in a particular culture 2,000 years ago, before DNA testing, lie detectors, sophisticated criminal codes and all kinds of other means we have nowadays to establish TRUTH in a much more conclusive way. What if two witnesses came forward and accused a fellow believer of stealing and then both flunked a lie detector test? Well, you know that will never happen because the good ol' Bible says nothing about lie detectors--a fact which of course could be used either to sanction or condemn their use according to Watchtower logic. But the Watchtower prefers to keep things as old-fashioned as possible.

3. "All Christians have an obligation to preach." Well, why can't molestors stick to writing letters? That would keep them away from the public. Doesn't it count when Witnesses confined to bed due to illness write letters? Well, if so, then people who are far "sicker" should be able to fulfill this "obligation" the same way.

4. "When a molestor repents and is readmitted into the congregation, Christ's sacrifice washes him clean of sin and he is 'not what he was before.'" This is just more wishful thinking. Even someone who committed a murder in a fit of anger is less likely to reoffend than a molestor, whose inclinations can't just be "cured."

So what does it all boil down to? The Bible is a massively flawed guide when it comes to living your life. But because Jehovah's Witnesses insist on trying to "live according to the Bible" (whether or not their interpretations are correct or flawed in given cases), they're just going to continue to struggle and screw up relative to the progress of the rest of society.

comment

14

Prince married Toronto JW woman?

by comment in

jw
friends

this may be old news, and it's not something that holds incredible interest for me, but i thought someone on the board might know this manuella testolini.

i found this through a search engine at worldnews.com.. http://www.canada.com/vancouver/theprovince/story.asp?id={79ea5618-b49f-4515-b22b-3ecfe8adf2e7}.

prince show a mystery.

comment

This may be old news, and it's not something that holds incredible interest for me, but I thought someone on the board might know this Manuella Testolini. I found this through a search engine at WorldNews.com.

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/theprovince/story.asp?id={79EA5618-B49F-4515-B22B-3ECFE8ADF2E7}

Prince show a mystery

The only sure thing about artist's cross-Canada tour is that it will be unpredictable

Sorelle Saidman

The Province

Monday, May 27, 2002

Fans will reign supreme when Prince and the New Power Generation hit the Orpheum tomorrow for the first stop on a cross-Canada tour. But it won't be business as usual for the music industry.

The artist currently known as Prince is making it very clear he has no interest in stoking the star-making machinery but he will, however, be giving his true fans one "heck" of a show.

The purple one, who announced the One Night Alone With Prince Canadian tour just six days ahead of this concert, gave a two-day ticketing head start to members of his New Power Generation Music Club. He is also inviting them to the soundcheck and quite possibly an after-show nightclub party. A clubber or two may even be invited on stage for a personal serenade.

Members pay an annual fee of $100 US for the privilege in addition to paying for the pricey tickets. They also have the option of buying exclusive music, including a One Night Alone CD. Once the Canadian tour wraps up later in June, the artist will be throwing a Seven Nights Alone all-star party at his Paisley Park studio in Minneapolis just for members.

In contrast, not only will he not talk to the media, he won't even issue them review tickets. The media will still fare better than the record label reps, though, as they may not be let in at all. Even the promoter is going to take a hit courtesy of an anti-corporate video playing in the background if the past tour is any indication.

The artist dislikes the business to the extent of writing "Slave" on his face in reference to his seemingly lucrative old contract with Warner Bros and reportedly canceling a tour, including last year's very briefly scheduled cross-Canada jaunt, in order not to inadvertently help promote a compilation CD issued by that label. He also once changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol to protest a publishing contract which has now expired.

And, he's been railing against corporate radio. The video targets Clear Channel because the promotion company also owns the largest chain of radio stations on the continent.

Prince currently does most of his business through his own company, Paisley Park Productions, on the Internet.

The only sure thing about the Prince show is that it will be unpredictable.

If recent history repeats itself, ticket buyers should get their money's worth at least musically, although those expecting the mega-staging of the Purple Rain tour or a greatest hits redux may be disappointed. The artist has been travelling with a stripped-down, bare-bones show and no set list. That said, at one recent appearance, Prince told fans not to expect "Purple Rain" and then played it anyway.

Tracks from last year's The Rainbow Children album will be represented but the rest is a crap shoot, although songs with profanity won't be included -- he's now a Jehovah's Witness. (Stalkers may want to check out a few services around town; he's been rumoured to make such appearances in other cities).

It's not clear who will be performing as the New Power Generation -- the promoter didn't even know ("His people are very hard to get a hold of," said Clear Channel's Trisha Soper).

Sales were brisk the first day but the concert has not sold out, although it is expected to do so before showtime, if not earlier.

Prince is particularly interested in Canada these days. He apparently married Canadian Manuella Testolini at a Jehovah's Witness ceremony in Hawaii New Years Eve, which explained his frequent trips to Toronto last year and the purchase of a $5.5-million home in that city's posh Bridal Path area by Testolini under the corporate name Gamillah Holdings, the title of a Prince song.

IN CONCERT

Prince

Where: Orpheum Theatre

When: Tomorrow, 8 p.m.

Tickets: $99, $150 at Ticketmaster

comment