Posts by Joe Grundy

18

Watchtower Charter-A Danger to GB?

by TakeOffTheCrown in

the following link is a pdf of the charter for the watchtower bible and tract society of new york as of 2003:.

https://jwleaks.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/watchtower-bible-and-tract-society-of-new-york-charter-and-certificate-of-incorporation.pdf.

my question: is the governing body in danger of removal if they do not adhere to the charter?.

Joe Grundy

"At the annual meeting held on October 2, 1944, in Pittsburgh, the members of the Pennsylvania corporation adopted six resolutions amending its charter. The charter had provided that voting shares be issued to contributors of funds to the Society’s work, but the third amendment eliminated that provision. A report on that annual meeting noted: “Membership in the Society will be limited to not more than 500 . . . Each one chosen must be a full-time servant of the Society or a part-time servant of a company [congregation] of Jehovah’s witnesses and must show the spirit of the Lord.”Thereafter, directors of the Society were to be voted into office by individuals who were fully devoted to Jehovah, irrespective of the amount of money that they contributed to advance the Kingdom work."

I wonder if someone familiar with US corporation law could help me out with this. In England & Wales, the 'members' of a company or corporation are generally shareholders or subscribers. In other words a person (real or corporate) pays or promises to pay a sum of money and in return owns a share of the company. The shares can be of different classes and some may have rights to vote in the running of the company. So far so good.

The quote above seems to indicate that there would be no more than 500 'members' (shareholders), each presumably owning one or more shares. Only those 'qualified' were allowed to own shares and their votes were not in proportion to their investment.

I assume that WT&BTS Penn was not a public corporation (I.e. the shares could not be traded on the open market) but what happened to those who owned shares prior to this amendment? How were voting rights distributed if not by the value of shares owned?

This all sounds like a can of worms to me.

12

UK WT Ordered To Pay Six Figure Sum For Failure To Protect From Child Abuse

by Joe Grundy in

breaking news from bbc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33201010

Joe Grundy

BBC story now updated (same link as above) including comments by the victim. Worth reading for her comments - and those of the judge.

12

UK WT Ordered To Pay Six Figure Sum For Failure To Protect From Child Abuse

by Joe Grundy in

breaking news from bbc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33201010

Joe Grundy

"

A woman who claimed Jehovah's Witness elders failed to protect her from sex abuse carried out by a convicted paedophile has won a six-figure payout.

The woman, now in her 20s, alleges she was abused as a child in Loughborough by ministerial servant Peter Stewart.

She had argued at London's High Court that he used his role to abuse her and the elders did not act to stop it.

The organisation was found liable for failing to take action after Stewart admitted to abusing another child.

It is the first civil case in the UK of historical sexual abuse brought against the Christian-based religious movement.

The organisation has said it will review the judgment."

12

UK WT Ordered To Pay Six Figure Sum For Failure To Protect From Child Abuse

by Joe Grundy in

breaking news from bbc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33201010

Joe Grundy

Breaking news from BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33201010

18

Why are there so many pedophiles predators in the Watchtower Corporation?

by Brokeback Watchtower in

one reason is because the governing body's policies allow them to run loose in the congregation with their secrecy/kangaroo courts.

.

to keep jehovah's name untarnished(organization sock puppet) they have put the little rank and file member at risk.. one member of the gb was a child molester.. sexual repression also seems to aggravate the situation and make matters worse.. the governing body main concern is not children but how to keep the scam going and so if they can get the victim to shut up and not go to the police as it offers a temporary fix.. etc.....

Joe Grundy

"And of course you can prove that?

Throwing out accusations without things to back them up DOES NOT HELP. It simply provides ammunition for people to dismiss all claims as fictitious inventions.

There have been numbers bandied around and we know that certain policies and mindsets may pose more of a threat than would otherwise be the case but there is nothing conclusive that proves they are worse than other similar groups (which in itself is an indictment of a group claiming to represent god and be uber-spiritual).

I don't think we need to make up any crazy claims and shouting things in the street or posting them on the internet doesn't constitute proof of anything."

I never was a JW.

Taking as read that JWs - claiming to be the best of the best and the only divinely-led organisation - turns out to have (apparently) just as many sinners as any other group of people, where they damage themselves is the cover-ups, denial, and legal manipulations in which they engage.

Time and time again (it seems to me) that the cover-up attempts are almost always more damaging than the wrong-doing itself. I have more respect for a person or organisation that admits its faults and does something about it than one that has engaged (and these things usually come to light sooner or later) in a sleazy and questionable attempt to conceal, hide and deceive.

An elder standing up in court saying 'I'm sorry, I got it wrong. I am a layman with no training or experience in this area. I did my best (and this was my thinking) but it wasn't good enough' would present a better picture of the organisation than some of the shenanigans we have seen.

12

Aussie exJW Comedienne on BBC (Limited Time)

by berrygerry in

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r3srd.

deborah frances-white - online.. .

spot on - and funny..

Joe Grundy

Another vote for this programme.

94

Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option

by cofty in

it's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.

i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.

it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.

Joe Grundy

As to the origins of the OT - I watched this on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5RfScpEcZ8

I'm not competent to comment on its accuracy, but it's compelling, and sits well with other work by (for example) Francesca Stavrakopoulou which casts doubt on the veracity of the stories of David, etc.

At about 1:20 it suggests that the Torah (the Pentateuch) was written and promulgated in 458 BC by Ezra. This would, perhaps, make the OT as reliable historically as the NT.

Worth a watch, I suggest.

(PS: In a comment which is entirely beneath me and irreverent, I recommend Francesca's you tube videos for her scholarship, communication skills, and mammaries.)

94

Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option

by cofty in

it's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.

i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.

it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.

Joe Grundy

"We can find value in many teachings it doesn't mean we have to accept it lock, stock and barrel."

That's true, of course, and it includes all 'teachings' from whatever source. That's an enlightened view - assess, evaluate, accept or discard. But it's not one which sits well with many in the religious world. If you teach that the bible (however defined) is divinely inspired and inerrant, and that your god is all-powerful and unchanging, you have to accept it all - and then try to explain away the unacceptable stuff.

Or, you 'cherry pick' - and once you start doing that your 'cherry picked bits' may, no will, differ from others and so you've started your own religion/sect/cult - which quite nicely illustrates that religion is a man-made thing built to suit your own circumstances, needs and aspirations.

An example which quickly comes to mind - isn't there a teaching in the NT which talks about giving away your worldly possessions, taking no thought for the morrow, etc? And yet Mormons (I think) and certainly some US fundy groups say that financial prosperity is a gift from their god and a reward for their faith. Choose your view and someone somewhere will provide a justification for it.

84

1975 failed prediction?

by Garrett in

jw
friends

heyo,.

your favorite garrett here.

so, i'm about to have an elder tell me allll about the failed 1975 doctrine.

Joe Grundy

I never was a JW, yet I am aware of the '1975' debacle (as I am aware of the 'Beth Sarim' for 'returning princes' fiasco and others).

It seems to me (though I stand to be corrected) that WTBTS - as ever - wish to rewrite their history ;'1984' style, failed prophecies being just one aspect of it. Once upon a time, that was easier than it is today. Here on JWN we have eye-witness testimony, always crucial, and enough of it to be historically significant.

As an outsider, my view is that the more evidence of their history, whether by recorded eye-witness testimony, recorded documents, etc., the better.

During a recent FS visit to my house a JW who claimed to be an elder and to have been a baptised JW for nearly fifty years claimed to have no knowledge of any significance of the year 1975. I told him that there was no point in talking to him because he was either dishonest or had no knowledge of the WTBTS.

18

GB Bodyguards

by Socrateswannabe in

i have heard that at the international conventions and even at us headquarters, the governing body travel with entourages or bodyguards.

does anyone know this to be a fact?

if so, why?

Joe Grundy

Reminds me a little of 'Animal Farm' (George Orwell). I'm sure I recall that the governing pigs came to be surrounded and protected by snarling dogs ...