hi guys,.
i might go to the meeting.
i stopped going in my heart properly in nov 2013, but i went to a couple of meetings to support a love one that was df'd and tried to teach them a little ttatt.. now another df'd loved one is coming to see me today and will likely encourage me to try and get ri'd, and i want to support her.
Dear Kate/Sam
I never was a JW, but I think I understand a lot about them/it.
You have a new life going for you, a bloke you're getting on well with, and a lot to look forward to.
My advice would be walk away and don't be tempted to turn around and look back. You don't want to end up as a pillar of salt, do you?
in the beginning of internet the society was worried about the information published exposing its falsehood.
so, i wonder how many people lost the society on account of forums and web sites like this.
.
I never was a JW, but my view is (as expressed by others here previously) that most committed JWs would be unswayed by - and quickly move away from - 'apostate' information. But all it takes is one motivational push, an argument or slight by someone else at the KH, or knowing someone involved in a child abuse case, or the irrational closure/sale of a KH, and that would be enough of a spur for many JWs to be prepared to read some of the vast amount of information available.
They might close their eyes, but once you've read it you can't un-read it and it WILL have an effect.
this is in the july 2015 monthly program on tv.jw.org cedars wrote about it too.. starting at around 42:30 in the video, morris talks about the child abuse situation for almost 10 minutes.
link to video.
i'm writing a transcript right now.
Dubstepped:
Yes, I agree with you.
D4G:
Well, there are CofE Ecclesiastical Courts, Sharia Courts, etc., and I believe that some other cultish groups have 'Oversight Committees' and the like to enforce their rules. I suspect that there are similar issues within other religions, where matters are suppressed to make the religion appear clean. Amish, probably and almost certainly some Muslim communities who take things even further with ;honour killings'. But JWs choose to operate in the wider (particularly Western) world.
I didn't AFAIK deal with any abuse cases involving JWs (but I didn't know much about them then). I can, however, say that if I came across any person who had hindered or otherwise sought to stop a victim reporting abuse I would have arrested that person on suspicion of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Whether they were later charged or not, I found that being arrested tended to make people consider their position.
this is in the july 2015 monthly program on tv.jw.org cedars wrote about it too.. starting at around 42:30 in the video, morris talks about the child abuse situation for almost 10 minutes.
link to video.
i'm writing a transcript right now.
Dubstepped:
Re: The 2 witness rule
I know that people hate this rule, but are they really supposed to act on every accusation without any evidence? I'm all for them going straight to the authorities and letting people with actual experience and investigative tools (the police) make determinations based on what they gather, but I just don't see how they can go from accusation to df'ing automatically in the congregation.
I see problems with going to calling the organization before the police. I see problems with them not letting the next congregation know that someone was previously accused. If a person is accused on more than one occasion or by multiple people, I can see the need to act. However, one accusation unsupported is difficult to act upon no matter how awful that might be. Am I missing something about the two witness rule? I'm all for protecting kids, but I don't know how anyone can convict whether in the congregation or a court of law without some corroboration somewhere.
I also just don't think that the elders should be in on these cases whatsoever. To me they should recuse themselves based on lack of ability and training in such cases and immediately refer them to the proper authorities and stay out of it
I take your points, but I'm speaking from an outsider's point of view. I think it's necessary to separate the WT internal club rules (dfing etc.) from the real world.
Yes, they should act immediately on receipt of an accusation (or suspicion) by reporting it to the authorities and then getting out of the way. Then they can report it to their HQ if they wish.
Corroboration is always sought - but it's rarely in the form of a personal 'second witness' and is available more often than perhaps you might think if you know what you're doing.
Please don't conflate or confuse court action.with internal WT action (dfing etc.). The latter is only relevant within the 'club'.
this is in the july 2015 monthly program on tv.jw.org cedars wrote about it too.. starting at around 42:30 in the video, morris talks about the child abuse situation for almost 10 minutes.
link to video.
i'm writing a transcript right now.
Finkelstein:
I take your point, but I think the sooner that the WTBTS realises that its internal rules are irrelevant in the wider world, the better
Vidiot:
You no doubt know more about elders than I do (I never was a JW). The few I have met tended to be ignorant, arrogant and tell lies (sorry, practice 'theocratic warfare). I suspect that increased personal liability/responsibilty of elders - it's already happening in court cases, Charity Commission enquiries, etc. - will reduce the number of people putting themselves forward. Courts and other enquiries seem to be doing quite a good job of cutting through WT smokescreen crap and pinning responsibility where it belongs.
.
this is in the july 2015 monthly program on tv.jw.org cedars wrote about it too.. starting at around 42:30 in the video, morris talks about the child abuse situation for almost 10 minutes.
link to video.
i'm writing a transcript right now.
As I understand it, JWs do not have specific childrens' activities/groups as some other religions do (e.g. 'Sunday schools' 'youth groups' etc.).
It is reasonable to argue, I suggest, that therefore all those in 'a position of authority' in a congregation have responsibility for the children in a congregation.
On that basis I believe that each congregation should have a written (and published) 'Safeguarding Policy' signed up to by all 'persons in authority', that all such persons should be subject to full disclosure CRB checks, and that they should receive documented training in that policy.
If done properly this might help to ensure that cases are dealt with properly - at the least it would bring home to the 'persons in authority' that they have a specific duty and are personally responsible for the way they act. No more 'Nuremberg Defence' of 'I was only obeying orders of WT HQ'.
this is in the july 2015 monthly program on tv.jw.org cedars wrote about it too.. starting at around 42:30 in the video, morris talks about the child abuse situation for almost 10 minutes.
link to video.
i'm writing a transcript right now.
In my professional career I dealt inter alia with (far too much) child abuse.
Of course the WT should encourage suspected abuse to be reported to the authorities. Further, elders or whoever should report it themselves.
But more than that, the elders or whoever should then step well away. There is significant potential for further damage to the victim by questioning etc. by unqualified people and, importantly, the prospects of a criminal conviction can be damaged by inappropriate interviewing of victims.
Punk:
In answer to your question in OP - yes, they certainly are here in my small town in West Wales. This is the sort of town where you generally bump into people you know and a walk through town usually involves stopping several times for greetings/conversation.
Last time I saw a cart, a couple of weeks ago, it was on a sunny Saturday morning on a busy pedestrian spot. Manned by two young guys (20-ish or younger). TBH I felt sorry for them - they had shirts and ties and looked a bit nerdy and geeky, with all due respect. It was noticeable that pedestrians gave them a wide berth but were happy to pause (and contribute) to busker nearby.
Mea culpa, I couldn't be bothered to engage the JW bros in conversation. They were of an age where they have access to the internet. Sometimes I don't have the time or inclination to engage with robotic drones.
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?.
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?.
"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.
