Posts by thirdwitness

149

Does the Policy of the Watchtower Create a Safe Haven for Child Molesters?

by listen in

not a society apologist!!

just wanting to know what you all think.

does this "sound" fair & balanced, you decide.

thirdwitness

I see the hand written proof above. Funny but thats not what my copy says.

alt

149

Does the Policy of the Watchtower Create a Safe Haven for Child Molesters?

by listen in

not a society apologist!!

just wanting to know what you all think.

does this "sound" fair & balanced, you decide.

If you do not see the policy then you have not read the blog nor the site where the WTS clearly states their policy. And if you have not seen the lies of Sara Poisson then you have not read the blog. Here it is again for you:

Poissonous Lies One of the most famous cases brought against the WTS is the one brought by the children of Sara Poisson at the behest of the Silent Lambs organization. You are no doubt aware of the case and have heard how the elders were told by her that her husband was sexually molesting her 2 children and the elders stood by and did nothing about it. But did you know that these statements are untrue, lies that can be factually documented.

You have no doubt read articles such as this about the case: "November 16. 2004 8:06AM "At issue are the claims of sisters Heather and Holly Berry, who allege their Jehovah's Witness congregation in Wilton ignored their mother's complaints that their father was sexually abusing them. After the police inadvertently learned of the abuse, Paul Berry was convicted of assaulting Holly in 2000 and is serving 56 to 112 years in state prison. According to court records, Paul Berry, formerly of Greenville, abused the girls sexually and physically in the 1980s, when they were between the ages of 3 and 10. In one case, he was accused of hanging Holly by her wrists from hooks on a barn wall. When their mother, Sara Poisson, reported the abuse to church elders between six and 10 times, they told her to "be a better wife" and to pray more, the records said."
But are you aware that the truth is that the elders were never told of sexual abuse by Paul Berry at this time by the mother, Sara Poisson. How do we know this to be the truth?

Note the testimony of the mother herself in the sentencing phase of Paul Berry. Sara Poisson testified: "A social worker visited me and informed me that I needed to have Paul removed from the home by 5 o'clock that day, or that she would take my children away from me. Before me now was the decision--the very real decision--to choose God, as I perceived him to be at that time, or to choose my children. And I chose mychildren. This decision resulted in years of extreme poverty. The entire congregation turned their back on us."

Then notice what happened much later after her daughter had grown to maturity. Sara Poisson continues her testimony: "I did not hear from Holly for 18 months. She called one day from Indiana and sa1d she wanted to come home. I sent her a bus ticket and picked her up in (Ascutney), Vermont. She was thin, she was sick, and she had parasites. When she dismounted from that bus, she asked me, "Why did you let that happen?" And I said, "Why did I let what happen?" And this was the first time that I heard about the sexual abuse that had happened to her.""
According to Sara Poisson's on testimony at the sentencing of Paul Berry, she found out about the sexual abuse for the first time at a much later date than her conversation with the elders. No, she could not have possibly told the elders about any sexual abuse by Paul Berry. Silent lambs is attempting to discredit the WTS by spreading untruths. No wonder the WTS in the complaint against them denied it: "The church disputes the sisters' claims, however, and its lawyer, Donald Gardner of Manchester, has said church elders didn't know about the abuse until long after it had stopped and police were investigating."

Sara Poisson's testimony about her first suspecting sexual abuse at the sentencing phase of Paul Berry's trial is also contradictory: About this time, Heather, who was very young, began to act strangely. She refused to sleep in her bed, would only sleep in the bathtub. She threw things at her father and became very v1olent. Heather was the kind of little girl that brought wilted dandelions home for me. I suspected Paul was sexually abusing her, and began to ask questions of professionals and to take Heather to counseling. The situation went on for years. The abuse continued.

What does this reveal?

1. Lets assume that she is telling the truth when she says the elders told her not to report it to the authorities because we handle things in house. And so she listened to them and went against her better judgment. But then apparently she did not fully listen to the elders and ascribe to the notion that help from outside JWs organization should not be sought because here she acknowledges questioning professionals and taking her child to counseling. Yes, the fact is and we know it, that JWs do not condemn receiving outside help from professionals. Nor do they chastise or discipline members for reporting abuse to the authorities. This is a decision of each individual.

2. Heather received counseling and professionals were questioned. We have to wonder why didn't these counselors and professionals report the physical and sexual child abuse to the authorities? Why hasn't she brought a lawsuit against those counselors and professionals who surely learned of the abuse in questioning and counseling her child and Sara Poisson herself.

3. She admits the situation went on for years and she had no proof. It was not till much later that Holly told her. She did not and could not have told the elders that they were being sexually abused because according to her she did not know. If she did know about it then she allowed it to continue for years. I'm sorry. But these are the facts. I wonder if it bothers any of the opposers of JW's child abuse policy to realize that they have been duped into believing lies from silent lambs and Sara Poisson?

It is apparent from Sara Poisson's own testimony that she is the one who is the liar and not the WTS. At any rate the court dismissed the charges against the elders and the WTS and ruled the following: "We also disagree with the plaintiffs' assertion that special circumstances exist in this case such that an especial temptation and opportunity for Berry's criminal misconduct was created by Watchtower and Wilton Congregation. There is no allegation that the elders created any opportunity for Berry to abuse his daughters. As noted, there was no allegation that the alleged abuse took place on congregation property or at congregation-related activities. There is no allegation that the elders acted in any way other than by providing spiritual guidance and scriptural advice, at the request of the plaintiffs' mother."

You might take note of other lies by Sara Poisson: Concerning the teachings of JWs she said: "Women were not allowed to seek an education." We know that is a lie.

She said: "A social worker visited me and informed me that I needed to have Paul removed from the home by 5 o'clock that day, or that she would take my children away from me. Before me now was the decision--the very real decision--to choose God, as I perceived him to be at that time, or to choose my children. And I chose mychildren. This decision resulted in years of extreme poverty. The entire congregation turned their back on us."

Another lie. There is no judicial discipline against anyone separating from their husband. There was no decision to choose God or choose her children. She could easily choose both if she desired. Many have been duped by the lies of Sara Poisson and Silent Lambs.

Poissonous Interview In 2002 BBC reporter Betsan Powys interviewed Sara Poisson and her daughter, Heather.

POWYS: Even after you had told them that her father was sexually abusing Heather, nothing changed?
POISSON: No, no. Well yeah, things changed, they got a lot worse, for me.

Notice the stammering. According to her own testimony that we showed above she did not know about the sexual abuse when she talked to the elders. How did she tell them about it? Either she lied under oath when she testified. Or she is lying in this interview. Notice how it continues.

POWYS: In the end the decision was taken out of her hands. In school bruises were noticed on her children. Social workers were told. They gave her a stark choice, leave your husband or we take your children. But if she left him, she knew the church would cut her dead.

POISSON: At that point I had to make decision between God and my kids. And I knew.. well at that time I knew that if I chose my kids, I don't have prayer, but I didn't care anymore. So we lost everything in one day.

POWYS: Sarah Poisson had no life outside the Kingdom Hall. When the congregation cast her out she had no choice but to move away. She didn't just lose every friend she had, overnight she was homeless, penniless, scraping a living to bring up her children. The friends they'd had openly shunned them.

Why was she DFed and removed from the congregation. Was it for separating from her husband? That is what we are led to believe. But any honest and reasonable person knows that she would not be Dfed for that reason. There is no dfing for separating from a mate or even divorcing them. The grounds for dfing would only come when remarrying without having scriptural grounds (fornication) for doing so.

POWYS: Heather Berry and her stepsister Holly Brewer have flown here from New Hampshire. The man who abused them has been gaoled for a minimum of 56 years. He was Heather's father. Now Heather and Holly are breaking new ground, they're taking the Jehovah's Witnesses to court.

HEATHER: I'm Heather from New Hampshire. I don't want to tell my story but I've heard the word 'victim' too many times today, and all of us are standing out here today and we're standing tall and proud and saying this happened and that it can't happen and we're survivors, and we're fighting and we're not victims.

POWYS: They're the first of those survivors to take their fight to court. They're claiming that not only did the church do nothing when they were abused, it ostracised and punished the family when they called the police.

HEATHER: I'm very glad I came, and like I said, I would do it again, and again, and again, and as many times as it takes to get a change in the policies and things that they hide constantly.
Can you believe that the church elders did this to them for simply going to the police? How terrible this WT organization must be to punish members for simply reporting crime? How courageous was Sara Poisson for finally ignoring the elders instructions at the risk of being ostracized and informing the police? Is that what really happened? Later on in the interview notice what is said about who really reported it.

POWYS: In the end the decision was taken out of her hands. In school bruises were noticed on her children. Social workers were told. They gave her a stark choice, leave your husband or we take your children. But if she left him, she knew the church would cut her dead.
POISSON: At that point I had to make decision between God and my kids. And I knew.. well at that time I knew that if I chose my kids, I don't have prayer, but I didn't care anymore. So we lost everything in one day.
Social workers were made aware of the situation by the school. The children were to be removed from the father's presence. The police would have had to be informed for this to take place and a criminal investigation would ensue. Sara Poisson would have absolutely no choice about talking to the police. How could she be ostrasized by the elders? She did not even initiate the contact with the police.

Questions:

1. Did she get ostracized by the elders for contacting the police or did the police get involved without any choice from her? Both cannot be true.

2. Was she ostracized and shunned for contacting the police or for separating from her husband? Since JWs do not judicially punish members for reporting crimes or for separating from their mate I submit that both accounts explaining how the elders ostracized her are lies.

149

Does the Policy of the Watchtower Create a Safe Haven for Child Molesters?

by listen in

not a society apologist!!

just wanting to know what you all think.

does this "sound" fair & balanced, you decide.

thirdwitness

Sue Bill Bowen? Maybe they are gathering info and waiting him to hang himself further.

Still no proof is forthcoming. Only the same old rhetoric that anyone can say. Where are the instructions to DF anyone who reports uncorroborated or unsubstantiated child abuse? Where are the instructions to DF anyone who warns someone about a child molester? Where are the instructions to appoint child molesters as servants? Where are the instructions to tell victims they should not bring reproach upon the org by reporting child abuse?

We await such proof? We are tired of the rhetoric? Do we give forth rhetoric? NO . We have given you the documented evidence as to the policy of the WTS and just what the elders have been instructed to do. We have shown the reasonableness of the policy and how lawyers would cringe if they thought the WTS was saying you can't report child molesting, you can appoint former child molesters as servants, you must DF anyone who reports it or tells someone else. We have shown the court cases which have exhonerated JWs. We have documented the lies of SilentLambs and Sarah Poisson. We have shown the Bible reason for the two witness rule and just what it means. We have shown you numerous publications which say child abuse should not be hidden and that we will not protect child abusers from the law. What have you shown us?

You have shown us that your vocabulary includes vulgar language. You have shown us that you can be quite insulting. You have claimed that JWs is a pedophile paradise. You have told us that the WT's policy is bull sh*% time and time again. You have told us stories about child molesting some of which appear outlandishly exaggerated and none of which have been substantiated in a court of law. But you have not shown us any of the claims that you make are really the policy of the WT at all. And you have not shown us where the WTS has been found guilty of promoting a haven for child abuse. Perhaps it is time to put up or shut up? We have put up. Now its your turn and please spare the rhetoric if possible.

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

thirdwitness

Additionally, there is a vast difference in the prophecy about Tyre's destruction and the prophecy about Egypt's 40 year desolation. The Bible clearly shows that Egypt's crowd would cease by Neb and thus be without inhabitant because of Neb's conquest. The Bible does not show that Neb would be the one to destroy Tyre to the point of it never being rebuilt. It shows he would bring much destruction and gather spoil from Tyre but that is all.

But again, I am utterly amazed that some here are forced to argue that the Bible's prophecies are inaccurate just so you can argue that JWs are wrong. It is pretty clear what some of the motives are here and it is not to find the truths of the Bible. Anyway, I'm sure that those honest truth seekers can see the feeble arguments made by proponents of 587. Arguments which ultimately involve the inaccuracy of the Bible.

So if you want to tie our hands and not let us use the Bible then just maybe Jesus really is Jehovah also. My goal is to reach those JWs who still believe the Bible is the reliable and accurate word of God but have been temporarily fooled (as I was once) by apostate untruths.

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

thirdwitness

Thanks, Scholar, I have an endless arsenal of information that cannot be overcome and that is the WT publications that explain the Bible.

Anyone who wants to google Tyre will find that the information is not just contained in the WT publications however. For example:

"LeStrange quotes that the city was in ruins right until then, in 1321 A.D. and even to this day the ruins of Tyre can be seen.

Nothing but a small fishing village remains and the fishermen spread their nets their to dry or to fix. The once great city of Tyre is gone. Old Tyre was never rebuilt after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar; and there are now no traces left to mark its site. Now its harbours are choked with sand, precluding all hope of future restoration. "Not one entire house is left, and only a few fishermen take shelter in the vaults" (Maundrell). The new city, when visited by Maundrell, Bruce, and other travellers, was literally "a place for fishers to dry their nets on".

Now Tyre "cannot be found" or rather that which was the ancient city is no longer there. Instead, on the island of Tyre you will find a small fishing village that bears the name Súr."

149

Does the Policy of the Watchtower Create a Safe Haven for Child Molesters?

by listen in

not a society apologist!!

just wanting to know what you all think.

does this "sound" fair & balanced, you decide.

thirdwitness

odrade said: However, in States where clerical confidentiality supercedes mandatory reporting, it would neither be surprising, nor unusual for an elder body to "encourage" the would-be reporting individual to "consider the reproach that YOU will be bringing on Jehovah."

However this is not the policy of the WT. This is your view of the policy and your view is absolutely and positively wrong wrong wrong and is no doubt based on false information gleaned from enemies of JWs. The WT's policy is this: In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.

Elders are told time and time again that they should never discourage anyone from going to the police since child molesting is a crime.

And also this from the 1992 letter to elders: As members or the community in which Caesar still acts as God's minister and hence still has a certain authority, all in the Christian congregation would want to consider their personal and moral responsibility to alert the appropriate authorities in cases where there has been committed or there exists a risk that there might be committed a serious criminal offence of this type (see ks91, page 138) In child abuse cases such authorities might include the family doctor, the Social Services, the NSPCC, or the police.

149

Does the Policy of the Watchtower Create a Safe Haven for Child Molesters?

by listen in

not a society apologist!!

just wanting to know what you all think.

does this "sound" fair & balanced, you decide.

thirdwitness

As for the lies of the SilentLambs organization they are documented.

Silent Lambs or Noisy Goats?Would you like to see more outright lies by the Silent lambs people and their associates? Here are some of their statements. (Lies in italics)

In a letter from the Silentlambs dated August 8, 2001: The organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is a closed society that requires its members to turn inward to the organization with any problems, rather than seek outside help. This practice conflicts with laws requiring the reporting of suspected child abuse.

Outright lie. Anyone associated with JWs knows that help of outside professionals is up to each individual and is not condemned by the WTS and JWs. In fact, in Sara Poisson's own testimony at the trial she admits that she did obtain such outside help for her daughter from professional counselors while still one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The letter continues: According to church policy, the proof can include two eyewitnesses to each act of abuse. Failure to present such proof can result in the victim being ostracized and shunned by elders and the congregation for false accusations against a member.

Outright lie. Two witnesses to 'each act of abuse' is not a requirement. Two witnesses to the same type of abuse is acceptable. Failure to present such proof does not result in ostracizing or shunning by the congregation for false accusations. Any victim is free to report child abuse to the authorities as they wish regardless of how many witnesses there are to the abuse.

The same letter states: The first lawsuit will be filed in Nashua, N. H., where Jehovah's Witness church member, Paul Berry is alleged to have repeatedly sexually molested his stepdaughter and his daughter, starting when they were three years old. When the girls' mother went to the church elders with her suspicions of abuse, the elders told her she should be a better wife, and to pray more about the situation, ignoring New Hampshire's mandatory child abuse reporting statute. The abuse continued and Berry was ultimately criminally convicted for the abuse of his stepdaughter and was sentenced to 56 years in prison.

Outright and misleading lie. Sara Poisson could not have told the elders about any sexual abuse because in her testimony before the court she tells that she was not aware of sexual abuse until years later.

Leader of Silent Lambs Bill Bowen states, "I felt compelled to resign as pastor of my local congregation in protest of internal policies that shield sex offenders and hurt children. When the church promotes child molesters to positions of leadership and requires them to call at the homes of the unknowing public that is bad policy."

Another outright lie. The policy of JWs is to not allow former child molesters to positions of leadership for the rest of their life. Furthermore former child molesters are not 'required' to call at homes of the unknowing public. But if they choose to do so they must do so in the company of another adult.

SilentLambs attorney Jeff Anderson states: "Child sexual abuse is not tolerated anywhere else. With the onset of the laws protecting children such as neighborhood notification laws and mandatory reporting statutes, the days when child molesters enjoyed a cloak of silence are past, except within the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. This church seems to think they are above the law the rules do not apply to them. This case is simply about making Jehovah's Witnesses understand they have the same rules as everyone else when it comes to protecting our children."

Outright lie. The policy of JWs is that elders should report child abuse in accord with the laws of the land and that 'all' members of the congregation have a responsibility to report child abuse if they are aware of it or if they reasonably believe a child is in danger.

Here is another common apostate, SilentLambs, Robert King lie: The WT lawyers argued in court that neither the WTS nor the elders have a responsibility to protect the children.
That is not what the WT lawyers argued at all. The truth is this: They argued that the WTS and the elders do not have a 'legal' responsibility to protect the children. They were arguing that they should not be held responsible for children legally speaking. They were not the legal guardians of the children. They were not appointed as trustees over the children. They did not have a common law or fiduciary (trusteeship) responsibility toward the children. The parents have the legal responsibility over their own children, not the WTS or the elders.

And this is only logical and correct. It is common sense. They never argued that they had no responsibility to protect the children at all. In fact, that is not what the case was about. It was about their legal responsibility toward the children. The suit was dismissed by the court because the WTS was correct in their argument.

Can you imagine how apostates would respond if the WTS said that they had a legal trusteeship to the children of Jehovah's Witnesses? Can't you just here them saying, "Now they're trying to control our children. Is it not enough to control the adult members?"

149

Does the Policy of the Watchtower Create a Safe Haven for Child Molesters?

by listen in

not a society apologist!!

just wanting to know what you all think.

does this "sound" fair & balanced, you decide.

thirdwitness

Keo makes very good points. If for example you took the word of Vicki Boer before it went to court you would believe that the elders told her she could not go to the police and could not get professional help. The court case showed that this never happened and the judge said that she was wrong.

Presiding Judge Anne Molloy ruled that the WTS and elders were not at fault and did not contribute to or promote in any way the child abuse that took place. The court said, "There is no foundation on the facts to support an award for punitive damages. Most of the allegations against the defendants have not been established on the facts. The defendants who interacted with the plaintiff did not bear ill will toward her. They accepted the veracity of her account, were sympathetic to her situation and meant her no harm. The claim for punitive damages is dismissed."

As respects her findings as to whether the elders advised Boer not to tell the authorities and not to seek professional help the judge stated very clearly her findings:

The defendants did not instruct the plaintiff not to get medical help. She chose not to seek professional help herself against the advice of the elders and Mr. Mott-Trille. The defendants did not instruct the plaintiff that her father’s abuse should not be reported. On the contrary, the defendants directed Mr. Palmer (the abuser) to report himself to the C.A.S. and then followed up directly to ensure he had done so.

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

thirdwitness

Before you bring up the prosperous rule of Amasis according to Herodutus during this time of Egyptian history let me do it for you.

And then note this:

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1959, Vol. 8, p. 62) comments on Herodotus’ history of this period: “His statements prove not entirely reliable when they can be checked by the scanty native evidence.”

The Bible Commentary by F. C. Cook, after noting that Herodotus even fails to mention Nebuchadnezzar’s attack on Egypt, says: “It is notorious that Herodotus, while he faithfully recorded all that he heard and saw in Egypt, was indebted for his information on past history to the Egyptian priests, whose tales he adopted with blind credulity. . . . The whole story [by Herodotus] of Apries [Hophra] and Amasis is mixed with so much that is inconsistent and legendary that we may very well hesitate to adopt it as authentic history. It is by no means strange that the priests should endeavour to disguise the national dishonour of having been subjected to a foreign yoke.” (Note B., p. 132)

It is not surprising that Egyptian records do not contain any references to a 40 year desolation at that time just as they do not record the Hebrew's exodus from Egypt almost one thousand years earlier.

As one investigator of the matter says: "To cover up the humiliating defeat at the hands of Babylon, the Egyptian priests later invented the story that Egypt was never more prosperous than during these 40 years! Yet archaeologically the period in Egypt is a total blank. A few remains have been attributed to this period -- a dated grave here and there. But they were only late reburials of those who died abroad in captivity and whose families could afford the expense.

Historians have mistakenly taken the Egyptian priests at their word. They think they find supporting evidence in the rule of Pharaoh Amasis on the Isle of Cyprus. Without exception every ancient history text portrays Egypt militarily strong during this period. Amasis is acclaimed as the builder of an empire that included Cyprus, while Nebuchadnezzar was limited to the mainland. No one, it seems, has ever noticed that Amasis was sent into exile to Cyprus by Nebuchadnezzar's command!

The only document to record the total destruction of Egypt was discovered in 1878. In that year a mutilated cuneiform cylinder was discovered, disclosing an event of Nebuchadnezzar's thirty-seventh year. It was purchased by the British Museum. The fragmentary remains are difficult to translate. The record is cast in the form of a plaintive prayer from Nebuchadnezzar to Merodach, god of Babylon.

"My enemies thou usedst to destroy; thou causedst my heart to rejoice ... in those days thou madest my hands to capture; thou gavest me rest; ... thou causedst me to construct; my kingdom thou madest to increase ..."

And this document says:
"... the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king tof Bab- ... Egypt to deliver a battle .... -sis of Egypt called up his army .... distant regions which are amidst the sea ... many ... who are in Egypt ... carrying weapons, horses and ... he called up to assist him" (Compare "Egypt and Babylon" by George Rawlinson, pages 90-91 with Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 30. The remainder of the cylinder is unintelligible."

The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 588-587. Amasis was sent into exile. Forty years later he returned to Egypt with his people and made an alliance with Babylon sometime after that.

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

thirdwitness

Hilarystep, you must have copied what I wrote immediately because on the third point I edited it to say that he seems to insinuate ...... I did realize that he didn't come right out and say since the GB said it , it must be wrong.