Earnest

Joined

• started 51 topics
• posted 2,189 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Earnest

• 
  40

  New lawsuit against the Watchtower in Ontario, Canada

  by yalbmert99 in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  the new class action lawsuit against the watchtower for having covered up child sexual abuse will begin in court on may 13-14-15, 2024 in the province of ontario, canada.

  it is not the same as in the province of quebec because the laws aren't the same.

  i don’t have more details.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  Bitter Winter reports that "on July 4, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered a major decision in favor of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (“Gutierrez v. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Canada,” 2024 ONSC 3837)."

  For the purposes of the class action, the plaintiffs advanced three causes of action: (a) negligence, including systemic negligence; (b) breach of fiduciary duty; and (c) vicarious liability. The judge concluded that none of the three causes of action would succeed.

  Three important preliminary findings of the judgement govern the conclusions on the three causes of action. First, the Jehovah’s Witnesses “do not operate religious day-schools, Sunday schools, orphanages, home care, or any other activity where the congregation or its leaders might assume responsibility for the care of children. Congregations do not separate children from their parents. The congregations do not provide or sponsor any extra-curricular activity, such as choirs, clubs, camps, outings, sports, outdoor walks, parties, and similar activities for children, youths or adolescents. It is Jehovah’s Witness dogma that parents have the sole scriptural responsibility to provide age-specific religious education and training to their children and that other Jehovah’s Witnesses should not usurp or assume the parental role” (par. 56–57).

  Second, “As an ecclesiastic matter, beginning in September 1950, and more particularly since the early 1980s when mandatory reporting laws for child sexual abuse came into effect in Canada, the Governing Body provided congregants worldwide, and the public at large, with scripturally based guidance and education on practical steps to prevent child sexual abuse and to assist victims” (par. 67), and in 2018 published a worldwide children protection policy (par. 75).

  Third, “starting in 1988, the Canada Branch issued letters to the Elders in all congregations regarding an Elder’s obligation to report allegations of child abuse to secular authorities, irrespective of any consideration of spiritual status that may arise from the same allegations” (par. 69). “The Elders were directed, among other things, that: (a) Canadian law requires the reporting of child abuse to secular authorities without exception; (b) Elders are to contact the Legal Department of the Canada Branch immediately to obtain situation-specific legal advice to assist in compliance with reporting requirements; and (c) if the victim wishes to make a report to the authorities, it is his or her absolute right to do so” (par. 70).

  When confronted with these policies, none of the causes of action can stand, the judge said.
• 
  29

  Will Governing Body follow through with New Zealand Royal Commission's recommendation to publicly apologize?

  by was a new boy in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  'following on from an apology from the prime minister, the commission recommends all faith-based leaders offer a public apology, including the pope, the archbishop of canterbury, the president elect of the methodist church, the moderator of the presbyterian church in new zealand and the head of each individual presbyterian support organisation, the general of the salvation army, the overseeing shepherd of gloriavale, and the governing body of jehovah’s witnesses.'.

  https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/govt-takes-blame-will-apologise-to-children-abused-and-tortured-in-state-care/ar-bb1qwoyt?ocid=bingnewsverp.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  careful : would you please give me this ref.? Is it in one of their videos?

  The comment in the clip ("nor is an apology needed for not getting it exactly right previously") was not by "GB member Fleegle" but by Jeffrey Winder. It can be found in Part 2 of the 2023 Annual Meeting. The statement starts at 6 min 30 sec into the video.
  
• 
  13

  JW Ranking System

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it's fairly evident to little old outsider me that the organisation has a class system, perhaps even a caste system.. from what i've read, there seems to not only be an official ranking system (m.s., elder, c.o.

  ) but an unofficial one.

  has anyone ever sat down to figure out what the unofficial ranks are and how they affect the pecking order?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  careful : Finally, "the anointed" receive quite exceptional status, with a real aura surrounding them. It used to be more so when there were those who went back to Russell's or Rutherford's time, but they're pretty much gone now.

  My own experience in the '60s to the '80s is that those "anointed" who went back to Russell's or Rutherford's time didn't make any sort of claim to being special and were only given any attention at the time of the Memorial. I can only speak of the congregation I attended at the time, but they were all elderly people and were treated with respect but nothing more.
  
• 
  171

  Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

  this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

  the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  slimboyfat : If I remember correctly, codex Sinaiticus places the non-canonical books after Revelation.

  Correct. Both the Letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas are at the end of codex Sinaiticus, after Revelation. David Trobisch notes that after Revelation one and a half sheets of the quire were empty and so suggests they constitute appendices, especially so as the other three "Bible" manuscripts (codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi rescriptus) do not contain them.

  I do, however, agree with KalebOutWest that it was still a bit early to describe texts as canonical or otherwise. In fact, codex Sinaiticus is the oldest manuscript containing the entire New Testament so ipso facto it became canonical.
  
• 
  171

  Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

  this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

  the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  KalebOutWest : If you are referring to the Codex Sinaiticus, this is an answer.

  Thank you for your comments. However, while you say a lot about codex Sinaiticus you do not answer the question as to why scribe A (or the scribe of his exemplar) altered Revelation 3:14 if he did not understand it to mean that Jesus was God's first creation.

  KalebOutWest : It is also not the standard reading that was being circulated at that time,

  It was clearly the standard reading at the time and place that the copying took place. But whether or not it was the standard reading, the question remains as to why a scribe altered the text if he did not understand it to mean that Jesus was God's first creation.
  

  KalebOutWest : By the time the Codex found its way to the Monastery of Saint Catherine, because of the fact that the readings were considered non-canonical and the fact that the collection contained non-canonical books not accepted by Christianity, someone that did not realize what the collection could mean to history tossed it aside to be burned with the rubbish.

  The account of part of the manuscript being burned as rubbish comes from Constantin Tischendorf when he discovered the manuscript at the monastery in the nineteenth century. What amazing timing, that after caring for the manuscript for 1400 years Tischendorf should just happen to be there when they were going to burn it. That account is denied by the monastery and not taken seriously by scholars. It just made Tischendorf look like a hero and justified his theft of the manuscripts. Your suggestion that it was related to non-canonical books is without foundation and, frankly, absurd.
  
• 
  171

  Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

  this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

  the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  While it has been interesting to read the many varied and learned explanations why Revelation 3:14 does not mean that Jesus is God's first creation, I was struck by the comment that "while dictionaries are valuable tools for understanding words, they often summarize meanings and do not capture the full spectrum of use in different contexts". I think that is true, and wonder how the scribe who wrote Revelation 3:14 (or his exemplar) understood the Greek of his time which he had imbibed from his mother's milk.
  

  Codex Sinaiticus was copied by three scribes who are commonly identified as A, B and D, and Revelation was copied by scribes A and D. Scribe D was responsible for the title and most of the first column (the first five verses), while scribe A copied the rest of the book.

  What do we know about scribe A? He had a theological bias and was not particularly careful about his copying.

  Apart from Revelation 3:14, there is a variant at Revelation 3:16, where instead of vomiting the Laodiceans out of his mouth (σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου - referring to a human action by Jesus), he "stops their mouths" (παυϲε του ϲτοματοϲ ϲου).

  At Revelation 5:13, where most manuscripts have the doxology to God and the Lamb of "the blessing and the honour and the glory and the might forever and ever”, scribe A replaces "and the might" (καὶ τὸ κράτος) with "of the Almighty" (παντοκρατοροϲ) so that the doxology reads that both God and the Lamb receive "the blessing and the honour and the glory of the Almighty”.

  His treatment of sacred names is also of interest. These are names like God, Jesus, Lord which are abbreviated to indicate special attention should be given to them. He always contracts God (94x), Lord (25x), Spirit (22x), Jesus (9x), Christ (3x), David (3x) and Jerusalem (2x). In the case of Man (18/25) and Heaven (40/50), most are contracted, while Son is contracted 2/5.

  In fact, codex Sinaiticus is unique in the number of corrections made to it. On the just over 800 preserved pages there are more than 23,000 places where the text has been altered. Most of these corrections are orthographical, in other words they involve spellings or graphical improvements. Even so, it does seem to show a certain freedom of speech displayed (primarily) by scribe A.

  So the central question which no-one seems to want to answer is, if scribe A (or the scribe of his exemplar) did not understand Revelation 3:14 meant Jesus was God's first creation, why did he alter it?
  
• 
  9

  Lithuania Rejecting Elevated Religious Recognition of WTS?

  by blondie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here is an article about wts/jws regarding religious recognition in lithuania.

  it says it may not be granted at the level the wts applied for partly based on rejecting unarmed alternative service rather than being "drafted.

  " can you read it and tell me you come to the same conclusion?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  Lithuanian Radio and Television (LRT) reported this decision on 6th June here, translated here, which confirms Bitter Winter's account.
  

  There was a case In Lithuania in 2015 involving a JW, a conscientious objector by the name of Stanislav Teliatnikov, who requested exemption from conscription or deferment of his call up until the time when Lithuania enacted a law providing for "genuine alternative civilian service". This request was rejected and the appeal was denied by the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court in 2019. Teliatnikov appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, as reported by LRT.

  In 2022 the European Court held that there had been a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Regarding the provision of alternative service it held that it "was not a real alternative, as it was part of the military superstructure, with draftees referred to as 'military conscripts' throughout the regulations. States needed to establish alternatives outside of military command structures." The court case can be accessed here, with a summary here.
  
• 
  9

  Lithuania Rejecting Elevated Religious Recognition of WTS?

  by blondie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here is an article about wts/jws regarding religious recognition in lithuania.

  it says it may not be granted at the level the wts applied for partly based on rejecting unarmed alternative service rather than being "drafted.

  " can you read it and tell me you come to the same conclusion?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  blondie, the article states :

  The Ministry of Justice regarded the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ principle of conscientious objection, i.e., their refusal based on their interpretation of Biblical principles both of armed military service and non-armed alternative service managed by the military authorities, as contrary to the Constitutional obligation to defend the country in case of foreign armed attack.

  While JWs can accept alternative service if their conscience allows it, this only includes civilian alternative service. The May 1996 Watchtower which discusses alternative service says :

  In some places a required civilian service, such as useful work in the community, is regarded as nonmilitary national service. Could a dedicated Christian undertake such service? Here again, a dedicated, baptized Christian would have to make his own decision on the basis of his Bible-trained conscience.
• 
  19

  So a JW can date an unbelieving person...

  by silentbuddha in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  but the entire congregation is not to be informed or mark the person.

  the only repercussions are that the individual who is aware of it can decide to "mark" them and not go to the local club or bar with the individual, but they are still obligated to go door to door in the ministry with them, and even speak to them at the kn as if nothing is wrong and not feel obligated to tell anyone else?

  this is crazy.. so they are also basically saying that a person can carry on a romantic (but none sexual) relationship with an unbeliever and still go out in service and participate in meetings?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  Vienne, a person cannot be disfellowshipped for "continuing a relationship with an unbeliever" unless they are not scripturally free to marry. In that case, Shepherd the Flock of God, April 2024, Chapter 12, 17 (2) states
  

  Continuing to date or to pursue a romantic relationship with a person though one or both are not legally or Scripturally free to remarry, doing so despite repeated counsel and generally after a warning talk to the congregation, would warrant judicial action.—Gal. 5:19; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14, 15
• 
  25

  Do we have "original" indipendent documents proving that Rutherford was an alcoholic?

  by psyco in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i was wondering if you could prove with "original" independent documents that rutherford was an alcoholic.... .

  i read penton, but since he is a former jw he could not be considered an independent source.... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  The Olin Moyle Trial can be accessed here, and while Moyle accuses Rutherford of being pro-liquor in his letter (Exhibit 4), he doesn't accuse him of being drunk.