Friend

Joined

• started 9 topics
• posted 218 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Friend

• 
  173

  PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

  by Focus in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

  do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

  -u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Expatbrit

  I do equivocate WT society policy with the actions of local congregations. This is because society HQ is kept well aware of what happens at local levels by CO's etc….

  Your suspicion is a common one but nevertheless not a good one. It is true that COs visit congregations regularly. It is true that COs reports back to the Society on each congregation visit. It is also true that the form (called the S-2) for that report contains a question asking about any congregational problems. But it is not true that congregations routinely speak of these problems to COs with it being included in those reports. In most cases that section of the S-2 report is left blank. (I just thumbed through three congregation’s files of S-2 forms going back more then 10 years each. Not one of those more than 60 reports had an entry in the section in question.) For that reason the Society is very often unaware of specific local problems.

  …So when there is a widespread policy (a policy can be simply an adopted course of action rather than a written legal document) being exercised at local level (e.g. coercive pressure not to involve secular authorities), it is reasonable to conclude that the society is well aware of this, and concurs with it's continuation.

  Elders are told to call the Society’s legal department upon hearing reports of child abuse. Do you know what elders are told upon calling? Relevant to reporting, elders are instructed to advise victims (or their families or other witnesses) that whether they report is up to them. Furthermore, elders are told that no one should discourage those persons from reporting if that is their desire. How do you explain that contradiction to your conclusion?

  In fact, with it's magazine articles emphasizing "not bringing reproach upon Jehovah" by involving secular authorities in criminal matters ("minor" and "serious" crime distinctions are not made in the literature), and with it's demonising the secular authorities as part of Satan's system, the society creates this local policy.

  Let’s not quibble here. The subject of this thread, and the one having everyone worked into a tizzy, is of a serious criminal nature. Show me an instance where the Society discourages JWs from reporting serious criminal behavior out of a misguided notion of "not bringing reproach on Jehovah". The QFR article cited on this thread certainly does no such thing. That article deals only with the scriptural issue of Christian brothers taking their civil matters to court; it does not deal with criminal acts at all.

  On the subject of the actions of elders: the society is responsible for all action of elders performed in their capacity as elders, period.

  Laws of the land typically would not hold the Society to that high of a standard. Acting in their capacity or not, an elder that knowingly or inconsiderately acts outside designated policy cannot jeopardize the Society anymore so than a hospital can be held accountable for a physician doing the same. Sure, the elder (or physician) can be held accountable, but transferring that accountability back to the Society requires evidencing negligence on the Society’s part, whether that be by means of an inadequate policy, training or appointment. This is why my last post highlighted what it did as the main problem from a libelous standpoint.

  To illustrate: I, as an employer, often send out my employees to clients. I do not know all of the actions that person will take at the clients. For all I know, they may spend the entire day using the client's computers to look at pornography. But, because I placed that employee as my agent at the client, I must assume the ultimate responsibility and consequences for all of the actions of that employee while he or she acts in that capacity.

  Your analogy is a false one. In the United States, which is where the Penn. Corp. of the Society must be sued, to be held libelous for your actions in almost every case, for an employee to libel your company then it must be evidenced that they were acting as you would have them act or that you knew of their reprehensible actions and did nothing about it. All by themselves your employee’s actions need not jeopardize you. Easily, if they acted inappropriately, you could hang them out on their own to whither.

  1) If elders are incompetent; 2) if they do not follow the society's printed policy; 3) if they do not understand the society's policies or 4) sincerely misapply them: the society is still ultimately responsible and must accept the consequences.

  1) Yes. Your conclusion is correct.

  2) No. In this case your conclusion is incorrect.

  3) Maybe. In this case much depends upon the extent the Society took in deciding the individual’s qualifications and whether there was any reason for suspecting them.

  4) No. In this case your conclusion is incorrect.

  My comment:
  For a fact the Society does not view it as spiritual weakness that a JW would report a serious crime to legitimate law enforcement officials whether the offender is a JW or not.

  Your reply:
  I have to flat-out disagree here. The fact that elders are instructed to compulsorily report serious crimes only when there is a legal requirement demonstrates the society's preference: to not have such things reported. Someone reporting when not absolutely required by law will certainly be considered spiritually weak.

  Your answer deals with elders. In this case elders are persons (elder or not) who are third parties to the criminal act. My comment was regarding persons who are either victims or witnesses to the act. Certainly in those cases the Society does not view a person as "spiritually weak" because they report a serious crime to legitimate law enforcement officials. Certainly the earlier cited Awake article contradicts your assertion here. Do you suppose that elders are instructed to tell publishers that they should act contrary to what is published in the literature in this regard?

  My answer is simple. In situations such as the one you describe, there should be no prerogative on whether to report or not. It should be compulsory at all times. Given the nature of these offenders, there is a high probability that they will abuse another victim. To not report is to endanger other children.

  That is simple enough to say, and I happen to agree with you. But when parents are in this terrible situation they oftentimes feel otherwise. The answer, then, is not so simple, and not even uniformly legislated among various secular jurisdictions as a result. On this point, noticeably you ignored answering one critical question. Again:

  If you learned that a JW had abused your daughter but were concerned that reporting to law enforcement might make your daughter’s circumstances worse, would you feel free and comfortable seeking pastoral help from congregational elders if you knew they were obligated to report the crime whether you wanted it reported or not?

  Don’t you see? If victims are afraid to seek out pastoral help then the question of whether elders should report becomes practically moot!

  This is an emotionally loaded subject. All the more important for it to be considered without resorting to name-calling and insults.

  I could not agree more with you.

  Friend
• 
  173

  PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

  by Focus in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

  do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

  -u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  SixofNine

  If Focus has slapped you a bit too hard for your pride to swallow…

  You have got to be kidding! Because Focus speaks in loud and accusatory language do you think that that amounts to strong conclusions and sound thinking? If so then you are sadly mistaken. The only slapping that could happen on a forum such as this stems from good argumentation, and so far Focus has demonstrated very poor reasoning skills. He is no more than a small irritant to those who allow his distastefullness or ignorance to annoy them.

  … Isn't that the truth to focus on?

  As for what we should focus on, that would be the truth of a matter, which is the very reason for my participation here and elsewhere. My only reason for commenting on this particular thread was to correct a defective assertion, one which Focus offered in the first place! Do you think that errant criticisms correct anything? If not then you should understand the need to adjust them so that corrective initiatives can have their full affect.

  Regarding how issues related to child abuse are handled among JWs and related Society policy, I am keenly aware of both. The main problem boils down to the Society insisting that elders deal with such matters when many (if not most) are ill-equipped for the task. Problems stemming from that include an entire array of hurtful mistakes regarding questions of confidentiality and what that means, reporting concerns, seeking competent medical advice, and the list goes on. Mind you, I am not laying the blame necessarily upon those unqualified elders but rather the Society for insisting that they deal with problems beyond their abilities or else making sure that they are trained before such insistence! Of course, there is an entirely separate set of problems associated with rude and self-righteous elders who essentially act as bullies. In their case too, the Society bears responsibility. But in all of this, it is not necessarily the subject specific policies of the Society that are to blame but rather the Society’s management policy, that is, how they go about training and charging elders with various tasks and how they determine elder’s qualifications. That is where the real problem lay on the subject at hand.

  If you find my comments about blood truthful then you should realize that I do not at all mind disagreeing with the Society wherever and whenever that is necessary. This subject of child abuse is no different in that respect; I will lay the blame where it belongs and will do so for valid reasons. If on this subject you find yourself enamored with Focus’ assertions on this thread then I strongly recommend that you reconsider your own reasoning applied.

  Friend

  Edited by - Friend on 3 March 2001 20:39:6
• 
  173

  PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

  by Focus in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

  do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

  -u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Expatbrit

  I'm afraid I must differ with you on the society having only one policy on this issue. Quite often, the policy the society puts in print is very different to the actual attitudes and actions reflected in the congregations.

  I understand what you are saying in that statement, but please keep in mind that you equivocate Society policy with actions of local congregations; they are not always one and the same. My comments responded to your question asked, which was strictly about Society policy.

  On the subject of congregational action, the Society is certainly accountable for libelous actions of elders when they are acting as directed in that capacity. The Society is also accountable if they appoint elders that are less than ready for the work assignment. That is, it is negligence to charge an elder with handling sensitive situations for which they are not known to be qualified for. But, too often elders who are qualified act sincerely though indiscriminately in certain situations out of a misunderstood impression of Society policy. This is one problem with giving so much leeway to local elders (who may also be lacking in certain abilities) in assessing the qualifications of each person working as an elder.

  For instance: the society has stated that disfellowshipping does not dissolve family ties. And this is quite true as a policy, since the society has no legal authority or physical ability to dissolve family ties. However, we know that in the congregations and familys, disfellowshipped members are emotionally and spiritually shunned as though family ties had been dissolved. The official policy differs from the unofficial policy as demonstrated by the actions of the society's members.

  That is not an example of what you asked about. You did not ask me about the Society’s policy regarding shunning of relatives or the more general question of whether the Society sometimes plays with semantics in its policies. Regarding shunning of family members, the Society tells half-truths in its public PR language. However, regarding serious criminal actions, there is no such half-truths in the Society’s public comments. Society policy does not hinder JWs from reporting such acts to legitimate law enforcement authorities.

  Similarly, with regard to the reporting of crimes (whether serious or not), the society may very well say that it's policy is either to report crimes, or even to not hinder reporting of them. But when the brother or sister reporting the crime first to the authorities rather than to the elders knows that there is a high probability that they will be regarded as spiritually weak and a bad associate to be marked, they will likely remain silent. Then the unofficial policy of the society (avoiding negative publicity at all costs) becomes clear through the actions of it's members.

  This is where your assertions are lacking, at least in regard to Society policy. It may be that you have experienced what you claim above, but that does not make it Society policy. In those cases elders or others could have been acting under wrong ideas about what Society policy is. For a fact the Society does not view it as spiritual weakness that a JW would report a serious crime to legitimate law enforcement officials whether the offender is a JW or not. Certainly there is no policy to congregationally "mark" such a person! As for the Society’s policy being clear through the actions of its members, assuming by "members" that you mean all JWs, then how do you explain the contradiction of JWs who do report such crime as we are speaking of here without experiencing adverse repercussion? Additionally, if your assertion is true that, for instance, elders avoid reporting child abuse cases "at all cost" then how do you explain the contradiction of the Society instructing elders to report child abuse when the law requires it?

  Finally, having grown up as a JW, I certainly do not think that all JW's are child molesters, or that they are all callous to the effects of such abuse. But surely the society should be taking a pro-active view of this issue, not retreating into denial and exercising the knee-jerk reaction of blaming apostate troublemaking.

  Let me ask you a question here. If you were a parent who learned that your child had been sexually abused by an adult (JW or not), would you want the prerogative to report or not, or would you rather someone else hold that prerogative? Let me put this in more specific terms. If you learned that a JW had abused your daughter but were concerned that reporting to law enforcement might make your daughter’s circumstances worse, would you feel free and comfortable seeking pastoral help from congregational elders if you knew they were obligated to report the crime whether you wanted it reported or not? Again, who should hold the prerogative to report these crimes? Do you think the answer is a simple one?

  Friend
• 
  173

  PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

  by Focus in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

  do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

  -u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Focus

  Xandit is correct, you are an idiot!

  Initially, and incorrectly, you stated:

  So - the summary [of w73 11/15 QFR] is: "YES, YOU MUST NOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST A FELLOW JW - NO EXCEPTIONS".

  A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW - if the matter is serious enough, and the JW is unrepentant, he/she will be disfellowshiped and then one will not be taking a "Christian" to court if one proceeds. But a JW must not act until the disfellowshiping happens, as the above article makes clear.

  By your own words you later refute yourself, yet you are apparently too stupid to see it! After being asked about an instance of a JW witnessing another JW commit a serious criminal wrongdoing and whether that JW would be free to report the crime, you answered, "Yes." What does that mean? It means that an assertion otherwise is false! So, your assertion is false. If you don’t understand that then I suppose it must be spelled out with a crayon. Alas, there is no crayon feature on this forum! I guess you must reside in your idiocy!

  You also (and errantly) feel that your question to me about whether a JW is required to report a crime is germane to your initial assertions, which assertions is what my criticisms were about. Your assertions have to do with JWs being prevented from reporting, not, I repeat, NOT whether they are required to report them. Please review your quoted assertions above. Plainly you assert that JWs "MUST NOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST A FELLOW JW - NO EXCEPTIONS" and, "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…"

  As for categorizing my responses here as a defense of the Society, shame on you, Focus! Do you suppose it is a defense of the Society that I point out your error? That an assertion is evidenced as false is construed as a defense is ludicrous! Defense means that you stand beside a subject and protect it, in this case allegedly the Society. All I have done here is point out your blunder! What in the world kind of reasoning ability do you have, anyway? The subject of my responses here has not been the Society, rather it has been your assertions! Claiming that my actions herein are a defense of the Society is no less than you introducing a red herring into our discussion, which is a thoroughly dishonest act (or else an act of ignorance!).

  I suggest that you get an education! When you are ready to critically examine yourself first, then we can perhaps pursue some semblance of conversation. In the meantime those choosing to be persuaded by your brand of folly are being guided by a jester.

  To the others

  As for the Society’s actions regarding issues like reporting child abuse, there are many misconstruals about what the Society’s policy is. This does not mean that the Society is somehow innocent of any bad acts, it just means that many of the accusations are less than completely valid (with some being completely invalid). For sure people have been hurt, and whatever role the Society has played in that result should be accounted for if possible. But it does little good to make false accusations on specific issues when those false accusation may actually lend support to the Society in the form of providing them with material to easily rebut.

  Friend

  Edited by - Friend on 3 March 2001 13:49:10
• 
  173

  PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

  by Focus in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

  do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

  -u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Focus

  If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is it absolutely required by Watchtower policy for them to right away they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?

  So far as I know, no. Now, you tell me, what does your question have to do with Society policy regarding hindering or discouraging the reporting of serious criminal actions?

  As worded, or otherwise asking the same basic thing, my question gets to the heart of your errant assertions on this thread. For a fact Witnesses are free to report serious criminal behavior to law enforcement authorities without fear of reprisals, at least any reprisal resulting from existing Society policy. On the other hand, your question does not at all address the very question of your assertions on this thread!

  When it comes to serious crime the Society actually encourages that Witnesses report it to legitimate secular authorities charged with dealing with it. For example:

  If the rape happened recently, friends can help the victim get medical help and can offer a safe place to stay. Encourage her to report the rape, but let her make the decisions. She has just come from a situation where she was stripped of all control. Allow her to take some of that control back by letting her choose what to do next.—How to Cope With Rape, Awake! 1993, 3/8: 10. (Emphasis added)

  Expatbrit

  Are you referring to the WT's formal written policy, or to the WT's informal unwritten policy?

  When it comes to serious criminal actions, I am referring to the Society’s only policy.

  Friend
• 
  173

  PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

  by Focus in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

  do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

  -u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Focus

  Your answering one question should remedy the error you have made.

  If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is it against Watchtower policy if right away they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?

  Friend
• 
  10

  for FRIEND on BLOOD

  by Pathofthorns in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey friend.. i see you're encouraging letter writing to the society on blood.

  can u please give some tips on what to include.

  i figure i'd like to include your (lol) research paper as well.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  waiting

  However, local elders might be suspicious of any jw who is not attending meetings, particularly if they are gathering information as we speak. A "catch 22" for the questioning party also, don't you think?

  Elders do not usually become suspicious of a publisher that has become inactive or stopped attended meetings. They are more apt to be concerned for them, though that is not always apparent. Those men are usually so exhausted from making a living, taking care of their own families, preparing congregation meetings, etc. that they to often are just too run down to do the needed pastoral shepherding. Too often they are the ones falling ill from running themselves to death. Just think about how many former elders are out there.

  I don’t know what you mean about "gathering information" in relation to pathofthorns. But I do know that for reasons I described the Society is unlikely to send copies of his correspondence to local elders.

  May I ask which language are you more fluent than English?

  Regretfully I cannot answer that question.

  pathofthorns

  I am still confused however at the path my letter will travel when i send it. Can u please explain this more clearly?

  Why do i send it to Brooklyn and not my local branch?
  
  Can u give me a specific example of a mailing address I would put on an envelope so that it reaches the intended destination, whatever that is? (i know that sounds ridiculous, but i want to be sure)

  If sending to the Writing Department address your envelope:

  Watchtower Bible & Tract Society
  Writing Department
  25 Columbia Heights
  Brooklyn, NY USA 11201

  Address you letter accordingly, that is to the Writing Department.

  If sending to the Chairman’s Committee address your envelope simply as:

  Watchtower Bible & Tract Society
  25 Columbia Heights
  Brooklyn, NY USA 11201

  Then on your letter address it to the Governing Body, Chairman’s Committee.

  If you send this letter to your local branch it may not get to where it will do the most good. Again, send it to Brooklyn. Though the local branch would probably return some reply, on the subject in question they are not authorized to return any reply other than the perfunctory. Frankly, they probably will not even forward your letter. At best all they would do is include some remarks about similar correspondence they have received in the way of a regular report to Brooklyn.

  Because headquarters (Brooklyn) does not want branch committees seeing any more of this stuff than they have to, they may either answer you directly, effectively dictate a letter for your branch to send out to you or else they will reply to you and copy your branch with that response. Branch offices will hold such letters in the event that local elders call them about you raising the question then they can say, "Yes, we know of his correspondence with Brooklyn, and they answered him. Is there some problem?" Unless you provoke some local concern over this subject your local elders will probably never know you wrote. In the meantime, if you write to the Society you will have sent a message to those who are best able to do something. The more well reasoned and endorsed letters from Witnesses that Brooklyn receives on this issue the more those who want to make changes are empowered to do something.

  Can I send a copy of my letter to my local elders as well, thus making them aware of what i am doing, while at the same time making sure they get all the information I am actually sending?

  Of course you can do what you suggest, but I advise against it. This is not an issue that local elders can do anything about unless they take it upon themselves as individuals or as a body to write in with their own well reasoned letter including a corresponding suggestion for change. Unless you feel that your local elders will react that way then I suggest that you simply keep this matter between you and the Brooklyn offices of the Watchtower Society. There are men there can and want to do something about it, but like everyone else, they need support. Well reasoned letters are one means to provide such support. That is true regardless of what sort of reply that you may get back. The letter will do its work by it being sent and not by any reply you may get personally.

  How long does a reply generally take? What are my odds of a written response especially if i specifically request one? I have no intention of meeting with the elders as they have already expressed ignorance and/or used unsound reasoning in this matter.

  I do not know where you live. Responses can take anywhere from 3 or 4 weeks to a few months, if you get one at all. I recommend that you send you letter some way so that you can verify that it was received because that is the main thing. Many carriers have online tracking systems so that you can know. Please keep in mind that the reply to you is not where the letter is doing the most good. The most good comes from giving more support to those that see a need and want to do something about it.

  I would assume you have written in yourself, submitting information presented in jwresearch.com. What has your response been to this?

  There is nothing I talk about as Friend that I have not spoken about to men at Brooklyn. Because of my circumstances feedback that I get may or may not be similar to what you could get. An average publisher writing in on the subject we speak of can usually expect a courteous reply that basically says that your letter was received and your thoughts noted. There is usually some conclusion that encourages that you keep up the fight of the faith and remain active in preaching. But, again, the reply is not the important thing. If it provides any encouragement, the Society continues using me in various capacities that are deemed "privileges." Of course you only have my anonymous word for that, but hopefully my actions that you know of are worthy of some small measure of trust. Otherwise you can read from the Society’s literature where suggesting doctrinal change is acceptable and fine as long as the publisher is not stirring contentions. If it makes you feel more comfortable then in writing you can even reference such comments in your letter.

  I hope these comments prove helpful to you. In the end only you can decide what is the best thing for your circumstances.

  Friend
• 
  10

  for FRIEND on BLOOD

  by Pathofthorns in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey friend.. i see you're encouraging letter writing to the society on blood.

  can u please give some tips on what to include.

  i figure i'd like to include your (lol) research paper as well.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Pathofthorns

  I see you're encouraging letter writing to the Society on blood. Can u please give some tips on what to include. I figure i'd like to include your (lol) research paper as well. Very well written.

  Also can i have permission to use some of your arguments posted on the various discussion boards?

  Such a letter should be sincere and written courteously though clearly spelling out your conclusion, view or any suggestions. You should endorse your letter and ask for a reply by requesting that each of your concerns be addressed and answered in order for your concerns to be alleviated. Do not fear expressing the extent of your concern, but keep that expression of concern focused on the subject of the letter. Be painfully careful to avoid straying onto other issues. Address your letter to the Writing Department or else the Chairman’s Committee of the Governing Body. I do not know where you live, but this letter should be sent to the Brooklyn offices of the Society.

  Write the letter with enough forethought that the Society will think twice before sending it along to any local body of elders. Remember, if the Society sends your letter along to a local elder body (or branch) then they will be sending your reasoning to them and actually asking them to examine it in order to perhaps question you. If your letter contains strong arguments that in effect debunk a teaching (or at least create serious doubt on the subject) then the Society will not send it out to local elders because they will not want to inadvertently stir legitimate concerns among them on the subject of your letter. This presents a catch 22 for the Society, that is if they are a mind to have some elder or elders look into the matter. If your letter is written respectfully (courteously) and with sincerity then that is all the more reason that they would never send it along to a local elder body.

  If the intent is to stir the air for needed change on a subject, then give your appeal a scriptural theme. If you have some personal experience like being unable to defend "our" abstain from blood policy to a concerned and well reasoned physician who also enjoys Biblical discussions, then that could also be a helpful basis for the letter. (Or you might have some other experience that also works well to provide a basis for writing the letter) You need to provide a reason for writing this letter other than "I read something good and want to share it with you." Your reasons need to be personal though everyday; sincere though perhaps divergent; powerful though not addressed in "our" publications; provocative though out of concern. Finally, it would be beneficial to speak of the Society’s teachings as "our" teaching or "our" position rather than "your" teaching or "your" position. Make the letter powerful but personal.

  As for anything I have written on the subject, feel free to use it. That is exactly why it is out there. I suggest that you avoid using my words verbatim because English is not my first language and my command of that language is not very good, or any for that matter. Besides, the letter and arguments should be yours, which means that those arguments must be understood and believed to the extent that you can pointedly present the essential elements while putting them into your own words.

  Friend
• 
  34

  Jesus' Answer for a Sign

  by Friend in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following was originally written as part of a response to criticisms against the belief that the synoptic gospel contains jesus' answer for a sign of his parousia that is realized today.

  some of the language is then necessarily a bit unusual because of the originally intended audience.

  lately this subject has come up in other circles so i chose to also post the comments to this forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Zep

  I see from your reply that the notion of "more" is something you are reading into the text rather than letting the text speak for itself. It is, however, important to realize one issue that you repeatedly bring to the fore, the idea that for a sign to be a sign that it must be uniquely recognizable during a single period. That is the point of my initial post on this topic, and I am aghast that it has not been realized. Let me simplify things.

  Let’s say that Jesus’ answer for a sign indicated just two things for a period of time—which for all practical purposed it does. Let’s say that he indicated 1) the observance of earthquakes (events) and 2) that they would be observable worldwide.

  In that case there is no need for earthquakes (events) to increase but only to wait for a period of time when they are observable worldwide. Earthquakes (events) can be observable worldwide by one of two ways. 1) They can happen as an event worldwide for all to observe during a period of time—which has never occurred during humankind’s history—, or 2) they can happen just as they have for eons but during a period of time when real-time communication comes about whereby they can be observed with all the horror of seeing them firsthand.

  What so many fail to see is that Jesus was describing not only what could be observed but also their observability. Ever since Jesus supposedly uttered his answer for a sign events like war, earthquakes, famine, disease, et cetera have happened pretty much at a constant level, but that is not all Jesus indicated, that is, that those events would just happen. Jesus also indicated the extent those events could be observed, that is, globally. Only within the last 100 years have those events been observable as Jesus indicated, globally. And that by real-time communication. The proliferation of such communication has significantly heightened humankind’s awareness of global events, which, again, is indicated in Jesus’ answer for a sign.

  I hope this helps. Perhaps based upon our recent exchanges it would do you good to re-read my initial post on this subject. That is, if you are interested enough. I do not push this stuff on anyone because all it does is argue that our day is the first to uniquely witness Jesus’ answer for a sign, and I am not dogmatic about it. In fact, I see no place in Jesus’ reply indicating that realization of any sign is of paramount importance. Therefore, Jesus’ could have provided a sign but realizing it was not critical.

  Friend
• 
  34

  Jesus' Answer for a Sign

  by Friend in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following was originally written as part of a response to criticisms against the belief that the synoptic gospel contains jesus' answer for a sign of his parousia that is realized today.

  some of the language is then necessarily a bit unusual because of the originally intended audience.

  lately this subject has come up in other circles so i chose to also post the comments to this forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Zep

  …and that’s the key to me, we have to be witnessing them more…

  Please answer the following question very carefully. Which events, if any, did Jesus indicate would be more?

  Why would Jesus give a Sign and yet make it so hard to discern

  Who says it is hard to discern? If we make such a statement based upon historical beliefs that people realized the fulfillment of Jesus answer for a sign we can see why it was hard to see, because it wasn’t there. Nevertheless, historical beliefs have nothing to do with whether we today can realize a fulfillment of Jesus’ answer. Also, contrary to your feelings, Jesus did not indicate that anyone other than his followers—true believers—would recognize the fulfillment of Jesus answer for a sign prior to the very end of the age. Therefore, insisting upon a scenario where some sign is obvious to all persons is reading a conclusion into the text.

  I believe you fail to realize a basic issue as do so many. Besides events, Jesus indicated the extent of observation of them. We cannot say we have examined humankind’s history or our day for a legitimate fulfillment or possible fulfillment of Jesus answer for a sign unless we look for both things, events and extent of observation of those events. No time prior to our own has global observation of events existed until advances in technology allowed real-time communication.

  waiting

  There is much to what you have said. Please understand that neither in this thread nor any other do I offer any intended defense for actions of the WTS. As for reasons for Carl putting his work together, there exist good reasons for it and he has acted commendably in doing so. Undoubtedly he is a very conscientious person.

  Friend