Posts by Friend

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

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.

Friend

Focus

About the serious crime of sexual child abuse, you based an unconditional conclusion upon the Society’s writings.

Your conclusion was:

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.

Since 1) your unconditional conclusion was based upon the Society’s writings and since 2) your conclusion was of a prohibition of reporting then 3) your conclusion was that the Society prohibits JWs from reporting serious crime as a matter of policy, that is, as [you] concluded from that w73 11/15 703-4 Questions from Readers. As you later admitted, that article does not set such a policy! Get over it!

You can try and redefine "policy" all you want and it will not change your assertion quoted above, which assertion or yours is wrong so far a JW reporting another JW to legitimate secular authorities for committing serious criminal acts.

As for a person witnessing a "murder" (since you insist upon quibbling), that a "murder" had actually occurred was part of the question, stupid! That a "murder" (= serious crime) happened was germane to the question of your assertion about serious crime, so it was part of the question! Get it now? Furthermore, when people report a crime they report what they believe they have witnessed, stupid! In an instance such as I questioned you, a JW would report what they considered themselves to have witnessed, which in my example was a murder. Get over it!

As far as the volume of material being "rammed" at me, you are correct, your regurgitation’s are enormous! On the other hand, since the minute amount that makes any sense is unbelievably small, the volume is more than manageable. In all your verbosity you have yet to prove your original unconditional assertion (and you will not be able because it is not true), and that is the point.

I begin to think that you are the same multi-personality fool that posted here a few months back, the same one that Sevenofnine calls Mr. Pocket Dictionary (or something like that). If so, I guess the sting of your embarrassment remains. If not, then we have only to read this grand testimonial of yours here to see your latest shame.

I suppose this short message will precipitate another smokescreen of nonsense from you. So be it.

In conclusion, I had to laugh at this:

I said: "…since the assertion in question was yours (as opposed to mine , stupid!)…"

To which you asked:

Does your "yours" mean "your's"?

From where did you get that little grammar lesson, a pocket dictionary? WOW! Coming from my self-appointed personal grammar critic, what a faux pas!

Just for your edification, "yours" is the possessive for "you," which was my usage. Apparently you feel that "your’s" is some sort of a contraction, for what exactly I am not sure? Care to tell us?

Friend

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

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.

Friend

Focus

Just how logical a thinker are you, anyway?

Regarding a subject of serious crime and based upon the Society’s writings (w73 11/15 703-4 Questions from Readers), you asserted:

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.

Based upon the Society’s writings, if a JW “must not” involve secular judicial authorities against a fellow-JW for serious crime then you are saying that that is Society policy! To contend otherwise is nonsensical. For you to later say that the Society has no policy against JWs reporting a murder (yes, murder!) that they happen to witness (that’s how they know its, yes, murder, stupid!) committed by another JW completely refutes your sweeping assertion!

It just doesn’t get any simpler than that, Focus! If you want to write another ten thousand words saying otherwise, please, by all means, feel free to do so. But that will not change any facts.

Also, since the assertion in question was yours (as opposed to mine, stupid!), and since it regarded a prohibition (i.e., “must not”) then whether the Society has ever required Witnesses (elders or not) to report a crime is irrelevant to your assertion, which assertion of yours was the subject of my critic. Again, I muse, just how sound a thinker are you to not see this!

Again, if you want to write a secondary ten thousand words contending otherwise, please, feel free to do so. But it will not change any facts.

This elements of sound thinking here are so basic that it defies the senses that you are unable to comprehend your error, which error only provides cannon fodder for Watchtower PR spinster masters! Since that is apparently what you want, then I suggest you go right on with your nonsensical writing! Sheesh! What an idiot you are! And, BTW, calling a fool an idiot is not ad hominem if it true and relevant; and in your case it is both!

Friend

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

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.

Friend

To all

I do not understand all the fuss made of my participation on this thread. I am not defending the Society. I am not denying that the Society has acted inappropriately. I am not denying that people have been hurt as a result, in fact I know they have and I hate it! And, though I enjoy my association with the diversity of people found among Jehovah’s Witnesses I do not feel they are unique in terms of possibly having God’s approval. My only purpose in visiting this thread stems from a desire to point out flaws in sweeping statements regarding various criticisms of the Society.

Criticism is fine and good! But when criticizing the savvy it becomes more important to be precise, otherwise needless and diversionary maneuvering room results. I know that, to many, that sounds as though I am being legalistic or technical, but that is not the case. I am trying to instill precision into otherwise valid claims. The problem with leaving maneuvering room in criticism is that savvy retortists will use it to divert as much attention as possible from the main issue. The Society has a lot of savvy retortists! I don’t like that fact anymore than anyone else, but I work to stem their predictable behavior, and any self-respecting critic of the Society should do the same!

As for what amounts to ad hominem regarding my use of English, those fools making an issue of it forget that we live in a world with many languages and dialects. Perhaps they feel mastery of English because it is the only language they can communicate in and so they foolishly make the most of that at other people’s expense. Speaking for all those who work hard at communicating in what is not their native tongue (particularly the English), all the snidery only makes you grammar attackers look more foolish. I suggest that these persons should get a life or else get out of the way by stopping with the same sort of diversionary tactics that they detest in the Society! I believe most of you people would bite a feeding hand!

As for Focus’ initial and broad assertions regarding the individual Witness and the Society, in relation to reporting serious criminal behavior the assertions were far too broad and thereby made incorrect. As a summary of the w73 11/15 703-4 Questions from Readers, Focus’ categorical assertion was:

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.

In relation to a serious criminal act (what this thread is about!), it is not a categorically true statement that “A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW.

In relation to a serious criminal act, it is not a categorically true statement that “a JW must not [involve authorities] until the disfellowshiping happens.” (Emphasis added)

On at least those two counts, Focus, your assertions are just plain wrong if for no other reason than they are too broad!

This thread is about child abuse suffered among Jehovah’s Witnesses and perpetrators of it. As I said earlier, it is true that there are tendencies within the community of JWs that lean toward discouraging JWs from reporting child abuse. But that tendency is not to the extent that “A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW.” Saying that “A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW” makes the question one of policy, which is why my initial question to Focus was in relation to Society policy. In turn, Focus’ answer to my question refuted Focus’ initial assertion, which was the point—to show where precision was lacking to the determent of a claim.

As for remedying any tendencies within the community of JWs that lean toward discouraging JWs from reporting child abuse, as I stated earlier, since elders are told not to interfere with reporting and since the publications encourage reporting of serious criminal actions, then the most glaring flaw is in how elders are trained, specifically that they are not trained to explicitly encourage reporting when a serious crime is made known to them. Instead they simply leave the matter to publishers to report (or not) as they see fit. That needs changing! At the very least elders should be trained to encourage victims (or their family) to report what is perceived as serious criminal behavior. Sexual abuse of a child is certainly an example of such a crime!

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 6 March 2001 10:54:45

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

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.

Friend

Xandit

Yes, I agree. I suppose we each must nevertheless test the water a bit toward satisfying our personal desire to help, if that is possible.

Friend

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

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.

Friend

Focus

I asked:

"If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is the JW violating any organizational or local congregational sensitivities if they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?"

You answered:

"Yes."

If you really believe that answer of yours then there is nothing further to discuss between us. Believe what you will.

Friend

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

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.

Friend

Focus

Why you cannot focus yourself on the issue at hand is beyond me, unless my earlier conclusions are correct, that is. The question I asked you is the subject of my comments to you. You have yet to honestly answer for yourself! My question to you was,

"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?"

Since earlier you expressed some unspecified concerns about terms in my question, I will also ask the same question another way.

"If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is the JW violating any organizational or local congregational sensitivities if they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?"

If the answer to either question is, "No" then your assertion that "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…" is a false one.

As for whether the Society’s workings makes it less likely that JW victims will report to authorities, that is not at all what I corrected in your assertions or anyone else’s. That you pretend that it is demonstrates lack of reading comprehension skills on your part. For a fact there are tendencies within the community of JWs that lean toward discouraging JWs from reporting child abuse. The question is, what exactly facilitates those leanings and how to best rectify it. Since elders are told not to interfere with reporting and since the publications encourage reporting of serious criminal actions, then the most glaring flaw is in how elders are trained, specifically that they are not trained to explicitly encourage reporting when a serious crime is made known to them. Instead they simply leave the matter to publishers to report (or not) as they see fit. That needs changing! At the very least elders should be trained to encourage victims (or their family) to report what is perceived as serious criminal behavior. Sexual abuse of a child is certainly an example of such a crime!

Friend

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

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.

Friend

From further up this thread:

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.

End of copy.

Calling me a liar does not hardly answer the facts above, Focus. The question I put to you was directly to correct the very errors I pointed out as outlined in my statement above. That you cannot understand that does not make me a liar, it makes you, well, you know. Enough of you!

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 4 March 2001 19:36:35

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

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.

Friend

Expatbrit

Thanks for your answer. I am not seeking to change your mind about anything at all. I am trying to elucidate things a bit, that’s all. Added perspective usually helps when addressing serious and difficult problems.

As you said, of course you would not seek out the elders in the situation I described. But the problem is that, though you may not be in that situation in real life there are persons in that very situation.

There are loyal JWs that have an abused daughter (by a JW or otherwise), do not want it reported to secular law enforcement officials but do want and need help from elders, at least as much help as they can get from that source (or any source for that matter!). We are here talking about the real world, right? Well, in the real world the scenario I described happens and the answers are not necessarily easy ones. Look back at that same question again to see why. Asked another way, my question reads:

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

Today physicians face that very problem and just how to handle it is sometimes extremely difficult to determine. In most developed lands physicians are required to report known cases of child abuse and oftentimes they are required also to report suspected cases of child abuse. But that only addresses cases that physicians are familiar with! Physicians fear that some of the worst cases involve situations where parents or victims do not come forward for some sort of help because of fears of reporting that they feel unable to cope with. What a hopeless and helpless situation that is! It is for this reason that many physicians will argue that having some sort of clergy to go to for help is good even though they may not be required to report and maybe do not report. They feel that this gives some outlet at least for those who feel unable to cope with all that could come along with reporting an incident or incidents. This is why some feel the only change that the Society need make in its policy is to train elders to be more encouraging about victims reporting to authorities, but not take the prerogative from those victims or their families. This is pretty much what clergypersons do in most other religions today. The difference in their case is that they usually have no shunning policy in the case of child abusers where those persons would be shunned like they would be among JWs. Also, they do not usually have the sort of incident investigation as exists among JWs, and one thing that pedophiles really hate is being confronted with questions!

Regarding JWs, the Society and its policies, there are, of course, others details of this issue that critics would do well to more fully consider, that is, if they are most interested in helping victims rather than just being critics. From the looks of things, though, some critics appear to want no more than to say a lot of words. That is a pity! But, I guess we will always have that kind to cope with.

Friend

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

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.

Friend

Expatbrit

In your case my belief was that I was engaging a person that would honestly address a discussion. Honestly addressing a discussion includes giving straightforward answers to straightforward questions. To illustrate one critical problem facing the issue under discussion (child abuse among JWs) and criticisms leveled, I have asked one particular question of you two times. The first time you completely ignored the question, and your secondary attempt at responding to it shows why; you apparently do not want to answer the question straightforwardly, which is dishonest conversation. The question asked was:

"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?"

The first part of your reply says:

1) I would not feel free and comfortable seeking help from the elders under any circumstances, as they would be utterly unqualified to deal with the situation. Whether they are obligated to report is irrelevant to how I would deal with the situation.

That reply, Expatbrit, is no less than a non-answer. It deals with not even one item of the question asked! You simply dodge the question.

The second part of your reply says:

2) In my opinion (I'm sorry if anyone finds this offensive), any parent who seeks help from elders before secular authorities and agencies is failing their child. Any parent who does not wish to report the offense is failing both their child, and the children of others.

This is yet another non-answer because you have not addressed the reality of the circumstance, a reality that is felt and played out often whether among JWs or other communities. You again dodge the question.

The third part of your reply says:

3) Your comment in your question about reporting to law enforcement agencies making my daughter's situation worse, and your subsequent comment about victims being afraid to seek out pastoral help because of subsequent secular involvment, reflects the society's conditioning that secular authorities and agencies are "part of Satan's world" and are therefore to be avoided. This is part of the society's unofficial policy.

This is yet another dodge. I was not asking you about Society policy but rather about the effects to a victim and/or parents of a given disposition in the face of a certain given policy. Again you fail to honestly reply, and I think you know it.

The fourth and final part of your reply says:

4) I would certainly not feel free and comfortable talking to elders knowing that coercive pressure will be put upon me and my family to hush the whole situation up so as not to "bring reproach upon Jehovah". The cases being compiled and documented show that this is what happens.

This last response of yours borders on hallucinogenic reasoning; it completely avoids the specific context of the question, which context happens to be just the opposite of what your reply pretends to answer! You respond to something that is not even present, which is hallucinogenic reasoning. How ridiculous.

In your four replies to my very simple question you have demonstrated a willingness to indulge in several forms of fallacious reasoning, including: shifting meanings, ad numerum, appealing to anecdotal evidence, ad nauseam, and more! And to what end have you done this? For what? Do you suppose it helps things that people avoid dealing with real and legitimate questions, instead finding some weak straw man to tear down instead of dealing with what is put before them?

Your last response demonstrates quite well why much potential achievement will in all likelihood be lost in the most current media blitz regarding our subject. A loss will be incurred because persons are so bent upon some pet idea that they forget or refuse to deal what real circumstances, which is what my question was about. I will not ask you again to answer the simple question where "pastoral" and "congregational elders" could just as easily have been substituted with "medical" and "doctors." Since you apparently did not want to answer the question (but only reply) then you demonstrate yourself to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Too bad.

To others

You many think that my bases of discussion on this subject is nitpicky because I choose to deal with the details of this subject. If that is your feelings then you fail to realize that successfully dealing with difficult issues (indeed most issues) is done in the details. My simple question to Expatbrit was but one example of a detail that hardly anyone has taken the time to explore, but it is a detail having potentially great impact on this most serious issue under consideration. There are other details that have been brought up here too, but it appears that no one wants to address those either. What a pity!

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 4 March 2001 14:11:22

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

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.

Friend

TR

Xandit is correct. Elders are frequently removed for failing to follow Society policy. Less frequently elders are removed for offering bad advice, but it happens.

Because elder are removed that does not necessarily mean negligence on the Society’s part. In fact it may evidence just the contrary. That is, if the Society can evidence that it routinely removes elders who act contrary to its policy or that offer hurtful advice then secular courts often weigh this as evidence that the Society is acting in good faith.

Also, as Xandit points out, there are some instances where entire elder bodies have been removed for dereliction.

Friend