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

  philo

  I know Ray and Cynthia probably better than you imagine. Yes, I have read his work, including Crisis of Conscience. I take no exception to his conclusions, and in fact agree with most of them. Ray would not approve Focus’ assertion that is the subject of contention between he and I. He knows perfectly well that JWs are free to report serious crime committed by another JW and to do so without reprisal.

  LDH

  You wrote:
  

  Then please relate several of those experiences where a JW immediately ran to the police, and suffered no adverse consequences.

  Okay, here is one:

  Mildred was married to Carvin; both were JWs. Mildred left home one night because Carvin had said ugly things to her; she went to a local motel to spend the night. Late that night Carvin found her and he was mad and out of control. Under duress Mildred let Carvin into her room and things went from bad to worse. After Carvin had hit her several times with his fist and palms Mildred ran out of the room straight to the mangers office and called the police. Carvin was arrested and detained until the morning when he was released without bond. Mildred was a pioneer at the time and remained one for a few years afterward. Carvin was sorry for his actions, the two reconciled and have since improved their relationship. Mildred suffered no adverse consequences for having her JW husband arrested. As you can imagine some elders were called to see about the matter and they did. They told Carvin that he should be glad that his wife freed herself and sought help or things could have got much worse, in which case his troubles would have only been worse. They also commended Mildred for her willingness to work toward reconciliation in spite of her husbands sometimes impossible temperament. The only consideration of Mildred’s appointed capacity as a pioneer was whether her continuing was in her best interest because of having to meet pioneer requirements on top having to cope with her husbands problem. She wanted to continue and did with those elder’s blessing.

  I can repeat different versions of that same story until my fingertips are bleeding on this keyboard.

  There are other stories about JWs who manage people for large companies. There have been cases where a JW employee of the same company presented enough of a danger in the workplace that the managing JW would call the police to see about the matter with an arrest being the result.

  Relevant to our discussion here, there have been numerous occasions where JW parents have reported to police that another JW had sexually abused their child. The Society’s reaction to local elder bodies was "Do not interfere with that, at all!" Some of these cases have involved children of elders, yet the elder was not removed for letting the law take care of things as best it could.

  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

  LDH

  Yes, that situation gives me a case of the heebie-jeebies too, whether in the JW community or otherwise! For this reason and out of care for my fellowman, I too argue and fight for change within the association of Jehovah’s Witnesses, starting at the top. But the situation you describe does not confirm Focus’ original assertion, which is the point of contention between us, because it has to do with a JW’s and a local elder body’s perceptions rather than actual Society policy. Very often those policies are not followed because of misunderstanding them, not knowing them or maybe even thinking there is an applicable policy when there is none. This illustrates why anecdotal evidence is notoriously inconclusive, because one person’s experiences (or those of many) can be so different from experiences of other persons. I could just as well relate many experiences where a JW (elder or not) witnessed another JW commit a serious crime, did not hesitate to call the police and suffered no adverse consequences for their actions. (Oddly enough, most often this happens regarding domestic disputes, but domestic disputes between husbands and wives rather than adults and children.) Again, anecdotal evidence is inconclusive because experiences differ significantly on this and other subjects.

  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

  You do understand the meaning of “?”, don’t you?

  Earlier I wrote: "…you based an unconditional conclusion upon the Society’s writings."

  Afterward you responded:
  

  Proof By Assertion YET again, eh?

  Sorry – WRONG!

  I base it on writings, some of which I quoted, AND my sure knowledge of how the Society operates…

  I made an assertion, you then asserted that it was wrong. The question then becomes, what was wrong with my assertion?

  1) Was I wrong about what you based your assertion on? No, for in fact you admit that you based your conclusion upon the Society’s writings, namely that w73 11/15 703-4 Questions from Readers. That you also claim your “sure knowledge” as a basis does not refute my assertion because my assertion does not claim otherwise! So, since the part of my assertion dealing with your basis was correct then the remaining question is:

  2) Was I wrong about the nature (unconditional) of your assertion, thus my question, “So then, are you saying that your assertions that, "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…" and, "a JW must not [involve judicial authorities] until the disfellowshiping happens…" are conditional? Conditional upon what? All I see is sweeping statements. Did you intend something less?”

  Your response to my question:
  

  LOL! You can't read, can you?

  My very next words were:

  “I base it on writings, some of which I quoted, AND my sure knowledge of how the Society operates”

  It helps if you can READ, doesn't it? Try and work out why the word "AND" was capitalized and emboldened by me in the original material (knowing, as I did then, your capacity to fool yourself)..

  LOL! LOL! Your apparent lack of reading comprehension is STUNNING, [Friend]! Does the penny drop?

  So, given your ignorant response, again I must ask, do you understand the meaning of “?”?

  I also restate the question:

  Are you saying that your assertions that, "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…" and, "a JW must not [involve judicial authorities] until the disfellowshiping happens…" are conditional? Conditional upon what? All I see is sweeping statements. Did you intend something less?

  Care to answer the question this time?

  Regarding your claim of me that:

  But, but... "Oh So High Up" [Friend] said in the Pedophile thread that there was NO DIFFERENCE between Official JW Policy and congo-level Practice ON IMPORTANT AREAS .. and LIFE or DEATH sounds important to me! (At: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3099&site=3)

  My answer to Expatbrit does not evidence your claim of me because my answer only spoke of the Society and whether it had a policy or policies, NOT whether that policy (or policies) is practiced differently on important areas at the “congo-level.

  Again, I ask that you evidence your claim against me. If you can do that then we will go on to some of your other claims.

  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

  I said: "…you based an unconditional conclusion upon the Society’s writings."

  You responded:
  

  Proof By Assertion YET again, eh?

  Sorry - WRONG!

  So then, are you saying that your assertions that, "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…" and, "a JW must not [involve judicial authorities] until the disfellowshiping happens…" are conditional? Conditional upon what? All I see is sweeping statements. Did you intend something less?

  You wrote:
  

  I base it on writings, some of which I quoted, AND my sure knowledge of how the Society operates - and don't think we can't see your ignoring the "don't-put-it-in-writing" directives I quoted in http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3088&site=3 or the keep-the-blood-change-hushed allegation in http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3099&site=3 etc.

  As written, your assertion is unconditional that JWs "must not" report a serious crime by another JW to secular authorities, and that assertion is not evidenced in that material you refer to. All that material does is demonstrate what I have already made painfully clear, that the Society does not instruct elders to encourage reporting. Please keep in mind that the original assertion is yours (yes, that is yours without an apostrophe), not mine. The burden of proof is therefore yours, not mine. That the Society does not encourage reporting to authorities does not evidence your claim that JW must not report.

  However, you have expressed more than one falsehood about me on those linked threads. For example, at the link http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3099&site=3, you wrote:
  

  But, but... "Oh So High Up" [Friend] said in the Pedophile thread that there was NO DIFFERENCE between Official JW Policy and congo-level Practice ON IMPORTANT AREAS .. and LIFE or DEATH sounds important to me!

  
  Important areas or not, I have made no assertion that there is no difference between official JW policy and what is practiced by elders at a congregational level. If you feel otherwise then please feel free to evidence your claim of me!

  For a fact local congregational elders do sometimes act contrary to various policies of the Society.

  You wrote:
  

  Note how [Friend] refuses to address the DOZEN refutations above in this thread, and keeps blowing the same tired nonsense again and again.

  
  What you call refutations are no such thing at all because I have not asserted anything other than what your references indicate, that is, that the Society does not train elders to encourage reporting to secular authorities.

  [ Remaining garbage snipped ]

  What’s the matter, aren’t you going to continue your fine grammar lesson regarding "yours" and "your’s"? [[[ ROFLMAO ]]]

  Regarding your faux pas, using the editor, as an after thought, you wrote:
  

  Is there some part of a "?" that you do not understand?

  Yeah, right!

  Friend

  Edited by - Friend on 6 March 2001 23:58:21
• 
  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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