amac,
I was trying to make a point of how this new policy can be used by the average witness. They usually equate WT speak with indirect guidance from Jah. So if the policy says "reporting is A-OK" and an elder goes against that, an average JW has something to back them up that the elder is sinning in trying to punish them.
I suspect that you have NO experience with WT-style "justice", which is a good thing. However, that allows you to make statements like the above, which simply have no connection to reality. This policy was put up as a PR move for the consumption of the general public. If this turned out NOT to be the case, it would be a first in the history of the WT, methinks.
Let's assume that Joe Publisher's daughter is abused by Mike MS in the congregation. Joe goes to the elders and reports him. The elders say there were not two witnesses, thus there is nothing they can do. Joe understands that, and announces his intention to go to the police. The elders tell him not to. He says that official WT policy allows him to go to the police. If the elders are quick on the draw, they say this only applies to molesters that have been proven guilty in a judicial committee. If they're not prepared, they just say, "Don't go to the police, OR ELSE...."
Now Joe Publisher may have the words on a web site ostensibly on his side. But the end result is the same. He will be DFd for slander and/or causing divisions in the congregation.
Will this scene play out EVERY time? No. You'll ocassionally get a group of brave elders, willing to buck the oral instructions they received from the CO.
If this policy helps even one victim get justice, I think most would call it a step in the right direction. But most on this thread are more familiar with the WTs history of redefining words, and their notion that "persecution" justifies any degree of deceit, and they want to make that clear.
I agree with your post, but to me that is an entirely different subject, that of a criticism of the WT policies of control. In a strict interest of protecting children (which is what some on this board claim is their only agenda, despite Path's truthful observation)
So Path's truthful observation is that the SOME who claim this as their only agenda are lying? That means that NONE have it as their only agenda? Are you sure you want to put those words in Paths mouth? (This ignores the fact that all this talk of "agendas" with diabalical undertones is silly. EVERYBODY has an agenda.)
SOME on this board may not care about the children at all; they just want to hurt the WT. SOME only care about the children, and if hurting the WT is the only way to help the children, so be it. I suspect that most fall in the middle.
Hurting the WT is not my reason for being on this board. I come here for fellowship with people who know the crazy things I've seen and been through. I think the WT is dangerous for MANY reasons. They destroy lives through their policies of blood, neutrality, abuse, and others. If the media in focusing on abuse right now, is it WRONG for people interested in getting loved ones out of this dangerous cult, or preventing others from joining, to point out the horrible policies the WT has in place?
I stand behind my statement that this policy clarification is a step in the right direction. In line with what you have pointed out. It is much harder to perpetuate an unwritten/oral law when there is a written law against it. My mind is not so inane as to think this general written statement is circumspect. BUT AS A GENERAL RULE, THIS WILL HELP.
You shouldn't call other people inane, when they have more experience with the "general statements" of the WTS than you. The fact that so many are skeptical of this vague statement should clue you in that there is a pattern and history of this kind of obfuscation.
As a general rule, this could help... unless it takes the focus off the WT and they don't make any real changes. Then it would hurt. Open yourself up to that possibility.
Hmmm
