You can do it but it's walking a tightrope. You have to make sure you aren't caught doing anything that is a d/f offence. So, if you have Xmas decorations or are seen celebrating a birthday, you could be called to a JC. You can't join another church, vote or do anything publicly that would put you at odds with official JW teaching. It's kind of like spiritual limbo. My family has mostly kept in touch with me (I'm inactive), but one close aunt has shunned me. Ditto my JW friends. So it is not entirely true that you can just simply go inactive and everything will remain peachy-fine. You could say that what dear Terrance has said is a half-truth, or maybe a white lie or just a wee fib. Or theocratic warfare or gross exaggeration. But not "The Truth."
Cadellin
JoinedPosts by Cadellin
-
37
Can You Really Become Inactive Instead of DA'ing and Keep Your Family
by truth-or-consequences inoz branch coordinator terrence o'brien opined a number of times at about 1:00:00 until about 1:15:00 of his testimony, that a dub does not need to da, they can become "inactive.".
i sent our beloved angus stewart my personal experience, as well as observations about official borg teachings.
(he replied in short order.).
-
-
-
40
JW EXPERT WITNESS FLOORED BY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY LAWYER
by steve2 inmuch has already been written about dr monica applewhite, the expert witness hired by the jw organization.
her job was to provide "expert" testimony to the australian commission of inquiry into jehovsh's witnesses' policies and practices on child sexual abuse.
astonishingly, dr applewhite was unprepared for the inquiry lawyers' questions.
-
-
Cadellin
Dr. Applewhite's lack of preparation is startling, as others have mentioned. It should be noted that, from what I've seen/heard in the recording, it appears all that she was hired to do was to review the material that the Society had already made public, which is essentially WT propaganda meant to convey the appropriately upstanding, empathetic, loving, etc. image that they so vigorously protect. As such, it is--and I think the Commission can see this--essentially worthless, as the material NOT made public is what matters. Elders are routinely told to destroy letters and other records, for example. Applewhite would not be given access to confidential files or even the Elders' manual (although I guess that is publicly available now).
Also, she's coming up short in academic rigor, as I cannot imagine any report worth its salt not identifying, for example, those religious organizations to which WT standards supposedly favorably compare and offering instead a wildly generalized statement like "worldwide religions" or whatever it was that her report said. It's interesting that she's pointing out her own errors while on the stand (and of course, the Commission is doing so as well!).
-
35
Article: Reveal News Organization: JWs Cover-Up of Child Sex Abuse and Oust a Victim
by AndersonsInfo inhttps://www.revealnews.org/article/jehovahs-witnesses-cover-up-child-sex-abuse-and-oust-a-victim/.
jehovahs witnesses cover up child sex abuse and oust a victim.
topics: criminal justice / religion .
-
-
Cadellin
Thank you so much for posting this, Barbara! This is absolutely staggering. The ploys by WT HQ reveal exactly what their big concern is--protect the corporation at all cost. I hope this gets wide coverage. -
22
Did the Governing Body sucessfully fend off this bad news on thier TV Broadcast??
by Wasanelder Once inremember there was a talk about not listening to "false stories" about sexual abuse from apostates on jw's fantasy station?
did the governing body put it out there as preemptive damage control because they knew this was coming?
they must have had subpoenas giving them a heads up.
-
-
Cadellin
Yup, they sure as heck knew this was coming. Why else would the Oct. Study WT have the article (already mentioned) about "The Naive Person Believes Every Word." Notice these little nuggets from that article:
And what should you do if you find slanderous news about Jehovah’s organization on the Internet? Such material should be firmly rejected. Some feel that they must bring it to the attention of others to get their opinion, but all that does is propagate the malicious information. If we feel troubled about something we see on the Internet, we should ask Jehovah for wisdom and speak to mature brothers about it. (Jas. 1:5, 6; Jude 22, 23) Jesus, who was the object of false accusations, warned his followers that enemies would persecute them and “lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against [them].” (Matt. 5:11; 11:19; John 10:19-21) We need to use “thinking ability” and “discernment” to identify “the man speaking perverse things” and those “whose entire course is devious.”
...
Above all, love refuses to believe malevolent insinuations about Jehovah’s organization or lies about our brothers that are circulated by people who are slaves to “the father of the lie,” Satan the Devil.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the Commission knew how they were being described in the latest WT? Or how the victims are being described?
-
40
@ RC: "For evolution to be true..."
by Scully inaccording to a jw contact, one of the speakers at the regional conventiontm stated that "for evolution to be true, two of the same kind would have had to evolve at the same time; one would have to be male and the other would have to be female, and then they would have to find each other".
apparently the crowd had a good laugh over how evolutionists overlook such a simple "fact".. i mentioned that bacteria and viruses use asexual reproduction, and that many sea creatures / fish, etc.
are hermaphrodite and do not require a sexual partner to produce offspring.. oddly enough, the conversation stopped there.
-
-
Cadellin
The WT has said this in print before, so nothing new in this astoundingly and embarrassingly ignorant statement. Sexual reproduction, with its combining and re-combining of genes, may have originated as a way of avoiding bacterial infection. The external visual sexual characteristics we associate with male/female came along way way later. One good book to learn more is Matt Ridley's The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. Another one is, of course, Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.
Facts are much more pleasant than mindless arguments from incredulity.
-
12
1993 AWAKE on Child Abuse
by The_Doctor10 in10/8/93 awake article about child abuse misconceptions, checkout the second misconception: children fantasize or lie about abuse.. this article notes how it's extremely unlikely that children lie in cases of abuse (95% in some estimates are truthful) and how even among the ones who lie it's usually when they make a claim (in truth) but then subsequently lie and say it didn't happen, when in actuality, it did.. given this knowledge, why the two witness rule?
95% odds that the child who claims abuse is telling the truth by the awakes own admission, that should be more than enough to change policies of the wts.. http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g19931008/about-child-abuse/#?insight%5bsearch_id%5d=8d161c40-c4d0-4ddb-aadf-bcf2b480d55b&insight%5bsearch_result_index%5d=0.
-
-
Cadellin
Interesting that the articles are available on jw.org. The "do nothing" message comes through loud and clear. There is nothing said about making sure the abuser is removed from the child's proximity or that steps should be taken to make sure the predator doesn't keep doing it to someone else. As far as reporting it to the police, this is all that is said:
Some legal experts advise reporting the abuse to the authorities as soon as possible. In some lands the legal system may require this. But in other places the legal system may offer little hope of successful prosecution.
A JW will read this and understand it as saying "You can't expect Satan's system to do anything about it so don't bother." In the accompanying article about abuse in the family, there was absolutely nothing about removing the child from the abusive parent's reach. Instead, the advice is for everyone to read the OT prohibitions on incest in the family!
-
49
WT Society Makes Light of Child Abuse Crimes by Portraying them as Cartoons
by flipper ini commented on this on another thread- but i believe this has enough importance to create a thread about this situation in and of itself.
at the current district convention as you know the wt society released a " sophie & caleb " video allegedly warning parents about the dangers of child abuse.
they don't really use the words " child abuse " in the video - but just say if " someone tries to touch you in a manner you aren't comfortable with " and portray it as a cartoon !
-
-
Cadellin
I, too, think the blobby cartoon monster was misplaced, mostly because it's not the faceless stranger that usually molests but someone the child knows and trusts. While that fact was mentioned by the father or mother ("Even if it's someone you know!" or something to that effect), it was undermined by the visual image of the "scary" monster, with the implication that molesters are, well, scary. And they often aren't, at least, not initially. But, on the other hand, how do you convey that in a video for a small child?
No, that aspect of the whole thing wasn't the worst. It was what BoC said about using the idea of the child's conscience, as if the child was some kind of willing participant. Yikes. Your conscience protects you from deliberately doing something wrong, NOT from a grown up pervert. So it's the same old blame-the-victim strategy, albeit dressed in a smaller size.
And what was with whipping out that old Awake on the New Morality? I couldn't believe it. Do these dunderheads REALLY think child abuse is tied up with the so-called new morality of the 60s and 70's? That it's just one more alternative lifestyle, like being gay? Correct me, someone, if this is wrong but isn't it (child molestation, not being gay) considered a psychological disorder? Admittedly, being gay once was considered a disorder and criminal and that's all changed. But the key difference is that the gay relationship is one of knowledge and consent, and that's not the case with child abuse.
I don't have the stomach to watch the broadcasts but I was visiting family members who eagerly put it on and ate it up as Jehovah's wonderful provision. Yeesh.
-
74
Jehovah's Witnesses 2015 Regional Convention Saturday PM experience parents shunning children
by Watchtower-Free inclip 3 minutes long.
ron and brenda sutton ................warwick 3 children
it was the missed association with family that brought them back.
-
-
Cadellin
Notice the use of the word "Jehovah" to refer to the organization. This is similar to the gag-worthy Sophia video where the little girl gives her only coin "to Jehovah," even though it is the multinational corporation that is getting it. Now, when a group of minimally educated men of limited intelligence make a decision to disfellowship, it is "Jehovah's" direction, "Jehovah's" discipline. The name is used to invoke divine, unquestionable authority, putting a God's face on what is a very human, imperfect set of dictates. This is, I think, mind control or manipulation, without a doubt.
But do they use that name when protesting that they are not inspired prophets? Or when they make a mistake? Or when they have to "tack" like a sailboat in the quest for "new light"? Then, it's all "imperfect men"!
-
76
By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.
by FadingTruth inaugust 2015 awake .
quote in title taken from article footnote.. anyone have information on who gene hwang and yan-der hsuuw in the article are?.
why do they repeatedly state that apes turned to humans when that's not what evolutionists teach at all?.
-
-
Cadellin
I want to add something else about this horrendous article. The WT quotes two Asian scientists, both of whom are JWs apparently. One of them says that he believed in evolution until he learned about how complex DNA is and then he decided it had to be created by God. This kind of reductive thinking is hard to be believe from a working scientist who, presumably, has a Ph.D. in his field. I would love to ask him how he now understands the profusion of "clear, unambiguous and compelling" evidence (I'm quoting from the excellent Scientific American webpage posted by StrongHaiku) for evolution, both micro and macro.
In other words, the veracity of evolution does not rest solely on the nature of DNA or the complexity of the cell or any one line of evidence. It's supported by a tsunami of highly diverse, independent and yet convergent paradigms that fit very nicely into Darwin's theory of natural selection (as modified by later refinements). If you dismiss evolution in toto, as these Asian scientists seem to do, then you are left with a hella lot to explain about the natural world. As Theodore Dobzhansky noted, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
-
76
By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.
by FadingTruth inaugust 2015 awake .
quote in title taken from article footnote.. anyone have information on who gene hwang and yan-der hsuuw in the article are?.
why do they repeatedly state that apes turned to humans when that's not what evolutionists teach at all?.
-
-
Cadellin
This is another incredibly embarrassing article for any JW with even a little scientific knowledge. I can't believe they included that box on how evolution is not a scientific theory. Thank you, StrongHaiku for the link to the Scientific American webpage on 15 answers to creationists. It's an excellent article, indeed. In particular, for any lurking JWs who still buy into this notion that evolution is not scientific because it can't be observed, reproduced or it does not make predictions, please note that:
(1) These are simple negative assertions made by the WT, without a shred of evidence to support them.
(2) Evolution has been observed, has been reproduced and does make predictions. In fact, the article that StrongHaiku posted includes this observation:
Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
One recent excellent example is the discovery of the transitional fossil Tiktaalik roseae, which was only able to be discovered based on paleontologists making predictions about where such a fossil might be found, based on evolutionary theory