Louis
GLTirebiter
JoinedPosts by GLTirebiter
-
-
-
-
7
Savage Dog attack JW victim is back to House to House Preaching
by Scott77 in.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/dog_attack_victim_recovering_back_to_jehovahs_witness/20130629_11_a1_cutlin782235?subj=1.
.
-
-
GLTirebiter
an 80-pound pit bull burst through the front door of a house in the 200 block of N. Lewis Place and attacked her ministry companion and longtime friend, Irene Parker, 78... Wright grabbed a baseball bat from the dog's owner who was standing by screaming... The attack ended when a man working two blocks away heard the screams, grabbed a gun from his truck, distracted and shot the dog.
That is sick! What kind of person lets their dog attack an old woman, then does not physically stop their dog, waiting so long that help could arrive from two blocks away?
-
91
Open letter Re: Mr. Bowen, Mrs. Anderson
by Prime in"jws leaders need to mandate elder bodies to uniformly report abuse to the authorities no matter what jurisdiction; prohibit elders from being involved in any investigative process to decide guilt or innocence in place of the authorities; do away with the two-witness rule to determine, as if they were magistrates, guilt or innocence of someone accused; prohibit so-called repentant molesters from engaging in the door-to-door ministry, and always inform the congregation if a convicted or confessed molester is meeting with them.
" -barbara anderson .
this is another reason why the watchtower society doesn't require that the elders uniformly report abuse to the authorities no matter what jurisdiction.
-
-
GLTirebiter
"Most states have child-abuse reporting laws that, depending on the facts, mandate elders to report an accusation to the authorities. Thus, when elders learn of an accusation of child abuse, two elders from their congregation should immediately call the Legal Department for legal advice."
The law requires reporting to the proper authorities, not to your attorney, nor to the Watchtower Society's attorneys. Seeking advice from the legal department is a risky move. Consider these (rhetorical) questions:
- Does the Watchtower Legal Department employ attorneys admitted to the bar in every state, territory, province, and country where this policy is in effect?
- Are those attorneys competent to practice this particular legal specialty in each of those places?
- If not, why do they insist on offering legal advice to citizens in all those jurisdictions?
- Should there be any conflict of interest, are the Watchtower legal department obligated to protect the interests of the Watchtower Society, or the interests of the elders seeking their legal assistance?
- If the authorities decide that the reporting requirement has not been met, who is the first person will they hold responsible?
-
-
-
GLTirebiter
I think sanctions are in order for the state attorney. Her office withheld evidence from the defense, then she fired an employee who had doubts about that, who consulted a private attorney, and who (based on that legal advice) made the withholding of evidence known to the defense. Think prosectuorial misconduct. Think retaliatory firing.
-
91
Open letter Re: Mr. Bowen, Mrs. Anderson
by Prime in"jws leaders need to mandate elder bodies to uniformly report abuse to the authorities no matter what jurisdiction; prohibit elders from being involved in any investigative process to decide guilt or innocence in place of the authorities; do away with the two-witness rule to determine, as if they were magistrates, guilt or innocence of someone accused; prohibit so-called repentant molesters from engaging in the door-to-door ministry, and always inform the congregation if a convicted or confessed molester is meeting with them.
" -barbara anderson .
this is another reason why the watchtower society doesn't require that the elders uniformly report abuse to the authorities no matter what jurisdiction.
-
-
GLTirebiter
That's why I stated; “What authority gives this woman or the administrative position of Jehovah's Witnesses the right to require more from the elders than the federal government?”
You really do miss the point! The document I quoted was produced by the federal government; the link I included to that document is to a federal government web site where they describe which state laws apply--what residents of the various states are required to do. Are you saying the federal Department of Health and Human Services doesn't know what they are talking about?
-
91
Open letter Re: Mr. Bowen, Mrs. Anderson
by Prime in"jws leaders need to mandate elder bodies to uniformly report abuse to the authorities no matter what jurisdiction; prohibit elders from being involved in any investigative process to decide guilt or innocence in place of the authorities; do away with the two-witness rule to determine, as if they were magistrates, guilt or innocence of someone accused; prohibit so-called repentant molesters from engaging in the door-to-door ministry, and always inform the congregation if a convicted or confessed molester is meeting with them.
" -barbara anderson .
this is another reason why the watchtower society doesn't require that the elders uniformly report abuse to the authorities no matter what jurisdiction.
-
-
GLTirebiter
What authority gives this woman or the administrative position of Jehovah's Witnesses the right to require more from the elders than the federal government?
That is a ridiculous statement, because it is not a matter of federal law. The governments of the states and territories make the laws regarding child abuse and requiring it to be reported.
From a US government summary [pdf, approx. 500KB] of the states' mandatory reporting laws [my emphasis added via boldface]:
"All States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have statutes identifying persons who are required to report child maltreatment under specific circumstances."
"The circumstances under which a mandatory reporter must make a report vary from State to State. Typically, a report must be made when the reporter, in his or her official capacity, suspects or has reasons to believe that a child has been abused or neglected."
"The clergy-penitent privilege is also widely affirmed, although that privilege usually is limited to confessional communications and, in some States, denied altogether."
[Judicial committee meetings do not have the expectation of privacy associated with a confessional because they involve more people other than the penitent and a minister, emphasising the singular "a"]
"Approximately 18 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands currently require mandatory reporters to provide their names and contact information, either at the time of the initial oral report or as part of a written report. [footnote] California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont have this requirement."
[In those states, including several of the most populous states and the headquarters of the Watchtower Society, an anonymous call from a pay phone will not meet the legal requirement for notification.]
-
44
Newly wed UBM and soon to meet JW in-laws
by UBM101 ini have been lurking here for a couple of years.
my hubby (inactive & some doubts) and i were just married and i'll be going to his place to meet his family (pretty much dubs).
they seem to be friendly and excited to meet me, and i kind of had agreed to attend the kingdumb hall meeting once (in my life time, yep, that's the agreement) and also meeting an elder who brain-washed my hubby during his teen.
-
-
GLTirebiter
1. I'll be love bombed by his family, and perharps some of his remaining dubby "friends" and if we go to the congregation, from the congregation of course
Yes, that will happen.
2. Indoctrination - endless talk about the Bible, Satan, paganism etc
Maybe, but they probably will go easy the first few times to make a good impression. It is more likely that all conversation leads to Watchtower topics: who is giving a talk, where will we stay for the District Converntion, who signed up for pioneering school, what are you doing at the quick build, why somebody has been disfellowshipped (gossip!), along with some condescending talk about the state of the world, the country and government (not blatantly negative, more of a tsk-tsk-tsk and a nod of the head).
My hubby and I are planing to move away from the place where his family are, and now it seems like the parents are trying hard to change his mind.
Personal experience: even if yhour husband really means to keep your agreement about the Wathtower religion, even if he means to move furtheer away from their influence, he will be under immense pressure to do the opposite. In the eyes of Witnesses, his only hope of temporal and eternal happiness is to get back in the Kingdom Hall and toe the Wathtower line--and to bring you with him. The pressure will be a relentless guilt trip bearing down on him. He needs all the support you can give him! Do not underestimate the power of their emotional weapons. Before long, he will face the choice of keeping the agreement, or keeping contact with his own family.
I wish you the best, and pray that you are prepared to face this challenge!
Recommend reading (from the freeminds web site):Dating a lapsed Jehovah's Witness (still relevant, even when you're past the "dating" phase)
-
11
I believe the Catholic's have Jehovah's Witnesses pretty well nailed
by JakeM2012 indoes the watch tower society speak for god?
by joel s. peters.
featured ebookfrom our store: witness of suffering (ebook)document informationdescription: in this article joel peters discusses the three most noteworthy failings of the watch tower society (wts), the organization of jehovah's witnesses: erroneous expectations for armageddon, false bible interpretations, and contradictory doctrines.larger work:.
-
-
GLTirebiter
JakeM, thank you for posting that. This is from a related older publication:
Originally published in 1963 and distributed by the Knights of Columbus, this critique has unfortunately long been out of print. The author’s intended audience are not the Witnesses themselves but those whom they seek to convert. The author explains:
In what follows we shall attempt to investigate the more outstanding pecularities of the Witnesses’ creed….We would emphasize our purpose in doing this, which is not to ridicule or make light of anyone’s beliefs simply because they are not our beliefs. What has prompted this analysis is the Witnesses’ own insistence on their beliefs as truths which contradict our beliefs and are incompatible with them. We shall approach the Witnesses’ creed from the standpoint of those elements in it which are avowedly destructive of the Judeo-Christian tradition in which we stand. In doing so, we hope to do a service not merely for those of the Catholic religion but also for all who share the concern of the Catholic Church for the fundamental doctrines and values of the Christianity which has molded our society….
If our judgments have sounded harsh, we insist that we have intended no ridicule for honestly held beliefs as such. Sincerity in belief is an admirable quality. Respect for sincerity, however, may not ever blind us to the duty of service to the truth, and of the defense of our own cherished heritage. We have addressed ourselves far less to the Witnesses themselves than to those who have been the targets of their propagandizing.
Made in America
The sect known today as Jehovah’s Witnesses, which has become one of the familiar oddities of the religious scene in America, can hardly be adequately explained apart from the history of the land that gave it birth. In its own way, it is as American as hot dogs and baseball. It has sprung from the same fertile soil that has produced Christian Science, Mormonism, the Black Muslims, and the hundreds of other religious curiosities that have left American without rival in this particular line of human endeavor.
Though the Witnesses claim to have existed for some six thousand years or more, less romantic and more objective historians trace their origin to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, about the year 1872. It was in this year that Charles Taze Russell (“Pastor Russell”), a Congregationalist layman, came to the many of the conclusions that have remained ever after the basic Witness dogmas. Russell published his conclusions in a series entitled Studies in the Scriptures which gained him a large reading public and many followers. The Watchtower, the now quite famous publication of the group whose first leader he was, began to appear in 1879.
...
The Great Pyramid
Russell’s grounds for these beliefs was the usual mishmash of Biblical passages inherited from generations of free-lance interpretation in fundamentalist circles. However, he combined with this another mother lode of fruitless speculation that commanded much interest in America at this time. This was the curious superstition that pretends to find secret wisdom and prophecy hidden in the dimensions and structure of the Great Pyramid of Egypt. Readers may be familiar with one form of this superstition from the newspaper advertisements of the Rosacrucians, a sect which has no pretensions to the “Bible religion” of the Witnesses. Here Russell was influenced by a certain Charles Piazzi Smyth, who had already combined Biblical speculation with “pyramidology,” finding references to the Great Pyramid in such passages as this: “In that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the Lord at its border. It will be a sign and a witness to the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt…” (Isa. 19:19-20). Russell’s predictions were based equally on the Bible and the Great Pyramid.
...
Bible Scholarship
The most obvious trademark of a crank or cultist interpretation of the Bible, as of anything else, is the fact that it stands in contradiction to the agreed conclusions of sound and disinterested scholarship. This is the case with regard to the Witnesses' approach to what they claim to be Biblical religion. It is inevitable that this should be the case, since this approach grew out of a total ignorance of Biblical scholarship--a fact which none of the Hebrew and Greek words which the Witnesses have lately begun to scatter throughout their publications will ever be able to conceal.
Take, for example, the very name by which the Witnesses wish to be known. The word "Jehovah" has become one of the fetishes of their cult, assuming an importance for them which it has certainly had for no other group known to mankind. The word is derived from the name which the ancient Israelites used to distinguish their God from the gods of the Gentiles. It is derived from that name, however, quite incorrectly. The Hebrews called their God by a name which was written YHWH--all in consonants, we note, since the Hebrew alphabet has no vowels. The pronunciation of the name, which existed independently of the spelling, was doubtless something like "Yahweh." Through an exaggerated type of reverence for the name--and also because the name eventually ceased to be used--later Jews never pronounced it, and as a result the original pronunciation is not sure to this day. What is absolutely sure, however, is that it was never pronounced "Jehovah." This version derives from a misreading of the Hebrew Bible after it had been supplied with vowel indications in later Christian times. The vowel indications that had been attached to this word were actually taken from another, the Hebrew word for "My Lord" which was customarily pronounced instead of the sacred name YHWH.
Now the Witnesses themselves know this nowadays, even if earlier Witnesses did not. On page 25 of their New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures they admit this fact, but say that they have "retained the form `Jehovah' because of people's familiarity with it since the fourteenth century" (that is, the fourteenth century after Christ). The fact is, however, as the editors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible have pointed out: "1) The word `Jehovah' does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and 2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church." The editors make this sensible statement in justifying their abandonment of the impossible "Jehovah" that has found its way into some older English translations of the Bible.
Mistranslations
What began, therefore, merely as an erroneous reading of an ancient Hebrew word has now become a dogma of faith to be supported by any argument and to held at all costs out of proportion to its importance. In the Foreword to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950 edition) no less than fifteen pages are devoted to this question, not simply to justify the use of the word at all, but in order to justify its use in translating the New Testament. The Witnesses make much of the fact that in the ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament (known as the Septuagint or LXX), the name YHWH was frequently left untranslated in its Hebrew consonants. From this they somehow want to draw the conclusion that the same thing was true of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. As a matter of fact, out of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts that we possess there is not a single one that will justify such a conclusion--and the New Testament is the best and most meticulously documented body of literature of all antiquity. Not only is there no evidence in any single instance to justify the 237 times the Witnesses have placed "Jehovah" in the New Testament text, there is no evidence to justify even the correct Old Testament form in such cases. The early Christians who wrote the New Testament certainly did not use this name, but rather the word "Lord," which they also applied to Christ. Here, therefore, we have a pathetic example of pseudoscholarship attempting to defend the indefensible.
...
Blood and Life
Another outstanding example of the way in which the Witnesses have misconstrued the relation of the Old Testament to the New can be found in their strange teaching about blood. As is well known, the Witnesses hold that blood transfusions are a violation of God's law. There are instances where they have permitted persons to die rather than have a recourse to the remedy which preserves life. Whence comes this extraordinary idea?
In the Old Testament the eating of blood was forbidden by many passages of the Mosaic Law. The reason for this appears in Leviticus 17:11-12: "Since the life of a living body is in its blood, I have made you put it on the altar, so that atonement may thereby be made for your own lives, because it is the blood, as the seat of life, that makes atonement. That is why I have told the Israelites: No one among you, not even a resident alien, may partake of blood."
In other words, blood, like breath, was regarded as the concrete embodiment of life, the gift of God, and therefore a thing sacred to God. Blood, according to the Law of Moses, was to be used in certain sacred functions of Old Testament ritual, chief among them being the rites whereby atonement was made for sins in the various involved rituals of animal sacrifice. Because of this sacred character, blood was withdrawn from human consumption. To this day orthodox Jews do not eat meat that has not been drained of its blood--this is one of the "kosher" or dietary laws.
But not even the most rigorous Jew ever dreamed that this law constitutes a prohibition of blood transfusions! In coming to such a conclusion the Witnesses have out-rabbied the rabbis of the Middle Ages. For the law against eating blood obviously had nothing to do with human blood--cannibalism was not a problem for the Israelites. In extending a law that had one purpose to another conclusion that is totally foreign to that purpose, the Witnesses have truly turned the divine pronouncement into a senseless legalism and have become guilty of the kind of casuistry that makes a laughingstock out of God's word.
...
When the word of God is bent to make it a decree of death rather than part of the way of life, truly the Scripture has been perverted. The bizarre interpretation that the Witnesses have given to the Old Testament law of blood has shocked many people because of the wide publicity that it has occasionally been given. Those who believe in the inspired character of the Scripture in the history of God's salvation are even more shocked, however, by no less pernicious interpretations that have been given to other parts of the divine word, making of it in every true sense a letter that kills.
...
The Watchtower
It is not the Witnesses' translation of the Bible that is so important, of course, as the use, or rather, the misuse that they have made of it. Aside from its obvious doctrinal biases reflected in translation, the New World version of the Scriptures might very well have been welcomed as another effort to put the word of God into modern dress and have stood the test of impartial examination. It is the sect that lies behind the translation that has spoiled any chance of that.
The various publications which the Witnesses have issued on the Bible are somewhat like the Watchtower itself--there is apt to be a great deal of material that is harmless, some occasional information that is actually helpful and profitable, and still more that is either nonsense or actually pernicious. In the first category one might put their oft-repeated polemic against the use of the terms "New Testament" and "Old Testament." Everyone will agree, presumably, that these terms are not entirely accurate. However, they refer to recognizable literary units, and the Witnesses will never succeed in getting anyone to substitute for them "Christian Greek Scriptures" and "Hebrew Scriptures" or, for that matter, in getting many people to think the point important enough to bother about. In the second category one might class much of what the Witnesses have written on the history of the Biblical text and the various manuscript evidence. Here they have usually depended on scholarship that, if second-hand is at least solid.
...
Jehovah’s Witnesses began, first and foremost, as an Adventist sect, which is to say that it began from a misunderstanding of the very meaning of Biblical revelation and prophecy. In every generation known to man there have been those like Pastor Russell and Judge Rutherford, who have interpreted the Bible as a great code-book which reveals a detailed blueprint of the future leading up, by the merest coincidence, just to the present time. The Witnesses have followed faithfully in the footsteps of their founders, and it is not surprising that we find much, if not most of their literature devoted to detailed explanations of where in the Books of Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation we may find specific reference made to the League of Nations, the First and Second World Wars, the United Nations, and events in their denominational history. There does not seem to be very much that can be said about all this. As we indicated before, the ability to swallow such an interpretation of the Bible—let alone the great Pyramid—carries with it the ability to survive such trivial setbacks as the systematic failure of the prophets when they have ventured out of the safe past and into the uncertain future. “Millions now living will never die,” said the Witnesses as they emerged into this world. “Millions now living will never die,” they say today. And “millions now living will never die” they will doubtless be saying after the millions are all dead, should they remain with us that long. And doubtless they will still have their faithful following.
The Witnesses lean very heavily on the apocalyptic literature of the Bible, that maze of lush imagery and symbolism which, unfortunately, as the Baptist Biblical scholar C.H. Dodd has written, has become “the licensed playground of every crank.” It is from the Book of Revelation that they have extracted another of the venerable old heresies of primitive Christianity, that of Millenarianism—the belief in a literal thousand year reign of the saints on earth. It is from the same Book of Revelation that they have been able to determine the precise population of heaven: the symbolic 144,000 of Revelation 7:4-8, the four-square number of the symbolic twelve tribes of Israel with which the Biblical author peopled the four-square heavenly Jerusalem (21:9-21). They insist the total number of 144,000 is literal yet at the same time say the number 12,000 from each tribe is symbolic.
...
With this we take our leave of Jehovah’s Witnesses, repeating the statements with which we began. If our judgments have sounded harsh, we insist that we have intended no ridicule for honestly held beliefs as such. Sincerity in belief is an admirable quality. Respect for sincerity, however, may not ever blind us to the duty of service to the truth, and of the defense of our own cherished heritage. We have addressed ourselves far less to the Witnesses themselves than to those who have been the targets of their propagandizing. If we have helped any of these to see their way the clearer through the intricacies of this propaganda, we shall be most grateful for this opportunity to serve the cause of the God of truth—whose name is not “Jehovah.”
-
40
Post 6: My brother turns on me now - Possible Legal advice
by sosoconfused inthis is a letter i received today with my brother turning on me based on something that was told to him by my crazy mother.
he works for me, yet has not spoken a word to me in months because he is a self-righteous little dick.. .
what i would like to know from someone who knows the law, is it possible i can sue him if he pressures people to not work with me because of my religious beliefs????
-
-
GLTirebiter
... it is not an easy decision, but I think that for now it is better that I discontinue my working for you. I have completed all the work in my queue as of this morning so there is nothing outstanding other than the loss draft. I would be happy to complete that as well if you wish. it is not an easy decision, but I think that for now it is better that I discontinue my working for you. I have completed all the work in my queue as of this morning so there is nothing outstanding other than the loss draft. I would be happy to complete that as well if you wish.
I'd call that a letter of resignation. Prepare his final payroll check, and get back any company-owned property, computer files, keys, etc. that he might have. [I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one on internet forums. Before you consider suing him, get professional advice from a lawyer qualified to practice employment law where you do business.]
-
26
Breastfeeding in Bathrooms...
by cognac inthe natick, ma assemble hall used to have it's own room for breastfeeding mothers.
they changed this room to the accounting room or something like that and now have seats available for breastfeeding inside the bathroom.. there is one other small room available for breastfeeding but they close that off when the baptism is going on.
needless to say, i used to get so pissed off that they actually wanted me to breastfeed in the bathroom that i would threaten to a brother that i would take my boob out in front of everybody and that is there problem because breastfeeding in a bathroom is unsanitary.. one year they put me in some backroom.
-
-
GLTirebiter
It's amazing how they treat people, especially mothers to be and nursing mums or any parents with small children.
I'm not sure which is more amazing: that he would tell a third-trimester pregant woman she couldn't sit in a chair or ride the elevator, or that he lived to tell about it. Just speculating, I doubt the hall monitor you encountered was married--husbands learn quickly to not do such things, or they won't be a husband for long!