Hi Podobear,
"Can any Mormon or exJW explain the following for me, please: "For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen" 3 Nephi 13:13 B.O.M and Matthew 6:13 KJV"
The entire chapter of Matthew 6, with few differences, is copied from the King Jame Version of 1611 and presented in the Book of Mormon as 3 Nephi 13. This is presented as Jesus repeating his message to Native Americans.
These 13 words, called a doxology, were a later addition to the Bible, hence modern translations do not include them. Some believe much of the Book of Mormon is based on unpublished manuscripts for another author, Solomon Spalding. Whatever the case might be, we would say Smith or Spalding likely did not know this portion of the Lord's prayer was not originally in the Bible. Of the doxology Wikipedia says this:
The doxology associated with the Lord's Prayer is found in four Vetus Latina manuscripts, only two of which give it in its entirety. The other surviving manuscripts of the Vetus Latina Gospels do not have the doxology. The Vulgate translation also does not include it, thus agreeing with critical editions of the Greek text.
Thus this extra piece of text from 1611 KJV gets copied into the Book of Mormon produced in the 1830s.
The odd thing is a few words are dropped from the Lord's prayer in 3 Nephi 13, such as:
"Thy kingdom come" verse 10
"Give us this day our daily bread" verse 11.
If you're thinking bread doesn't fit the setting of 3 Nephi 13, that ideas falls, because the next chapter, 3 Nephi 14, is a copy of Matthew 7, where the word bread appears in verse 9 of both copies.
"Did the translators of the court of King James copy over the same words from the B.O.M?"
How the King James Version was produced from 1604 to 1611 is well known. It would of course be impossible for them to reference the Book of Mormon since it would not exist for another 219 years.
"is the B.O.M merely a plagiarization of the King James Bible?"
In large sections it obviously is. The hard work of the KJV translators is passed off as the result of translating gold plates recorded in a mysterious unknown language. If copyright laws extended across centuries this would likely not be tolerated. As it is, the KJV text is in the public domain.
Yet, this doesn't mean the KJV text is always copied verbatim in the Book of Mormon. To be sure, large sections are, but the Book of Mormon does include changes to the text. Alas, the results are often not for the better.
3 Nephi 13:30
Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which
today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, *even so will* he [[]]
clothe you, *if* ye *are not* of little faith.
vs
Matthew 6:30
Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which
to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more
clothe you, O ye of little faith?
So what Jesus should we believe? The one of Matthew who acknowledges we are of "little faith" or the Nephi Jesus who says the opposite?
Cheers,
-Randy
ps. Here is the full text of Matthew 6 and 3 Nephi 13. I've used brackets and asterisks to highlight differences.
===
Matthew 6:1
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be
seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is
in heaven.
Matthew 6:2
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet
before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the
streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you,
They have their reward.
Matthew 6:3
But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy
right hand doeth:
Matthew 6:4
That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in
secret himself shall reward thee openly.
Matthew 6:5
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners
of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto
you, They have their reward.
Matthew 6:6
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when
thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret;
and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Matthew 6:7
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do:
for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Matthew 6:8
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth
what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Matthew 6:9
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in
heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Matthew 6:10
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Matthew 6:11, 12
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
Matthew 6:13
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,
for ever. Amen.
Matthew 6:14
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father
will also forgive you:
Matthew 6:15
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your
Father forgive your trespasses.
Matthew 6:16
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad
countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear
unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Matthew 6:17
But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy
face;
Matthew 6:18
That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father
which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall
reward thee openly.
Matthew 6:19
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth
and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
Matthew 6:20
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither
moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break
through nor steal:
Matthew 6:21
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Matthew 6:22
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be
single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
Matthew 6:23
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of
darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness,
how great is that darkness!
Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one,
and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise
the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Matthew 6:25
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye
shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than
raiment?
Matthew 6:26
Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do
they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth
them. Are ye not much better than they?
Matthew 6:27
Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his
stature?
Matthew 6:28
And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of
the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
Matthew 6:29
And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory
was not arrayed like one of these.
Matthew 6:30
Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which
to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more
clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Matthew 6:31
Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or,
What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
Matthew 6:32
(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:)
for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all
these things.
Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;
and all these things shall be added unto you.
Matthew 6:34
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow
shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the
day is the evil thereof.
====
3 Nephi 13:1
[[Verily, verily, I say that I would that ye should do alms unto
the poor; but]] take heed that ye do not your alms before men to be
seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father who is
in heaven.
3 Nephi 13:2
Therefore, when *ye shall do your* alms do not sound a trumpet
before *you*, as *will* hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the
streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you,
*they* have their reward.
3 Nephi 13:3
But when thou doest alms let not thy left hand know what thy
right hand doeth;
3 Nephi 13:4
That thine alms may be in secret; and thy Father *who* seeth in
secret, himself shall reward thee openly.
3 Nephi 13:5
And when thou prayest thou shalt not *do* as the hypocrites[[]], for
they love to pray, standing in the synagogues and in the corners
of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto
you, *they* have their reward.
3 Nephi 13:6
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when
thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father *who* is in secret; and
thy Father, *who* seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
3 Nephi 13:7
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [[]],
for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
3 Nephi 13:8
Be not ye therefore like unto them, for your Father knoweth
what things ye have need of before ye ask him.
3 Nephi 13:9
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father *who* art in
heaven, hallowed be thy name.
3 Nephi 13:10
[[]] Thy will be done *on* earth as it is in heaven.
3 Nephi 13:11
[[]]
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
3 Nephi 13:12, 13
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,
forever. Amen.
3 Nephi 13:14
For, if ye forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father
will also forgive you;
3 Nephi 13:15
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses neither will your
Father forgive your trespasses.
3 Nephi 13:16
Moreover, when ye fast be not as the hypocrites, of a sad
countenance, for they disfigure their faces that they may appear
unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
3 Nephi 13:17
But thou, when thou fastest, anoint *thy* head, and wash thy
face;
3 Nephi 13:18
That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father,
*who* is in secret; and thy Father, *who* seeth in secret, shall
reward thee openly.
3 Nephi 13:19
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth
and rust doth corrupt, and thieves break through and steal;
3 Nephi 13:20
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither
moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break
through nor steal.
3 Nephi 13:21
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
3 Nephi 13:22
The light of the body is the eye; if, therefore, thine eye be
single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
3 Nephi 13:23
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of
darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness,
how great is that darkness!
3 Nephi 13:24
No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one
and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise
the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.
3 Nephi 13:25
[[And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these
words he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto
them: Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are
they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people.]]
Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye
shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than
raiment?
3 Nephi 13:26
Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do
they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth
them. Are ye not much better than they?
3 Nephi 13:27
Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his
stature?
3 Nephi 13:28
And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of
the field how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin;
3 Nephi 13:29
And yet I say unto you, that even Solomon, in all his glory,
was not arrayed like one of these.
3 Nephi 13:30
Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which
today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, *even so will* he [[]]
clothe you, *if* ye *are not* of little faith.
3 Nephi 13:31
Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or,
What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
3 Nephi 13:32
[[]]
For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all
these things.
3 Nephi 13:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,
and all these things shall be added unto you.
3 Nephi 13:34
Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow
shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient *is* the
day *unto* the evil thereof.
===
Posts by rawe
-
139Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
by rawe inhas anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?
what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.
if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.
-
-
rawe
-
139
Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
by rawe inhas anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?
what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.
if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.
-
-
rawe
Hi Cold Steel,
"Actually, it wasn’t known at Joseph Smith’s time, there were a number of reformed Egyptian languages at 600 B.C."
Here is what Wikipedia says about reformed Egyptian: Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or "reformed Egyptian" script as it has been described in Mormon belief. No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered.
This ties into my point about the struggle to remove bias we all have in how we evaluate information. The struggle is to apply the same standards to every claim without regard to whether we want to believe it or not. So, if we routinely find ourselves rejecting Wikipedia comments like the above, but have no issue when Wikipedia says something like this:
In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in 587 BC.
we should ask why? Why is the first comment rejected but the second accepted? Could it be that every time Wikipedia makes an encylopedia comment that is opposition to Book of Mormon claims, it is wrong, yet, every time it makes a comment opposed to JW theology it is right? Thus, eventually I really started to ask myself, when I read something like:
Researchers found a haul of thousands of artefacts near the state capital, Austin, some of which were identified as blades and other tools. The material was buried in sediments that are between 13,200 and 15,500 years old. (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/mar/24/humans-north-america-stone-tools)
Why was I so ready to be skeptical? My commitment to humans not existing prior to 4026 BCE surely was the issue, not really the science behind that comment. In fact, this US vs The World was getting tiring after so many years. Also tiring was trying to invoke the magical as the ultimate catch-all explanation -- in the form of "Satan is the arch-deceiver" (2 Cor 4:4, Rev 12:9) Finally I realized this can also be a matter of respect for the hard work of reseachers, who sometimes labor without much reward or recognition and ultimately don't ask anything of me (i.e. obedience, dedication, etc) other than give their claims a fair hearing.
You make it difficult to convince you, but we LDS stand by the Lord’s promise in Moroni 10:4: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.”
What makes you think, I haven't done that ;-).
Let me offer you this: Take up the Moroni invitation as outlined here, but apply reasonable objective standards and see if there is any answer. Consider the drug approval process as a model ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/the-long-road-to-drug-approval-1.876157 ). Since drugs hold within them the power to heal or kill, doing such testing is only reasonable. But, given all that is involved in being an LDS member for yourself and anyone you might convince to join, surely no less of a standard should be applied.
Later, Moroni tells readers, “deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.”
Btw - "same today and tomorrow..." is very much like the wording you find at Hebrews 13:8. What I find interesting about such "do not deny the power of God" commands, is that is all they are -- hollow commands. While some might find them fear inspiring, I see such commands as actually an indication of profound weakness. In claims that are backed by testable truth you just don't find such language. Read Darwin's On the Origin of Species or Richard Dawkins' God Delusion and you will not find fear-mongering commands of "do not deny the power of Hero-of-the-Claim"
"Mormons. . .but then there’s Nahom, being right. . .How did Joseph Smith know that?. . .Three days out of the city we found a “steadfast and immovable”. . .right where Nephi said it would be. Then. . .region our critics said it could never be. . .is documented, photographed and videoed. . .Book of Mormon in areas where our critics. . ."
Help me out with this paragraph. I currently know nothing of these claims and counter claims, but... I don't have time or desire to investigate them all and respond. Can you isolate the one you think makes the best case for the Book of Mormon and I'll respond? The Book of Mormon is allowed to contain anything that would be known to Joseph Smith in 1830 or other original authors he may have borrowed material from. But, it is granted that production of the Book of Mormon would not have been able to accurately name a future event in specific detail. Nor would it be able to accurately name a past event in specific detail, provided of course the past event only became known after the 1830s. Let me know if you don't think is a fair standard.
"People can read the book and pray about it, or they can ignore it and join all the people in the past who rejected God and his prophets and his angels. Will you be destroyed at Armageddon? No. Will you burn in an everlasting (non-ending) fiery hell? Again, no. But you’ll lose the chance to reach your full potential in God’s Kingdom."
Or it is just as possible God has a special fondness for the intellectual honesty of atheists such as myself and will be rewarded ;-)
The key here is the end phrase "in God's Kingdom." Take note -- that is how religion works, sacrifice time and energy now for a reward in the future, so far in the future in fact, you'll be dead.
"In short, we’ll never be able to prove conclusively and beyond all doubt that what we say is true; however, you can know of a surety through the power of the Holy Ghost."
I've had Mormon missionaries say the same thing and while as Witnesses we probably wouldn't have used those exact words, we would have said something similar. One of our songs contained the phrase "make the truth your own" as in one must prove it to themselves. Or "taste and see that Jehovah is Good" (Psalms 34:8). In the end, it is a cop out. Truth should be obvious to everyone and provable beyond a reasonable doubt. You'll recall I mentioned Simon Southerton's exit story particularly resonated with me when I was a Witness coping with doubts. One of the things he said about feelings touches on this issue of "feeling the Holy Spirit or burning in your bosom.." This idea is not as strong in the Witness faith (at least not for me) but is still there. In any regards here is what Simon said...
My uncertainty with recognizing the Spirit resurfaced during my first year back from my mission. Australia beat America in the America's Cup yacht race. To most Americans this was a non-event but for many Australians it was a huge thrill. Australia came from behind in the series to snatch victory in the face of almost certain defeat. I felt intensely warm feelings in my heart, as though it was going to burst. I had felt similar feelings when I was teaching discussions as a missionary.
"And despite your reservations about the translation process, the general authorities of the LDS church continue to tell us that the Book of Mormon is the most accurately translated book on Earth."
But who are the "general authorities" compared to me? Or you? Wait... don't break out in a coy smile just yet. The point is, there really is no evidence to suggest one human brain or a collection of them must intrinsically be endowed with knowledge and authority beyond any other one. This is just a fallacy of argument from authority, that by religious commitment, cannot be questioned. In this, Jehovah's Witnesses would same something very similiar about the Governing Body.
"And if Joseph read a term in the original that was Messiah, and it was translated Christ, it may go against what you think is a valid translation, but with Joseph, his power to translate was through the gift and power of God."
I am not sure if it was on this thread or another but I have allowed for that. As I said, if he really did peer into a hat (as I've been told was one of the methods he used) and saw letters appear one by one, how can we really argue with such claims? But if we allowed for this as our standard for evaluation, on what basis would one reject the claims of Our Lady of Guadalupe or the appearance of an angel to Mohammed? Certain far more people accept those claims than those of Joseph Smith.
Which gets back to my original point -- truth claims should be tested by the same set of standards -- not one we apply to those we wish to believe and a different (often more reasonable) set of standards to claims we don't want to believe.
"And yes, some changes have been made, but they're editorial changes that do not affect the doctrines found therein."
To a certain extent I don't make a big issue about that, other than that it shows the Book of Mormon is really without a foundation it claims. In other words, if gold plates written in reformed Egyptian existed and could be translated by any scholar who wish to (i.e. like what happens with available Bible manuscripts) things like just deleting the phrase "and it came to pass" hundreds of times, would probably get more attention that it does. Bible translators tend to choose different words or methods, literal word-for-word or dynamic equivelance, for example, but you would not find any (certainly none that I know of) that would delete a 5 word phrase out of the Bible again and again because they felt it made the text sound wordy.
Discussion differences and batting points back and forth can generate a bit of frustration, if your desire to to help me see the wonders of the faith as you see it. Let me suggest though such conversations do benefit the folks involved. Even how you've presented your recent views on "Christ" vs "Messiah" seems to be a refinement from earlier posts. Likewise, I'm sure when I chase down one of the claims in your paragraph I quoted with dots, I'll learn a lot about claims. Personally, I do not believe, folks leave either the Witness or Mormon faith based on what critics of the faith say. Rather in all the exit stories I've read, including Simon's above, something happens that is very personal in the journey and prompts the intial doubts to be followed by investigation. It is also true, what the Book of Mormon might say here or there, may really mean not much during the good times shared with friends in the faith. People love these faiths and sometimes they have good reasons, at least to them, for this to be so.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
129
They are Definitely Attacking "Higher Education"
by XBEHERE ina friend of mine recently had his co visit and in the elders meeting the co out-right asked the question: how are the friends doing in your cong.
as regards pursuing higher education?
the co continued...you know in view of all the counsel from the slave regarding the dangers.
-
-
rawe
Hi EXEHERE,
"CO out-right asked the question: How are the friends doing in your cong. as regards pursuing higher education?"
That's interesting. I agree with your conclusion, if it can be established this question is being asked of more than one body of elders in the circuit. If it was just to one body, then perhaps someone in the congregation has complained to the CO about a higher education emphasis. But as you say, a convention talk or strong Watchtower article may reveal the thinking. I wanted to share something your original post triggered as a thought from my childhood.
My father, although an alcoholic and disfellowshipped still strongly believed Jehovah's Witnesses were the only true religion. He was eventually reinstated a few years before he died in 1991. Anyway, he often liked to tell stories of this or that happening in the congregation. One was of a school principal, if I recall correctly, who became one of Jehovah's Witnesses. To my father this man had impressive education credentials, but was not humble. He pushed for the opportunity to give more substantial parts and was eventually assigned the instruction talk. This would be in the late 1950s or early 1960s, so I am not sure how all the protocol for the TMS ran back then. "Well,..." my dad when on, "his talk fell as flat as p*ss on a plate!" To this day, I don't know what the urine on a plate idiom really means, but anyway... the point for my dad, Jehovah did not provide his Holy Spirt, so without that, all the education the world meant nothing.
This post got me thinking about that again and it occured to me, historically Witnesses have taken pride in being uneducated. As if lack of education was yet another indication of Jehovah's blessing on their work. They did all these impressive things, like translation, vast printing, construction and people organizing work, all with willing, but uneducated hands. As with my dad, I think being around folks with advanced education can be intimidating. Could it be, some of the leadership are feeling a bit insecure about their own lack of secular education and are therefore wishing to lash out?
Cheers,
-Randy
-
11
Saving Mr. Banks is not a typical Disney film. Seen it? Tell us what you think.!
by Wasanelder Once insaving mr. banks is not about mary poppins exactly, not the one we know.
in this movie we come to see who she was to the author through flashbacks that become so entwined with the adult author, a bitter and negative woman, that mary p.'s purpose becomes clear at last and not the disney factory model.
if you haven't seen it, a speech disney gives to her is phenominal in my opinion.
-
-
rawe
Hi Wasanelder Once,
Went to see it with my wife on Christmas Eve. Really enjoyed and thought the acting was excellent, even if the P. L. Travers character was so difficult at times it was hard to watch. The part of the drunken father falling from the stage hit very close to home, growing up in the home of an alcoholic father myself. The speech by Walt Disney not to let bitter experience of our past dictate our future I thought was a good one. And that sometimes we need to seek to forgive ourselves for our past mistakes.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
13
Evidence
by ekruks ini am wondering, if brave persons are bringing forth details of painful abuse cases years later, when they have grown up to be adults.... what evidence do the courts convict on?
conti was the only victim in the case?
i doubt there were eye-witnesses, and it's too late to get dna evidence.
-
-
rawe
Hi Ekruks,
"I'm not denying the horrific crime happened - I want to know how so many years later it can be proven in court. There are often reports of these cases, and I am wondering what constitutes the evidence."
I am not sure if this was brought up in trial or not, but as per the Huffington post article, J. Kendrick, was convicted of lewd or lascivious acts with a child in 2004. Thus as time has gone by it has substantiated Candace's claim -- i.e. that J. Kendrick is a repeat sex offender and very likely did exactly what Candace said he did. However, time should not have been a big issue in terms of what actions the elders took, what the policy of Watchtower Society was at the time, etc. Much of that is recorded on paper.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
13
Evidence
by ekruks ini am wondering, if brave persons are bringing forth details of painful abuse cases years later, when they have grown up to be adults.... what evidence do the courts convict on?
conti was the only victim in the case?
i doubt there were eye-witnesses, and it's too late to get dna evidence.
-
-
rawe
Hi Apognophos,
"So I guess Finkelstein's mention of testimonials at court by JWs was a significant part of the evidence? In that case it was more than Conti's word against Kendrick's."
I would assume that the court must have been sufficiently convinced J. Kendrick did abuse Candace, but beyond that the actions of the elders, letters regarding policy, etc, would be from other sources. A key piece of evidence, as I understand it, was a multi-page policy letter written to elders. As most here know, but in case someone doesn't, normally such policy letters are not available to congregation members in general. Thus, a congregation member may assume the handling of child abuse is aligned with what has been printed in The Watchtower, Awake! and on jw-media.org (now a section on jw.org) and other public places, but otherwise completely unaware elders are told such things as... if they lawfully must contact the authorities they should do so from a public pay phone.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
13
Evidence
by ekruks ini am wondering, if brave persons are bringing forth details of painful abuse cases years later, when they have grown up to be adults.... what evidence do the courts convict on?
conti was the only victim in the case?
i doubt there were eye-witnesses, and it's too late to get dna evidence.
-
-
rawe
Hi Ekruks,
This link has a summary of the case...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/calif-jury-awards-28m-in-_n_1602997.html
As you'll note evidence that Jonathan Kendrick was a child molester was established in regards to a conviction for child molestation misdemeanor in 1994. Candace's claim of abuse is in the years 1995-1996. This of course is after his 1994 conviction. Thus the focus of the lawsuit is on how elders, following Watchtower backed policy, failed to protect Candace. For example, does an elder conducting a field service group, with knowledge one of the individuals has been convicted of child molestation, bear any reponsibility if he assigns the individual to work alone with a 9 year old child?
Why did elders not inform parents of young children, perhaps even privately, that a congregation member was a convicted molester? Can they really claim this is a concern about privacy, when it was public record, and they do share these details with other elders, even within different legal corporations? Did Watchtower policy that strongly directed elders to keep their mouth shut have a negative impact in this case?
Alas, if an organization seeks strict control[1] over the lives of members, it seems they cannot always escape responsibility for negative behavior of those they control.
Cheers,
-Randy
[1] Such as, where you'll go door-to-door and who you work with. The organization even assumes the right to dictate what family members a current member can communicate with either in person or via email. This well known extreme shunning policy is rationalized as required to protect the congregation. If Jehovah's Witnesses have procedures to protect congregation members from former members who openly celebrate Christmas, is it too much to ask they protect the congregation from child molesters?
-
-
-
rawe
Hi Everyone,
To everyone who celebrates the holiday - Merry Christmas! Our family is just arriving for "Christmas Breakfast". I really have enjoyed this thread. It truly shows that even men chosen for leadership in the organization often wind up having doubts about the faith. I compiled the following list from the thread of current elders, ex-Ministerial Servants and ex-Elders. Please correct any mistakes or omissions in an additional post if you notice them.
CURRENT ELDERS
XBEHERE - In for family, hate it.
thedog1
pixel
Saltheart Foamfollower - doing my own thing as much as I can get away with
Stand for Pure Worship - "I've been trolling you with this Stand for Pure Worship nonsense"
His Excellency - appointed 2 weeks ago
Socrateswannabe
TOTAL: 7
EX-MINISTERIAL SERVANTS
Phizzy
flipper
konceptual99 - MS for 20 years
Designer Stubble
TOTAL: 4
EX-ELDERS
mrquick
designs
happy@last
rawe (me, Randy) - resigned 2005, left 2007
eyeuse2badup - 1972-79 & 2000-2010
DesirousOfChange - stepped down 2003
Oubliette - ex-Elder for 20ish years
Tord
Skinnedsheep
NewYork44MM - for about 3 years in mid 90s
Idrnomo
confusedandalone
Tech49 - for about 10 years, until 1 year ago
RayPublisher - for 10 years, always small body of no more than 4 or 5
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
AlphaMan - appointed at 30, walked out at 40
Irreverent (husband of blondie) - elder for 5 years
cofty
CyrusThePersian - elder for 12 years, stepped down in 1996
subytrek - elder for 3 years (2010-2013)
sspo - ex-lder - 21 years
Captain Blithering - elder for 10 years or so
Syme
jeremiah18:5-10 - Ex-elder from 1998-2005
bruh - 10 years elder
cantleave
Wasanelder Once
dozy
no lies please
Open mind - elder for 10 years
JakeM2012 - 10 +/- elder
leaving_quietly
baldeagle - elder for 6 years
Decided - begame an elder in my twenties
UN informed - appointed in 1969 at 24, resigned in 2000
Jazzbo
jam - elder 10 years
stuckinamovement (SIAM) - elder 7 years, quit 3 years ago.
HappyDad - appointed in 1986, resigned around 1990-1991
processor
Bob_NC - ex-Elder 13 years, 1986-1999
Lets Think - elder for 20 years, resigned 3 years ago
C.O.B.E.Beef - elder at 30. human at 35.
mindnumbed - served for 3 years
Doubting Bro - elder at 29, stepped down in my mid-302s
Irkr
Splash - elder at 28
JW GoneBad
AllTimeJeff - ex-elder. Ex everything
williamhconley - Ex-elder almost 10 years
freddo - ex-elder
James Jackson - 21 years elder
burnedout - elder at 30, burnedout at 40
Kensho - in for 40 years
fedup - elder for 7 years, stepped down in '95
Old Goat - resigned for "health and age" reasons, should have 20 years ago.
rocketman
Lightgrowsbrighter - elder for 5 years
EdenOne - ex-Elder, currently MS
TOTAL: 59
Cheers,
-Randy -
43
Disciplinary Actions
by Cold Steel induring a disciplinary procedure, what would the response be if you wanted representation?
an advocate?.
why don't they have a group of unbiased men, a prosecutor to present the case against you and an advocate that would represent the accused?
-
-
rawe
Hi Cold Steel,
"I suspect that if a town court prosecuted the JWs, and sought to deny them representation, that they would vigorously appeal it as both illegal and unfair."
The most recent case Jehovah's Witnesses fought in regards to their preaching work was: Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton [Ohio].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Society_v._Village_of_Stratton
You may be interested to know the Mormons filed an Amicus brief in support of the Witnesses in this case. This case helped refine freedom of speech, in particular freedom to anonymous free speech. Which can be pretty important even here on the forum. The Village of Stratton required folks to register and obtain a permit before they made door to door visits. Even though the ordinance was free and did not specify that Witnesses were disallowed, the idea that the government can be involved in such visits like this was deemed a violation of the first amendment freedom of speech.
Although Jehovah's Witnesses seek such protection it does not at all mean they believe in the principal itself. In fact just the opposite. When Barbara Anderson used her freedom of speech rights to speak out against Watchtower policies on handling child abuse, she was disfellowshipped for causing divisions (Titus 3:10).
Another interesting aspect of all this legal wrangling is what happens when action is taken against individual Witnesses. Letters to Elders have made it clear that if an individual Witness is sued for trespassing they are on their own and should not expect legal help from either the congregation or the Watchtower Society. I suspect there may be exceptions to this, if it was felt larger issues were at stake.
"How, then, can they deny that the courts are the prosecutors? The scripture states that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Often the courts include the witnesses themselves and, if not, the elders many times are unduly influenced by the witnesses."
Legally, Witnesses would not refer to their internal discipline as a "court", but instead a "religious tribunal." They do in fact try to apply the two witness (Deuteronomy 17:6) rule, which has been widely noted breaks down profoundly in cases of child abuse, where the abuser denies the charge. However, as noted all the hard lessons of how courts work and sometimes fail that has refined how secular courts work is lost on the Witnesses. How interesting the Satan's old system works better than Jehovah's spiritual paradise!
"This allows for many ways in which the pooch is screwed."
Absolutely!
"First, what happens if one doesn’t confess, but simply repents?"
Technically without a confession and no other evidence, a judicial committee should not act. Interestingly if a sin is committed, say a mild form of sexaul sins, like mutual masturbation, but the "sinner" does not confess at first, lets years go by, then at a certain point confesses. Believe it or not, direction has been given that their post-sin record could indicate that Jehovah has forgiven them and they should not be barred from priviledges or censured in anyway, beyond given private counsel at the point of confession.
"Armageddon comes and what happens? This good person who has repented gets blasted into oblivion? Not if their God is just, merciful and loving. If the person has a heavenly hope, does he get demoted to one of the great crowd?"
The imagined Armageddon (Rev 16:16) event is of course genocide on an unimaginable scale. The dead scattered from one end of the earth to the other (Jer 25:33). Most of the time modern Witnesses don't think about this. I would also say it is no longer stressed in vivid detail the way it was in the past. To make all this more palatable, most Witnesses rely on Jehovah being a wise, merciful and perfect judge (Deut 32:4) and will only destroy the incorrigible wicked. I have never seen any mention of the idea of demotion from the heavenly hope. Generally I think the Witnesses would want to stress one is not better than the other. Only in terms of the Governing Body power structure does one seen an emphasis that those with the heavenly hope are more connected to God. Bible is a letter written to them, etc.
"Also, here’s a hypothetical."
Jim is hauled into the church court and accused of committing certain indiscretions (because, after all, slaves have to be discreet). Although he denies the charges, the court has witnesses, and 1) because he has denied them and, 2) because he fails to confess and repent of them, he’s disfellowshiped. His friends and employer skunk him and though he manages to keep his job, his reputation is ruined. And, a year later, when he seeks to be reinstated so he can get married, he’s asked if he’s repented. So he confesses and is reinstated.
Now Jim, who was out, is now back in. Two weeks after his marriage, he makes an appointment with the judicial committee to confess about another transgression. The elders and overseer are agitated, but they agree to a meeting. Jim shows up and, when given the floor, admits to having willfully borne false witness to the previous court. He lied, he admits, when he confessed to having committed the offenses he was charged with. He also lied when he said he repented of them because he never actually had anything to repent of.
So what happens?
The point in all this is it is hard to say. Does Jim break down and cry during his last confession? Does it look like he has been "cut to the heart?" Or is he arrogant, perhaps even mocking? Do one or more of the elder have a strong dislike for Jim? Or the opposite, are some of the elders his close friends?
Thus is goes, all three outcomes are possible, (a) private reproof, (b) public reproof or (c) disfellowshipping.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
139
Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
by rawe inhas anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?
what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.
if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.
-
-
rawe
Hi Cold Steel,
"We even have no issues with the KJV of Isaiah being used in the Book of Mormon, as long as the translations are accurate."
My argument is that you should have issues for a couple important reasons.
Using KJV text of 1611 in this manner does not square with the story of how the Book of Mormon was produced. As explained, the claim is the Book of Mormon is a divine translation of reformed Egyptian (a language not known to exist) into English. Where Isaiah is quoted in 2 Nephi the presentation is this would be Hebrew that would have been translated into reformed Egyptian then from that into English. Or alternatively the writer of Nephi had Hebrew copies of Isaiah. But in no case, could he have the KJV text, since it would not be produced until centuries later in 1611.
Saying "we have no issues" is a glib dismissal, that does not show respect for the effort to produce the KJV. Much of our written and spoken English has been influenced by word choices in the KJV.
"For example, people get upset when they see the word “Christ” being used in the translation of a Hebrew document produced several hundred years B.C. Mormons understand that “Messiah” would have worked equally as well, but “Christ” means the same thing in English."
I can't speak for others, but "upset" is not the word I would use. The only point here "Christ" is a Greek word and therefore would be an obvious anachronism if presented as supposedly part of a Hebrew text. In the Bible you won't find "Christ" in the OT, since the language of the OT does not allow for it.
When would you say, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, 607 BCE or 587 BCE? If you looked it up on Wikipedia you would get the correct answer: 587 BCE. Yet, don't think for a second that a determined stick-to-their-guns Witness couldn't argue for 607 BCE. There is a thread here between Jeffro and AnnOmaly (sp?) and Scholar where Scholar argues post after post for 607 BCE, citing all sorts of supposed evidence.
What seems to happen in both faiths, is we subconciously use different standards for evaluating claims. When you look at the Witness claim of 607 BCE, as an outsider who is not committed to JW dogma, it is easy to dismiss. However, for the Witness to dismiss that would dismantle the entire foundation of their faith that points to 1914. Thus, even the most outlandish approach in the work of an appologist supporting 607 BCE is accepted and the considerable evidence for 587 BCE get a glib dismissal. And let's face it saying "God did it" allows for anything -- maybe God just liked how the KJV sounded.
Or imagine this, at college a student is doing religious studies. He is given an assignment to write some poetic phrases praising God who gives comfort. The student turns in the exact word-for-word copy of Isaiah 12 from the KJV. In that setting you would no doubt have no problem calling the student out for plagiarism. Yet in the context of the Book of Mormon a believer is expected not to be concerned.
Or look at the example you gave above about the wheel. A commitment to LDS dogma overshadows what should be an interesting idea. That is, why, did small wheels wind up on a few toys, but never anything larger? This is facinating stuff! From what I read, the wheel is only part of the problem. It was solving the issue of the axel that lead to this incredible breakthrough technology. Yet LDS dogma would have us believe an advanced society achieved (or imported) this technology in the Americas, but in 1492 when Columbus arrives it is nowhere to be found.
Cheers,
-Randy