Posts by Marvin Shilmer

posted

9
Part IV, Why Believe in God?
by jst2laws in
1. jw
2. friends
in preparing this section it got too long so i have decided to break it into two sections.

why believe in god, part iv.

if you have read each of this series you have seen i am taking more of a scientific/philosophical look at belief in god or the lack of.
Marvin Shilmer
Hello, Jst2laws
I’m reading your series but will wait until the final installment of this first go-round before offering much in the way of observation. It’s good to see your moral compass shaping up, though. So many lose this upon the disappointment of realizing serious flaws of the WTS. For now I’ll comment on one thing that stood out to me like a sore thumb.
You wrote:
“We will not PROVE there is a place called heaven because there is no literal, physical place.”
I’m not sure what should be classified as “literal, physical place” when it comes to whatever “heaven” is. All we can know about is what’s on the inside of outer space. We must assume there is something outside outer space because outer space was able to expand to what it is today, plus it’s still expanding. So what is outside of this? We may never know, or we might. Right now Hubble is gearing up to look to what we call the edge of space. What will we find? Then again, just because we look past the last visible matter only means we’ve looked past the last thing visible. It does not mean we’ve looked beyond outer space to what lay beyond it.
My thinking is that our Creator must lie outside his creation. If true then outside of outer space is “heaven.” We know it’s there, we just cannot see it.
19
Part I - Why Believe In God?
by jst2laws in
1. jw
2. friends
why believe in god?

the following are only my thoughts open for comments.

i have not formulated these thoughts into convictions but i will say these are my beliefs at this point in my spiritual growth.
Marvin Shilmer

This is as good a place as any to put in my two cents.
Why I Believe We Have a Creator
I form beliefs on what I know. I know life can beget life as we know it. I do not know that lifelessness can beget life as we know it. Therefore I believe life as we know it was begotten by life. That life is our Creator. What is beyond life as we know it or how it came to be is unknown to me; thus I have no belief about that life’s origins other than the existence of that life.
Why I Believe In the God of the Bible
I form beliefs based on what I know. I know among life as we know it that humans uniquely have inherent aspirations for purpose. Since this aspiration is inherent then it is part of our begettal, which means it comes from our Creator. If our Creator gives us aspiration there must be something to aspire to. I know the Bible uniquely nurtures my aspirations for purpose, so to me the Bible is the ultimate source provided by our Creator for that purpose. Therefore I believe the God of the Bible is our Creator.
Do other writings/sources nurture our aspirations? The Bible teaches that all good things come from our Creator. I believe the Bible. Therefore as far as other works represent goodness they too nurture aspirations for purpose. All good words have God as their source.
Since the Bible teaches us to follow Jesus’ teachings then that is what I do and promote. Since the Bible teaches that God, my Creator, still exists then I defer to it.
This all stems from what I know. This is my worship.
20
MUST CLERGY REPORT ABUSE IN YOUR STATE?
by outnfree in
1. jw
2. friends
in another thread, dungbeetle had the great idea that we should become activists at least in our own states (if not in all the states which do not require reporting) for mandatory clergy child abuse reporting.. watchtower has said that the elders will be ordered to report abuse in a clergy-mandated-reporting state.

so why don't we do this...someone put up a list of all the remaining states that do not have this rule, and we start working on the legislators of those states to implement this rule or some version of it, and to close the loopholes and strengthen any existing rules.

it will solve one problem that i can see.
Marvin Shilmer

Hi, Dungbeetle
Within that California statute, when it says a cleric “has a duty to keep those communications secret” it means State law recognizes a duty to keep penitential communication secret. This means if an elder decided to report regardless of learning of child abuse through penitential communication then he could be sued and probably the organization he represents too.
The part of that California law that would have applicability to WTS policy is when it talks about a duty to keep communications secret “under the… practices of his or her church.” In short, this part of the statute recognizes that a religion may institute a policy where, for example, child abuse would be reported no matter how it was learned of by elders. If this happened then regardless of the “keep those communications secret” clause elders in California would have to report child abuse.
Therefore, you are correct in your conclusion of what this statute allows for in terms of WTS policy making, but for the wrong reason. Hopefully you don’t mind me pointing this out. My fear is that too many will wander into uncharted waters for themselves on issues like this, which makes it all the more critical to keep public discussions like this as accurate as possible.
20
MUST CLERGY REPORT ABUSE IN YOUR STATE?
by outnfree in
1. jw
2. friends
in another thread, dungbeetle had the great idea that we should become activists at least in our own states (if not in all the states which do not require reporting) for mandatory clergy child abuse reporting.. watchtower has said that the elders will be ordered to report abuse in a clergy-mandated-reporting state.

so why don't we do this...someone put up a list of all the remaining states that do not have this rule, and we start working on the legislators of those states to implement this rule or some version of it, and to close the loopholes and strengthen any existing rules.

it will solve one problem that i can see.
Marvin Shilmer
California [I’ve highlighted key phrases]:
11165.7.
(a) As used in this article, "mandated reporter" is defined as any of the following:
….
(32) A clergy member, as specified in subdivision (c) of Section 11166. As used in this article, "clergy member" means a priest, minister, rabbi, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized denomination or organization.

11166.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a mandated reporter shall make a report to an agency specified in Section 11165.9 whenever the mandated reporter, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect. The mandated reporter shall make a report to the agency immediately or as soon as is practicably possible by telephone, and the mandated reporter shall prepare and send a written report thereof within 36 hours of receiving the information concerning the incident.
11166.
(c) (1) A clergy member who acquires knowledge or a reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect during a penitential communication is not subject to subdivision (a). For the purposes of this subdivision, "penitential communication" means a communication, intended to be in confidence, including, but not limited to, a sacramental confession, made to a clergy member who, in the course of the discipline or practice of his or her church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications, and under the discipline, tenets, customs, or practices of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.
According to this statute elders in California have no duty to report child abuse if they suspect it based on something they are told by a perpetrator as a confession intended to be confidential. The same thing would apply if a victim presented their victimization under the similar circumstances. However, exactly how and under what circumstances an elder comes to know of child abuse is very important here. If there is no doubt that the suspicion is learned in a circumstance other than “penitential communication” then they have a statutory duty to report.
An example where an elder would, according to this statute, have to report would be if they learned of the abuse from a victim seeking protection from further abuse. An example where, under this statute, an elder would not have to report would be if the same victim informed the elder for sake of gaining forgiveness for a sin they thought they were guilty of. The difference in these two examples is seeking protection fro further abuse versus seeking forgiveness (even though forgiveness is not needed). Seeking protection from further abuse is not penitential communication. Seeking forgiveness with the help of a person’s minister (elder) is penitential communication.
I want to make something clear here, though. When examining statutes for purposes of determining what is legal or illegal it is important to understand a distinction between statutory law and common law.
Statutory law is what any of us can find by reading through legislated laws, like the one above. It is written in a State’s law code. When lawyers refer to statutory laws they do this by “chapter and verse” because they are indexed in this tidy a fashion. Statutory laws are sometimes contradicted by other statutory laws.
Common law is how courts have applied law. It is found in court transcripts that are not always easy to find because they are not indexed like statutory law codes are. When lawyers refer to “case law” generally they are making the distinction between statutory and common law. When lawyers refer to case laws they never refer to them by chapter and verse because they are not indexed that tidily. They reference case law by the name of parties involved in the case (e.g., John Doe VS State of California). Common laws are oftentimes contradicted by how different courts have applied a single statutory law.
The difference between the statutory and common law can be enormous since in some cases courts have found aspects of statutory law as unconstitutional and therefore have simply ignored them at the point of application. This is where lawyers enter the picture. The main difference between lawyers and the rest of us is this: they have researched statutory law and how those laws have been applied by the courts, which is what makes common law.
The science of law is in the statutes. The art of law is how courts have applied law and therefore how they can be expected to apply law in the future. Adding to the art of practicing law is the fact that in practically any jurisdiction there is some variation in how laws are applied based on the disposition of a judge. This is why attorneys are very concerned about what judge hears what case. This means the art of practicing law sits at the crossroad of at least three things: 1) statutory law, 2) common law and 3) the disposition of judges in a given jurisdiction. Competent attorneys know which factors come to bear with the greatest influence for a given case. This is just a small part of why armchair lawyers (amateurs) can be very dangerous. They are dangerous because they can do anything from emboldening a victim into doing things that could ruin otherwise good results from the law, to discouraging a victim from doing something that is important to gaining the most favorable outcome from the law (e.g., seeking competent legal services).
In my comments about requirements for elders in California are based strictly on statutory law. What the common law of California would require I have no idea.
PS to Dungbeetle: I put this bit together before I saw your post about California law. This post is not intended to run over anything you’ve said.
74
I'm thinking of applying for reinstatement
by Cygnus in
1. jw
2. friends
ok, here's how it is.. i just finished reading the "dead" thread.

now, listen.

i do not believe in life after death.
Marvin Shilmer

Hello, Cygnus
I've read enough of your posts on this thread to have a pretty good idea of your feelings. Our convictions are probably not far apart (certainly the part about golf!). On top of that I believe we are both pragmatic, which helps greatly toward resolving things as dealt rather than the way we'd have preferred them. As one weary human/searcher to another, we might have valuable experience and perspectives to offer one another given our backgrounds. My email is open if you want to undertake some private discussion. I know Friend trusted you, and we have that in common. Maybe we can talk sometime.
By the way, what you said about the effect of reading Stafford's latest book grabbed my attention. This too would be of interest for me to pursue your thoughts on as it stirs the bigger question of teleology and us.
129
MANDATORY Reporting of Child Abuse
by silentlambs in
1. watchtower
2. child-abuse
it appears there are a few misconceptions when it comes to the reporting of child abuse.

the federal law child abuse prevention and treatment act (capta)(jan. 1996 version), 42 u.s.c.

failure to report can result in civil liability.
Marvin Shilmer
Just to isolate and highlight Bill's position on questions posed for clarification (that was a long post Bill made, but I encourage everyone to read it):
Question 1:
If presented with a situation where a minor comes to you and says they had been abused but persisted that they would not talk about their experience to anyone who would automatically report the matter to authorities, would you offer them help on the condition of leaving the prerogative of reporting to them or would you turn them away?
Bill's Answer:
Neither, I would help the child see the importance of reporting the CRIME and I would help them report the crime in harmony with Federal Law. That is what mature adults do when they wish to help children.
There is no option, if the child adamantly wishes to not report, to bad, another child could be molested for inaction. If the minor refuses to talk to you, you know there is an issue of molestation simply report what you know to child services and allow them to investigate, a person trained in these matters is far better qualified to help the child and get to the bottom of the matter.
Question 2:
If the person were an adult victimized in childhood with the same request, what would you do?
Bill's Answer:
I would help the adult see the importance of reporting the CRIME and would help them report the crime in harmony with Federal Law. If they then made the personal decision to not sign complaint papers then I would have done all that I can do other than warn anyone who I may know personally who has contact with the molester. This is what caring people in positions of responsibility do when they wish to protect children.

You cannot force someone to do what they do not wish to do. You can encourage them to do what is in the best interest of children.
To me these answers are pretty clear. Bill's position for children is the same as mine:
In the case of minors:
No matter what conditions a child wants to lay down, if they have been abused then it should be reported whether they want it reported or not.
In the case of adults victimized as children by abuse:
Help them as much as you can, including encouraging them to report what happened. But if they insist we respect their wish not to report as a condition of helping them then we should not report the matter without their express permission.
These positions are in complete agreement with views I've expressed from the beginning, and they also agree with what I presented early on as to Bill's views. Regarding the important aspect of reporting or not as a condition of helping, earlier I wrote:
According to what you described above, as it relates to reporting, you would react somewhat differently depending on circumstances. As follows:
A child reports they are victims of child molestation:
You would immediately report what you know to the police.
An adult reports they were molested when a child:
You would strongly advise the victimized individual to turn the pedophiles over to authorities and provide whatever assistance you could toward helping them do so.
Given the straightforward scenarios above, I would agree that your actions would be the most appropriate. But your responses would not represent a blanket mandatory reporting.
The frustration occurred when, afterward, Bill claimed I had somehow twisted his words. This left in doubt whether Bill's position had been properly summed. Now Bill has affirmed that his position agrees with those conclusions from earlier, and I thank him for doing so.
One of the most pressing matters of concern had to do with what Bill meant when he spoke of mandatory reporting, which is what this thread is about. The concern was that Bill's proposals meant: no matter what, all incidents of child abuse must be reported without exception. Now it is clearer (clear as a bell to these eyes) that Bill is not suggesting such. In cases of adults victimized as children by abuse, the prerogative of reporting should be left to the victim.
I also agree with Bill's position of having the WTS turn over records of pedophiles. The only caveat I would inject is that turning over of records should be done in accordance with laws protecting people's civil liberties. I cannot state with certainty whether Bill agrees on that one point of caution but he probably does; personally I would assume it. But the detail is not important enough to pursue here because it would eventually be solved by society rather than us, except to the extent each of us chooses to lobby as citizens. But this is aside from what we would press strictly on the issue of child abuse as it relates to WTS policy.
Again, I thank Bill for adding what he did in his last post (or maybe him better orienting what he'd already said?) so that his positions on important aspects of reporting child abuse are clearer. I don't see where our views differ significantly in this area, if at all.
If there is something important in my presentation that somehow runs contrary to Bill's view then I leave it for him to point out. It is not, and never has been, my intention to twist anything he says. I only sought an understanding of what he meant by certain things he's said.
Regards,
Marvin
24
To ALANF, (an apology)
by ThatSucks in
1. jw
2. friends
alanf, in another thread, you said the following:.

quote:first i will point out that you are continuing to cop out.

have you no shame?
Marvin Shilmer
Marvin seems like an apologist for the witnesses to me, perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I am right.
You are wrong.
The only qualification for involving ourselves in public discussion is that we can fog a mirror, which you can do.
Don’t get down, get busy. Civic participation is one of the most gratifying activities there is. When you post here that is exactly what you’re doing.
If you will allow some help from those of us who are willing to help, let us. If you are concerned about whether I can help or will, ask Alan in private email. My money says you’ll be pleasantly surprised. Then contact me. My email is open.
Regards,
Marvin
129
MANDATORY Reporting of Child Abuse
by silentlambs in
1. watchtower
2. child-abuse
it appears there are a few misconceptions when it comes to the reporting of child abuse.

the federal law child abuse prevention and treatment act (capta)(jan. 1996 version), 42 u.s.c.

failure to report can result in civil liability.
Marvin Shilmer
Hi, Alan
Glad you could join in.
You wrote:
“The issues of this thread are far more complicated than some of the posters seem to think. I don't believe that most posters have done any real research for themselves into exactly what the laws of various States say. Until they do, they also have no business posting.”
Yes, issues surrounding child abuse are very complex, which is why details of importance to those concerned about those victims and their best interests deserve extensive discussion and clarification where needed.
As for research into laws on child abuse issues, a great place for people to start is at the following link.
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/law3.htm
129
MANDATORY Reporting of Child Abuse
by silentlambs in
1. watchtower
2. child-abuse
it appears there are a few misconceptions when it comes to the reporting of child abuse.

the federal law child abuse prevention and treatment act (capta)(jan. 1996 version), 42 u.s.c.

failure to report can result in civil liability.
Marvin Shilmer
ThatSucks writes:
“There are those who read these threads containging answers to your questions that can use the information that SL divulges here to convince other witnesses to disregard him, and you KNOW it Marvin. What seem to be honest questions from you could be fuel to burn SL's cause later. Once again you posture yourself as a teacher and completely ignore the issues, albeit quite deliberately.”
This thinking of yours started as a red herring. Now it’s becoming argumentum ad nauseam. One day maybe you’ll read up about why neither of them contributes to honest discussion or refutes anything presented on this thread.
You write:
“As I said before, call SL up and tell us what he won't say. Your divulgence to this forum regarding the topic at hand will put the matter in the public spotlite as you wish it to be. Until you do so your attempts self-justification are falling on deaf ears as far as I am concerned.”
Your ad nauseam aside, no one is making you or insisting you read or respond to anything here. Do whatever you please. Frankly, if you stopped with the fallacious assertions and red herrings by ignoring this thread that would be great. Then other readers wouldn’t be distracted by illusions you seem to see prohibiting Bill from answering publicly for what he wants people to stand for publicly.
You write:
“And logically, since Marvin doesn't see a reason to trust this man, neither should anyone else? Is that right? Are you finally admitting that your only modus operndi is the public discrediting of SL”
No, that does not follow from what I wrote. My comments explain my reasons for not trusting Bill. What level of trust others have in the man is beyond my ability to know, except for those who have told me. If you trust him, fine.
Modus operandi? Everyone can see my method here is public! This is a public discussion board for crying out load! This is the forum Bill choose to clear up misconceptions about what he’s said, not me! If you meant my motives, only Bill’s words or actions can discredit him. I have no motive to discredit him. I only wanted to understand what he meant with certain things he says, and I’m not the only one. This was with the hopes entertaining ideas of uniting other parallel efforts, which uniting will probably not happen based on what has transpired on this forum on this thread of discussion. Frankly, though I could pull the man’s britches down about some of his less than stellar interpretations of law and other lesser important things, only Bill can bend over and show his behind, which he’s doing a pretty good job of right now. The reason those other issues are not important to me here is because I already know where the law stands no matter that Bill attributes to it. But what Bill means by what he says of his positions; only he knows. So I can only ask him. Get it now?
When asked to show evidence for you accusation of me, you write:
All you have to do Marvin, is read what you have written throughout most of this thread. Of course, you know that already.
This is so typical of the WTS. I suppose that’s where you learned the behavior, so at least there’s an explanation!
What you’ve done with those words is apply a clever, though fallacious, ploy called shifting the burden of proof. You can read up on what this means later, if you care to understand your own actions.
Let me speak plainly for sake of your integrity. Besides being extremely rude to accuse people of twisting someone else’s words without bothering to evidence it at the time, it’s dishonest to do so and then shirk the responsibility when asked to prove your accusation. If I felt I could find some place where I had twisted Bill’s words I would do so! I can’t! So, since you made the accusation at least be good enough to prove your claim, or else apologize! In the unlikely event you do find something to assert as me twisting Bill’s words, we will see if you present the evidence honestly or not because everything I’ve said on the subject at hand is right here on this thread for us all to examine for what it is. As for what I’ve written here, I am more than willing to discuss any of it, except for anything more about my victimization, which is personal.
129
MANDATORY Reporting of Child Abuse
by silentlambs in
1. watchtower
2. child-abuse
it appears there are a few misconceptions when it comes to the reporting of child abuse.

the federal law child abuse prevention and treatment act (capta)(jan. 1996 version), 42 u.s.c.

failure to report can result in civil liability.
Marvin Shilmer
ThatSucks writes:
"SL has stated what he considers the issues to be. Just because you don't understand SL's position doesn't mean that others do not. I also think your idea of 'all information publicly for the good of the cause' is itsself absurd when part of your audience uses "theocratic warfare strategy" on a daily basis."
I have no concern about what others feel they understand. Of course, whether they understand Bill correctly is another question, but that is not my concern. My questions have been for what is not understood by others, including me.
Theocratic War Strategy is the WTS' way of justifying its leaders' ability to lie when it pleases them. This has nothing at all to do with whether there is some problem created over other people voicing what they feel a position should be in a given circumstance. If we accept your idea without some evidence of relevance to this discussion then we might just as well pack our bags and refuse to talk about anything! I'm sorry, your offering here is nothing but a red herring.
You write:
"You have made it painfully obvious that you do not wish to resolve this matter to your own satisfaction, you instead wish to put SL on the spot, as it were, knowing FULL WELL who your audience is."
That's easy enough to say, but all it amounts to is your opinion, which you are entitled. As for an objective evidencing of my wish to resolve my concerns, there is no better to way than to ask questions since that is exactly what anyone wanting to resolve things would do! Without dispute I have asked questions in this discussion! I have practically typed until my fingers are bleeding asking questions!
As for an audience, the audience is whoever watches this board; we all knew that from the beginning, including when Bill started this thread expressly for the purpose of sorting out misunderstandings. If you would assert I have some hidden agenda other than what I have represented here in writing, let's see some evidence of it. In my case we are only talking about one man that tried to get some simple and straightforward answers to simple and straightforward questions.
You write:
"Now, before you go bantering on about "where's the proof, where's the proof", or trying to educate me on what a proper debate is, why don't you contact BB directly and let us know what he says. You tell us what he won't say here."
I won't waste my time lecturing you. Why should I? If you want to know something about logical debate you will either ask questions to increase your understanding (as I have on this thread) or else you will go do some reading. If you want some recommended reading I can supply some suggestions.
As for contacting Bill in person by telephone, don't you see a correlation between my questions about conditions of personal confidentiality and doing that very thing? If he is unwilling to go on record about his position on agreeing up front about confidentiality on issues as it relates to the very cause he says he stands for, how and why should I trust what he would do with a voice discussion where it is far easier to make trouble for someone out of spite or ignorance?! I cannot trust a man that refuses to explain publicly what he wants people to support publicly! Otherwise, as I have already explained to exhaustion, this discussion belongs in public, and that's where I will keep my part of it.
By the way, if you decide to actually give evidence of your public accusation that I've twisted something Bill said, I am still waiting to see it.