Posts by Marvin Shilmer

32

MAJOR NEWS- VICKI BOER TRIAL/Canadian Press/Sep 12

by hawkaw in

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020912/6/owki.html

http://www.canoe.ca/nationalticker/canoe-wire.jehovah-lawsuit.html

thursday september 12 5:32 pm est .

Marvin Shilmer

I must retract a statement made earlier.

Earlier I commented that instances of sexual child abuse do not constitute porneia according to WTS policy if they do not involve use of genitalia. However, if we take the WTS' words at face value then they have stipulated that sexual abuse of a child is porneia regardless of whether genitalia is involved. What do I mean?

Page 93-94 of the ks91 textbook states:

"Por.neia" involves immoral use of the genitals of at least one human ( whether in a natural or a perverted way ), and there must have been another party to the immoralitya human of either sex or a beast; willing participation incurs guilt and requires judicial action. It is not a casual touching of the sex organs between persons but involves the manipulation of the genitals. (w83 6/1 pp. 23-6; w83 3/15 pp. 30-1)

It includes oral and anal sex or mutual masturbation between persons not married to each other, homosexuality, lesbianism, fornication, adultery, incest, and bestiality. (Lev. 20:10, 13, 15, 16; Rom. 1:24, 26, 27, 32; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10)

Also included are sexual abuse of children, including practices involving a catamite (a boy kept for purposes of sexual perversion). (Deut. 23:17, 18, Ref.: Bi., ftns.)

The last paragraph categorizes sexual abuse of a child as prima facia porneia. This means regardless of whether use of genitalia occurs, when sexual abuse is committed on the person of a child then it is porneia nevertheless. Looking back, I know of instances where the WTS has applied their policy in this way.

This means the WTS' legal team would have to explain why sexual abuse of a child is not porneia when their own written policy says it is, and therefore not subject to the stipulated statute of limitation. It would require a savvy lawyer to press this issue, and they would have to ascertain whether refuting WTS assertions of a statute of limitation is important to the case at hand.

What a tangled web the WTS weaves!

Edited by - Marvin Shilmer on 13 September 2002 15:24:40

32

MAJOR NEWS- VICKI BOER TRIAL/Canadian Press/Sep 12

by hawkaw in

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020912/6/owki.html

http://www.canoe.ca/nationalticker/canoe-wire.jehovah-lawsuit.html

thursday september 12 5:32 pm est .

Marvin Shilmer

Hello, Scully

You wrote:

Doesn't the term JWs translate as "fornication" (porne'ia) include a VAST array of sexual misconduct, which involves the genitalia of two individuals?? It encompasses a HUGE number of sexual practices, including IMNSHO pedophilia and rape.

Surely CHILD MOLESTATION and CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE _is_ PORNE'IA. Surely there should be NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS on it, just as there are none with consensual sexual relations between unmarried adults.

Specifically WTS policy is that porneia is an act involving one human and a partner (animal or human) that includes the manipulation of genitalia for sexual gratification. Rape, for example, is porneia for the aggressor but not for the victim. Though rape is often about control rather than sexual satisfaction the act is nevertheless undeniably an act that involves gratification via someone's genitals. That is, whether it is sexual climax or fulfilled control; gratification is still achieved with genitalia.

There are some acts that society at large rightly calls sexual molestation that does not involve genitalia. In these case the act would not constitute porneia according to the WTS so the stipulated statute of limitation would accrue. Generically this would be classed as "loose conduct" that a person could be disfellowshiped for if unrepentant. But loose conduct would fall under the policy of that 1972 Question Box article. I have no idea of the details in the case of Vicki Boer's victimization. Regardless, it is heinous that a statute of limitations is even a consideration(!) in any case of child molestation, particularly sexual molestation! The WTS' defensive posture on this point is, simply put, antithetical with Christianity!

Edited by - Marvin Shilmer on 13 September 2002 14:53:24

32

MAJOR NEWS- VICKI BOER TRIAL/Canadian Press/Sep 12

by hawkaw in

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020912/6/owki.html

http://www.canoe.ca/nationalticker/canoe-wire.jehovah-lawsuit.html

thursday september 12 5:32 pm est .

Marvin Shilmer

Hi, Elsewhere

You wrote:

When any other company or organization I have been a part of made a change to instructions... they ALWAYS sent a correction page that was to be inserted in the affected manual or book.

At the first Kingdom Ministry School for elders after the ks91 textbook was released the Bethel instructor (Weaver) at my class told us that future instructions would be provided as loose-leaf pages from the WTS. This never happened. Instead we get verbal instructions from COs and DOs to add or delete specific language. Back in 2000 (or maybe 2001) elders were read detailed instructions about how to handle cases where publishers accepted specific uses of blood (e.g., packed red cells therapy). Instead of giving in writing they provided it verbally but asked us to write it into our ks91 textbook verbatim.

All this smacks of the same thing we see going on in the Vicky Boer trial. In polite language it's called a CYA position, at any cost. I can understand the CYA part. But the "at any cost" part is extremely disturbing. Freedom of religion cannot mean freedom to practice an ideology no matter the cost to others. It just cannot mean this!

25

Watchtower Has Statute of Limitation on SIN?

by Nanoprobe in

jw
friends

statement from the vicki boer trial .

lawyer colin stevenson argued that momm and his allies were confusing the spiritual law of the witnesses, which imposes a three-year statute of limitations on such things as abuse, with the law of the land, which requires immediate reporting.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=36530&site=3.

was anyone aware of this?

Marvin Shilmer

The full text of the 1972 Kingdom Ministry article is on this thread:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=36530&page=1&site=3#493189

32

MAJOR NEWS- VICKI BOER TRIAL/Canadian Press/Sep 12

by hawkaw in

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020912/6/owki.html

http://www.canoe.ca/nationalticker/canoe-wire.jehovah-lawsuit.html

thursday september 12 5:32 pm est .

Marvin Shilmer

This Vicki Boer vs. Watch Tower trial is dynamite stuff! Given the evidence of witnesses, WTS lawyers surely tried to settle this thing outside public court for some major dollars. Vicki must be one determined gal! I imagine the WTS willing to pay dearly to keep this story under wraps!

The comment about the three-year statute of limitations on such things as abuse does stand out. I know what this remark refers to, but I've never seen it used as a defense mechanism (i.e., an excuse!). I suppose the good WTS attorney is framing his language in terms better understood by the court (and/or media). Plus the WTS may think this language provides some sort of "public image" defense based on religious exercise. But to invoke such a supposed "statute of limitations" rule regarding a case of sexual child abuse is obscene, and I'm sure our Good Canadian citizens can see this for themselves. Frankly, to invoke a statute of limitations on sexual abuse of a child is to say that this sin is less offensive and less dangerous than the sin of fornication, which is preposterous and, again, obscene! What do I mean?

This supposed rule about a statute of limitations comes from a Question Box article published in the October 1972 Kingdom Ministry. Here is the full text:

*** km 10/72 8 Question Box ***
What is meant by "some years ago" on page 170, paragraph two, in the "Organization" book?
This indicates more than a year or two. It may be noted that it did not say "many years ago." So it is not an exact number of years, but more like two or three years. It was not intended to have a brother go back into the distant past to bring up wrongs of which he repented years ago and that have evidently been forgiven by Jehovah and are not being practiced now. In many cases the wrongs occurred prior to the time when the "Watchtower" drew attention to what the Scriptures say on such misconduct.
If a brother has been serving faithfully for some years and has seen evidence of Jehovahs blessings upon him, why should he now step down from office? If he has the right viewpoint now on conduct and will give good counsel he should be able to continue to serve. If the local body of elders see that he has the respect of the congregation and has shown the proper qualifications over the last two or three years, he may remain in his position of service.
Must wrongdoing be brought to public attention after many years? The book (page 168) under "Public Reproof" quotes 1 Timothy 5:20 and mentions reproof of those who confess to committing more than one offense. But it really has to do with recent events. The "Interlinear" refers to those "sinning," something going on at the time. So if repentance occurred some years ago, three years ago or more, and sinning ceased, and he is respected by the congregation, it is not necessary now to publicly reprove one who committed more than one offense "some years ago."

This material was covered at elder schools back in 1997/8. Elders were instructed that this provision of essentially overlooking sins "two or three years" in the past did not apply to the sin of fornication. In explicit language elders were told that there was no "statute of limitations" on fornication. Elders were instructed to write a note to this effect on a certain page of their ks91 textbook.

So, there you have it. If the "brother" that sexually abused Vicki, Gower Palmer, had had consensual sex with his next door neighbor 20 years ago the WTS judicial hounds would proceed against him. But, sexually abuse a little girl 3 years ago? Forget it, the statute of limitation has run out!

Sickening obscenity!

33

Ethics Discussion of WTS Blood Policy

by Marvin Shilmer in

ethics panel discusses blood policy of watchtower bible & tract society and jehovah's witnesses refusing lifesaving treatment .

the oncologist journal of august 2002 contains an interesting discussion between a panel of medical professionals on the subject of jehovah's witnesses refusing blood therapies.. this article focuses on a witness woman who refused some blood therapies but was convinced by her congregation elders that it was okay to accept bovine hemoglobin therapy.

realizing the glaring inconsistency of bovine hemoglobin being acceptable in the face of prohibiting other blood therapies like red cell infusion, one physician said,.

Marvin Shilmer

Hi, Pistoff

As Jst2laws has pointed out, WTS policy does allow human or animal hemoglobin as a matter of conscience.

The two front runners for FDA approval are Polyheme and Hemopure.

Northfield Laboratories, Inc. makes Polyheme from human blood.

Biopure makes the product called Hemopure from cow blood.

Whether either of these two products as they exist today will reach the point of FDA approval or what conditions they would be approved for is yet to be seen.

You are not the only one frustrated by WTS antics on this subject. It is abominable that WTS brass would keep life-saving details so quiet. Then again, if the WTS major concern is its image rather than the lives involved then its action here is entirely understandable. Corporate America has a history of keeping damaging details as quiet as practical regardless of consequences to others.

Edited by - Marvin Shilmer on 25 August 2002 20:0:51

33

Ethics Discussion of WTS Blood Policy

by Marvin Shilmer in

ethics panel discusses blood policy of watchtower bible & tract society and jehovah's witnesses refusing lifesaving treatment .

the oncologist journal of august 2002 contains an interesting discussion between a panel of medical professionals on the subject of jehovah's witnesses refusing blood therapies.. this article focuses on a witness woman who refused some blood therapies but was convinced by her congregation elders that it was okay to accept bovine hemoglobin therapy.

realizing the glaring inconsistency of bovine hemoglobin being acceptable in the face of prohibiting other blood therapies like red cell infusion, one physician said,.

Marvin Shilmer

Scully, et al

There is a mistaken notion regarding what is said about bovine hemoglobin used in this case. When the article states,

"During reinduction chemotherapy, the lowest level that Ms. LF's hematocrit reached was 7.1%, partly contributed by free bovine hemoglobin."

it is not saying that the bovine hemoglobin solution caused a decrease in LF's hematocrit. It is saying that the hematocrit level she did have was partially attributable to the bovine hemoglobin. In other words, without the contribution of bovine hemoglobin LF's hematocrit would have been even lower at the time. The introduction of bovine hemoglobin did not make LF's situation worse; it helped. What made her situation worse was refusing an infusion of packed red cells.

As Jst2laws points out, the real reason of this refusal was decisions made by Bethel Brass. LF's decision had little to do with any sound Biblical analysis as evidenced by her accepting the cow hemoglobin at the word of her congregation elders. Where does anyone think they heard about it and got permission to use it from? Does anyone think they found their decision by an autonomous comparison of the Bible with hemoglobin obtained from killing and bleeding out cows?

33

Ethics Discussion of WTS Blood Policy

by Marvin Shilmer in

ethics panel discusses blood policy of watchtower bible & tract society and jehovah's witnesses refusing lifesaving treatment .

the oncologist journal of august 2002 contains an interesting discussion between a panel of medical professionals on the subject of jehovah's witnesses refusing blood therapies.. this article focuses on a witness woman who refused some blood therapies but was convinced by her congregation elders that it was okay to accept bovine hemoglobin therapy.

realizing the glaring inconsistency of bovine hemoglobin being acceptable in the face of prohibiting other blood therapies like red cell infusion, one physician said,.

Marvin Shilmer

Ethics Panel Discusses Blood Policy of Watchtower Bible & Tract Society and Jehovah's Witnesses Refusing Lifesaving Treatment

The Oncologist journal of August 2002 contains an interesting discussion between a panel of medical professionals on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood therapies.

This article focuses on a Witness woman who refused some blood therapies but was convinced by her congregation elders that it was okay to accept bovine hemoglobin therapy. Realizing the glaring inconsistency of bovine hemoglobin being acceptable in the face of prohibiting other blood therapies like red cell infusion, one physician said,

"There's a feeling that the patient was completely settled, but she was also asking for help and accepting bovine hemoglobin, which seems to be slicing and dicing the rules a little bit."

Here's a link to the entire article. It's a good read.

http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/full/7/4/371

Marvin Shilmer

68

Sheila Bowen's Letter To the GB!

by Ranchette in

jw
friends

i knocked on the locked door of the appeal hearing last night after they had dismissed bill and told the six elders that i had something to say to them and told them it was summed up it a letter i had written.i then asked them if i could read it to them and they could have their own copy when i was finished.they said that would be fine.. here it is.

governing body,.

25 columbia heights.

Marvin Shilmer

Hi, Sheila

Fantastic letter!

We can only hope honesty will one day shame enough decision-makers at Bethel that positive change will begin overturning past and present injustices committed at the hand of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses in Brooklyn Bethel.

Cygnus,

You wrote:

The only problem I have is that your fight is not so much with the WTS or JWs but with Moses and Paul. The JWs have a BIBLICAL policy, and they are exercising it, even if you or I or anyone else thinks it is outdated or wrong. So I can't pity anyone who leaves the JW association based on their application of scriptural injunctions.

Unlike James, I think you made this statement seriously. If so it is erroneous.

Your impression is a fallacy of composition. Because a two-witness rule is Scriptural does not mean the WTS' policy on handling reports of child molestation is Scriptural because there are other aspects besides that one alone. For the policy to be Biblical it must conform to Scripture in every way, not just one.

Scriptures would have Christians love their neighbors. What exactly is loving about not always encouraging victims of child molestation to report their molestation to supposedly God appointed secular authorities and those who are trained to provide the necessary therapy for the protection and wellbeing of victims and would be victims? The fact that WTS policy does not always encourage this sort of reporting demonstrates a selfish motive, which is the antithesis of love. What Scriptural reason supports this aspect of WTS policy so that we can logically deem it Biblical?

44

I Interviewed J. R. Brown

by mikepence in

jw
friends

see http://blogs.salon.com/0001138/ for a sneak preview.edited by - mikepence on 7 august 2002 16:2:52.

Marvin Shilmer

Greetings, Mike

I read your initial posting within moments its appearance. I opened the link you provided at the time but only found a very brief summary of your interview with Brown. It looked to me like your complete interview was not yet being made available. Now it looks like others here have seen it and I would like to hear and read it as well. Can you provide a copy or else a link to where I can view the material?

Thanks.