Posts by Marvin Shilmer

157

Judicial Committee Preparation

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

judicial committee preparation.

recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

at a minimum i recommend the following:.

Marvin Shilmer

Hello, Minimus

You write:

“Marvin, perhaps the fact that a few on this thread have been "jerks", in the perspective of some, including Lawrence, says it all. All one has to consider is the tone on the posts to see where the "jerks" comment has come from. And just because someone questions you (or me), it's not necessarily a bad thing. But, if you or anyone else still think I'm a liar, then who cares? I don't. I might think some people are real dicks. I can think whatever I want. So can you, Marv.

I fail to understand what you mean with that response. Experience demonstrates that at all times we will find a “few” individuals who will think each of us are jerks—so what is your point? This experience would lead us to conclude that everyone is a jerk, which would render the phrase meaningless given that it the usage is to differentiate disposition. So how is it that you feel the perspective of a few “says it all”? Honestly, I fail to see any soundness whatsoever in such a premise, which leads me to wonder aloud why you bother to put it under pen.

I will ask of you the same questions I asked of Lawrence, and I hope you will respond with some direct answers.

Do you consider it nasty to question claims that far exceed a wide range of related experiences?

Do you consider someone a jerk because they question inexplicable claims?

Do you find it unseemly that a person should publicly question enigmatic claims that are made just as publicly?

Do you consider that a comfort zone should amount to full grown adults interchanging with Pollyanna naivety?

The WTS teaches its adherents to believe what it says because it says it is so. Do you think this is a positive attribute that one should transfer to his or her analysis of claims made by individuals? If not, then do you think it nasty for an individual to require that personal claims made publicly be substantiated with more than a word?

Marvin Shilmer
___________________
References

“If we have love for Jehovah and for the organization of his people we shall not be suspicious, but shall, as the Bible says, `believe all things,' all the things that The Watchtower brings out, inasmuch as it has been faithful in giving us a knowledge of God's purposes and guiding us in the way of peace, safety and truth from its inception to this present day.”—Qualified to be Ministers, 1955: 156

157

Judicial Committee Preparation

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

judicial committee preparation.

recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

at a minimum i recommend the following:.

Marvin Shilmer

Hello, Lawrence

You write:

“Why answer to these jerks? You did the time. You did the activities. You feel crummy about it all. And moreso, these bastards are questioning your word, integrity, activities. You fools, go back to the borg, you left your comfort zone with the other mean Pharisees.”

Do you consider it nasty to question claims that far exceed a wide range of related experiences? Even Minimus acknowledges his experiences come across as farfetched.

Do you consider someone a jerk because they question inexplicable claims?

Do you find it unseemly that a person should publicly question enigmatic claims that are made just as publicly?

Do you consider that a comfort zone should amount to full grown adults interchanging with Pollyanna naivety?

The WTS teaches its adherents to believe what it says because it says it is so. Do you think this is a positive attribute that one should transfer to his or her analysis of claims made by individuals? If not, then do you think it nasty for an individual to require personal claims made publicly be substantiated with more than a word?

Marvin Shilmer
___________________
Reference

“If we have love for Jehovah and for the organization of his people we shall not be suspicious, but shall, as the Bible says, `believe all things,' all the things that The Watchtower brings out, inasmuch as it has been faithful in giving us a knowledge of God's purposes and guiding us in the way of peace, safety and truth from its inception to this present day.”—Qualified to be Ministers, 1955: 156

157

Judicial Committee Preparation

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

judicial committee preparation.

recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

at a minimum i recommend the following:.

Marvin Shilmer

Rebel8

To clarify, by “successful” I mean the WTS settled lawsuits by paying cash prior to a court actually hearing cases where individual’s had indeed suffered character assassination as a result of actions by judicial committees. Most of the time this involved badly handled announcements of a disfellowshipping, such as informing the congregation of the actual “sin” leading to the disfellowshipping action.

The only reason I know the WTS has been successfully sued for character assassination is because of my personal exchanges over the years with two Bethel attorneys, one of which left Bethel years ago. Off hand I do not know any online resources disclosing specific cases and accompanying facts. However, the WTS has been quite open at Kingdom Ministry Schools for elders in reminding elders that if they mishandle judicial cases by not following WTS policy that it could easily form vulnerability for successful lawsuits.

Furthermore, the WTS has all but admitted this fact in letters to bodies of elders in the United States. (See BOE letter dated July 1, 1989)

Marvin Shilmer

24

How Jw's will begin to 'accept' blood doctrinally.

by AK - Jeff in

once upon a time, blood in any form was rejected by jw's.

then, over time, they morphed the policies to allow some 'fractions' or blood.

this allowed witnesses to get immunizations, treatments for hemophilia, etc.. in the past few years now, the policy is allowing greater 'definition' of 'fractions' - to the point where even bovine rbc's, altered to be called a 'fraction' now, due to processing the hemoglobin from the cells, for use.

Marvin Shilmer

The WTS has already set firm ground on which to tolerate Jehovah’s Witnesses accepting transfusion of red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma.

For example, just take a look at the most recent WTS presentation. The current WTS outline for covering the subject asks the question, “What are blood fractions, and why is their use a matter for each Christian to decide?” The answer provided within the November Kingdom Ministry states, “The Bible does not give specific direction on the subject of fractions.” This reason why fractions is “a matter for each Christian to decide” is also true of red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma. So moving forward the WTS has only to express that based on the same reason it is now a matter for each Jehovah’s Witness to decide whether to accept or decline transfusions of red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma.

When the WTS takes this next step will be determined politically.

Marvin Shilmer, who knows the WTS’ dishonesty has no bounds

40

Are Blood Tranfusions as dangerous and risky and the WTS claim?

by Fisherman in

in and old post by marvin, he provides a link to a wts response to blood treatment.

the wts society spokeman writes that blood transfusions may cause immunological disorders.

since modern medicine gave out thousands of infected blood transfusions in the past causing death and ravaging disease such as aids and incurable and horrible hepatitis to mention some, there is reason for concern.. how safe and effective is blood treatment today?

Marvin Shilmer

Fisherman writes:

“In and old post by Marvin, he provides a link to a wts response to blood treatment. The wts society spokeman writes that blood transfusions may cause immunological disorders. Since modern medicine gave out thousands of infected blood transfusions in the past causing death and ravaging disease such as aids and incurable and horrible hepatitis to mention some, there is reason for concern.
“How safe and effective is blood treatment today? Any facts?”

The relative safety and effectiveness of blood based therapies forbidden under the WTS’ blood doctrine depends on patient presentation.

In the case of patients who will die without a forbidden blood therapy then without a doubt it is safer and more effective to have the therapy than not having the therapy.

If you are serious about this subject then there are several books I recommend. One is Dailey’s Notes On Blood, by John F. Dailey. Another is Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery, edited by Nicolus Jabbour.

Interestingly, in Jabbour’s book Chapter One he co-authors with two others, one of which is an active Jehovah’s Witness by the name of Randy Henderson. In this chapter these authors agree that the standard of care it to administer blood transfusions. Medical standards of care are based on peer reviews of all medical therapies. In this case the medical consensus is that risks associated with blood based therapies do not outweigh the therapy’s usefulness when using it is the best way to provide optimal outcome.

Something you should not overlook in your research is that under the WTS’ blood policy Jehovah’s Witnesses use blood based therapies all the time, and plenty of them I am compelled to add. Current WTS’ doctrine provides that, as a matter of conscience, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses can literally accept every last drop of a unit of donated and stored blood so long as it is sufficiently fractionated first. (See WTS provided Durable Power of Attorney Document for Jehovah’s Witnesses dated 2001)

Something else you should not overlook is that under the WTS’ blood doctrine Jehovah’s Witnesses can and do accept a blood constituent known as cryoprecipitate for the purpose of improving blood clotting. This particular blood therapy is more dangerous than whole blood transfusion because the constituent of cryoprecipitate is collected from many donors and mixed. Even the WTS’ biased folks at Noblood.org admit this fact on their wiki page found at http://noblood.org/wiki/index.php/What_are_Fractions_of_Blood .

Again, if you are serious about this issue then you have lots of reading to do.

Marvin Shilmer

157

Judicial Committee Preparation

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

judicial committee preparation.

recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

at a minimum i recommend the following:.

Marvin Shilmer

Hello, TMS

Yes, I know WTS policy precludes elders from allowing/doing certain things in my recommendations. But, on the other hand, more than a few bodies of elders are known to have ineptness up to their eyeballs. Hence, if a person makes these requests they might get the nod to do as they request. On the other hand, even in cases where the elders reject requests, such as asking for initialing of documents or for having an advisor present for the hearing, as least the individual has went on record with the requests in the event that such a request is helpful down the road in the event of court proceedings.

As you know there are several items in the recommendations that are not against WTS judicial policy, such as copious note taking by the accused, asking and demanding to have exact information of what documentation the judicial committee will generate (in detail), and having witnesses testify in person. If a judicial committee denies these requests then it has acted contrary to the WTS judicial policy, which opens up a whole can of worms in terms of ecclesiastical privilege because the WTS has defended its right to keep judicial documentation from courts on the basis that its judicial policy is its religious procedure and hence unavailable to the courts. So, if a victim of a judicial hearing is able to demonstrate that a judicial committee acted contrary to WTS judicial policy then the judicial hearing and its associated documents and proceedings are not protected under ecclesiastical privileges, or at least that is the vulnerability under law.

By mixing request together (some that should be denied under WTS policy and others that should not be denied under WTS policy, and yet others that may serve some purpose but in reality is smoke-screening) a victim lays something of a trap even for trained elders whereby the accused can later show the judicial hearing was conducted outside the WTS’ religous procedure and hence an unprotected process. The recommendation lays a set of ‘on the record’ requests that the elders must be very, very careful to answer “no” to the right ones and “yes” to the right ones or else they are not engaging in a procedure recognized by WTS religious policy.

I do not agree with you that a judicial hearing will come to an abrupt halt if the accused refuses to give an opening statement or otherwise testify. Though the committee can proceed without this testimony, the accused still has every right under WTS policy to attend and observe their own judicial hearing, including demanding that any testimonial evidence be presented in their presence. Even in this instance the accused should still take copious notes of the hearing, should they choose to attend. Also, if the decision is to disfellowship then the accused should ask lots of questions to pin down exact/precise reasons for the decision, and of course keep copious notes the whole time. Among the questions they should ask is to poll the elders individually and ask them if each of them agrees with the decision. Judicial committee do not need a unanimous vote to disfellowship, and the odd voter might just fess up under questioning. Potentially this could be useful information, too.

Marvin Shilmer

35

Mistakes Admitted by WTS?

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

mistakes admitted by wts?

i seek feedback on the following series of questions:.

1. has the watchtower society publicly admitted its mistakes?

Marvin Shilmer

Hello, Blondie

Then s/he'll find out the chained is attached to something substantive.

Best regards, as always

Marvin Shilmer

35

Mistakes Admitted by WTS?

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

mistakes admitted by wts?

i seek feedback on the following series of questions:.

1. has the watchtower society publicly admitted its mistakes?

Marvin Shilmer

Fisherman,

The WTS never makes mistakes? Are you kidding?

In 1907 the WTS taught that 1914 would see the culmination of Armageddon. Do you think that was something less than a mistake?

Marvin Shilmer

12

BLOOD -- WTS Questions and Sound Answers 4

by Marvin Shilmer in

blood -- wts questions and sound answers 4

does the wts respect jws who decide to eat from blood?

*** w86 9/1 p. 25 godly respect for blood ***

Marvin Shilmer

Fisherman writes:

“In all fairness though, more people have died from infected blood than from refusing blood transfusions.”

What a silly thing to say. The only reason more have died from tainted blood than refusing blood is because the proportion of patients refusing blood is so miniscule, which makes the remark above meaningless.

Marvin Shilmer

157

Judicial Committee Preparation

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

judicial committee preparation.

recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

at a minimum i recommend the following:.

Marvin Shilmer

Jim W writes:

“We have beat this dead horse enough, and its time to wrap thing up ... the summation and closing arguments ... and then agree to disagree. You have lost the train of thought, and are in proiving yourself mode, thus causing you to miss what I am saying. Cool down for 24-hours and then lets have another go at it.”

Jim W, you flatter yourself. I have no need to prove myself to you as though being right is important to me, or to the subject. Likewise with the “cool down” remark—what you have written here only suffices to unsettle a child, which was a long, long time ago for me.

As for the “we” business, please speak for yourself. I am not kicking any dead horse. If the subject matter was not sufficiently important it would not get kick one from me. If it is sufficiently important then I intend to kick until it stands up and walks on its own.

I look forward to your attempts at proving that now I realize something about this subject that I did not realize already, and articulate over and over again (kicking). As for what you have written, your stupid comments about the ruling in question being based on child abuse speaks for itself, not to mention the other mooning you’ve done on this thread.

Marvin Shilmer, who knows that he is not the issue but rather the subject of the initial recommendation is the issue