is this true?
is this really true?!.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qirjv48c55m.
John Davis
Remeber, Cedars is the same clown who said something to the effect that the “Remember the Wife of Lot” movie was an “anti-gay” movie, when in reality, probably about five minutes dealt with an issue surrounding the family defending their beliefs against a person with two lesbian parents who ATTACKED THEM!
The sensationalism that he is manufacturing indicates that a lot of people are being led by the nose, and more importantly, this is clearly click-bait.
is this true?
is this really true?!.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qirjv48c55m.
Lol the video is going to be pretty dull and pretty much in line with what jws have always written/taught, as evidenced by the editing and propagandist build up to it.
It would be a shocker if they were ENCOURAGING masturbation, etc.
But since this is a video for bethelites who will live at Bethel, one should expect things to be more regulated, especially when it comes to what they understand as moral/immoral behavior.
i don't usually like the confrontational approach to those on the carts, however this video is a great example of how jws do not really care about child abuse issues!.
the arrogance of this brother is disturbing..... bear with the video.
it gets really interesting around the 6 min mark, where the brother loses his cool.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5chulnnyqs.
There is really no reason to believe jws are easier “targets” via the Witnessing carts. They’ve had a public ministry for decades (instead in manning a cart, they’d simply walk the public streets and approach people). Don’t think this makes encounters more frequent, personally, because there is risk associated with that as well — if an apostate doesn’t end the conversation after being asked, he can be guilty of harrssment.
And me personally, actually enjoyed when ex-members tried to plant seeds of doubt. They outed themselves by the type of questions they asked.
But nowadays, when someone asks me about child abuse issues in the ministry, I test their sincerity and say “can I research this and get back to you”? The two times I used that question, the person said “no thank you”. Probably an apostate.
So it’s actually easier to neutralize them. Ask to schedule a follow up. Most, if not all, “apostates” will immediately decline, thus, outing themselves.
Asking Jws about the GB being “leaders” is a red flag anyway. The type of question being asked most times tells you about the person asking it. So really, you can’t fool us that way.
the title speaks for itself.
lots of coverage of the pope's personal (!
about a month ago we all could read jochie's post regarding investigation of sexual abuse among jw's in the netherlands.
It’s close to a 100 percent certainty that you have never seen anyone with no background in the org come to its defense as I have, primarily because they have only surface knowledge, if that.
Also, its par the course for anti-JWs to attempt to discredit and attack the person when he succeeds at challenging and countering their assertions.
the title speaks for itself.
lots of coverage of the pope's personal (!
about a month ago we all could read jochie's post regarding investigation of sexual abuse among jw's in the netherlands.
How many people, ever, with absolutely no background in the org will join a forum such as this speaking in defense of the org to this extent, especially?
No one.
So nice psychological ploy in an attempt to get me to reveal my qualifications.
the title speaks for itself.
lots of coverage of the pope's personal (!
about a month ago we all could read jochie's post regarding investigation of sexual abuse among jw's in the netherlands.
Morph —
It’s well understood you were appealing to your OWN authority of “sitting on judicial committees” and that is what I called you on. You are a deceiver.
the title speaks for itself.
lots of coverage of the pope's personal (!
about a month ago we all could read jochie's post regarding investigation of sexual abuse among jw's in the netherlands.
Lol my status, standing, responsibilities, and tenure, or lack of tenure, as a Witness is not important as it has no bearing on the facts I present.
It serves (especially for morph) as nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority.
the title speaks for itself.
lots of coverage of the pope's personal (!
about a month ago we all could read jochie's post regarding investigation of sexual abuse among jw's in the netherlands.
And child abuse mishandlings, mostly are not an issue of policy, but execution on the local level.
the title speaks for itself.
lots of coverage of the pope's personal (!
about a month ago we all could read jochie's post regarding investigation of sexual abuse among jw's in the netherlands.
Um, I don’t think I’m wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/02/18/ex-elder-challenges-jehovahs-witnesses-on-child-abuse/6adbfd21-20ca-4ebd-8993-f71fae88fc5f/?utm_term=.0fa206d323c0
When asked, JR Brown cleared that up 15 years ago, stating the rule included other evidence instead of “a second witness”.
But seeing how emotional you are, the manual supports my point of corroboration (accusation of the same kind of wrongdoing in a separate incident).
So I am not wrong. You’re just emotional, your appeal to authority notwithstanding.
the title speaks for itself.
lots of coverage of the pope's personal (!
about a month ago we all could read jochie's post regarding investigation of sexual abuse among jw's in the netherlands.
Your story reads like the typical atrocity story — someone was abused, elders handled “eternally” and let the abuser have access to children, and threatened to disfellowship anyone who discussed it because it’s “slander”.
Now I didn’t say your story was untrue — I said it was unverified. Some stories may be true, others are not. But there are two sides to every story.
But the fact your story is carefully crafted to cause moral outrage raises suspicions about its veracity. Anti-jws deliberately manufacture their stories just to get that sort of reaction. These stories are common among people who claimed they left a “cult”.
