hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.
but it's all quiet here.
are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?
@listener
As I recall from the transcripts, several members of the Fremont cong. made testimonies and/or depositions. A few elders and some publishers. None of them would have to reach into their pockets and pay a dime, regardless of whether they lost or not.
hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.
but it's all quiet here.
are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?
@azor policy of calling headquarters for direction rather than calling the police shows that the orgs concern is not for the victims but rather their pocket books.
That does not make any sense at all. If it was their pocket books the headquarters were bothered about, then it would be in their interest to leave each congregation to make autonomous decisions. In that way, if bad decisions were made, the headquarters would hold no responsibility at all. Then Candace and others would be suing the elders and the congregations, not headquarters. And guess how much money they would be able to get from individuals and little congregations?
Sometimes I think that opposers have lost all their common sense and logical thinking on their journey out of the WT.
P.S. I repeat again, no one is stopping anyone from going to the police.
hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.
but it's all quiet here.
are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?
@Listener how honest do you think the elders and JWs were throughout this case?
I am not saying a JW is not capable of lying, but in this case, no JW or elder had anything to lose by saying the truth, so why would they lie?
hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.
but it's all quiet here.
are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?
@LisaRose
but my feeling is that you don't risk innocent children, ever.
I think that is pretty much everyone's feeling, that's why when people accuse the elders of not caring, I find that hard to believe. With the same token I find it hard to believe that the JW org would deliberately put policies in place that would put children at risk.
hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.
but it's all quiet here.
are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?
hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.
but it's all quiet here.
are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?
@LisaRose,
Thanks for your explanation.
My point is, just because someone molests a younger person once (as in the instance you mention) does not automatically mean they become a pedophile or predator. It seems this was the premise the elders were going along with. I am not condoning what happened to your friends child, and it's easy for me to say because it did not involve my children. Heck, if anything like that had happened to my son I would have wanted to scream it from the rooftops, there is no worse wrath than the wrath of a mother. Actually I would have reported it straight to the police...but that's just me. I probably would have warned the sister he was marrying as well.
Presumably if they are still married and all is well with his step children (as I am sure if it wasn't you would have heard about it) it looks like it was an isolated incidence, and if it was, it would go to prove he was not a pedophile and that if your friend would have told everyone that he was it would have constituted gossip.
The problem of pedophilia is very complex, nothing about it is cut and dry as some like to make out...
hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.
but it's all quiet here.
are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?
@razor
I do get what you were trying to state on your post. What you demonstrated was scientific discovery. It is not related to CD.
You are wrong there, it is actually referring to CD, hence the "unpleasant feeling" factor. You can substitute the belief in a scientific therory with any kind of belief, it doesn't have to be anything to do with science. When you make a decision in order to counteract the dissonance you might feel better, but it won't change the fact that your decision was either right or wrong.
I do not think you got what I was trying to say a all.
hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.
but it's all quiet here.
are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?
hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.
but it's all quiet here.
are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?
@azor
Doubt creates cognitive dissonance because if you re totally happy with what you believe there is no dissonance.
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say with that diagram.
hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.
but it's all quiet here.
are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?
@ LisaRose On the contrary, I just know the state of denial that many JWs live in. My best friend when I was a JW was one of the smartest people I know. Her son was molested by a young brother that she employed to babysit. He confessed and was privately reproved. A year later he got married to a sister with two young children. My friend was concerned that she was not aware that she was marrying a pedophile, so she informed the woman. My friend was told she should not have done that, and if she told anyone else she would be subject to a JC.
I knew of this and was bothered, I knew there was a very great chance those children would be molested, but I thought it was an isolated incident, those elders were just mistaken, Jehovah would fix it in time, etc. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, yet I did not see what would be obvious to any one not in a cult, that this was how they did things, and was not an isolated event, but business as usual.
1. First of would you mind telling me how the elders found out about the fact that your friend told this sister.
2. And was it an isolated incidence, I mean did he go on to molest anyone else?
