so, we've already kind of had the discussion about the 10/15/2015 study edition of the watchtower, especially the article entitled "the naive person believes every word.".
but one thing i noticed about this article...the web address and html code has a different title.. the html title is "is it true because it is on the internet?".
the web address is: http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20151015/true-because-it-is-on-internet/.
The article has one main thrust:
And what should you do if you find slanderous news about Jehovah’s organization on the Internet? Such material should be firmly rejected.
The message?
'While the rest of the news should be treated with caution, and if you have time (who does?) make sure what you read is true before spreading it, but if it's bad news about the organization, you don't even have to bother because it must be false.'
Talk about double-speak.
i noticed that anthony morris iii just said on the broadcast: "while we cannot control everything that an individual might say, it is clear that over the decades protecting children from abuse is a top priority for this organization.".
that, in my opinion, is a direct response to the richard ashe "spiritual protection not physical protection" deposition.. here's a video putting the two statements side by side.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgevpuyn7gy.
Island Man, I'm glad you posted that. When I wrote what I would do for a policy, this was a hard one. I went back and forth in my mind whether I'd name the accused name or not. Now that I think further about this, naming a name, if falsely done, could be construed as slander. That's a problem, too. You bring up a reasonable alternative.
This, no doubt, is similar to the discussions they must have from time to time behind closed doors.
Like I said, a policy for this is HARD to come up with, especially one that protects everyone involved.
Any other thoughts anyone?
i noticed that anthony morris iii just said on the broadcast: "while we cannot control everything that an individual might say, it is clear that over the decades protecting children from abuse is a top priority for this organization.".
that, in my opinion, is a direct response to the richard ashe "spiritual protection not physical protection" deposition.. here's a video putting the two statements side by side.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgevpuyn7gy.
Ok, I just finished watching the segment. Here's my thoughts:
I believe Mr. Morris truly feels child abuse is deplorable and despicable. Of that, I have no doubt. And, I believe he feels the organization is doing a good job of alerting people to the dangers of it. By trotting out the 1982 Awake article and the Public Service Announcement, that shows that the organization has been committed to bringing the issue to the awareness of parents.
However, he did not address the one thing that is in the courts today. What is the organization doing to protect children within the congregation who are victims of child abuse by other members of the congregation?
By stating that the organization does not discourage the VICTIMS to go to the authorities, that simply takes the light off the real issue. It is true that the organization does not discourage the victims to go to the authority. That is NOT the issue. The issue is that the organization does not encourage ELDERS to go to the authorities as the very first step. And the issue is that the organization does hardly a thing to protect the children from known molesters WITHIN the congregation.
There are definitely nuances to all of this. For example, what if a man years and years and years ago got into trouble for molestation when he was 18 and she was, say, 15? He was past the age of consent, but she was not? This is a blurry line when she was a willing participant, but in the eyes of the law, it is still considered molestation. Should this charge remain with him for the rest of his life? Hard to say. It puts the congregation into a bit of a predicament.
What, though, about a man who is a known molester? He did the deed, got in trouble for it with the congregation, but it never got reported to any authorities? What responsibility does the congregation and the organization have then?
These are the issues that the legal department no doubt grapples with. And these are the issues the organization is not being forthcoming about to its membership. Are there easy solutions to all of these issues? No. Are there steps that could and should be taken to be out in the open about it all? Absolutely, yes.
One molester protected by the organization's current policies is one too many. If I were making policies, I would make the following adjustments immediately. I'm sure there are more that you can think of. If the organization does indeed view this site, maybe they can have some ideas here to implement.
1. Make policies regarding handling of molestation cases PUBLIC to all members, not just confidential letters to elders.
2. If an allegation of molestation is made, go directly to the authorities FIRST and let the authorities handle it the way they would any other case. Do not attempt to determine whether there is merit to the accusation. Simply contact the authorities. AFTER contact is made with the authorities, contact the legal department for assistance. In addition, all elders on the body should be made aware of the accusation. Not all need to be made aware of the details, but they should at least be made aware of who is accused.
3. While the investigations are proceeding (both secular and congregational) the accused person should not be permitted to go in the field ministry with any child. I would go so far as to say that the accused can only go in the field ministry when accompanied by an elder.
4. Elders should meet privately with every head of every family with children and make them
aware of the situation. No details need to be given. Simply state: "We want to make you
aware that <so and so> has been accused of molestation. The
investigation is ongoing. It hasn't been proven one way or the other, but to protect your children, the organization feels you should be made aware." Family heads should not spread this information to others in the congregation as the accusation may ultimately prove untrue, but should inform their spouses, if applicable.
5. If the allegation of molestation PROVES TRUE by EITHER secular authorities or by the investigation by the body of elders, a public warning should be given from the platform, regardless of whether the person was repentant and is allowed to remain part of the congregation. This warning must include the person's name and that it has been found to be true that he is a molester.
6. If the allegation of molestation DOES NOT prove true by BOTH the secular authorities AND the body of elders (both must be in agreement that the accused did not carry out any molestation,) then the elders handling the case should meet privately with every head of every family and update them on the status. No public warning needs to be given. In addition, the person who falsely made the allegation could be open to civil and congregational proceedings.
7. A permanent mark should be made in the accused person's file and that file must be (a) copied to the branch, (b) copied to the Circuit Overseer, and (c) sent to each congregation whenever the person moves. The mark should be made REGARDLESS of whether the accusation proves true or not. If it does not prove true, the mark should include the name of the person who made the accusation and any pertinent information regarding findings. It is possible that a person did actually molest, but was able to get out of it in one way or another. A permanent mark could establish a pattern in case a future accusation occurs.
I believe today that molestation cases are permanent and those files are not to be destroyed by the congregation. That policy was made a few years back, if I recall.
Obviously, policies with this issue are HARD to make because someone may be falsely accused, and the long term damage to that person would be nearly irreparable. However, to protect the children, a hard line must be taken. These changes, I think, would protect the organization, protect the elders, and most importantly, protect the children.
What policy changes would you make?
my husband, as far as i know, has never seen any of the gb.
with all the videos on at the convention showing the gb speaking, is there anything that would make him think wth!.
he thinks the gb are special, appointed by jehovah, that god speaks to them and imparts special knowledge.
Yes, the underlying point to that drama was not, "is Jesus REALLY the Messiah?" It was, "do Jehovah's Witnesses REALLY have the truth?" Sadly, their invitation at the end of part 2 to really make sure of what you believe and convince yourself will have very little effect. The line of reasoning to a typical JW is: 'Jesus WAS the Messiah because of all the evidence, so Jehovah's Witnesses really DO have the truth!' But to anyone who is awake, this line is completely fallacious. Replace the question: "How do you KNOW Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth?" With "How do you KNOW Mormon's have the truth?" Or Catholics? Or Baptists? Or any other group?
And while the video produced plenty of evidence for the narrator about Jesus being the Messiah, they did not produce one stitch of evidence regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. Because they can't. The evidence actually points in the other direction.
Oh, sure, they'll say, "But Jehovah's Witnesses are the only group that preaches God's Kingdom worldwide!" Or, "Look at the growth, all the building work! Surely this is God's organization!"
To which I say:
Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will perform great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. - Matt 24:23,24
But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. - 2 Thess 2:9,10
JWs look at their own signs (extensive preaching work) and wonders (construction work, jw website, videos, literature carts) and are misled. And don't think for a moment there isn't unrighteous deception in there. We've talked at great length here on this forum about the money-grabbing scam going on. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
so i went to the rc this past weekend and have a few observations:.
1 - use of videos - most parts had some sort of video prop.
they ranged from awkward (an example was on friday where they showed scenes of nature without a real purpose other than god made this) to very well done.
The OP could have been written by me. My impressions exactly. The number baptized is on a par with growth rate. Yours was .37%. We had 6800 attendance and 27 baptized, .39%.
he has inadvertently moved the timing of the beginning of the last days to the future.
this kind of scriptural error is the direct result of superficial bible reading.
according to luke 21, first comes the persecution then the wars, earthquakes, food shortages, fearful sights etc.
While context is king, as usual, sadly, the Luke account and the Matthew account contradict each other.
Matt 24:8-10:
For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.
9 “Then people will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you, and you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name. 10 Then, too, many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another.
So, which one is to be relied on? I don't know, but I would put emphasis on this part of Luke's account:
Luke 1:1-3:
Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent The·ophʹi·lus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally
blondies comments you will not hear at the 07-05-2015 wt study (satan)(may 15, 2015 issue).
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/.
the 4th of july in the us is mainly a misnomer.
This:
Was Satan thinking that Sarah would betray her husband—and Jehovah—and enter an adulterous marriage? The Bible does not say, but we have good reason to believe that the Devil would have been delighted to render Sarah unfit to bear the promised offspring.
What false reasoning! Anyone hear about David and Bath-sheba? These two had an adulterous relationship, David became a murderer, and did that make either of them unfit? Let's let the Bible answer:
2 Sam 12:24: "Then David comforted his wife Bath-sheʹba. He went in to her and lay down with her. In time she bore a son, and he was named Solʹo·mon."
Matt 1:6: "Jesʹse became father to David the king. David became father to Solʹo·mon by the wife of U·riʹah"
(Remember, Matthew 1 shows a geneological line down to Jesus.)
i have just found out that my brother (who was one of a bunch that shared this login) has died.. he and his wife were living in another country where they once pioneered.
i didn't see him that often.. such an empty feeling.....
i know being a witness for 33 years and not celebrating b/days you do lose the habit , but i thought one of them would have remembered ?
oh well .. maybe i will just rub it in with them tomorrow .make them feel guilty , eh ?.
then again i might just start singing "76 trombones" at the dinner table tonight .
Happy Birthday, smiddy!
Happy Birthday, Sail Away!
i sat through part 1 of the drama yesterday.
i thought they did a fairly decent job with it, except for the weird questions asked up front by an ancient guy asking "how do you know jehovah's witnesses have the truth?
" that has absolutely nothing to do with how he was convinced jesus was the messiah.
The dramas are designed to toy with emotions
Yes, certainly. Even yours truly got a little teary-eyed in the drama with how they presented the woman with the flow of blood being healed. Of course, it was all set to music, and music has a powerful, powerful emotional effect.
