Posts by uncle

I have recieved this today. It is from a Genuine source. An Elder who is NOT HAPPY has given the letter to my friend. My friend has seen the original and hgas copies of the letter thatr has been sent to all Elders in the UK.I have a scanned copy but have had a lot of trouble uploading it to my website (hence the stupid comment from Fred). I can send anyone a copy if they e me. I would appreciate it if some one can upload it to their site and post the scan on the forum.

UO
Certified A True Copy … Garth Rigby & Co. Solicitors Ashton-in-Makerfield

WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF BRITAIN

THE RIDGEWAY LONDON NW7 1RN

TELEPHONE 020 8906 2211

[XX] June 1, 2001

ALL BODIES OF ELDERS

Dear Brothers:

In our letter To All Bodies of Elders dated [XX] January 1, 2001, we gave instructions relating to disfellowshipping and disassociation records, and files relating to child molestation. We thank you for all your hard work in complying with this necessary and important direction so that the government’s deadlines as incorporated in the Data Protection Act 1998 can be met.

Part of the direction given concerned creating a list entitled "Child Protection-Psalm 127:3." In connection with this List we have had a number of enquiries as to who should appear on it. Also, as you will appreciate, Caesar’s law does not stand still and this at times necessitates adjustments. We are pleased to provide clarification as to the use of the List and how records can be kept to enable our children to be properly protected in the congregation. - Isaiah 32:1, 2.

Those who have confessed to child molestation, or who have been found guilty of child molestation by the congregation on the basis of two or more credible witnesses, should appear on the Child Protection List. (For a definition of child molestation see paragraph 3 of our letter To All Bodies of Elders dated April 15, 1997.) Also, those who have been convicted by a court of crimes that constitute child abuse should be included on the List. If necessary, additional information may be kept in a sealed envelope in the congregation’s confidential file as described below. If such an individual moves to another congregation, the procedure found in paragraph 3 on page 2 of the April 15, 1997, letter should be followed.

There is one exception to the above direction: The elders may have written to the branch office and given full details about a former child abuser who is currently serving as an elder or ministerial servant. In such a case, if the branch office has decided that he can be appointed or continue serving in a position of trust because the sin occurred many years ago and because he has lived an exemplary life since then, his name should not appear on the List, nor is it necessary to pass on information about the brother’s past sin if he moves to another congregation unless contrary instructions have been given by the branch. If therefore, such an appointed man moves to another congregation a letter confirming the move should be sent, addressed to the Society’s Legal Department.

There are, however, many other situations that are connected with the abuse of a child. For example, there may be just one eyewitness, and the brother denies the allegation. (Deuteronomy 19:15; John 8:17) Or, he may be under active investigation by the secular authorities for alleged child abuse though the matter has not yet been established. Then again, a young child might be abused by someone who himself is a minor, perhaps in his pre- or early-

ALL BODIES OF ELDERS

June 1, 2001

Page 2

teens. In these and similar cases no entry will be made on the Child Protection List. Rather, information should be kept in a sealed envelope in the congregation’s confidential file as described below. When such individuals move, the Congregation Service Committee should write a letter addressed to the Society’s Legal Department seeking advice as to whether to communicate the details to the new congregation.

Keeping information relating to child abuse in a sealed envelope in the congrega- -tion’s confidential file: Only a brief note should be kept. This would show the name of the molester or alleged molester. If known, the following information should also be recorded: The name(s) of the victim(s) or alleged victim(s), the relationship of the offender to the victim(s), and how the matter was brought to the attention of the elders. The date the matter came to light, and the names of all the elders who were involved in some way or another would be noted. Facts such as when the alleged offence(s) took place, the period of time involved, and the ages of the alleged molester and victim(s) at the time of the incidents can be recorded. Make a simple statement of whether the allegation(s) amounted to uncleanness, loose conduct, or porneia as defined in Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, pages 92-4. Do not record details other than those mentioned in this paragraph. Alternatively, if a written allegation is made by the victim, then this should be kept in the confidential file and, depending on the contents of the letter, there may be no need for the elders to write anything further. The only information that should appear on the outside of the envelope is the person’s name, the date the matter came to light, and the names of the elders involved.

Elders do their utmost to fulfil the serious responsibility of protecting children from harm. The cleanness of Jehovah’s organization needs to be preserved while, at the same time, we conform to Caesar’s laws respecting the handling of sensitive information. As well as providing guidance for your existing records, the instructions in this letter will also apply to situations that arise in the future and that are connected with child molestation.

We send you our warm Christian greetings.

Your brothers,

Watch Tower B. & T. Society of Britain

[Official stamp appears here.]

PS to Presiding overseer: As soon as possible arrange to have this letter read out to the body of elders. Following this the Congregation Service Committee should meet to review the Child Protection List to make sure it complies with the direction found in this letter. If it is found necessary to remove a person’s name from the Child Protection List rather than attempting to obliterate the name, please make a new List, destroying the old one.

5

help with friend from Russia.

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

i have been e mailing a ministerial servant in russia.

he came across my website and he had a lot of questions.

we have spoken a few times on the phone and i have invited him to the uk so that we can meet.

uncle_onion

no probs

www.607v587.com

5

help with friend from Russia.

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

i have been e mailing a ministerial servant in russia.

he came across my website and he had a lot of questions.

we have spoken a few times on the phone and i have invited him to the uk so that we can meet.

uncle_onion

I have been e mailing a Ministerial servant in Russia. He came across my website and he had a lot of questions. We have spoken a few times on the phone and I have invited him to the Uk so that we can meet. He needs a break (he lives with his wife, mother in law and sister in law.... all reg pioneers!)He has stepped down from being a MS.

Does anyone know of any charities that would be interested in sponsoring him for his trip to the UK.He speaks fairly good english. I can send him some money but can not finance the whole trip?

UO

15

Latest letter from the Elders.

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

i dont know if some of you remember but about 8 months ago i recieved a telephone call from the luvvin bruvvers and they wanted to talk to me re my "apostate" veiws.

i told them that i would take legal action against them and to only contact me through letter.

i recieved this today.

uncle_onion

thanks for all the replies. We certainly had a chuckle when we read a few of them. Not sure what is going to happen next. I will keep you informed.

UO

1

The geneaology of Christ?

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to jesus, saying: jacob became father to joseph the husband of mary, of whom jesus was born, who is called christ.

it is possible as well that neri had no sons, so that shealtiel was counted as his son for that reason also.

(these could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law.

uncle_onion

I have posted the WT veiw on the differences between the lists in Matthew and Luke.Any comments anyone?

UO

*** it-1 915-7 Genealogy of Jesus Christ ***
GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST
In the first chapter of Matthew we find the genealogy of Jesus running from Abraham forward. At Luke chapter 3 is a genealogy back to “Adam, son of God.” Jesus’ genealogy is the only one given in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Part of his genealogy appears at 1 Chronicles chapters 1 to 3, running from Adam through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined give the line from Adam to David.
The latter three lists (Genesis/Ruth, 1 Chronicles, and Luke) agree fully from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences as to certain names, such as Kenan, which is “Cainan” at Luke 3:37. The Chronicles and Genesis/Ruth lists agree down to David, while another “Cainan” is found in Luke’s account between Arpachshad and Shelah.—Lu 3:35, 36.
From Solomon to Zerubbabel, the Chronicles record and Matthew agree in the main, Matthew omitting some names. These differences and differences in Luke’s account from David to Jesus will be discussed later.
Under GENEALOGY, we have shown that besides many private family records, the Jews kept public records of genealogies and that the chroniclers, such as Ezra, had access to these when compiling their lists; also, that the public registers existed in the first century evidently up until 70 C.E. The matter of the descent of the Messiah from Abraham, and through David, was of prime importance to them. So we can be confident that both Matthew and Luke consulted these genealogical tables.
Reliability of the Gospel Genealogies. The question arises: Why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listings of the other chroniclers? First of all, to prove one’s genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. For example, Ezra, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, omitted several names contained in the listing of the priestly line at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Obviously it was not essential to name all these ancestors to satisfy the Jews as to his priestly lineage. Similarly with Matthew: He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. He also had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, which he could consult alongside the official public records.—Compare Ru 4:12, 18-22 and Mt 1:3-6.
The lists made by both Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to discredit Jesus, but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies. If either Matthew’s or Luke’s genealogy of Jesus had been in error, what an opportunity it would have been for these opponents to prove it then and there! For until 70 C.E. they evidently had ready access to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures.
The same is true regarding the first-century pagan enemies of Christianity, many of whom were, like those Jews, learned men who would readily have pointed to any evidence that these lists of Matthew and Luke were unauthentic and contradictory. But there is no record that the early pagan enemies attacked Christians on this point.
Also, both Matthew and Luke achieved their objective, and that was all they needed to do. To prove that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, it was not necessary to make a new genealogy. All they had to do was copy from the public tables that the nation fully accepted regarding the lineage of David and of the priesthood and all other matters requiring proof of one’s descent. (See Lu 1:5; 2:3-5; Ro 11:1.) Even if there was an omission in these tables, it did not detract from what these Gospel writers intended and indeed accomplished, namely, presenting legally and publicly recognized proof of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.
Problems in Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus. Matthew divides the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. (Mt 1:17) This division may have been made as a memory aid. However, in counting the names we find that they total 41, rather than 42. One suggestion as to how they may be counted is as follows: By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last; finally, by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and ending with Jesus. Notice that Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression “the deportation to Babylon,” which he links with Josiah and his sons.—Mt 1:17.
As stated earlier, Matthew may have copied his list exactly from the public register that he used, or he may have purposely left out some links with a view to aiding memory. However, a suggestion as to the omission here of three kings of David’s line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) is that Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel, thereby bringing this God-condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. (1Ki 21:20-26; 2Ki 8:25-27) Naming Jehoram as first in the wicked alliance, Matthew omits the names of the next three kings to the fourth generation, Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, the fruits of the alliance.—Compare Mt 1:8 with 1Ch 3:10-12.
Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Mt 1:12), and this coincides with other references. (Ezr 3:2; Ne 12:1; Hag 1:14; Lu 3:27) However, at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is referred to as the son of Pedaiah. Evidently Zerubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by reason of brother-in-law marriage; or possibly, after Zerubbabel’s father Pedaiah died, Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel as his son and therefore became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.
A Problem in Luke’s Genealogy of Jesus. Available manuscript copies of Luke list a second “Cainan,” between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah. (Lu 3:35, 36; compare Ge 10:24; 11:12; 1Ch 1:18, 24.) Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. In the Hebrew Scriptures, “Cainan” is not found in this relative position in the genealogical listings in the Hebrew or the Samaritan texts, nor is it in any of the Targums or versions except the Greek Septuagint. And it does not seem that it was even in the earlier copies of the Septuagint, because Josephus, who usually follows the Septuagint, lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad). (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Early writers Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome rejected the second “Cainan” in copies of Luke’s account as an interpolation.—See CAINAN No. 2.
Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.
Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.
Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.” It is possible as well that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son” for that reason also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19.
Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13) Both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus vary here from that found in 1 Chronicles chapter 3. This may be because a number of names were purposely left out by Matthew and possibly also by Luke. But the fact should be kept in mind that such differences in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are very likely those already present in the genealogical registers then in use and fully accepted by the Jews and were not changes made by Matthew and Luke.
We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.
[Chart on page 913, 914]
BIBLE LISTS OF JESUS’ GENEALOGY
Genesis 1 Chronicles Matthew Luke
and Ruth Chaps 1, 2, 3 Chap 1 Chap 3
Adam Adam Adam
Seth Seth Seth
Enosh Enosh Enosh
Kenan Kenan Cainan
Mahalalel Mahalalel Mahalaleel
Jared Jared Jared
Enoch Enoch Enoch
Methuselah Methuselah Methuselah
Lamech Lamech Lamech
Noah Noah Noah
Shem Shem Shem
Arpachshad Arpachshad Arpachshad
Cainan
Shelah Shelah Shelah
Eber Eber Eber
Peleg Peleg Peleg
Reu Reu Reu
Serug Serug Serug
Nahor Nahor Nahor
Terah Terah Terah
Abram Abraham Abraham Abraham
(Abraham)
Isaac Isaac Isaac Isaac
Jacob (Israel) Jacob Jacob Jacob
Judah (and Judah Judah Judah
Tamar) (and Tamar)
Perez Perez Perez Perez
Hezron Hezron Hezron Hezron
Ram Ram Ram Arni (Ram?)
Amminadab Amminadab Amminadab Amminadab
Nahshon Nahshon Nahshon Nahshon
Salmon Salmon (Salma, Salmon (and Salmon
1Ch 2:11) Rahab)
Boaz (and Boaz Boaz (and Boaz
Ruth) Ruth)
Obed Obed Obed Obed
Jesse Jesse Jesse Jesse
David David David (and David
Bath-sheba)
Solomon Solomon Nathan 1
Rehoboam Rehoboam Mattatha
Abijah Abijah Menna
Asa Asa Melea
Jehoshaphat Jehoshaphat Eliakim
Jehoram Jehoram Jonam
Ahaziah Joseph
Jehoash
Judas
Symeon
Amaziah Levi
Azariah (Uzziah) Uzziah Matthat
(Azariah)
Jotham Jotham Jorim
Ahaz Ahaz Eliezer
Hezekiah Hezekiah Jesus
Manasseh Manasseh Er
Amon Amon Elmadam
Josiah Josiah Cosam
Jehoiakim Addi
Melchi
Jeconiah Jeconiah Neri
(Jehoiachin)
Shealtiel Shealtiel Shealtiel 3
(Pedaiah) 2
Zerubbabel 4 Zerubbabel Zerubbabel
Rhesa
Abiud Joanan
Joda
Eliakim Josech
Semein
Azor Mattathias
Maath
Zadok Naggai
Esli
Achim Nahum
Amos
Eliud Mattathias
Joseph
Eleazar Jannai
Melchi
Matthan Levi
Matthat
Jacob Heli (father
of Mary)
Joseph Joseph (Heli’s
son-in-law)
Jesus Jesus
(foster son) (Mary’s son)
1 At Nathan, Luke begins reckoning the genealogy through Jesus’ maternal line, while Matthew continues with the paternal line.
2 Zerubbabel evidently was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage; or he was brought up by Shealtiel after his father Pedaiah’s death and became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.—1Ch 3:17-19; Ezr 3:2; Lu 3:27.
3 Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah possibly was the son-in-law of Neri.—1Ch 3:17; Lu 3:27.
4 The lines meet in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, afterward diverging. This divergence could have been through two different descendants of Zerubbabel, or Rhesa or Abiud could have been a son-in-law.

15

Latest letter from the Elders.

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

i dont know if some of you remember but about 8 months ago i recieved a telephone call from the luvvin bruvvers and they wanted to talk to me re my "apostate" veiws.

i told them that i would take legal action against them and to only contact me through letter.

i recieved this today.

uncle_onion

I dont know if some of you remember but about 8 months ago I recieved a telephone call from the Luvvin Bruvvers and they wanted to talk to me re my "apostate" veiws. I told them that I would take legal action against them and to only contact me through letter. I recieved this today.

XXXXXXXX CONGREGATION OF JEHOYAH'S WITNESSES

Presiding Overseer: XXXXXXXX

June 17, 2001

Dear Brother Onion and Sister Garlic

At a recent meeting the Body of Elders expressed their concern over your spiritual welfare in view of the long time that has elapsed since your attendance at the meetings, and asked that we write to assure you of our continued interest in your family and your spirituality.

We are aware that certain matters are of deep concern to you, and as you know we have a copy of the letter the Society sent you dated June 5, 2000. We have nothing further to offer on this subject; some matters have to be left in Jehovah's hands awaiting clarification in his time.

However, we do feel that you and your family can only benefit from being at the congregation meetings, and sharing the interchange of encouragement that they bring. Hebrews 10: 24,25

The date of the Norwich Assembly is fast approaching - July 20 - 22 and you may feel that would be an opportune time to re-associate. We would like to encourage you to give this your serious consideration.

The elders would assure you that they are genuinely concerned over your spiritual welfare, and if there is any assistance we can give please let us know.

On behalf of your brothers seeking to care for the interests of Jehovah's household,

XXXXXXXXXXX

Presiding Overseer.

1

amazing please read

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

can you e mail me plese.

it is not urgent.. thanks.

uo

uncle_onion

Can you e mail me plese. It is not urgent.

Thanks

UO

10

More than a cupful is wasted..........

by ISP in

jw
friends

yup, forget fancy scourers, fairy liquid......check out the real way to get mugs clean.

a fireman is in trouble for surreptitiously putting his penis into the boss's coffee mug.. fire lieutenant mark tomczak admits putting his member in chief william beres' cup.. he pulled the prank while he and other firemen were cleaning the station offices in west allis, milwaukee.. the incident, 10 years ago, came to light after mr beres' son began working as a fireman and heard the story.. mr beres, who has since retired, has demanded lt tomczak be disciplined despite the passage of time.. lt tomczak has been hauled before the police and fire commission to hear evidence, reports the milwaukee journal sentinel.. an investigation showed seven firefighters witnessed the incident.. lt tomczak's lawyer, ray dall'osto, told the panel lt tomczak regrets his actions and confessed when questioned.. mr beres was chief of west allis fire department from 1980-91. the hearings continue in august.. story filed: 20:16 wednesday 20th june 2001. .

isp