Silentlambs
i do not think a persons drivers license loss in any way compares to the actions of a child molester. a traffic violation can be lived down, a molested child is hurt for life.
That’s not hardly the point of disagreement under consideration between you and I. I started to cover that base in my comments, but I didn’t because I figured that you weren’t so desperate that you would go there. I had used that illustration because you asked me to "define the word not in that sentence". And now, after I used a way to make it clear, you seem to want to negate it into oblivion by choosing to talk about how that there is no comparison between a traffic violation and a molested child. That's obviously self-evident, with no need to emphasize it.
for wt to not define this clearly, in the banner article, on the long waited for stand on child molesters, smacks clearly of untruthfulness.
I believe that you’re grabbing at straws now. You’re now obviously manufacturing every excuse that you can in order to salvage your initial charge that the Society has lied to its people.
perhaps the best way to determine this would be to ask any rank and file witness if a child molester could ever be used in the congregation. the only answer would be an absolute NO!
According to YOUR opinion, yes. But how do you know that to be a FACT? What makes you so sure that “any rank and file witness” would have been impressed the same way by the comments in the ’97 WT as you have been?
this being from the way the article was written. the basis of my judgement in this matter is because of that perception.
And just why is YOUR “perception” necessarily have to be the same as everyone else’s?
if wt had of indicated they could be later used again, what is the point of the article?
For the purpose of making it clear that such a person’s “driver license” had been suspended.
it would have been irrelevant.
I still disagree.
after any brother or sister considered that article they believed that they would never have a confessed child molester in an appointed capacity.
I don’t think that you’re standing on solid ground in thinking that.
your perception may be differant,
I’m just one of the “rank and file” that you say would see things your way, but don’t.
but it in no way defends the position the wt sold to its members with that article.
So far, as far as I’m concerned, you haven’t established that the WTS sold its people such a “position”.
my purpose is not to try and convince you, but instead to help the rank and file to see they were sold a bill of goods that do not match up with what elders are told to do privately.
But like I’ve already said, I am a member of the rank and file.
sadly, it is to late when members find the hard way the way wt policy actually works.
I have no use whatsoever for a child molestor, unless the person is sincerely repentant --but you haven’t got a case regarding what you are saying here as far as I can see.
Yadirf
