Ashe is a higher up in the Service Department, he gave a deposition saying, 'spiritual protection is what elders do, physical protection is what secular authorities are for'..... Basically, he said "if you want physical protection, go to the police" but in reality, most JW's will not go to police/ secular authorities in an attempt to " keep Jehovah's name from being reproached".... when REALLY, it is a reproach when children are not protected physically.
cha ching
JoinedPosts by cha ching
-
33
Richard Ashe Court Deposition - " Let elders handle child abuse- don't talk about it "
by flipper inas some of you know i was given pdf files of much of the conti and lopez child abuse court cases and asked from a friend to peruse through it and post some excerpts on the board here that may have been missed or not addressed in the pbs newshour report or the abc news nightline report.
so after going through this richard ashe testimony i feel i found something quite interesting that exposes the real attitudes of the wt society leaders towards child abuse and the attitudes wt leaders put into it's appointed men's minds as well.
the viewpoint that richard ashe displays is repeated in elders throughout thousands of jw congregations on this planet.
-
-
-
35
behind the curtain: literature offer for the month
by Magnum ini was an extremely sincere, zealous pioneer.
i really cared about the people in the field.
i thought their lives were in danger.
-
-
cha ching
It's funny, I always knew it was about 'moving literature', but I guess I thought "it's good to get things off the shelf" and "it's bad to throw away perfectly good books" (didn't you feel guilty when you trashed all the old WT's and AW's that had just gotten way over your head after 10 or 15 years, and you knew there just weren't enough laundromats to distribute them, or enough time in a century) "It's not good to waste things, right?"
Thank you Magnum, for that perspective.... it SHOULD have been about helping people....plain and simple.
-
33
Richard Ashe Court Deposition - " Let elders handle child abuse- don't talk about it "
by flipper inas some of you know i was given pdf files of much of the conti and lopez child abuse court cases and asked from a friend to peruse through it and post some excerpts on the board here that may have been missed or not addressed in the pbs newshour report or the abc news nightline report.
so after going through this richard ashe testimony i feel i found something quite interesting that exposes the real attitudes of the wt society leaders towards child abuse and the attitudes wt leaders put into it's appointed men's minds as well.
the viewpoint that richard ashe displays is repeated in elders throughout thousands of jw congregations on this planet.
-
-
cha ching
Yes, it "may not be in your best interest " to talk about it....
meaning? "You might get DF'd if you do! Beware!"
-
31
Can they disfellowship my father?
by cookiemaster inthis has nothing to do with my facebook endeavors.
when the elders visited us last week, they also discussed my father.
my mother called them about him.
-
-
cha ching
Aren't most murders, abuse, etc done by family members?
And don't they say, "I didn't mean to?" If he gets mad, who knows what he will do while chopping up an onion?
Once someone is dead, they are dead.
-
25
I want to carry the microphones"
by stillin inthis was the reason that our 12 year old son gave us for wanting to be baptized.
my wife and i actually agreed that he should wait a little longer, thank god!
by the time he was 13 he was running wild.
-
-
cha ching
You will always, always regret not culturing a relationship with your daughter. You will feel even more guilty than you do now.
Who do you want to be remembered as? The kind, loving, wise father who really cared about his children? or... The father who could follow rules ?
Which father do you wish you had had?
-
34
A Taxi Driver Gave Me 4 Magazines This Morning
by Tempest in a Teacup inas we had reached my destination, i paid him and was getting down when he handed me something.
then i saw it was the wt and awake.
i just had the time to say: "oh, okay, thank you!
-
-
cha ching
I think it's GREAT that you got four magazines!
Four less people to get indoctrinated! Take 'em, and trash 'em! ASAP!
-
78
Am I the only "witness here besides the admins?
by TheOnlyRealWittnessHere inwith all the negativity here i was wondering if i am the only one here that's a witness.
.
the topic pretty much says everything..
-
-
cha ching
Good one, Pete...
-
32
Would you call JW HQ???
by DATA-DOG ini have a friend who is still in.
this friend is a partaker, but has serious doubts about the org.
this friend wants to stand up as a man, and wants to call wtbts hq.
-
-
cha ching
Well, that would be one way for him to learn TTATT.... Some people will not believe what reallllly goes on, until they see it for themselves.
First of all, I think it is very hard to actually speak to a GB member himself, right? That will be his first disappointment, and when he finds out that "we are all brothers here, we are all the same" is only what the GB will tell you in public... but it's a whole other ball game in private? Well......
Then.... when, or if he pressures them to give him answer... and they get irritated enough.... he may get DF'd...
He may start to wonder why they are not acting like 'Christians', like him, like we are all taught to be. Why isn't the GB even more so "Christ like"?
It just might be the beginning of his awakening.... we hope.
-
20
Why would a Swingers Club Want to Become a Religion?
by cha ching in" a nashville swingers club has undergone a conversion it now says that it is a church in order to win city approval, so that it can open next to a christian school.
" (associated press).
the article explains, "a church is something that cannot be defined under the u.s. constitution"..... wt lawyers explain to the court all of the time; 'you can't interfere with our internal church policies, or you will be infringing on our first amendment rights.
-
-
cha ching
I like that Billy! "The Church of Brunch" Marvelous!
Simon, that is exactly what I was thinking about.... special privileges? for what? Why?
"Why should a group with some particular crazy beliefs get special treatment vs some other group?"
Exactly!
-
22
is this still a belief? no 'marraige' after being resurected?
by sowhatnow ini was having a discussion with my sister yesterday, and she said to me,'mom told me that if dad dies at armageddon, she cant get remarried in the new system' .
i told he i have never heard such a thing, but i do recall that it was believed that anyone who dies now, cannot be married in the 'new world' because they are to be as angels in heaven.. she said , so why be resurrected if yiu cant live your dream of having a loving mate and perfect children?
god is still dictating to you how you will live.
-
-
cha ching
If you want your brain to fry, here it is... was?
*** w87 6/1 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers ***
for a Christian whose mate has died to remain single in the hope of being reunited in the future?
How fine it is that a Christian should feel love for his or her mate even after that one has died! Some in this situation have remained single, not because of being content with singleness, but in hopes of resuming the marriage after the resurrection. While not being insensitive to the human feelings behind those hopes, we encourage such ones to consider some Biblical points.
For instance, bearing on the matter are the apostle Paul’s words: “A wife is bound during all the time her husband is alive. But if her husband should fall asleep in death, she is free to be married to whom she wants, only in the Lord. But she is happier if she remains as she is.” (1 Corinthians 7:39, 40) This shows that the marital bond ends when one’s mate dies. It was a kindness for God to inform Christians of this, for thus widows and widowers can weigh their emotional and other needs in deciding whether to remarry; they are not bound to the deceased.—1 Corinthians 7:8, 9.
Does the Bible, though, indicate whether resurrected ones will be able to marry or to resume a previous marriage that was ended by a death? One account seems to bear on this question. It involved Sadducees who, while not even believing in the resurrection, came to Jesus trying to entrap him. They presented this problem involving brother-in-law marriage: “There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died childless. So the second, and the third took her. Likewise even the seven: they did not leave children behind, but died off. Lastly, the woman also died. Consequently, in the resurrection, of which one of them does she become the wife?”—Luke 20:27-33; Matthew 22:23-28.
Christians are not under the Law, but a similar difficulty could be raised concerning them. For example: Brother and Sister C—— were married and had two children. Then he died. Sister C—— loved and deeply missed him, but she felt a need for companionship, financial support, sexual expression, and help with the children. So she married Brother M——, which union was as Scriptural as the first. Later he became ill and died. If the former mates were resurrected and marriage were possible, whom might she marry?
Consider Jesus’ response to the Sadducees: “The children of this system of things marry and are given in marriage, but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God’s children by being children of the resurrection. But that the dead are raised up even Moses disclosed . . . when he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’ He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.”—Luke 20:34-38; Matthew 22:29-32.
Some have felt that Jesus was here referring to the heavenly resurrection, yet there are reasons to believe that his reply was about the earthly resurrection in the coming “system of things.” What reasons underlie this view? Those questioning Jesus did not believe in him or know about a heavenly resurrection. They asked about a Jewish family under the Law. In reply Jesus referred to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, men who hoped for life again on earth. (Genesis 42:38; Job 14:13-15; compare Hebrews 11:19.) Those patriarchs, and millions of others, who are raised on earth and who prove faithful will be “like the angels.” Though mortal, they will not die once God has declared them righteous for endless life.
Human emotions today might make this a difficult conclusion to accept. But it is to be noted that nowhere does the Bible say that God’s resurrecting the faithful means restoring their marital status. Hence, no one believes that if Aquila and Priscilla have gained life in heaven, they have resumed their marriage. (Acts 18:2) And Joseph and Mary will evidently live in different realms—he on earth and she in heaven. (John 19:26; Acts 1:13, 14) Since none of us have lived in heaven, we cannot say what feelings Aquila, Priscilla, and Mary might have there, yet we can be sure of their finding full contentment in their heavenly service.
Similarly, we have never lived as perfect humans. Thus we cannot be sure how we will feel about past relationships if and when we gain perfect human life in a paradise. It is good for us to remember that when Jesus made that statement he was a perfect human and therefore in a better position than we to appreciate the feelings of those who are “counted worthy of gaining that system of things.” We can also trust that Jesus is able to ‘sympathize with our present weaknesses.’ (Hebrews 4:15) So if a Christian finds it hard to accept the conclusion that resurrected ones will not marry, he can be sure that God and Christ are understanding. And he can simply wait to see what occurs.
There is no reason now to overemphasize this matter. The psalmist wrote: “Know that Jehovah is God. It is he that has made us, and not we ourselves. We are his people and the sheep of his pasturage . . . Give thanks to him, bless his name. For Jehovah is good.” (Psalm 100:3-5) Our good God will certainly provide amply for our true needs if we are “counted worthy of gaining that system of things.”—Job 34:10-12; Psalm 104:28; 107:9.
God’s goodness is reflected also in his informing us that the death of a mate concludes the marriage. (Romans 7:2) Thus anyone who has lost a mate can know that he or she is free to remarry now if that seems needed or best. Some have remarried, thereby helping to fill their own present needs and those of their family. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38; Ephesians 6:1-4) Consequently, a Christian whose mate has died should not feel obliged to remain mateless now out of an expectation that former marriage mates will be reunited in the resurrection to life here on earth in the coming system.
[Footnotes]
If an Israelite died before his wife brought forth a son who could receive the inheritance, the man’s brother had to marry the widow with the view of producing a son by her.—Deuteronomy 25:5-10.