Posts by Gentledawn

137

3 years of study, Just found out!

by impala63rag in

jw
friends

hello friends, .

i would like some advice from those that are inpartial, and are familiar with the teachings of jw.

i studied with a wonderful jw couple weekly for 3 years.

Gentledawn

Sleeping Beauty2 wrote:

A sister I know locally has very recently been disfellowshipped due to a male work colleague sleeping over on her settee overnight. Her son was present & nothing happened. There is absolutely no romantic interests between them & never will be... But since he was seen leaving her property by local JW's she has been disfellowshipped. She appealed twice during a Judicial Committee to not Disfellowship her, but they rejected her pleas for forgiveness & felt that if they didn't disfellowship her, then the other brothers & sisters would be offended that no action was taken... !!!

And the congregation will shun her based upon a blank announcement from the podium: "Brother/Sister So-and-So is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses".

More to say further down about those "blank check" announcements:

Here's what they said:

They gave me a scenario where "WHAT IF" She had an affair with someone, and he had walked in on them. That he would probably need some time to think about their relationship. When he was to return it would be with forgiveness.

They also said that it was the congregation’s way of disciplining. That so many churches have members that sin on Saturday and attend church on Sunday. That it was hypocritical. If the congregation didn’t do anything it would be like telling everyone that it would be ok to do those things.

And if someone wants to leave the JW religion? Are they simply free to go, as they purport on JW.org? No, they cannot freely leave without consequence and DISCIPLINE... the same discipline as someone who "sinned": shunning. Treated as a non-person, non-entity. Did Jesus shun ANYONE? No. "Footstep followers of Christ", my eye.

Write out a letter of disassociation, because you strongly disagree with their dogma, actions, sanctioned lying ("theocratic warfare", where they "allow" themselves to lie), what-have-you? Here's the annoncement made from the podium:

"Brother/Sister so-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses".

No differentiation between someone who commits a "sin" and one who shakes the dust of the WT teachings off their feet via DAing themselves.

137

3 years of study, Just found out!

by impala63rag in

jw
friends

hello friends, .

i would like some advice from those that are inpartial, and are familiar with the teachings of jw.

i studied with a wonderful jw couple weekly for 3 years.

Gentledawn

We also read a scripture, Matthew 15-17. 15, “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16, But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17, if he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.

Disfellowshipped ones are not the only ones shunned. They (rank & file members) will shun people who have "poor" meeting attendance. They stop calling. They don't come to their homes. No one inquires about their health or anything else.

The elders will directly tell rank and file members that they (the elders) alone will handle speaking to that person (1st hand knowledge). The "congregation" in that scripture is the elder body, more simply, the judicial committee (JC) that is formed to hound that unfortunate person. The whole of the congregation does NOT know the half of what goes on as far as individuals being disciplined goes. They are kept ignorant to many things, including when active and untreated pedophiles are in their midst. Most JWs don't know about the Candice Conti case, nor the Gordon Leighton one, and countless others.

Read up on the Gordon Leighton case. It's the one that woke me up. Here you have a confessed pedophile, who was simply reproved (NOT disfellowshipped) for what he did to another couples child. He confessed to the elders, but it was never reported to the police by them. The victims were told it had been "handled". Fast forward, and it goes to court. The court deliberated while the 3 elders from the congregation held off telling the court about the man's confession, claiming "clergy-laity" privilege (a lie. Remember, there are no clergy in JW). It goes on for 3 (three!) years, with the elders standing alongside this disfellowshipped, confessed (guilty) pedophile. Meanwhile, the pedo himself was LYING to the court, too.

Lies, obfuscation, wasting everyone's time and valuable resources, all to protect one man... one man who was NOT innocent of the crimes he was being charged to begin with. He was found guilty when the elders were finally forced to turn over the confession.

• Were the elders serving the interest of that man's victim(s)?

• Why did they (the elders) make a stand alongside a known pedophile, especially one who was standing in court lying to everyone present about what really happened? They (the 3 elders) knew he was guilty. They knew he was lying (ten commandments much?). They lied, too (ditto). Oh, and he was also disfellowshipped at the time. He was DFed for "violence" after he was reproved for child molestation.

And yet, if you were to miss meetings and not go out in field service? Shuns-ville for you!

95

The Judicial Committee videos in english

by confusedandalone in

jw
friends

not sure if this has been posted but the jwsurvey site received the videos in english from someone.. this crap is pathetic to watch.

how to counsel someone who is suicidal... really.

http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/doubts-over-organizational-solidarity-as-disturbing-video-on-handling-suicide-is-leaked.

Gentledawn

No. They made no reference to professional help. Instead, they will follow up with her through shepperding calls. That way, when she goes through with it and kill herself, they will wash their hands saying: We went through the proper procedures and she sinned by killing herself! Thus shifting all reponsibility to her.

Sad to say, but it seems like they are viewing this as an "emotional" issue, instead of a psychological one. There is a difference. People can't simply "get over" a medical issue, any more so than a person can be cured of cancer by giving them a hug. She could have borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive, all of the above, or a smattering of these with a few other things thrown into the mix, to boot (abuse as a child, ill-equiped to know how to work through problems, etc).

Now all we need is a video demonstration of Jehovah actually (tangibly) answering a prayer.

Ya know, something that doesn't involve a catastrophic event literally eating people alive, while leaving a sole surviving bible hanging from the tree branches in its wake (praise the lord for that save!). Or something equally stupid, such as Jehovah giving New York a mild summer so they could print the heavily edited & bastardized silver new world translation*. Meanwhile, hundreds of people die daily due to lack of basic human necessities, such as clean water, food, and childhood vaccinations. Let alone child brides, sex slave industry (slavery in general) still being alive and well.

* John 8:1-12 says, "hey":

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-12&version=NIV

95

The Judicial Committee videos in english

by confusedandalone in

jw
friends

not sure if this has been posted but the jwsurvey site received the videos in english from someone.. this crap is pathetic to watch.

how to counsel someone who is suicidal... really.

http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/doubts-over-organizational-solidarity-as-disturbing-video-on-handling-suicide-is-leaked.

Gentledawn

Fortunately, I never got summoned to a JC. I DA'd via a written letter stating that I wanted absolutely no contact from anyone within the congregation whatsoever (pretty much a form letter circulating around the net).

So what did they do? Talked to my husband at the meetings a few times, while they sat on my DA letter for THREE WEEKS! On the tuesday before they announced it, they approached him and asked if he could meet with a few of them at the KH the next Saturday. He told me when he arrived home, and I started asking pointed questions: Is it 3 of them? Is it at the KH with just you and them? Yes and yes. Told him it was a JC!

Holy hell. I DA, they cannot approach me, so they go after my spouse. What utter nonsense! Oh, and at the very beginning of his meeting with them? "This isn't about you, _name_." Like hell it wasn't.

What a claptrap, BS, full-on nincompoop-infested, shitty excuse for a religion this is!

131

Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M in

woody allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the new york times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

if that happens, what do you do?.

Gentledawn

In my opinion, DJS has become the thing he purports to hate: The Watchtower all-male mindset. It's probably a pretty hard thing to break free from when it empowers the males within the org to such a large degree:

Taken from "shepherd the flock of god" elders-only handbook (totally not a clergy class! LOL)

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blog/2010-shepherd-the-flock.php

"There is no objection if an elder personally spiral binds or laminates his own textbook or does so for other elders. If he has another baptized brother who is not an elder do the work for him, the elder must watch while the work is being done. Outside companies, unbelievers, or sisters are not permitted to do this work. The material in the book is confidential, and confidentiality must be preserved."

Let's reword those restrictions to be more honest, shall we? : "Outside companies, unbaptized males and women are not permitted to do this work"

Is there such a thing as an "unbaptized brother"? And if "baptized brothers" is already covered in a preceeding sentence, who exactly are the "unbelievers", if not simply unbaptized men/boys? You could make the argument that women would also fall into the "unbeliever" category, but "sisters" is the very next no-no on the list.

--------------

That is the Watchtower mindset.

Take note that DJS attacks are aimed at what could be perceived as female posters within this thread. He declares that what they say is "hysterical", "not based upon facts" (even when facts are cited/sourced), and all emotional-based, as if the wiminz all reached a conclusion that Woody Allen is guilty of something, esp. in regard to the age difference part.

That's why he carries on hysterically stating that perhaps he doesn't need to be here on this forum after all. Why he accuses people of making "emotional" conclusions/judgments. Why he demanded an apology (LOL!) from Viola ("Bow before Zod!"... Holy hell! hahahaha!).

Identifying with an oppressor is nothing new. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make a self-evaluation of your own.

131

Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M in

woody allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the new york times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

if that happens, what do you do?.

Gentledawn

If he likes young ADULT females that is nobody's business. Not yours. Not mine. Not the worlds. It is not illegal, nor immoral. Get over it. Or not. Your ignorance helps my case.

The age difference isn't the point. The age difference isn't the point. The age difference isn't the point.

Did it sink in yet? Because the AGE DIFFERENCE ISN'T THE POINT.

Seriously.

It's the fact that their (Woody Allen and Soon-Yi) roles were unequal (hence why the example of teacher-student; cop-criminal; and prison guard -inmates was used in a previous reply of mine) BEFORE their "romantic" (i.e.sexual) relationship started that is the problem. And that goes to precedent: He's done it before.

And by saying that, I am not pronouncing him as guilty. But who would trust him around their own kids? Dylan popping up in the early 1990s, making her claims against him seem pretty credible when viewed thru the lens of what he's already done to her sister.

131

Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M in

woody allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the new york times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

if that happens, what do you do?.

Gentledawn

Clearly you haven't read a damn thing. Or you have and your ability to make congitive, rational decisions is broken.

Gentle Dawn illustrates my point. Don't bother to do a bit of research, just make hysterical statements and accusations. An hour of research on this topic would or should have stopped most of these types of comments. Geesh. Enough already. Try not to enter any debate, team, unless you know what you are talking about. And if you don't know what you are talking about (i.e., The Rev), stay out of it. And when you do enter a debate, stick to one thing: the facts.

I wouldn't have done what he did. I believe child mostesters are horrific people and should be dealt with accordingly. But I would like the legal process to decide. Not jaundiced closed minded judgmental idiots.

Attacking other commenters in this thread does nothing to advance discussion (see: ad hominem fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).

My points in the previous reply are valid, noted and researched. That whole stanford "prison guards, inmates" experiment all those decades ago backs up my premise: people in power will rule over the ones underneath them, and will abuse it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

It's a known FACT.

DJS, you're acting belligerent and verbally abusive. And quite frankly, I don't appreciate it at all.

131

Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M in

woody allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the new york times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

if that happens, what do you do?.

Gentledawn

As someone who is married to a person who is nearly 20 frickin years older than myself: It is NOT about the age difference between Soon-Yi and Woody that is the issue.

As a parental unit IN HER HOME at the time, he could/would exercise ALL of the prerogatives at his disposal over her, including authoritarion and POWER.

That is why the relationship could never have been equal from the get-go.

- That is why prison guards cannot "date" (have sex with) prison inmates.

- or a school teacher with a student.

- That's why cops who are caught on camera boffing some hapless female on the hood of her car cannot claim it was consentual, when he just wrote off giving her a ticket for whatever it was he initially pulled her over for.

No matter what brush you try to use in regard to his relationship with Soon-Yi... he was her FATHER. Thus, it was non-equal and unbalanced from the get-go.

Woody Allen shows a piss-poor regard for boundaries, whether those be familial or respectful towards those who came to love him.

131

Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M in

woody allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the new york times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

if that happens, what do you do?.

Gentledawn

Sorry, mixed up one nickname with another. Yes, Ronan not Moses.

"On father's day, Ronan tweeted: "Happy Father's day – or as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law's day."

----

Was Frank Sinatra ever in a parental position/role to Mia Farrow? Ever ? No.

Apples to oranges.

Oh, and this:

Remember, Mia was in a May/August relationship with Frank Sinatra (she was 21 when Frank was 50), so the Hollywood set has no problem with such age differences....

The age difference isn't the real issue. The parental role/responsibility is.

He is/was Soon-Yi's dad.

131

Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M in

woody allen wrote a very compelling article in the op-ed of the new york times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

if that happens, what do you do?.

Gentledawn

ad hominem attack:

Of course, Mia recently revealed in a Vanity Fair interview that her son Ronan is 'possibly' the result of an affair she was carrying on while married to Woody Allen with her ex-husband, Frank Sinatra

Quite frankly, Mose's parentage is not the discussion here.

Mia Farrow was never married to Woody Allen. They adopted children together, but never married each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen#Marriages_and_romantic_relationships

The man was Soon-Yi's father. Period. Full stop. he had no business "falling in love" with his OWN DAUGHTER. Blood ties mean nothing to a child. Mom and dad are simply that, and those boundaries need to be held and respected.

It's not a matter of "loving a much younger" person. A father -- ANY father-- should never have sex with their own child.