JOHN BUTLER

32 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

...looks like an AAdam's family barn.

Yes with over 50 rooms 

3 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You need to get out more .... and read more. And see more movies.

Ever the see the movie "Three Days of the Condor" (1975) with Robert Redford?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I live a real life, not fantasy world stuff. My wife and I do occasionally snuggle up on the sofa and watch a film on Netflix. But it would be something we'd choose between us and not on a regular basis.

I'm deeply involved in auctions and 'caretaker' of a semi derelict mansion, so i'm busy enough and getting out lots. 

What do you think of 'my' house then ? 

 

20 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I have not been made aware of a case where someone was disfellowshipped by the organization for contacting the police first. I cannot see the percentage given to be a credible survey. In the past, as it is in the present. Authorities are forcing an issue that is considered by many overlooked. I don’t recall where the Watchtower has demanded an individual with an internal conflict be forced to speak with a body of Elders first. This, of course, eliminates the middleman. Many people speculate with past best practices of the Watchtower is still not enough to satisfy their activism in the present.

If my house was being burglarized, what good would it do to contact an Elder first? If I was being abused, what good would it do to contact a body of Elders, first if the Elders advise is going to be to contact the police? There are times where a body of Elders contact the main office to clarify legal issues they may not be clear on. The Watchtower does encourage such action.

Activists see this as sinister rather than logical.

The government now insist every institution, report. I believe if a victim is stopped at the door and redirected to the proper authority by law, this will curve many of the issues society has questioned.

The liability will lie with the victim and the government. If someone is falsely accused, the liability lies between the accused, victim and the government.

I'll just say this to you Billy.... At least Anna believes some of what I say and agrees with me on somethings. Whereas you just put your head in the sand, call all victims liars (by your comments) and think the Org is squeaky clean. 

I really don't care what you 'have not been made aware of', you are not important to me, whereas the Victims of Child Abuse are important to me.  

I'll tell you the same as i told Anna. if the elders want to disfellowship someone they will create a 'reason' to do it. 

And one false reason they use is that a person is 'Causing a division in the congregation' which could mean anything..

18 minutes ago, Anna said:

I have heard that too, but it seems it wasn't many, but a few. Some elders were acting on a wrong interpretation of "one should not take another brother to court". Of course that was never talking about crime such as murder or sexual abuse. And some elders took it upon themselves to say that it should not to be taken outside the congregation so as not to sully Jehovah's name. Which was wrong, and was never an instruction from Bethel. Also, taking the matter to the police was NEVER a reason for disfellowshipping. If someone was disfellowshipped it was because of unrepentant gossip and slander.

Anna, here we have a technicality. 

My comment was that many 'feared they would be disfellowshipped if they went outside the org'..  Some have actually said that.

You said that , 'taking the matter to the police was NEVER a reason for disfellowshipping'. But Elders could find another reason to use to disfellowship said person, and /or a person could well be shunned by the congregation if the congregation found out that said person had gone to the police. 

I was threatened with being disfellowshipped as I've mentioned before, and that was just for telling the truth.  The Elder called it slander. 

It's a shame to be back on this subject really, does none of us any good. 

28 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Probably not .... by the 23rd Century, there would have been about 8 to 15 overlapping generations making up one generation, and of course, the Star Trek Universe is completely fictional ...... as many things are ... like the Robot named Six-of-Nine, at the bottom of this picture, a parody of Star Trek's Borg,  Seven-of-Nine.

You are into some weird stuff man  

In the story line, on her planet of origin, she was raped when she was 5, and gang-raped until 12, when she escaped, and she was the Starship Enterprise's Chief Security Officer.

Started life as a JW then ? 

Um, strange topic, strange people on here  

If a man looks at a woman so as to have a desire for her he has committed adultery / fornicaton in his heart.  And if a man looks at pornography it is also wrong. But robots, does that include full size 'dolls' ? Oh dear the plot thickens. 

Life itself. all 69 years of it  

31 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe the Watchtower is making adjustments as the laws are changed. This reminds me of the difficulties that exist by the frequent adjustment in-laws that are made without a proper utilization of those laws.

This world is quickly becoming confused by the weight of its own destructive ways. Instead of focusing on one good law, they instead make every effort to satisfy the public outcry.

This is the case for Spain, and all over the world. While Spain made significant changes after 1978, the Catholic Church has remained strong. This includes the ecclesiastic clergy privilege that has become a common theme for governments.

http://tiny.cc/3uvi0y

Facultad de Abstención has been the topic in Spain. Unless the whole world agrees together to remove a privilege that stems millennia by the Catholic Faith, it will continue to be a problem for most countries.

One good option for governments to consider is being overlooked. Instead of making it mandatory for institutions to report child abuse claims, which many consider being a good proposition, it would be better to have the laws changed to automatically have a victim direct themselves by law to the proper authority in order to make each government responsible for their failures or success with their own laws.

This would mean, if a person goes into a church for spiritual guidance, the clergy can simply reject this person and forward them to the proper authorities by a constituted law put in place by the government. The church would forward the complaint and keep a registry of people coming in for guidance. No clergy discussion no clergy privilege.

This would ensure where the failure or success lies. Some steadfast older parishioners might disagree. In Spain, the young populist has the advantage. This should also satisfy those that make adjustments to legal standings such as the posted article 20-21 of the Watchtower.

 

Are you saying JW's should go straight to the Police or outside authorities ? 

If so, many have said they were told NOT to go to the Police or outside authorities. And many have said they feared being disfellowshipped if they did go to those outside of the Org. That seems to have been at least 50% of the problem in past cases. 

@The Librarian you mentioned computer games i believe or PS4 and such like. Many of such games are for one person only, one player, and sometimes people shut themselves off in a room all alone to play these games. Mo son who is now 24 does this. It may be a 'wind down' after work for him but he does spend many hours through the night playing such games. 

As for Chess I used to love it at school, but it seemed to fade out of my life as i became more active as a teenager.  Mods didn't play chess, they danced, rode scooters and spent their money on clothes and records. 

Agree with @Srecko Sostar that Jesus wasn't concerned about such trivial things. 

But there are many things one could disagree with if one was as piccy as the GB. For instance Bridesmaids at weddings. Yes JW's have Bridesmaids even if they call them by a different name. But of course Bridesmaids are based on superstition and traditions of men. 

There was once I was at a Witness gathering / party and the youngsters were playing music. I had to say no no to one song which they started to play, but no one else seemed to object to it. The song 'I'm just a teenage dirtbag baby'. It's horrible.

Yet many years ago when I lived in Bristol a popular Elder of the Avonmouth Congregation would go around whistling 'Bohemian Rhapsody'. When i objected to it and told him why, he didn't care and continued to whistle it.  The song by Queen was sung by a homosexual and was about murder.  'Put a gun against his head, pulled the trigger now he's dead', Yes, lovely.

So you see we could object to so much in life. GB stop trying to turn people into puppets. You already have your Elder puppets,

'Hey GB leave the Congregants alone'  (sorry it's a take off of Another Brick in the Wall ) 'Hey teacher leave those kids alone' 

Um, seems we are back to square one. All part and parcel as to why I left. Not just the actual abuse but how it isn't dealt with. 

In my opinion ALL Child Abuse accusations should be handed over to the Police immediately, and Social Services / Children's Welfare should be involved if a child is in danger.

Congregations should be told that if a child or adult makes an accusation then the Police and authorities will be informed directly. That would give those making accusations advanced warning and it would leave it in their hands to make accusation or not, removing the problem of a case mentioned earlier on another topic where by Elders were moaned at for reporting it. And if it's a child making the accusation that would mean that it is happening right now (not in the past) so immediate attention is needed. 

So, now it is Spain that is reporting Child Abuse in the JW Org. I hadn't heard of this before. We are getting closer to what I've said before IT'S EARTHWIDE.  I'm hoping that by the end of this year all countries will be reporting any abuse of any kind within the JW org.  But there are some countries that will have more of a problem of course, where women and children are treated poorly generally. 

We now have :-

Spain, Netherlands, Australia, America, Canada and UK.

If anyone has any news of other countries involved I would like to have information please.  I've started to write details in a book for my own information as I find it difficult to retain it all in my head. 

Are the GB still saying it's a 'few apostates telling lies' ? 

( Special message for S. M.  I am only interested in what is happening within the JW Org earthwide )

Dear @admin you can close this topic down now. I think it's served its purpose. Thankyou 

3 hours ago, Jack Ryan said:

To work out who rules over you, first determine who you cannot criticise.

As I feel free to criticise everyone does that mean no one rules over me  

That's shed some light onto it then  .   Nice to be a bit light hearted   

8 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Actually, by the time Jesus came upon the scene, the Egyptians had for a thousand years been giving "blood transfusions", and "brain surgery" for those soldiers wounded in combat.

I have no evidence to support the idea that the Jews had PROBABLY heard of this.

There was probably a VERY high mortality rate, as I understand (please correct me if I am wrong  ), that you can give mis-matched blood ONE TIME ONLY, and then the body produces antibodies against this foreign body, and the NEXT time the allergic reaction will kill you.

(Insert obligatory macabre humor here ... something about brain surgery with a funnel might be appropriate....)

Um, well, all interesting stuff. Egyptians doing blood transfusions, wow. Thanks. I stand corrected. 

And you have a great sense of humour (English).  Or Humor in American. 

 

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I suppose you think it should be a matter of conscience because you believe the scripture at Acts 15:29 is ambiguous?

Written at a time when literally drinking the blood of fallen gladiators was the 'in thing' and when blood transfusions were not even imagined. 

3 hours ago, Anna said:

Well at least it's popular

Yes what else would we do with our time  But I must admit my mixed feelings are getting even more mixed as I read every comment. 

If only life was simple .... 

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I have read and saw the deposition on behalf of Brother Jackson. I don’t find any inconstancies with what the Brother understood. I do understand there is always a difference when it comes to interpretations. I believe the offer from Gone Away “Not sure I understand your question fully.” Certainly has that appeal.

P. 37 highlights as you suggest, the thought behind Mr. Toole acceptance of mandatory reporting for all states, that Brother Jackson stipulated would be much easier.

There would be no misapplication as Brother Jackson asserts some do when dealing with gathering information and its source. This stipulation can be found within the Australian government’s own laws. I do not see an issue with this understanding.

I recall a case where there was physical evidence when a mother and daughter ran into a kingdom hall. The 3 elders in charge rushed them into a back room, and soon after, they escorted the two outside. Outside were two sheriff officers. The two were screaming at the Elders, this was not what they wanted and cursed them for calling the police. This, of course, was in the late 80’s.

The outcome, the person was jailed with no further judicial intervention since this individual was not part of the organization. This person received a two-year sentence for rape. 11 months into his sentence, he was stabbed and killed by other inmates. Once again, the 2 women came to the hall cursing the very ground those 3 Elders were standing on. The elders received a civil court summons by those 2 women for disclosing private conversations those two had prior to the authorities being called. The court ruled in favor of those Elders.

My question to you. Under those conditions, what fault can you personally find with some of the answer given that reflect a certain divisiveness? This is for physical evidence. In general, how should the Watchtower commit itself for each case?

Very sad case indeed. I cannot understand why any mother and daughter would not want to call the police when one of them has been raped. As for the rapist being killed in prison, that is of no fault of the Elders is it.  I think the elders did what was right. Their actions not only protected the victims but also protected the general public, as the rapist might have committed more of such crimes. As I've said before, a 'duty of care' to everyone, JW's and outsiders, is surely important. 

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Due to this gracious response, you have restrained me from highlighting John's words "I am not you mate" and letting them stand without comment. Thank you sincerely for this and for your overall help in getting me to reign in some of my hyperboles and occasional dignified barbs.

I have pointed out before that it is beneath me to resort to despicable trolling. I confine myself to engaging in dignified perusal of internet resources in search of fatheads to set straight.

If you are going to quote me Tom please get it right. I said 'I am not your mate' 

I didn't say 'I am not you mate' Very big difference. 

Apart from that, throw at me what you will. I'm a grown man, i can take it. I won't go crying to the Org. 

But remember that Jesus said, 'Love your enemies and pray for them'. 

1 hour ago, Gone Away said:

Oops, misunderstanding here. We are most certainly not friends, in any sense, if you thought I was implying such. No, we are "mates" in this sense: MATE: "used to show that two people share a space" and that space is here on this forum, "forum-mates". Bit like travelling on the London Underground in the same carriage. Then we would be "tube-mates" But we probably wouldn't know each other from Adam. Hope that's clear? No offense intended.

If you are referring to your "almost funny" comment, I still don't know what you meant. I'll assume you mean "strange or peculiar" because no comedy is involved in the subject matter. So my comments still apply. And I'm quite happy being "funny" in any sense for that matter, so "get over it"? Not really an issue.

Oh, a clarification. Well that's useful. I'll duck out of it now then,  'though I will echo @JW Insider 's comment that it is "your reaction to WTS policies that is very important for most of us to reflect on".

All the best with your search, (forum) mate. ☺️

I'll just say thank you, and admit you made me laugh. 

I've just watched a video link of Bro Jackson being 'sworn in' at the Australian Royal Commision and he swore on the Bible.

I've always thought that JW's should not swear on God's word the Bible. I thought there was a scripture that says not to swear on anything, but to let our own Yes or No mean Yes or  No..........  Matthew 5 33 - 37 

And I'm sure somewhere in his statements he says that the GB might not be the 'only' channel God is using. 

So, I'm wondering how much his words or opinions can be trusted. 

6 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

Not sure I understand your question fully. I do not justify calling the police where there is no provision for proper handling of child abuse allegations.

I agree that mandatory required reporting to secular authorities would shift the burden from individual decision to standard process. This is the best case scenario. Until that happens, then the reporter, unless fully trained in the professional handling of child abuse cases , HAS to seek advice. By "professional handling" I mean fully aware of the physical and psychological aspects for the victim, AND the specific, local legal requirements.

The NSPCC which, in the UK , invites confidential disclosure of such matters will involve secular authorities "if necessary". To that end they are empowered to apply for care and supervision orders for children at risk. This means they are equipped to make "assessments". They seem to act as a buffer zone between the victim, those involved, and the rather heavier hand of the law 

Parents at all times have the right to involve the police regardless of evidence/witnesses etc if their child is alleging abuse. This becomes highly problematic if the abuser is part of the family.They can also call the NSPCC.

If elders become aware of such allegations, there are complex issues involved. The immediate physical and psychological safety of the victim, the local legal responsibilities, confidentiality issues, spiritual/judicial aspects. Unless they are fully trained in the professional handling of child abuse cases, they will HAVE to seek advice. Who from?  Some one fully cognizant in the professional handling of child abuse cases. If who they call is not, then a can of worms is opened and , voila, today's scenarios with organisational reputation too high on the list of priorities.

And it is because of shouting from people like me, and many many others before me, that something is now being done in more countries than ever. 

If left to the GB of JW Org it would have remained 'in the closet' forever. 

I know I'm not perfect, I don't mind being counted as a sinner. I don't even mind what you all say to me ot about me. It's all worth it. 

All I'm looking for is a clean Organisation that serves God properly. And in my opinion God is sorting it.  All in good time. 

35 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

Sorry mate, you can't get away with that one. There is nothing anywhere in the appaling secular or religious incompetence demonstrated in the handling of child abuse matters that even approaches "almost funny". And I'm afraid an appeal to "context" doesn't cover up this indiscreet use of language.

Your take on this runs the risk of appearing cynical, a base attempt to make some sort of debating capital at the expense of abused children. I am sure that is not the case. I can see your emotions run high on this matter so I'll just put it down to "shooting from the hip" .

Might be better in future to wait a bit longer than 10 minutes to respond to something that boils your blood.

Actually, I will admit that I forgot that this topic is quite specific. I was triggered by some earlier comments and was addressing the  problem of the enormous mishandling of child abuse generally in society today. This topic is of course is  about "why John Butler left Jehovah's Witnesses" which has very much narrower focus, even though we are 27 pages in. I'll keep that in mind.  ☺️

!. I am not your mate. 

2. I knew what i meant and so did you.

3. Like i said 'What will you twist next ?' and here it is for all to see. 

G A. You are funny, get over it. 

And it's not me that started this topic, nor am I interested in continuing it. But as I've said before, I'm not running from it either. 

It's you guys that keep it going. 

And your point about  'incompetence in secular handling' is almost funny. Haven't the JW Org used the excuse of the 'incompetence of Elders not trained for such work ? 

Just thought I'd put the 'almost funny' comment back in context for you G.A. 

'incompetence in secular handling ' is almost funny in comparison to 'incompetent elders'.  But of course, once again you knew exactly what I meant. You were /are just being a JW that tries to twist things to his own advantage. 

I wonder what you will twist next ?

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The vast majority of Witnesses have the expectation that the WTS will always try to do what is right, no matter what the topic. But like all institutions, reputation is paramount. The WTS is full of people who want to enhance the reputation of the WTS. This is a problem, but also natural --almost expected-- if we are also sure that we have the most life-saving message, and that this message will likely be rejected if our reputation is sullied. A college or sports organization will be just as guilty of protecting their reputation through maneuvering, or even more so, when the motive is as mundane as staying in business.

We've been through these ideas before, but it's quite possible that TTH is correct in assuming that the WTS/JWs have made great strides in protecting young ones from abuse. I notice that the media has tended to move from Catholics only to "Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses." But part of that perception is the fact that we Witnesses have our ears "tuned" to listen to anything the media says about JWs. We will sometimes think we are being bashed when we are actually being treated fairly, just because we perceive we are being ganged up on. It could just as easily be true that only a small percent of our own sexual abuse issues make the news, but the exposure of Catholic clergy and institutions has made Catholics might be highly overexposed by the media.

I was Googling, "Barbara Anderson" and also picked up a short booklet on Amazon that she had written (or it looks like someone wrote for her). But I noticed that she has also said that the problem is not something for which the media should focus on just Catholics and JWs. I found a quote where she said that Billy Graham's son, a well-known Protestant preacher, said that the problem of child sexual abuse is greater in the Protestant religions, especially the mega-churches. I noticed that some Catholics in Australia had no problem finding numbers from the "Commission" (ARC) that proved that the problem among JWs and another set of religions was shown to be much bigger among these non-Catholic religions. 

But another couple quotes from Barbara Anderson also said something about seeing a court document, not shared publicly, that could explain why the "GB should keep so much info . . . all to themselves." For one thing she says that many of these cases involve incest and an exposure of the names of either victims or perpetrators when combined with the crime could bring another level of public hurt upon the victim. Also I saw a quote from her that said that it really was true that quite a number of persons for which the WTS admitted that their pedophile status was known was through our prison outreach program. When persons locked up for child sexual abuse are baptized and then released, or released and then baptized, this inflates the number of persons listed in the WTS records even if they have not ever been known to commit a sexual abuse crime after leaving becoming a JW.

Another point that I sensed from combining a few ideas she wrote about is this. The WTS lists contain a wide range of abuse crimes, and some of them truly are those from which a sensible person would not think right to expose to the court and law enforcement (risking also the leaks to the media). A 17 year old, for example, might have done things in high school that have truly not been a problem for the last 40 years. Of course these same lists have been shown now to have contained heinous crimes that were covered up and should obviously be exposed to law enforcement. But starting this process creates a slippery slope to a decision-making process where the WTS can't trust itself to always "redact" correctly, and the WTS has never trusted the world to handle anything correctly, especially where it relates to protecting their own reputation. So, it's the old dilemmas: "between a rock and a hard place" / "between the Devil and the deep blue sea" / "between the Pharoah and the deep Red Sea."

This is probably true. Even here no system is without potential loopholes in justice. But it's back to the idea that the WTS would potentially give up control of its reputation to "the world." In these cases its something that should absolutely be done. It's not perfect, but it's much better, and a culture in which this is expected will result in a much better sense among all of us that it should have been done this way all along. I referenced a website which TTH has quoted from, and noticed that the general point of this entire website is that reporting ALL accusations is a culture change that all institutions need to begin, religious and non-religious.

Fantastic, sensible comment. You see i do consider both sides. 

However to quote you, . "But like all institutions, reputation is paramount. The WTS is full of people who want to enhance the reputation of the WTS"

It seems Jesus didn't suffer in this way of thinking. Jesus seemed not to care what people thought of Him. In fact :  Luke 22 v 37

³⁶  Then he said to them: “But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. ³⁷  For I tell you that what is written must be accomplished in me, namely, ‘He was counted with lawless ones.’p For this is being fulfilled concerning me.”q ³⁸  Then they said: “Lord, look! here are two swords.” He said to them: “It is enough.”

Jesus seemed here to make sure that he was counted with lawless ones.  

However one of my points is that the JW Org / W/t  seemed more concerned with reputation than with Victims of Sexual Abuse, hence the victims became collateral damage. I.M.O. it has become an American inbred thing, collateral damage, so I'm wondering if me being 'British' makes me more sensitive to such. 

Quote you again : "and that this message will likely be rejected if our reputation is sullied. A college or sports organization will be just as guilty of protecting their reputation through maneuvering, or even more so, when the motive is as mundane as staying in business."

So are the GB worried about the JW Org 'staying in business' ?  

Of course the message has been sullied. BUT what is of far moe importance is that Jehovah's name has been sullied, disgraced in fact. To the wall with the reputation of the GB and the JW Org, think about what impact it has had and is having on Jehovah God.

I have two more points then I'll end this comment. 

1. The reason i only pick out the JW Org is because 'we' all know that the 'other religions' basically serve the Devil, teaching the trinity, hellfire etc.  But I've always, until now, trusted the GB and the Org. 

2. Apart from the emotional hurt and life lasting trauma of Child Sexual Abuse, there is also the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases. Can you imagine not only being raped  by a Pedophile but also being infected with HIV / Aids or other diseases.