Fausto Hoover

…. thank you for permission to hold onto my beliefs.
And here I thought you were going to try, try, try to strip me of any right to communicate or think. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.  (…. does a Michael Jackson Moonwalk backwards while attempting to fake a genuflect, but trips and gets head stuck in a bucket, which is a good thing as it suppresses the laughter of sarcasm …). 
And I agree, as a practical matter, It is best to avoid any further engagement with someone who recognizes pontifical piousnesst as funny, and enjoys ripping it to shreds.
You need an easier target or a bigger audience.

Sniffing each others butt's comes in pretty handy with communicating:P

That’s what agenda driven thinking will do to you Fausto … you misunderstand everything and defend the indefensible as if everyone in the Universe is stupid, and will believe your rationalizations. After awhile you begin to believe your own explanations, not because they are true, but out of a sense of duty and loyalty to your bogus agenda, imagining that this serves God.

One does not become an apostate if one leaves a religion that manipulates theology, that exploits the naivety of its followers, that collects and asks for material donations, that engages in real estate business, that deceives and lies to the judicial authorities, that does not protect weak and vulnerable people.
The exit of a person from such a religion is called "exit from Babylon the Great", in biblical terminology. And in secular terminology, the process that precedes the decision to leave a group and organization that abuses people's trust is called critical thinking.
If a member of the JWorg or any other religion wants to feel that only he is in the true religion, and that everyone else is in error, he can continue to live in such a sense of self-worth, and self-deception. It is your free will with whom you want and do not want to communicate. Whether someone is a fanatic or is in cognitive dissonance or is misled by promises, that has always been and will be as long as humanity exists.
 

Fausto … rather than just pontificate, offer an alternate explanation that fits the facts, point by point.
It is painfully obvious that your reasoning ( and I use the term loosely) is agenda driven and not reasonable, or exhibits any common sense whatsoever.

This has nothing to do with the methods of obtaining confessions by the elders. I have only rarely heard of these methods being problematic. The spreadsheet indicates that only 58% of the alleged perpetrators made a clear confession.
I am saying only that at least 290 of those 579 reported confessions (50.1%) were not volunteered to a judicial committee due to remorse that followed soon after the sin/crime. These confessions happened most times after SEVERAL YEARS.
Imagine sitting in the same Kingdom Hall (or Book Study home) where your victim is also sitting and continuing to go on for years without ever admitting your crime. Or knowing that your crime has caused that person to leave the Organization and still not being bothered enough to confess until after an accusation is made years later and a judicial hearing is called. Imagine being in the same household pretending to be the spiritual head of the household in front of your wife and children knowing that you are abusing those same children, time after time, in some cases.
The most obvious cases where the perpetrator confessed, but not voluntarily, would be the 257 of those confessions that occurred after MULTIPLE children were abused by them. (I removed all the cases with just 1 victim or an Unclear number of victims.) With some of them, it was actually 10 or more children abused and their first abuse occurred when they were baptized publishers. For two others they began abusing when they were Ministerial Servants and still went on to abuse at least 10 victims each. With some elders, it was only after 2 or 3 or 5 or even 7 accusations that they finally confessed. Although they may have "voluntarily" confessed years later, i don't see this as a voluntary confession. No one is supposed to accept an appointment to be an elder without confessing to such crimes/sins that began after they were baptized.
With 44 alleged perpetrators where the confession was labeled "Unclear," these also had been accused of abusing MULTIPLE children. These 301 alone (257+44) )already puts us into the definition of MOST.
In all these cases the confession was about abusing at least ONE of the MULTIPLE children referred to in the accusation.
Even though this already covers enough of the numbers required to speak of MOST being involuntary there is a large number of additional cases which are based simply on the fact that there was no judicial hearing until years after the initial accusation of abuse. For these, of course, I removed those perpetrators whose first abuse was as a Non-Witness.
I should have mentioned before that I don't consider it a "voluntary" confession if a person waits years to confess it, or has continued to abuse MULTIPLE children before that confession. Even if just one child was abused, I think that waiting years until confessing at a judicial hearing (especially only after an accusation is made) doesn't count as voluntary.

Confession of sins in secret before a priest in the Catholic Church is one thing. The admission of guilt and the circumstances, details of what was and how it was, before the JW Judicial Committee is a completely different matter.
That cannot be equaled. But, WTJWorg lawyers want to try to smooth some things out to exonerate their client. GB turns a blind eye, accidentally or intentionally, to the methods their lawyers use to be able to say; "That's what the lawyers said, not us".

I will have to admit, Fausto, it is absolutely fascinating to watch you duke it out with JWInsider, who presents solid facts and reasonable analysis, and you, who misconstrue and bend EVERYTHING into an agenda driven obfuscation based on laughable premises to unsuccessfully defend the indefensible.
 … Good material to provide dialog for a script. JWInsider will be cast as Mighty Mouse, and you will be cast as Oil Can Harry.
I can easily visualize you both at it for the rest of the year, neither conceding defeat until one or the other has a stroke from frustration.
But, “practice makes perfect” and your ad-homonym attacks are getting less painfully transparent.

Thanks for adding this. It validates the point I made earlier, and was also a point made on the Reddit link. It admits several important points.
First, it's the admission by the JW defense that NONE of the cases were ever turned in the authorities by the JW congregation even though at least SOME of the case files of abuse occurred in jurisdictions where there WAS a legal obligation for ministers of religion to report.
Also, it was clear that the Australian court had determined that MOST of the cases DID occur in jurisdictions where there WAS such a legal obligation.
It clearly admits that it was only the victims or others who reported. And that the only involvement of the elders was when victims or their families later decided to report, and in some of those instances the elders provided support.
We know from the BCH case that one elder did evidently come forward as a reluctant witness 11 years later to make a statement. But that statement is sloppy and not very supportive at all. He says he barely knew the perpetrator except for a very short time related to the judicial meeting he was called in to join. But he can't remember what year, or which daughter. He remembers two things the daughter said something about how the father had "interfered" with her, but can't remember the "extent of the interference." He appears to hide behind the excuse that he "can't remember the exact words" she used as a way to avoid discussing anything additional about her claim. In fact, he never even mentioned the second thing he said he remembered that the daughter had said.
In other words, he would confirm nothing that could even be supportive of a true claim of sexual abuse even though the elder was the chairman of the committee that disfellowshipped BCH for it - and justified that judgment to be correct even after appeal. Then this elder (Bennett) actually indicates at the end that he is there INVOLUNTARILY, which was already obvious by the way he didn't really support the victim claimant.
Who needs "support" of that kind?

This is the JW legal team attempting a very weak "negotiation" defense. It's easy to see that the data doesn't bear out the claim, however. With 221 of the 1,006 perpetrators, the data provided by "Jehovah's Witnesses Australia" admits that JW/WT cannot rule out the fact that the "two-witness rule" kept the case from moving forward to a judicial committee. This was a connection that the court (and even victimized JWs) have made between sexual abuse and the beliefs of JWs.
But there is an apparent skew in how that two-witness rule is used depending on the position of responsibility that the Witness holds. The two highest-level accusations that I have learned about, were actually left off the list altogether, and in at least one of those cases, the accused had no hearing and was promoted to a higher position within the Organization. For now, we can safely ignore this however since it was not in the ARC data. But the following are all from the Watchtower-provided data:
The only Circuit Overseer included on this list did not have a judicial case, and it is admitted that "YES" the two-witness rule kept this case from going forward to a judicial committee.  And there was, therefore, no reproof, demotion, or discipline of any kind reported.
Pioneer data I had here a few minutes ago was removed. Turns out it was 3 out of 8 whose cases may have been kept from going forward due to the two-witness rule. That's 37.5%.
Now we come to all the persons on the list known to be Elders at the time of their first accusation of child abuse. There were 38 such elders and for 16 of them -- that's 42% -- the data could not rule out that it was the two-witness rule that kept their case from going forward and therefore there was no judicial committee formed.
Now we come to the cases of the 65 who were Ministerial Servants at the time of their first accusation of child abuse. It drops down to 22% where the data admits that they could not rule out that it was the two-witness rule that kept their case from going forward and therefore there was no judicial committee formed.
Now we come to the cases of the 689 who were JW Parishioners (Baptized JWs who were not MS/Elder/Pioneer) at the time of their first accusation of child abuse, it drops a bit more, down to 20% where the data admits that they could not rule out that it was the two-witness rule that kept their case from going forward and therefore there was no judicial committee formed.
I didn't include those for whom it was unclear what their position in the congregation was at the time of their first accusation, but only a very few of them were definitely identified as servants or elders in other parts of the data. 
Technically, of course, the JW legal team didn't deny anything related to what I said above, but they only said that "The suggested findings by Counsel Assisting are problematic in the sense that, they often seem to assume a connection between child sexual abuse and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses in circumstances where there is no obvious connection."
Those are typical lawyer "weasel words" that don't actually deny that there is a connection; they just claim that the connection is not obvious in SOME of the cases where the Court "often seemed to assume" one. For some persons, hardly anything is "obvious" which is the entire reason for investigations. This doesn't discount the fact that there were other cases listed where the connection was entirely and blatantly obvious.

We've reached the 10th page and still haven't found out if JWTV can be trusted. But we found out, for example, that the ARC statistics table is not published on any WTJWorg platform.
Perhaps the interpretation of how to "read" a table like this should be left to P. Brumley and his team. Or to some GB helpers. They would surely explain that it is satanic propaganda and an attempt to persecute the Organization.

Yes, please calm down JWI … and while you are at it, keep it secret behind closed doors … and don’t run with scissors … and don’t track mud across the nice clean agenda!

It is shameful for WTJWorg Australia (in reality the USA headquarters) that it agreed to join the national redress scheme only after being warned that it would lose its charity status and tax exemptions. Since 2015, there is still nothing about these events on JWTV.
It seems the only solution for the world authorities to get WTJWorg to cooperate is through financial pressure. It is a language that Religious Corporation of NY understands.
 
The very significant aka devastating testimony of a GB member before the ARC will never be on JWTV. On that occasion, Geoffrey Jackson publicly denied the core teaching of WTJWorg. He announced that GB in NY is not the only FDS (Chanel) on this planet that God is using to spread his word.
The reason he is still on the Board of Directors of the Corporation is because all the other members think like him, and that is that they are not FDS. They are FDS only for rank and file JW. Only for the purposes of the doctrine that gathers believers in a vain idea.
 

The minister invited the representatives of the 4 religions and they all sat together with him at same table and smiled at each other because of the money that would be left in their pockets. These photos are not shown to the JW audience. Is there a reason for that?

During the time of the old Soviet Union, and even today, the major newspaper, similar to the New York Times was and is called “Pravda”.
“Pravda” in Russian means “Truth”, about which the book “1984” was written.
Any relationship to anything specifically labeled as news in the Watchtower is exactly the same as anything that was labeled as news in Pravda.
Spin.
Only expect to hear a good news that extols the virtues of the Watchtower or the Soviet Union.
The perfect example of this is how the Society reported their relief efforts after the hurricane  destruction of Haiti.
It was truly embarrassing to read, if you knew what was left out.
Since 2008 the world has gone bat-crap crazy, NOTHING from ANY source should be believed at face value!!
 

(1 Corinthians 5:1) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 
Well, I agree that the fault lies with the perpetrator, but the shame falls on the whole of God's people. What are we to think of what Paul mentions to the Corinthians? Well, surely the Christians of that city would be criticized, it is most likely.
In fact, when we used to say to the victims something like: "don't report him so as not to bring reproach to the name of Jehovah" it was because, sadly, his name really did get dirty.
I also agree with the report that our site only presents positive information: successes, victories and achievements, but not the opposite. As a politician here in Spain said (and I'm sure it's the same everywhere) "others are already there to criticize us, we don't have to do it ourselves."
And I agree with the argument that we have used naivety in acknowledging the errors of the biblical writers as proof of the authenticity of the Bible.
I do not think it is debatable that at the Organization level there have been very few times where we have recognized doctrinal or other errors. And I prefer not to delve into this precise subject because he is one of the ones that hurts me the most.
Finally, with regard to Spain, from where I write, due to the fact that general elections have been called for next July, this tax exemption measure has been postponed, and we will see if with a new government it will be able to enter into force or not. A letter read to congregations this week acknowledged this situation.

I am sharing with you a very important view of the WTJWorg organization and their international information system on their official site. 
 
 

@Fausto Hoover et al, it seems you need a friend more than I do, lol! Jehovah will always be your friend, if you call out to Him. I'm willing to be a friend too, but it's hard to see you with all those masks on.
 
 
"Search for Jehovah while he may be found.
Call to him while he is near.
Let the wicked man leave his way
And the evil man his thoughts;
Let him return to Jehovah, who will have mercy on him,
To our God, for he will forgive in a large way."
 
(Isaiah 55:6,7)
 
"...to you, O Jehovah, I turn.  
For you, O Jehovah, are good and ready to forgive;
You abound in loyal love for all those who call on you."
 
(Psalm 86:4,5)
 
("Fausto", what are you waiting for? 🙂)
 
💖💞🌷✨🥰🤗💝🌱🌿

I personally don't know what Prince and Michael Jackson believed but...
 
 
Maybe the GB views it as the same difference between being "eccentric" and being "an apostate"?
 
 
Who really is apostate anyways, lol? 
 
JWorg believes 1914 Jesus began ruling, FDS/GB idolatry, etc other apostate teachings...crazy!
 
 
Good thing the ransom is big and Jesus is patient with all of us.☺️ And that the apostate teachings have an expiration date: when Jesus gets here he'll remove them...

??
 
Ero host or Era Host or Elo hist?
 
https://typeset.io/pdf/the-ero-host-galaxy-of-grb-020127-implications-for-the-e32fb9bi48.pdf
 
https://era.host/en/
 
https://gist.github.com/Ewpratten/04d2e1b371a722b2ed33b77f57215e2b
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohist
 
(I'm thinking you meant "Elohist" right? Must have been a typo? Or...)
 
 

A person who asks such a question should be able not to look at former members of a church as if they were apostates. People stop being members of a religion for various reasons. Church members who remain faithful to their traditions usually look with displeasure at those who leave. They are especially bitter about those who leave for reasons of disagreement with the theology or politics of how the Church is run.
Now I would like to use the commonly known practice of becoming a member of a Christian church. People should be baptized inside a church. Either at birth or at some other age. We see that many religious communities baptize minors as well as adults. By the act of baptism, one becomes a member of a certain church.
I would use the following illustration. Jesus was born in Jewish nation. By his very birth, he became a member of one nation and one religion. Therefore, he could not choose which nation he would belong to and which religion he would follow. It was determined for him by others. Regardless of whether he came from Heaven or not. That is not important now for the question from the beginning of the post.
What happened when Jesus was about 30 years old? He chose the baptism of John the Baptist and became what was later called a Christian. Jesus converted from the Jewish religion to the Christian religion. In fact, he is the originator, the founder of the Christian religion. But, as a Christian, he spoke a lot about the Jewish religion.
Can we say that Jesus had no right to comment and discuss apostasy in the Jewish religion as a former believer of the Jewish religion?

?? 😆
 https://www.thomascook.in/places-to-visit/unusual-customs-in-new-zealand-17702
 
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/zealand-sheep-protest-chants-video-sheep-respond-calls-20012015

I am one of Jehovah's witnesses, and the return of Christ didn't happen in 1874 or in 1914. The stuff the org is teaching at present is wrong on that 1914 thing, but their false teaching doesn't change that Jehovah is true. They are misrepresenting Jehovah, but Jesus is going to fix that when he gets here.

The man said "as you continue to follow the direction...through his faithful slave...they will see how he is keeping you safe and secure."
 
Yeah, they'll see it when Bethel gets attacked by the UN at the beginning of the great tribulation and the GB gets removed. That's when they'll see how foolish it is to follow men rather than follow God. That's when they'll see that the "FDS" teaching is a sham and an apostasy, and that it didn't have Jesus approval.