Jack Ryan

How did the Raccoon know he would survive? Wow.....

And what exactly would China do? increase tariffs? They consider themselves a superpower already and are about to learn a lesson in humility. Not yet China. You were still riding bicycles when I was kid.... you have just figured out how to drive cars thru drive thrus. Don't think Russian weapons systems will make you equal to US Military might. There has NEVER been another military in world history with the power and might of equal to the USA. The US Navy has the 2nd largest Air Force in the entire world after the US Air Force.

This is an extremely complex case. The assertion made by the plaintiff is that she informed the elders in 1998, which is contested. The other assertion is that she as well as her brother informed the elders in 2004, which is not contested. What was told was that their step father molested them. Montana is somewhat unique. It is written into statute that if someone who is a mandated reporter, if they become aware of the abuse and fails to report and that person subsequently abuses other children. The mandated reporter can be sued for damages caused by the subsequent abuse. Holly's claim stems from the assertion that a report was made in 1998 and that the elders failed to report the matter. Then the abuse continued against her. So she has to prove both that a report was made to the elders and that abuse continued past that report. Alexis' claim is different. The abuse of Alexis occurred after the uncontested report in 2004. The issue though with her claim is that Alexis' mom Ivy is Holly's sister. Ivy brought Alexis to Max, perpetrator, and allowed Alexis to stay with him. The assertion is that Ivy would have certainly known that Max had been accused of molesting her sister and brother but still not only allowed contact with Max but brought Alexis from Nebraska to Montana to spend time with Max. The other assertions in this case is that since no natural individuals, elders, are being brought as defendants in this case. Watchtower argument is that only natural individuals are mandated reporters and that individuals elders in New York who the information may have been transmitted too don't reside in Montana and are not subject to the laws of Montana. In fact in New York, Ministers are barred from reporting child abuse when the information is gathered through priest-penitent communication. - Richard Oliver

He literally disassociated himself for decades over the way his game was being treated in the Watchtower publications.

PROFESSOR ROBERT R. NEWTON AND "THE CRIME OF CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY" © Carl Olof Jonsson, Göteborg, Sweden, 2000 The following material is adapted from the discussion on pages 44-48 of the first and second editions of my book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered (published in 1983 and 1986), with some updates. PROFESSOR ROBERT R. NEWTON (who died in 1991) was a noted physicist who has published a series of outstanding works on the secular accelerations of the moon and the earth. He examined in detail hundreds of astronomical observations dating all the way from the present back to about 700 BC, in order to determine the rate of the slowly changing of the length of the day during this period. The best information on his research in this area is found in his book, The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins, vol. 1, published in 1979. His results have more recently been further refined by other scholars, especially by F. Richard Stephenson. (Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) The research of Newton, Stephenson, and all the other scholars who have examined this matter totally and irrevocably demolishes the idea of ”Gary” (alias ”Joshua/92”), who in his posts on the H2O site claims that the longitude of Babylon in 568 BC was located at the longitude of Honolulu (a desperate idea resulting from his attempts to overcome the evidence of VAT 4956)! This idea presupposes a change of the length of the day since that time of a magnitude that is in the most glaring conflict with the research of Robert R. Newton, whom ”Gary” likes to quote (although very selectively and completely out of context). Accusations against Claudius Ptolemy not new The claim that Claudius Ptolemy ”deliberately fabricated” many of his observations is not new. Astronomers have questioned Ptolemy’s observations for centuries. As early as 1008 AD, ibn Yunis concluded that they contained serious errors, and by about 1800, astronomers had recognized that almost all of Ptolemy’s observations were in error. In 1817, Delambre asked: ”Did Ptolemy do any observing? Are not the observations that he claims to have made merely computations from his tables, and examples to help in explaining his theories?” (J.B.J. Delambre, Histoire de l’Astronomie Ancienne, Paris 1817, Vol. II, p. XXV. Quoted by Robert R. Newton in The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins [MAPO], Vol. I, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, p. 43.) Two years later (1819) Delambre also concluded that Ptolemy fabricated some of his solar observations and demonstrated how the fabrication was made. (Newton, MAPO I, p. 44) More recently, other astronomers have re-examined Ptolemy’s observations and arrived at similar results. One of them is Professor Robert R. Newton. In his book, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), Newton claims that Ptolemy fudged, not only a large body of the observations he says he had made himself, but also a number of the observations Ptolemy attributes to other astronomers, including some he quotes from Babylonian sources. These include the three oldest observations recorded in Ptolemy’s Almagest dating from the first and second years of the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (called Mardokempados in Almagest), corresponding to 721 and 720 BC. Scholars disagreeing with R.R. Newton In the ensuing debate a number of scholars have repudiated Newton’s conclusions. They have argued that Newton’s arguments ”are marred by all manner of distortions” (Bernard R. Goldstein of the University of Pittsburgh in Science, February 24, 1978, p. 872), and that his case collapses because ”it is based on faulty statistical analysis and a disregard for the methods of early astronomy” (scholars Noel M. Swerdlow of the University of Chicago, Victor E. Thoren of Indiana University, and Owen J. Gingerich of Harvard University, in Scientific American, March 1979, p. 93, American edition). Similar comments are made by Noel M. Swerdlow, ”Ptolemy on Trial, ” in The American Scholar, Autumn 1979, pp. 523-531, and by Julia Neuffer, ”´Ptolemy’s Canon´ Debunked?” in Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. XVII, No. 1, 1979, pp. 39-46. An article by Owen J. Gingerich with a rebuttal by R.R. Newton is found in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 21, 1980, pp. 253-266, 388-399, with a final response by Gingerich in Vol. 22, 1981, pp. 40-44. Scholarly support for R.R. Newton Most of these critics, though, are historians without particular expertise in the field of Greek astronomy. Some reviews written by well-informed astronomers have been favorable to Newton’s conclusions. One historian who is also well acquainted with Greek astronomy, K.P. Moesgaard, agrees that Ptolemy fabricated his astronomical data, though he feels it was done for some honest reason. (K.P. Moesgaard, ”Ptolemy’s Failings,” Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. XI, 1980, pp. 133-135) Rolf Brahde, too, wrote a favorable review of Newton’s book in Astronomisk Tidskrift, 1979, No. 1, pp. 42,43. B.L. van der Waerden, Professor of Mathematics and an expert on Greek astronomy, discusses Newton’s claims in his book, Die Astronomie der Griechen(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988). Although he would not go as far as Newton in his attack on Ptolemy, he agrees that Ptolemy falsified his observations, stating: ”That Ptolemy systematically and intentionally has falsified his observations in order to bring his observational results in agreement with his theory have been convincingly demonstrated by Delambre and Newton.” (p. 253) Recent criticism of R.R. Newton G.J. Toomer, the well-known translator of Ptolemy’s Almagest (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., 1984), discusses Newton’s claim in an article published in 1988 (”Hipparchus and Babylonian Astronomy,” in A Scientific Humanist. Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, eds. E. Leichty, M. DeJ. Ellis, & P. Gerardi, Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 353-362), in which he convincingly argues that all the observations from earlier periods recorded by Ptolemy were taken over from the Greek mathematician Hipparchus (2nd century BC). In 1990, Dr. Gerd Grasshoff included a lengthy section on the accusations against Claudius Ptolemy in his work, The History of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue(London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong: Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 79-91). He concludes that Newton’s arguments against Ptolemy are ”superficial” and ”unjustified”. More recently, Oscar Sheynin has discussed Newton’s accusations at some length, arguing that the reason why Ptolemy’s observations so well agree with his theory is, not that he fabricated them, but that he selected the observations that best fitted his theory. Although such selectivity is not allowed in science today, it was quite common in ancient times. For this reason Sheynin states that Ptolemy cannot be regarded a fraud. (O. Sheynin, ”The Treatment of Observations in Early Astronomy,” in C. Truesdell (ed.), Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 46:2, 1993, pp. 153-192.) In summary, there seems to be at least some evidence in support of the claims that Claudius Ptolemy was ”fraudulent” in the way he handled his observations, either by ”trimming” the values or by selecting those who best fitted his theory. However, few scholars would go as far as Newton, who dismisses Ptolemy altogether as a fraud. As Dr. James Evans notes, ”very few historians of astronomy have accepted Newton’s conclusions in their entirety.” (Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 24, Parts ½, February/May, 1993, pp. 145-146.) R.R. Newton and ”Ptolemy’s Canon” In a review of Newton’s book, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, published in Scientific American of October 1977, pp. 79-81, it was stated that ”Ptolemy’s forgery may have extended to inventing the length of reigns of Babylonian kings.” This was a reference to the so-called ”Ptolemy’s Canon”, which Newton at that time erroneously believed had been composed by Claudius Ptolemy himself and thus may have been affected by his ”forgery”. The statement was quickly picked up and published in The Watchtower (December 15, 1977, p. 747). On page 375 of his The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, Newton also wrote: ”It follows that Ptolemy’s king list is useless in the study of chronology, and that it must be ignored. What is worse, much Babylonian chronology is based upon Ptolemy’s king list. All relevant chronology must now be reviewed and all dependence upon Ptolemy’s list must be removed.” Newton was unaware of the fact that ”Ptolemy’s Canon” was not composed by Claudius Ptolemy. He was not an historian and he was not an expert on Babylonian chronology. He also admits in his work that he has not studied sources other than Ptolemy for the years prior to Nebuchadnezzar. (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, p. 375) He explains that his thoughts on the relations between chronology and the work of Ptolemy were influenced by a Mr. Philip G. Couture of Santee, California! In the Preface of his book he states: ”I thank Mr. Philip G. Couture of Santee, California for correspondence which led me to understand some of the relations between chronology and the work of Ptolemy.” . (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, p. XIV) The same Mr. Couture also induced Dr. Newton to reject the Assyrian eponym canon in his work, The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins. (See Vol. 1, 1979, p. 189) What Newton evidently did not know was that Mr. Couture was and still is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that some of the chronological arguments he passed on to Newton were taken from the Watch Tower Society’s Bible dictionary, Aid to Bible Understanding. These arguments were not only aimed at supporting the chronology of the Watch Tower Society, but they are also demonstrably untenable! Correspondence with R.R. Newton In 1978, the year after The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy had been published, I had some correspondence with Professor Newton. In a letter dated June 27, 1978, I sent him a shorter study I had prepared in which the so-called ”Ptolemy’s Canon” was compared with earlier cuneiform sources. The study briefly demostrated that all the reigns of the Babylonian kings given in the Canon, from Nabonassar (747-734 BC) to Nabonidus (555-539 BC), were in complete agreement with these older sources. (This study was later expanded and published in a British scholarly journal for interdisciplinarty studies, Chronology & Catastrophism Review, Vol. IX, 1987, pp. 14-23.) I then asked: ”How is it possible that Ptolemy’s astronomical data are wrong, and yet the king list, to which they are attached, is correct?” In his answer, dated August 11, 1978, Newton said: ”I am not ready to be convinced that Ptolemy’s king list is accurate before Nabopolassar [= before 625 BC], although I have high confidence that it is rather accurate for Nabopolassar and later kings.” He also pointed out: ”The basic point is that Ptolemy calculated the circumstances of the eclipses in the Syntaxis from his theories, and he then pretended that his calculated values were values that had been observed in Babylon. His theories are accurate enough to give the correct day of an eclipse, but he missed the hour and the magnitude.” Thus Ptolemy’s ”adjustments” of the eclipse observations were too small to affect the year, the month, and the day of an eclipse. Only the hour and the magnitude were affected. Ptolemy’s supposed ”adjustments” of the records of the ancient Babylonian eclipses, then, didn’t change the BCE dates that had been established for these observations. They did not change the chronology! Further, Newton was convinced that the king list was accurate from Nabopolassar and onwards. In other words, he was convinced that the whole Neo-Babylonian chronology from Nabopolassar through Nabonidus (625-539 BC) was accurate! Why? Because he had made a very thorough study of some of the ancient Babylonian astronomical records that were independent of ”Ptolemy’s Canon”, including VAT 4956 and Strm. Kambys. 400. From his examination of these two records, he had established that the first text referred to the year 568/67 BC and the second one to 523 BC. He concluded: ”Thus we have quite strong confirmation that Ptolemy’s list is correct for Nebuchadrezzar, and reasonable confirmation for Kambyses.” (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, 1977, p. 375) These findings were further emphasized in his next work, The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins, vol. 1 (1979), where he concludes on page 49: ”Nebuchadrezzar’s first year therefore began in –603 [= 604 BC], and this agrees with Ptolemy’s list.” Therefore, to quote some statements by R.R. Newton in an attempt to undermine the chronology established for the Neo-Babylonian era would be to quote him out of context. It would be to misrepresent his views and conceal his conclusions. It would be fraudulent. Yet, this has been repeatedly done by the Watch Tower Society and by ”Gary/Joshua92”. Newton’s findings refute both of their chronologies and prove them to be false. Summary Whether Ptolemy falsified his observations, perhaps also some of those of earlier astronomers, is irrelevant for the study of the Neo-Babylonian chronology. Today, this chronology is not based upon the observations recorded by Ptolemy in his Almagest. Further, the claim that Ptolemy may have ”invented” the lengths of reign in ”Ptolemy’s Canon” is based upon the mistake that this king list was composed by Claudius Ptolemy. As is demonstrated on pages 94-96 of the third edition of The Gentile Times Reconsidered (and also briefly in the second edition), the designation ”Ptolemy’s Canon” is a misnomer, as this king list had been in use among Alexandrian astronomers for centuries before the time of Claudius Ptolemy. Finally, the claim that the king list is the basis of or a principal source for the Neo-Babylonian chronology, is false.Those who make such a claim are either totally ignorant or dishonest. The plain truth is that the king list is not needed for the fixing of the chronology for this era, although its figures for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings are upheld by at least 14 lines of independent evidence based on cuneiform documents, as is demonstrated in The Gentile Times Reconsided. An excellent discussion of Ptolemy’s Canon, or, more correctly, the Royal Canon, and its relation to the Neo-Babylonian chronology, is found in the article by Leo Depuydt, ”’More Valuable than all Gold’: Ptolemy’s Royal Canon and Babylonian Chronology,” published in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 47, 1995, pp. 97-117. http://www.jwfiles.com/wt_honesty/607v587/robert_r_newton.htm

Watchtower has referred to Ptolemy's Canon as corroborating the accepted 539 BCE date, iirc, but otherwise pooh-pooh it as being unreliable.

So I guess the devil’s lettuce isn’t tied to spiritism when a medical doctor writes a prescription? ?

The org is getting on the green wagon. Sounds to me like the Canadian branch has been asking for directions from the mother. October 17 is fast approaching Yay Canada!

What I read is If a person uses marijuana, even if only for pain control, it’s up to the discretion of elders to determine if this person is acceptable or needs a disciplinary measure. As in all things, I’m sure the medically trained, non-biased, ever-loving elder team will make the right decision.

Not the same as with cigarettes

This is the most recent Information all BoE received:

This article has stirred up interest from the authorities in the UK:

They are seeking to speak to any JW survivor of domestic violence who has been impacted by WT advice to abused spouses. The video description specifically mentions people who have received advice similar to the [terrible] advice recently printed in the December 2018 Watchtower. For those of you who are not aware, here is a snippet from Wikipedia describing what the Charity Comission does: Contact information is below. Email address : IAEInvestigationsCRM@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk Postal address: Alex Uden Deputy Head of Investigations (London) Charity Commission PO Box 211 Bootle L20 7YX

Two women who say they were sexually abused as children have alleged that the Jehovah's Witnesses failed to report their abuser to authorities in Montana. By MATT VOLZ, Associated Press HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Two women who say they were sexually abused as children have alleged that the Jehovah's Witnesses failed to report their abuser to authorities in Montana and instead punished him internally by expelling him from the congregation until he repented the following year. A trial begins Monday in the tiny city of Thompson Falls for one of dozens of lawsuits filed nationwide in the last decade over claims of child sexual abuse in Jehovah's Witness congregations. Worldwide, there have been more allegations of mismanagement and cover-ups of sexual abuse by Jehovah's Witness clergy and members, including cases in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. "It appears to be a widespread issue within the Jehovah's Witnesses," said Devin Storey, an attorney whose San Diego law firm has handled about three dozen sex abuse lawsuits against the Christian religious organization. "Less is being reported than should be." Officials at the World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses did not have an immediate comment Wednesday. A policy posted on its website says it abhors child abuse and views it as a crime. "The elders do not shield any perpetrator of child abuse from the authorities," the policy says. The New York-based religious organization has 8.5 million members and 120,000 congregations around the world. The number of abuse lawsuits surged at about the same time as similar allegations of abuse and cover-ups within the Roman Catholic church, but the Jehovah's Witness cases haven't received the same national attention. The Montana trial involves two women, now 32 and 21, who are suing the national Jehovah's Witness organization and its Thompson Falls congregation. One woman alleges a family member abused her and her brother in the 1990s. The abuse continued in the mid-2000s with the second woman, the first woman's niece, after the congregation's elders expelled the abuser from the congregation in 2004 and reinstated him the next year, according to the lawsuit. The women say the local and national organizations were negligent and violated a Montana law that requires them to report abuse to outside authorities. They are seeking an unspecified amount in damages. Their attorney, Jim Molloy, declined to comment Wednesday. Jehovah's Witness attorneys did not respond to messages left by phone and email. In court filings, they don't deny the abuse happened but say Montana law exempts elders from reporting "internal ecclesiastical proceedings on a congregation member's serious sin." The church also contends that the national organization isn't liable for the actions by Thompson Falls elders and that too much time has passed for the women to sue. The state Supreme Court this week rejected the Jehovah's Witnesses request to delay the trial and take over the case. Both sides acknowledge that when a person is accused of sexual abuse, elders in a Jehovah's Witness congregation are required to first contact the headquarters' legal department to determine their next step. The organization's policy says it will instruct elders to report the matter if a minor is still in danger of abuse or if there is another valid reason. Storey, the San Diego attorney, said that is a new policy change. Otherwise, Jehovah's Witness elders meet as a judicial committee to investigate "the sinful conduct ... and decide whether the sinner is repentant before God," according to a description of the process provided by Jehovah's Witnesses in court filings. Unrepentant offenders are expelled, and strict confidentiality is maintained, according to the filings. In this case, the congregation was not required to report to authorities, according to Jehovah's Witness attorney Kathleen DeSoto. "The Constitution bars the court from contradicting a religious organization on issues of religious beliefs, including canon law, church doctrine and established church practice," she wrote in her argument to the Montana Supreme Court. Storey said the Jehovah's Witnesses take a very broad view of laws that protect discussions made in confession or other discussions between clergy and a congregation member — broader than the law allows. The organization appears to be trying to improve but have kept policies such as the two-witness rule, which says no action will be taken against a church member without testimony from at least two witnesses, he said. "By maintaining that particular aspect of their policy, it will be difficult for them to eradicate the issue," Storey said. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/montana/articles/2018-09-19/jehovahs-witnesses-accused-of-mishandling-abuse-in-montana

Another way:

We all know how much The Watchtower abhors "Higher Education" and that apparently Jehovah thinks it is a big waste of time. At least that is their official stance. It might come as a shock to you that this month they have started a campaign drive to actually RECRUIT JWs who have higher education, specifically those who have legal training. With all the law suits against them for creating an environment that is friendly to paedophiles, it is thus no wonder that they are in need of solicitors, especially those who are sympathetic towards the cult. Talk about hypocrisy! The original letter (in Spanish as it is from the Mexico branch) and survey form can be downloaded here (link valid for 7 days from the date of this post): https://we.tl/t-BPb0RzP1OB Here is my translation for those of you who don't speak Spanish: 4th September 2018 TO THE BODIES OF ELDERS Subject: Jehovah's Witness Lawyers wishing to collaborate with the branch Dear brothers: A survey is attached for Jehovah's Witness lawyers wishing to collaborate voluntarily and altruistically in favour of Kingdom interests with regard to legal matters. Once the professional brother writes down the information requested in the survey, he should hand it over to the Congregation Service Committee so that they can complement it and make their recommendation. We share the following guidelines to help you identify brothers with the appropriate disposition and profile (Isaiah 6:8). They must be in a good spiritual condition, be exemplary in the ministry, in the family and in the congregation. It is preferred that they have experience in court and tribunal litigation or in dealings with government offices. They must be able to work as a team, follow direction, and have a diligent and helpful attitude. If there is someone in your congregation with the profile mentioned above, encourage them to make themselves available by filling out the attached form (LD-04) (Ps 110:3). The survey can be sent in PDF format from the Inbox of a congregation elder to the Legal Affairs Inbox or via email to consultaslegales.mx@jw.org. Explain to the brothers that after filling out the survey and giving it to the elders, they will not receive a letter in response. Rather, when a need arises, they will be contacted by the branch. If someone can no longer make themselves available, no longer meets the requirements, or moves congregation, the body of elders should make sure that they notify the Legal Department. On the other hand, if the circumstances of a publisher allow them to devote one or more specific days in the week to collaborate with the branch or if they could support the branch occasionally when urgent needs arise, encourage them to fill out an Application for Volunteers Program (A-19). In the letter dated 10th October 2016, under the subject "Bethel Advisers", you can find recommendations for this facet of sacred service. When someone completes the A-19 application and is a legal professional, they can also fill out the attorney survey. It is nice to be able to count on brothers who have the same attitude as the apostle Paul in defending the good news for the love of the Christ (Philippians 116). We trust that with your spiritual vision you can recommend valuable brothers. We send you our warm Christian love and best wishes. Your brothers, Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Join us JW's... you'll form a part of the most extensive worldwide spy network 24/7 in every type of government. Even suspected anonymous posts will be reviewed. (Except of course all the anonymous articles written by anonymous writers for jw.org and watchtower for the last century.) Resistance is futile.

This is a "Judicial Committee" of Jehovah's Witnesses summoning a JW member to a "hearing" for one of his suspected online profiles behaviour. "It has come to light and to the attention of the body of elders".... These same quasi-legal hearings from brothers who print out official summons "correspondence" in red ink? Hmmm... Do you think JW.org is embedded in Apple Siri or Alexa by Amazon listening devices?

I just saw him listed as a Co-Founder of Apple and thought to myself that since it is a TRILLION dollar company... he is probably richer than Bill Gates.

ABBY Andersson is a hard working, bubbly member of many community committees, but behind that big smile is a childhood of dark secrets. Mrs Andersson was born into a family of Jehovah's Witnesses and said she experienced many terrible things during her time in the religion. This included sexual abuse which was covered up by the religious community, including her parents. "I told dad that this man had done something inappropriate," she said. "I discussed it with my other young friends in the church and they had similar experiences with this man. "We all went to our parents and they just swept it under the carpet, nothing ever happened." Her parents were committed to their church first and foremost and when Abby's teenage marriage broke down her parents chose their religious beliefs over their daughter and refused to speak to her again. "My ex-husband had been cheating on me with lots of other woman," she said. "I didn't resent my parents for not talking to me, the brainwashing is great with this cult. "The religion was such an integral part of who my father was, I would never ask him to question his faith to associate with me." These days Mrs Andersson is happily married to her husband Dan, and with their three children she now has the strength and bravery to share her story. "I have always been able to be remain really calm in really oppressive situations, I credit my dad for that," she said. Mrs Andersson recalls a time when she was eight and went door knocking with her father. A disgruntled home-owner came out and aimed a shotgun at the pair. "I remember dad said, 'I don't think they want the truth today'," she joked. Mrs Andersson has distanced herself and her family from the religion and sadly her father has since passed away. "Dad and I had got to a point where we respected each other's views," she said. "I told him I will not be going back to the religion and that was awkward." Jehovah's Witnesses do not get involved in politics however this did not stop Mrs Andersson's father from voicing his opinion when she ran for a South Burnett Regional Councillor position. "He phoned me and said, 'I am just ringing to let you know how disappointed I am that you are doing this'," she said. "You think you are emotionally tough but there still is that little girl who wants their dad to say 'I'm proud of you'." Since sharing her story, Mrs Andersson has received lots of support and people have shared their similar experiences within the Jehovah's Witnesses religion. One Facebook user wrote, "I was also a Jehovah's Witness growing up and I agree with Abigail's statement that it's a cult, they bullied, gossiped and treated my mother terribly." https://www.news-mail.com.au/news/it-was-a-cult-former-teen-bride-speaks-out/3523313/

German Sophie Jones explains after leaving the sect. 15.09.18 ZThere are always moments when you are not sure if what you are doing is the right decision. You completely lose the previous life: family, friends, and faith in all promises of salvation. In the beginning, everything collapses over you. When I told the first Jehovah's Witness in my environment that I would not be coming to the meetings. Not yet, but I'm curious what will happen next.