Ann O'Maly

No, that's not how it should work.
As part of the training for my job working with young people, it is drummed into us that we NEVER try to ascertain the truth or otherwise of child abuse allegations. This kind of questioning is to be left solely to those specially trained to do so. I have not had that specialist training. Elders have not had that specialist training.
The following are standard protocols, and have been for some time in institutions (TrueTom, please take note - it is certainly NOT the case that "Most churches get around these problems by not having any standards. There are no investigatory committees for misconduct at churches where the daily text every day is 'Anything Goes.'"):
Protocol
• If you suspect that a crime has been committed or the suspected victim is in imminent danger: Call 911 or local law enforcement authorities and report the incident immediately.
• If a child voluntarily discloses abuse: Control your emotions and do not look shocked or disgusted.
Listen:  Let the child talk at his/her own pace.
Reassure:  Let the child know it's not his/her fault and that you are going to help them.
Document:  Write down the date, time and specific circumstances of the disclosure including who was present and what prompted the child to reveal the abuse.
D o N o t :
Force the child to talk. Let the child know that you are concerned and that you are available if they need to talk to someone. 
Ask the child to disclose abuse separately to different staff members.
Keep asking questions because you want to prove child abuse.
Touch the child without their permission.
Prohibit the child from returning to their home.
• Report the suspected abuse as outlined above:
First, call ChildLine (1-800-932-0313) immediately.
Then, advise the person in charge of the Church/ School. • For additional questions or concerns, contact: ...
This excerpt is from the policy document of Roman Catholic Diosese of Pittsburg, p. 7-8.
Also see the policies of, e.g.,
The Evangelical Lutheran churches - http://www.elca.org/Our-Work/Leadership/Vocation-Become-a-Leader/Report-Misconduct
The Episcopal churches' model policy - https://www.cpg.org/linkservid/3F743B4C-06F1-5DFF-86FFB64C8B79DE07/showMeta/0/, p. 9-10.
Google other church child abuse policies. You will find that JW policies are nowhere near as robust - even now! First, the secular authorities are notified. Even now, this instruction is not included in the BOE letters or Shepherd book. 
Of course, the elders can provide spiritual and pastoral assistance to the families concerned, but they should not be 'forensically' investigating the matter. Leave that part to the authorities and then act in a congregational manner in light of what the authorities establish.
Segueing into the mandatory reporting issue ...
Why does it have to be that a law needs to be passed to make 'Jehovah's Earthly Organization' do the right and responsible thing? 
 

This was supposed to be a light-hearted, humorous 'Caption this pic' thread.
INTREPID TRAVELLER (and others): The child abuse issue is too weighty to have it piggy-backing on a fun thread. I know you have posted elsewhere on the forum about it with those links. Wouldn't it be best to discuss this on a separate thread?
Meanwhile ....
"Bu... *sniff, sob* ... b..ut I want to be a spaceman when I grow up!"

Actually, the ARC found that wasn't so - not one alleged abuser was reported to the authorities, even though some states required it. E.g. I remember the consternation on Br. Spinks' face (Service Department) when it was put to him that they hadn't complied with NSW law about reporting if one has knowledge or a belief that a crime had been committed.
The Fessler case brought it to light that the Org did not comply with PA law by reporting the abuse. Not only that, but even when Watchtower has been court-ordered to produce documentation, it has done everything it can to wiggle out of or obstruct the production of documents, like with the Campos cases.
So it's fair to say that the general practice in the Org has been NOT to report suspected abuse to the secular authorities.
Where did you get the 'two-thirds' statistic from, by the way?
This is exactly why trained professionals should handle all allegations, rather than untrained elders. Besides, when laypersons bumble in, trying to ascertain the truth of an allegation, they can (unintentionally) corrupt any evidence-gathering which, in turn, compromises the case, making it harder to successfully resolve.

Thank you. 
Filling in the ellipses:
"But it's a mistake to think that the failure of Penn State authorities to report the abuse is a rarity, child abuse educators, prosecutors and investigators said. Studies over the past two decades nationally have consistently shown that nearly two-thirds of professionals who are required to report all cases of suspected abuse fail to do so because they are uncertain of whether abuse occurred, are fearful of making false accusations, or are unsure of their obligation. "
The Spring Grove and Freeland Maryland elders were aware of a romantic and sexual relationship between the minor victim and the middle-aged abuser. A JC was formed and they reproved them both. There was no uncertainty that prevented the elders from reporting to the authorities. As for the Org's Legal Department, which is supposed to be consulted when instances of abuse come to light, its job is to be sure of the congregation's legal obligations.

Actually, the ARC found that wasn't so - not one alleged abuser was reported to the authorities, even though some states required it. E.g. I remember the consternation on Br. Spinks' face (Service Department) when it was put to him that they hadn't complied with NSW law about reporting if one has knowledge or a belief that a crime had been committed.
The Fessler case brought it to light that the Org did not comply with PA law by reporting the abuse. Not only that, but even when Watchtower has been court-ordered to produce documentation, it has done everything it can to wiggle out of or obstruct the production of documents, like with the Campos cases.
So it's fair to say that the general practice in the Org has been NOT to report suspected abuse to the secular authorities.
Where did you get the 'two-thirds' statistic from, by the way?
This is exactly why trained professionals should handle all allegations, rather than untrained elders. Besides, when laypersons bumble in, trying to ascertain the truth of an allegation, they can (unintentionally) corrupt any evidence-gathering which, in turn, compromises the case, making it harder to successfully resolve.

The issue at the heart of Pedophilia within the WTBTS is about THE LACK OF RESPONSE on the part of the LEADERSHIP . Not about how many pedos's there are / were !
Its about the lack of action
Its about the lack of protection and help afforded the victims.
Pedos will abound and so too dsysfunctional families
What is the WTBTS going to do to remedy ITS policies on the matter ?
The links I posted are merely attempting to emphasize this - WTBTS has not done anything worthwhile to address the issue - that's the disgusting part about this ! Those links are not my sole possession - they are in the public domain. The ARC is not attempting to Publicize it world-wide. However the WTBTS WILL NOT make it Public now will they? Why not ?

The attached youtube video is of Archbiship Mark, giving his message to ALL, Catholics as well as the general public.  After listening to his message of promise, can any JW imagine the GB making a similar public announcement prior to the Watchtower's meeting with the ARC?  I certainly cannot.  Instead, the only way Jehovah’s Witnesses will know of the WT's own ARC hearing is by contact elsewhere on the internet, or through word of mouth – not through jw.o r g.
It appears that the organizational image and its website cannot be tainted by such negative news; news that would shatter the image of a “spiritual paradise”.  Matt 23:25; 1 Thess 5:3  It is more likely that JWs will hear from their leaders that the press and the internet can’t be trusted.
Peace and Security - http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2013/08/whats-wrong-with-peace-and-security.html
 

"No. I am your Father!"
"No! That's not true! That's impossible!"

"No. I am your Father!"
"No! That's not true! That's impossible!"

"No. I am your Father!"
"No! That's not true! That's impossible!"

THAT is a very good question. I cannot find publicly available information on the internet. Maybe it happened and didn't hit the news, or doesn't show up on main searches, or it was a closed prosecution or maybe it is something in the works, or for some reason the authorities aren't actioning it. I don't know. But I'd like to know.

The Insight book entry continues:
"Tradition has it that Nimrod died a violent death. Since the god Marduk (Merodach) was regarded as the founder of Babylon, it has been suggested by some that Marduk represents the deified Nimrod. However, the opinions of scholars as to the identification of deities with specific humans are quite varied." [Emphasis mine.]
Are traditions, suggestions by some and varied opinions about identifications solid bases to conclude anything?
Notice who one of the sources is:

Do Wilkinson, Rawlinson and others indisputably prove that all civilizations' religious systems have a common origin? I suggest Hislop's book is consulted for references (he does cite these two authors and their works may be viewable online) to see if they do indeed support this conclusion. 
However, regarding the once-popular concept of panbabylonianism (common origin for all religions and cultures), please see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panbabylonism 
and 
http://members.westnet.com.au/gary-david-thompson/page9e.html
However, this is a sidebar to the subject of whether St. Valentine's Day is any way related to the worship of Nimrod.

Thanks for tracking it down, JW Insider.
Ah. Therefore, we can dismiss any information culled from this source as unreliable.
Any claims from centuries-old works should be treated with caution. It's wise to check their sources, if they've provided any, and see if scholarship has moved forward since that time with new information. If no sources are given, then it's prudent to cross-check with current findings and/or take what the antiquarian author says with a barrel of salt.
The work alluded to by Francis Douce is an 1807 commentary on Shakespeare's plays. It's in the discussion of Hamlet that Douce explains the background to Ophelia's reference to 'Valentine' and links it to Lupercalia.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/50228/50228-h/50228-h.htm (1839 ed.) - p. 470f.
He says it used to be a festival in honor of Pan and Juno, "the latter deity was named februata, februalis, and februlla." I can't find reputable corroboration for Juno being called these names. For a start, Juno gave the month June its name, not February, so how is she associated with rites in February? Some research on the purification festival of Februa or the god Februus might be useful.
Douce did name his source for some of his information: Alban Butler. The relevant work must be The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and Other Principal Saints, Vol II, published 1756–1759.
https://archive.org/stream/livesfathersmar09butlgoog#page/n149/mode/2up/search/Valentine (1866 ed.) - p. 135.
It's a short piece, and Butler doesn't provide any sources for this comment:
"To abolish the heathen's lewd superstitious custom of boys drawing the names of Girls in honour of their goddess Februta Juno, on the 15th of this month, several zealous pastors substituted the names of saints on billets given on this day."
Again we see the (mistaken?) Juno association, but Lupercalia isn't mentioned at all in the 'Saint Valentine' entry. And who were these pastors? More research is need to ascertain this story's veracity.
As for The Golden Age's assessment of Valentine's Day, its sources are unknown, uncredited, and therefore unverifiable.
Regarding all the 'other names for Nimrod,' I'd like to ask Bible Speaks again:
What is/are your source(s) for these name associations to Nimrod?
 
 

If the true origin is uncertain, how can it be 'evident' it's rooted in paganism rather than in romantic legends concocted in Middle Ages England? The article mentions Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. The edition available to read online is from c. 1952 (so the Awake's quote referencing Lupercalia doesn't match) and it repeats the apparently mistaken idea about the celebration being connected to Juno.
Again, the information contained in this article amounts to 'maybe its origin is a bit o' this, or a bit o' that.' Too speculative to condemn out-of-hand as a direct replacement for an ancient pagan rite.
Besides,
*** g03 9/22 p. 24 The Piñata—An Ancient Tradition ***
"A main concern is, not what the practice meant hundreds of years ago, but how it is viewed today in your area." 
Why is the Valentine's Day custom not given similar latitude? Shouldn't it be up to every 'true Christian's' conscience as to whether to observe it or not, or to what extent?
Yes it is rather long and involved - tl;dr for many, I guess. 
In summary, then (and this bears on the whole approach to critically analyzing and using sources):
"Panbabylonism is now regarded as discredited speculation. The Panbabylonists were/are criticised for their:
(1) Disregard for textual evidence.
(2) Excessive speculation (postulates and assumptions) and absence of rigorous evidence.
(3) Abuse of the argument from analogy.
(4) Wide use of secondary sources.
(5) Wide use of antiquated translations.
(6) Use of a preconceived chronology of Babylonian civilization.
(7) Uncritically argued ideas about an alleged Babylonian "Weltanschauung [world view] (i.e., astral philosophy)."
(8) Inability to provide any directly supporting statements contained in texts (i.e., the Panbabylonists could only argue their tenets were implied in widely divergent material).
(9) Overstressing "parallels" and similarities.
(10) Far-fetched interpretations and combinations."
- Gary D. Thompson
(Hislop comes to mind and he is indeed mentioned among the proponents of the panbabylonian mindset further down in the article.)
St. Valentine wouldn't be spoken about in the Bible because he existed in the 3rd century CE, long after the last book of the Bible was written. And the celebration of e.g. wedding anniversaries, baby showers, baptism gifts, and end-of-the-pioneer-year parties aren't mentioned in the Bible either. 

https://www.childwelfare.gov
states:
Pennsylvania
Failure to Report
Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6319; Tit. 18, § 4958
A mandatory reporter who willfully fails to report as required commits a misdemeanor of the third degree for the first violation and a misdemeanor of the second degree for a second or subsequent violation.
and defines mandatory reporters to include:
• A clergyman, priest, rabbi, minister, Christian Science practitioner, religious healer, or spiritual leader of any regularly established church or other religious organization.
So have charges been brought regarding the non-reporting as that seems be outside the scope of the Fessler action?
 

@INTREPID TRAVELLER I will let your comment stand to make your point... however the rest of this thread should be dedicated to Fessler...
If you and @Eoin Joyce want to discuss mentally diseased stuff please start a new thread elsewhere.
Thank you.

"Breathtaking. I shall call him... Mini-Me".
 
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Me

Caption this photo for me please
Via

"No. I am your Father!"
"No! That's not true! That's impossible!"

@AllenSmith Do you have any evidence for this connection between the word "Pagan" and "Dagan"?
As you probably know, probably 99% of all Neo-Babylonian scholars who have ever researched the topic of the chronology surrounding the reign of Nebuchadnezzar agree entirely with COJ's research. So it's not specifically COJ's research that I find credible; it's the research of 99% of all Neo-Babylonian scholars. If you have found someone in the 1% whose research you find credible, then by all means present it. It's just that you've had this opportunity several times, and have always, so far, ended up presenting evidence that went against your own claims. After that, you have often tried throwing an "ad hominem" tantrum instead of showing any evidence. Then, I notice that you wait a few weeks or months and either forget what happened, or try to pretend it didn't happen. In spite of these tactics, I'm willing to see you try again. If you think you have evidence this time, please start a new topic.

I don't know a lot about moon worship. But I do know about the moon. I like it.

No mischaracterization at all. I merely stated a fact. And it's a fact that several people on this forum have noticed. It might have been helpful for Aruana to understand that, because right after you posted a lot of research, she asked: "You believe this research?" I assumed you would explain yourself because it was not clear why you posted some of it, and I was pretty sure it was not all research that you believed in yourself. Or as I also said, you may have been using some of it and added some additional research "for context." But at any rate, you certainly haven't made clear what portions of it you believe in and what portions you do not.
If that were the case then they were not really a researcher (if they only read and accept what they want to accept). If a person really is a researcher they will be finding themselves constantly questioning things they have previously accepted. I have finally had to accept many things I didn't want to, but only if there was sufficient evidence against the ideas I had held, and for the idea that came to replace it. And it never means that any of my current ideas are absolutely defined either. Research is a continually humbling experience, because new evidence must always be weighed carefully apart from our preconceived notions. Pride makes us give to much weight to preconceived notions and traditions. But traditions can make the word of God invalid, as Jesus said.
I never saw you or anyone else provide evidence for this. The most likely information I found on the derivation of "Pagan" matches what I see in the Oxford English Dictionary:
pagan, n. and a.
(ˈpeɪgən)
Forms: 4 paygane, 5 pagayne, 5–6 pagane, 5– pagan.
[ad. L. pāgān-us, orig. ‘villager, rustic; civilian, non-militant’, opposed to mīlēs ‘soldier, one of the army’, in Christian L. (Tertullian, Augustine) ‘heathen’ as opposed to Christian or Jewish. The Christians called themselves mīlitēs ‘enrolled soldiers’ of Christ, members of his militant church, and applied to non-Christians the term applied by soldiers to all who were ‘not enrolled in the army’. Cf. Tertullian De Corona Militis xi, ‘Apud hunc [Christum] tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles infidelis’. See also Gibbon xxi. note.
Cf. payen.
   The explanation of L. pāgānus in the sense ‘non-Christian, heathen’, as arising out of that of ‘villager, rustic’, (supposedly indicating the fact that the ancient idolatry lingered on in the rural villages and hamlets after Christianity had been generally accepted in the towns and cities of the Roman Empire: see Trench Study of Words 102, and cf. Orosius i Præf. ‘Ex locorum agrestium compitis et pagis pagani vocantur’) has been shown to be chronologically and historically untenable, for this use of the word goes back to Tertullian c 202, when paganism was still the public and dominant religion, and even appears, according to Lanciani, in an epitaph of the 2nd cent.]
If you actually have information on this connection to Dagan by "some scholars" or any scholar, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested. Do you have any?
Actually, as you can see, I didn't say anything about whose research is acceptable, and I have NEVER indicated that only my research is worthwhile and acceptable. Research is usually a process, anyway, not an end in itself. It usually involved comparing evidence with the research of others, which means that by definition, no one in their right mind would ever think that ONLY their own research was valid.
I only indicated that one of the persons who was very well-known for making use of Hislop, and who spent a lot of time trying to validate Hislop ended up seeing his research as "fake" and he also saw first-hand how people went into denial no matter what they saw with their own eyes. This was exactly what Aruana was talking about. I noticed that you didn't requote the part about the Watch Tower dropping their use of Hislop for all the Babylon connections we once used his research to prove. So far, everything I've seen shows that the Watch Tower was correct to "drop" him. I've seen several bits of so-called research from Hislop that is so easy to prove false.
This is another great example. I didn't accept any of Carl Olof Jonsson's research at first, and when I finally did see it I knew I had to check all the most relevant points for myself. So I ignored his points and conclusions and started on my own.  I spent many days at the NYPL requesting materials from the "stacks." I spent a lot of money in purchased books and photocopying at the library since most of these books were for reference only. I worked in NYC for 25 years, otherwise this would not have been possible. But after I did this for myself, only then could I respect the research he had done, even though, as I have always said, I am NOT a scholar in this area, and it certainly is NOT my specialty. (I only mention that, because I think I remember you claiming the opposite about me once.) 
 
 
 

This sounds like an excellent description of the "scholarship" of Alexander Hislop, and a lot of other sloppy scholars who rely on him and people like him. Recently I quoted a person who had based his books on Hislop's "scholarship" and was making money off of it (The Two Babylons). After years of additional research, he realized it was "fake news" and rejected it, even though it meant a loss of money and fame for himself. He received all kinds of accusations, almost the equivalent of death threats just because he could no longer use fake scholarship in good conscience.
The Watch Tower also stopped using his fake scholarship many years ago, but it is still popular on the Internet because it fits what a lot of people want to believe.
All I am saying is that we need to be very careful before accepting so-called research just because it fits preconceived ideas or appears to be partly true. If you are referring to research that Allen quoted, you should know that in the past he has quoted much research that he later claimed he did not believe in or which turned out not to be supportive of the idea he apparently thought it was defending. 
 
I don't think that Allen is really saying he believes that Yahweh as a name is associated with the Sun (Shemesh is sun in Hebrew and Shamash is the name of the Mesopotamian/Babylonian Sun god.) Nor is the name itself applied in order to embody both male and female traits, as Allen quoted above. Perhaps Allen was quoting this portion for additional context. But either way, it shows what I was saying before: that we need to be very careful in our acceptance of scholarship and research.
Almost every bit of "research" that has been claimed of Muslim religion has a similar scholarly corollary in the way research shows us that Hebrew religion was practiced. Monotheism was a difficult thing for ancient peoples. Egypt tried it for a while too, and reverted. Jehovah blessed Israel as a holy nation to the extent that they maintained monotheism in his name.
Linguistically, there appears to be more evidence that the Arabic "allah" is from "al-ilah" (the God) -- also see, Aramaic "ʼĔlāhā", and Hebrew "Eloah" (70 times in the Bible). "Eloah" is used the same as the same as Aramaic "Elah." And "ilah" (Arabic for god or God) is traceable, therefore, to the same word for God found in the Aramaic portions of Daniel. When Hebrew puts the word "the" in front of it, it implies "the only true God." (Psalm 18:32, for example) This is exactly the purpose of Arabic putting the word "the" in front of it so that "al-ilah" means the only true God. The contracting of "Al-ilah" to "Allah" is a very common form of contraction that happens with other similar words. Words, over time, are contracted very similarly in Hebrew and English, too, of course.
Christian Arabs today have no other word for God but Allah. What word does the Arabic Watchtower use for God? Before Islam even existed, Arab-speaking Christians used the word "Allah" as the word for God -- for 500 years before Muhammad was born.
 

I think the man with the loudspeaker is walking up and down past the hospital building rapping and beatboxing at the top of his voice, but really, really badly, and he won't shut up. He's been going at it for 5 hours straight and believes his new composition is the best he's done yet so he wants the exposure. Meanwhile inside, a mother and child are in great distress - see the child is crying. This contributes to the awful din being heard inside the hospital, so much so, that the patients and hospital staff are getting severe headaches. Everyone is in a state of high anxiety. To throw off all that anxiety, throw things at the man.
Hope that helps.

I felt very sorry for the duck that was about to be taped.