Shiwiii

6 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Any comments on JW Elders using Clergy Privilege to withhold information of child abuse ?

Just a paragraph form a report online :-

The two elders didn’t tell police. They, and the congregation, now face a lawsuit from the Delaware attorney general accusing them of violating the state’s mandated reporting laws. The defendants claim the elders were protected from having to report the abuse by a legal exemption for clergy.

Is this a massive loophole ? 

Of course it is. It is the MO of the wt in general. Sadly the good people who belong to this org can't see it yet. They will when the wt/gb pins the onus on the individual instead of the group. Loopholes are common in wt and often used in supporting their view of scripture. 

1 minute ago, Anna said:

This was not what we were discussing. We were talking about the elders being mandated or not mandated to report. What you have mentioned above has nothing to do with that. And I have no idea why you would think I thought it was ok for the victim not to report, ...

Anna, it IS what we are discussing, what made me think this:  this:

38 minutes ago, Anna said:

If the victim doesn't speak out, then there is nothing to report, is there?

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

What you have described happens in ALL spheres of society, religious or non religious.

And so that makes it ok???????? are you serious?!?!?!?!?   As people who profess to follow the BIBLE shouldn't the conduct be that above other spheres of society? Or do you feel its ok because everyone is slime? so we might as well be slime too. Sheesh

4 minutes ago, Anna said:

Who is covering up?

the wt/gb/etc. For reference you can research all of the surrent and past court cases involving CSA in the US/Canada/Australia/England/Germany/Norway/......shall I continue? 

6 minutes ago, Anna said:

If it is not up to the elders to report (by law) then it is up to the victim/survivor/family/friends/ or anyone else (like John Butler) to report.

there is NOTHING Christ-like about allowing CSA or any abuse to continue because the "laws" of men don't require reporting it to the police. 

6 minutes ago, Anna said:

If these people do not want to report, as I have already mentioned, it is their right not to. And if it is someone other than the victim/survivor,  they will have to consider whether or not they will honor the wishes of the victim/survivor who does not want it reported.

So when the ms or elder molests a child and tells the child that he/she will kill them or their family or the family dog , scares them into submission, its ok because they didn't want to tell. Is this what you are saying? Or how about the wife that is getting the crap beat out of her and fears for her life, let it continue because she is scared to report for fear of more abuse? Riiiiight. Sounds like a good plan Anna. 

4 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I do not think God or Christ would put this pressure on young children. 

I agree with you, there is NOTHING Christ-like about allowing CSA or any abuse to continue because the "laws" of men don't require reporting it to the police. 

Can you even imagine, when the time comes, and Jesus is standing there asking each and every one of us about our life choices. When He asks, are some people really going to say "well, there wasn't a law stating we had to report CSA/abuse to proper authorities" 

Romans 14:10"...For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; ¹¹ for it is written,

¹² So then each of us will give an account of himself to God."

9 minutes ago, Anna said:

Well then what is your point? If the victim doesn't speak out, then there is nothing to report, is there? And if someone has reasonable suspicions, then they can go to the secular authorities and the elders can't they?

So when the ms or elder molests a child and tells the child that he/she will kill them or their family or the family dog , scares them into submission, its ok because they didn't want to tell. Is this what you are saying? Or how about the wife that is getting the crap beat out of her and fears for her life, let it continue because she is scared to report for fear of more abuse? Riiiiight. Sounds like a good plan Anna. 

14 minutes ago, Anna said:

like I said, the elders etc. are concerned with congregational matters. 

Then leave crimes to the police instead of covering them up! Report the crime and THEN deal with the sin. 

3 minutes ago, Anna said:

You are missing the point completely.

This situation has to be made clear, and it has all to do with the victims /survivors rights. This is because unless there is a requirement by law for elders to report, the reporting can be left up to anyone else, the victim, the victim's parents, the victim's family or anyone who learns of the abuse as per par 14. If the law says the elders are mandated to report, then the elder has to report even if the victim, the victim's parents, the victim's family or anyone else does not want them to report it. It's the same with child protection agencies and social workers. In states or countries where those people are mandated to report, then they have to, regardless whether the client wants it or not. In fact when counseling a victim/survivor the counselor has to warn them that they will have to report anything the victim/survivor tells them. Then it is left up to the victim /survivor to disclose or not to disclose. It has everything to do with confidentiality. Not every victim/or survivor wants it reported, so if it is not mandated by law,  as an elder/counselor you are leaving that right to the victim/survivor, but in order to be able to do that, you have to be clear on what the law says first!

You are missing the point. 

The point is that people, especially children, are easily coerced into NOT reporting for fear of retribution from the offending person(s). This happens in a lot of cases involving not just CSA but domestic abuse. If these incidences are reported by mandate or not, but still reported, then the PROPER authorities can get involved and asses the situation. The elders/gb/wt/boe/ or ANY faction of the wt are not only ill qualified to handle such cases, they are incompetent at best. 

like I said, the ONLY thing gained here is that the wt now recognizes that the abuser is the bad guy and not the person reporting to the PROPER authorities.    

27 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

CSA - the acronym - should be first written out, then referred to as an acronym later. If you mean child sexual abuse you are the one to say it first.

Melinda,  Come on. This IS the wt we're talking about. Well known fact here what CSA means in wt world

Why does it take the Inquisition into the CSA by governments around the world, lawsuits in many countries and  the threat of non-profit status in a few countries to FORCE the wt/gb to amend the CSA policy?  The article is in the May 2019 WT and the title of the article is "Love and Justice in the Face of Wickedness". 

^"13 Do elders comply with secular laws about reporting an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities? Yes. In places where such laws exist, elders endeavor to comply with secular laws about reporting allegations of abuse....So when they learn of an allegation, elders immediately seek direction on how they can comply with laws about reporting it."

I can see that they still won't enforce reporting to the police each and every CSA case only if required by law.  Key word is "REQUIRED" .

^"14 Elders assure victims and their parents and others with knowledge of the  matter that they are free to report an allegation of abuse to the secular authorities. But what if the report is about someone who is a part of the congregation and the matter then becomes known in the community? Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God’s name? No. The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God’s name."

Finally, they finally get it that it is the wrong doer who is the bad guy and not the reporter.......but, I'm sure this is just lip service. And here's why:

¹⁶ When they learn that someone in the congregation is accused of child abuse, elders endeavor to comply with any secular laws about reporting the matter, and then they conduct a Scriptural investigation. If the individual denies the accusation, the elders consider the testimony of witnesses. If at least two people—the one making the accusation and someone else who can verify this act or other acts of child abuse by the accused—establish the charge, a judicial committee is formed. 

And there you have it, two witness rule still in effect and no mandatory reporting of CSA unless mandated by law.

However, what is the true gain here? Not much, but some is better than nothing, the fact that whoever reports is not the bad guy, the abuser is.  What a wonderful provision made by the loving Jehoverning body. I hope that one day the gb/wt will be on par with humanity in reporting ALL accusations of CSA or any abuse for that matter. 

13 hours ago, Equivocation said:

@JOHN BUTLER So I guess that makes you an Anti-Pauline? Anti-Paulines reject whatever Paul's preaching, even removed or ignore it in the Bible itself. Disfellowshipped people are shunned by the congregation, not as much by family. Last I checked we are not of Judaisim where anything and everythi is 100% cut off.

 You think that the gb is on par with Paul? 

Wow, just wow. They got you good

true, but these are contradicting statements

If I accept a Bible study, do I have to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? No. Jehovah’s Witnesses love teaching people about the Bible, but we never force anyone to become a member of our religion. Rather, we respectfully present what the Bible says, recognizing that each person has the right to choose what he or she will believe.—1 Peter 3:15.

vs

So in the video example, these two guys stop studying with the guy because he won't come to meetings and take steps to become a jw? 

Makes you wonder which of these two, presented by the wt, is actually true? I believe the later is most true. They need converts and since the cart work is sooooo busy, although I've never seen anyone at those carts who weren't jw's already, they must have people knocking down the doors for study and have to turn away those who just are not progressing. 

On 10/1/2018 at 7:57 PM, Space Merchant said:

This also goes for Evangelism and or anything pertaining to the missionary preaching of the Messianic Age and Good News Gospel, appropriate attire is necessary for even to those you preach the gospel to will also be viewing you and your attire, for with God, cleanliness and to be proper is a must.

What did John the Baptist wear when telling folks to repent while he was in the desert? 

On 10/1/2018 at 7:57 PM, Space Merchant said:

As for as I am concern, there are others who are vocal about this, as well as us in the Unitarian (P.E.o.J.B) who also view this too, as with the women of Christ an their following, who take issue with tight clothing also, thus viewing it as immodest.

Oh, so lemming mentality is just fine with you? The Hare Krishna shave their heads like monks do, is that the same then? Should you be shaving your head because these guys do? 

On 10/1/2018 at 7:57 PM, Space Merchant said:

For he need not think twice to throw out merchants who make his Father's Temple a house of commerce, something of which even churches do today to which they teach and believe there is no issue.

Are you equating clothing and money extortion in God's house? I'm pretty sure I didn't read that part about Jesus making a whip to whip those in tight pants or who wore a beard......err wait, didn't Jesus wear a beard? 

On 10/1/2018 at 7:57 PM, Space Merchant said:

That being said, the common attire by those in religious institutions is a modest dress and for men, a suit that is of decent size and fits him comfortably, for if someone is a member of the church, they most adhere to the modesty even in terms of dress code.

Tell that to the beggars Jesus visited and ate with and healed. 

On 1/18/2019 at 8:23 PM, Jaocb said:

This is off topic. You can't be disfellowshipped for not holding beliefs. You get disfellowshipped for purposefully causing dissension.

Then why is it asked in a judicial committee for apostasy if you believe that the gb is the faithful and discrete slave? 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Naturally I would probably need to add that I would never promote this view in the congregation because I feel it might create friction, misunderstanding or division among some. But that I cannot conscientiously believe that Jesus meant that an exclusive group of only eight men constitute the entire reason for Jesus' illustration at the end of Matthew 24.

And here lies the crux of the matter. This is exactly what the gb wants of the rank and file, for them to believe exactly what we are talking about. You may or may not be the exception and I would be naive to think there are not others who hold the same thoughts, but the fact of the matter is that this is exactly what the gb and the wt wants. They want no one to question their view and not to speak about it to others who may have the same feelings, because then there might be a change that was not from the top down but rather from the bottom up. This would disrupt the ivory tower they have created for themselves. I can tell you are sincere in your words,beliefs and your treatment of others and I share many of the same thoughts as you, I just don't hold the gb's point of view as being from God. 

Thank you JW Insider for all that you contribute here and for helping us to understand the gb point of view when we ask. 

6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Brother Jackson echoed this when he said, in Australia recently, that it would be presumptuous for the GB to consider themselves God's only mouthpiece.

but isn't that exactly what the publications state? That they ARE. 

"They do not claim that this slave class is infallible, but they do view it as the one channel that the Lord is using during the last days of this system of things." Proclaimers p.626

"It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the "slave" as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision." Watchtower 1957 Jun 15 p.370

"Today, Jehovah provides instruction by means of "the faithful steward." Pay Attention to Yourself and to All The Flock p.13

Isn't it a disfellowshipping offence to not believe that the gb is the faithful and discrete slave?

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. God is allowing the Governing Body to teach false teachings as far as we know. There are continuous changes, and therefore continuous admissions that what was previously taught was not completely true, therefore "false." The teachings are not as important as the desire to do God's will. The imperfect and flawed attitudes are not as important as the desire to do God's will. This is why Jesus could say:

• (Matthew 23:1-3) . . .Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds. . .

But the requirement of jws is to adhere to ALL teachings of wt unless you would like to lose your family or in the case of not having family, be expelled. This is the case even if you know in your heart that you are correct, to keep up with the gb chariot, one must believe what they say verses what the Bible tells them.  Again, the Bible warns against such things, juts as you pointed out at Matt 23:1-3. 

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But the loophole was found in the 10 words I skipped from verse 18, where it adds ". . . and he is the head of the body, the congregation." So all that needed to be done, was to ignore all the talk of Jesus position and authority, and focus on this idea of "and he is head of the body, the congregation." The "kingdom" is therefore not Christ's Kingdom, not the Messianic Kingdom of God through Christ, but merely Jesus headship over the congregation as a kind of "kingdom."

But this "kingdom" cannot have a capital "K" as in "Kingdom" because that would remind us of God's Kingdom through Christ. In the rest of the NWT, every mention of God's Kingdom, sons of the Kingdom, the Kingdom of heaven, the Son of man coming in his Kingdom, sitting at the right of Jesus in his Kingdom, this good news of the Kingdom, the Kingdom of the Son of the Most High, eat and drink at the table in my Kingdom, Jesus' Kingdom, etc., etc., are all capitalized. Although there is no Greek support to capitalize some of these and not others, the NWT chooses NOT to capitalize Colossians 1:16. It is the only exception in the Greek Scriptures when referring to God or Christ's Kingdom. (Clearly because it is one of the few references to the word that cannot be pushed to the future, but is already in the present.)

That is a very weak argument, not on your part by any means. I thank you for explaining this from the jw perspective. To me, this argument presented by the wt, is a deliberate attempt to remove facts from the Bible to support their view. It has no basis other than to establish their own timeline and differentiate themselves from what most Christians believe. The problem will lie with how God views such tampering, ie. Rev 22:18&19. 

23 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

 And I agree, of course, that he was already given "all authority" according to Matthew 28.

 

How does the wt get away with postponing this until 1874/1914/1919/1925 or whatever? 

How can regular witnesses not see this for themselves? 

I think this is intellectual dishonesty on the part of the gb and strips Jesus of His role to the jws in general. This isn't anything new, but this is bold of them to do it like this. 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But, the teaching about when Jesus became King is a little different. Years after 1914, the Watch Tower Society was still publishing that Jesus began his reign as King in 1878. And they continuing promoting that date in literature campaigns until 1933 or so. By 1922 there were already statements, not 100 percent explicit, but hints that the official doctrine might change, perhaps even as early as 1919. By 1925, the doctrine had officially changed that Jesus became King, not in 1878, but in 1914.

How in the world could the gb and the wt make this determination? If the Bible is our guide, as it should be, then you cannot wish away the words written in them. Jesus said in Matthew 28:18 " And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."    How can ALL authority be given both in Heaven and Earth and this not be the King?

And I agree with your supporting scriptures (1 Tim 6:15 and Rev 1), the only caveat is that Rev is what John saw in the future. 

19 hours ago, Anna said:

Same goes for @Shiwiii just assuming things. But that seems to be what you guys do.

I hope your little personal attacks make you feel better.

On 1/13/2019 at 8:50 PM, Aaron Gallegos said:

This lawyer is lying shamelessly. At the traveling overseer school, the subject of how to treat disfellowshipped ones was touched. We received instructions to remove elders and ministerial servants and pioneers who have any type of contact with disfellowshipped ones. Immediate action is to be taken especially if the Congregation lost respect for an appointed brother. 

Granted, only in extreme family emergencies such as death of family or legal matters are JW's allowed to have LIMITED contact with those disfellowshipped or disassociated. If anyone with privileges has a child living under their home that has been disfellowshipped, that is cause for removal of privileges. 

If the JW starts to justify and verbally defend his expelled relative perhaps even expressing that the decision was wrong, then after repeated counsel being ignored, a judicial committee may be formed.

I agree with you that this lawyer is lying. I understand the policy as well and I think you stated it precisely how it is to be applied. The only problem I have is that Mr. Jackson didn't explain it as well as you just did when he was under oath in Australia. Mr. Jackson stated that normal family relations continue, just not spiritual ones. How is this not also lying? Mr. Jackson knows the truth, exactly as you stated it, since he approved it, but yet decides to lie in court under oath? How can an honest person follow the lead of such person(s)? 

13 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I've just noticed I've been shunned on this very forum. It's so funny. The JW's Only, Closed club.  Wow, i really am laughing. 

So the 'loyal club' does exist. Such a shame that they cannot face truth as it is now. So easy to hide behind closed doors. 

Oh well, so be it. Have fun patting each other on the back and pretending the JW Org is so so wonderful. But remember that it is God that judges, through Jesus Christ,  so not much point in you congratulating each other if you don't have God's approval. 

Interesting point John, I mean if the "closed" club is only comprised of jws that support the gb and the wt, then what is there to discuss? They all nod their head to the same line of reasoning or lack there of. So no progression in thought, only regurgitation of what the gb says. What a boring forum that would be. 

On 1/13/2019 at 10:50 AM, Aaron Gallegos said:

02.) Why were you forced via a subpoena to testify on the 8th day of the Australian Royal Comission? Shouldn't a true Christian with nothing to hide be eager to give a witness when required to do so?

Doesn't 1 Peter 3:15 state he should as well? I mean if one were to adhere to the Bible as the standard in their life, then I believe it does. 

16 minutes ago, Anna said:

Except that the policy does support reporting to the police

Who are you trying to fool? You or others? Because it isn't me that you are fooling. 

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The 'model prayer' asks for God's will to be done here on Earth as well as in heaven, that is one reason I fully believe that humans will live here on this Earth in perfect conditions. Though we come to this word perfect again, and I mean it in as much as conditions that God wants to exist. 

I agree with this by Revelation stating that heaven will come down and God will dwell with His people. 

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

 I am not prepared to listen to just anyone that says they are anointed.

wise decision and mine as well, because only God knows and if we seek Him, He will direct our paths. 

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I am definitely of the unrighteous, but if I'm right my death will guarantee me a resurrection. Time will tell. 

The Bible says you don't have to be. You can have your sins washed clean, right now. This is why Jesus died for us. If we come to Him and ask Him, He will wash us clean and take our blemishes and cast them away as far as the east is to the west so that you may stand before God and know you are covered. 

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I know that the GB and the JW org are wrong at this moment in time, but i think you are wrong to say there is no need for an earthly organisation to spread God's word earthwide. 

I don't think there has been a time when the gb nor the wt were ever right, but that is just my opinion based on the Bible itself. 

I also do not believe there has to be any organization here on Earth. What you said is true, the apostles did set up churches and taught them the basis of morals based on the Bible, but they did not have an "organization". There was not a group of men running the show, it was God running the show. Now I'm sure some one is going to quote Acts, Romans or Galatians, but one must read those carefully. It is not some gb making a decision, but rather the apostles condemning their practices that were made by men.