Anna

On 2/16/2017 at 11:40 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

Many brothers are afraid to escalate the complains they have because in this way perhaps might seem negative.

Yes, many friends have the view that if they raise an issue, they may seem ungrateful. But really, the GB relies on feedback from the friends. How else are they to know where to make an reasonable adjustment if everyone is quiet, as if everything is fine? There is a difference between being overly critical and voicing genuine concern. The key is, once the concern is voiced, leaving it. It's been brought out into the open, and what happens next should be left with Jehovah.

On 2/16/2017 at 11:40 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

A sister asking to the instructor: “why we couldn’t have the books with sufficient time”? Instructor answer: “because an equalizing. If you, for your circumstances, have much more time to prepare than other brother this would not be fair. In this way everyone will start at the same time, Sunday.” Crazy answer, isn’t it? But this kind of view was transmitted to the persons on charge. No mistake, for decades. Finally, sanity has been imposed.

Interesting. There must have been many more "sisters" with the same question. There is strength in numbers! Although it took decades of perhaps just a few sisters each year bringing up the same question until it finally reached the right ears....

On 2/15/2017 at 1:38 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Where did they get the THOUSANDS of highly specialized and talented people to do all this?

Although this sounds like a rhetorical question, I am sure you want someone to answer it. First another question. What's your theory?

22 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Finally, in my present congregation, on a shepherding visit to a Christian couple the wife told us (with some shame) that she was willing to (certain practice) with her husband, but she had heard that this was a sin and stopped. The matrimony had trouble since then.

I have heard of situations like this. Very sad.

With the kind of ambiguous information regarding what's "natural" and what's "un-natural" it can get confusing. Both you and Melinda have brought out good points. I remember the  ** tp chap. 13 pp. 149-151 Your View of Sex—What Difference Does It Make? that Melinda mentioned, and I recall not really being comfortable with some of the things it brought out. We studied the book shortly after I was married. Words like "sexual greed" "Sexual appetite" "uncleanness" in the context of marriage was confusing, at least to me. Including this sentence "It is true that husband and wife have a Scriptural right to engage in sexual relations with each other. "But does this mean that they can throw off all restraint? The fact that God’s Word urges all Christians to cultivate self-control argues against such a view." I had no idea what to make of that. It conjured up images of frigidness and constraint, instead of warmth as spontaneity. I am not saying that the writer was trying to convey such a negative image, but it left things too much to interpretation. What I mean by this is that the husband and wife could each interpret this differently, and then this could be a valid reason for driving a wedge between them especially if they were not very sexually compatible in the first place (it is fact that some people like sex more than others). And then if the married couple did engage in some acts which they believed were "un-natural", or if they thought they had "thrown off all restraint",  according to how they interpreted the admonition, then this could lead to a bad conscience, which is not a good situation to be in. It seems to me that too much emphasis was unnecessarily put on what happens in the bedroom in the aforementioned chapter of that book.

In contrast, this admonition is so much better:

23 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

*** W16 8/15 page 15, pf 8. “Although the Bible does not provide specific rules about the kinds and limits of love play that might be associated with natural sexual intimacy, it mentions displays of affection. (Song of Sol. 1:2; 2:6) Christian marriage partners should treat each other with tenderness.”

How I interpreted that was that natural sexual intimacy is that which is between a husband and wife, and that kind of intimacy has no rules about kinds and limits a long as both partners treat each other with tenderness.....

But like I said, I have not noticed any more said about marital intimacies to the extent that it was in the past (60's 70s' 80's) and the above WT was the first after a long time and the style is completely different.  I am thinking that obviously you were not the only elder who encountered problems to do with marital intimacies among the congregation and that perhaps it was realized that these articles caused unnecessary and embarrassing situations, both for the married couple, and for the elders who were shepherding them. Why should elders be privy to what happens in a bedroom? Surely there are more important things to be concerned about...?

Just out of interest, how did you counsel the couple on the shepherding visit?

2 hours ago, TrueTom said:

It nearly stumbled ME.

 

What was the result?

On 11/18/2016 at 4:42 AM, Camo said:

Putting on a fake Beard during a meeting - very interesting.  Was the brother trying to prove a point? Was he trying to impress someone? I don't know, however once again doing something like that is quite over the top. Could doing that stumble someone?

A good sense of humor covers a multitude of beards though!

9 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

·        Our dealings with disfellowshipped close relatives

·        Our view about sexual behavior between spouses

·        Our policy about child abuse.

The first one affects me personally and I have my own "theories" regarding this. Perhaps we can make this into a new subject.

The second subject I have heard a little bit about, but things already began to change when I got baptized, although some things regarding what's appropriate between a husband and wife still surfaced sometimes. But I have not been aware of anything in the past 15 or so years. I am glad. I never thought it was appropriate for the brothers to pry and get involved in dictating  what was a very private affair. I never really understood why they were so concerned about what practices go on behind closed doors of a married couple.....to me, it was none of anyone's business. Interpreting what was correct sexual behavior according to their interpretation of the scriptures was taking it too far, in my opinion anyway. What goes on in the bedroom should be based on scriptural principles, (just like everything else in life) and not on specific actions deemed right or wrong according to opinion.

The third point I have been following for some time as you have probably figured out. We actually had good policies but not perfect ones. Plus the trouble was that they didn't always get followed. It's a complicated subject and a lot of it has been distorted by the media and ex- witness victims who have a grudge against the society on the whole.  What is good is that our policies will keep on improving. It will be interesting to watch the new hearing in March https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/27353-australian-royal-commission-final-report-of-handlin-of-child-sexual-abuse/#comment-34899

7 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

My ONLY point in this post is: I believe that, for several reasons, these brothers have behaved in a way which, APPARENTLY shows lack of humility.

I feel the same way. I have explained it somewhere on this forum, why I think this is. I feel it has something to do with their responsibility, which could perhaps be viewed in a similar way to parental responsibility. My experience with my own mother was that she tried to appear as perfect as possible. This worked fine when I was a toddler and little child. And then I got older, and I began to see her imperfections and flaws. It was quite a shock  for me really to realize my mother had the same, or similar weaknesses as me, that she was an imperfect human being just like anyone else. I asked her about this. I wanted to know why she never admitted to any mistakes and why she tried to appear perfect. Her answer I think is the key to how the GB might be thinking. She said that she needed to appear as perfect as possible in order for me, as a child, to look to her for guidance, to trust her, and lean on her with confidence.

There was a letter once from the GB to a publisher, which expressed those sentiments, and I have also heard it expressed elsewhere, that the GB cannot lose the trust and confidence of the bothers. So maybe this is the reason why it appears they are not humble, because with humility they might expose weaknesses which in turn could lead the brothers to view them with distrust. I personally do not believe that would actually be the case. On the contrary, I think it would lead to more respect.

Another aspect tied to humility I think is transparency. I would love to see more of that. But all in all I do think there has been a lot of improvement in these areas with the new set of GB.

23 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

As Mel Brooks said in his 1981 film History of the World, Part I " ... "It's GOOD TO BE KING!

That was a funny movie!

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

OK. I'm sure we've picked over the remains of this dead horse more than enough now. Time to move on.

Hahaha, I agree. But I still maintain that had:

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Watchtower petitioned to have the case reviewed at Supreme Court

there is a strong possibility that the whole negligence thing would have been thrown out. Perhaps they should have fought to exonerate themselves of all accusations.

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I'm guessing that pursuing it further would have benefited neither party in the end.

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

might only take it to the Supreme Court if Watchtower takes it there. Other than that we are waiting. The ball is still unfortunately in their court.'”

Candace is probably very happy that WT did not take it to the supreme court, she would have ended up stripped of everything, even if WT hadn't won.......WT have their own lawyers, and WT has a lot more money than Candace, WT had not much to lose compared to Candace. She had everything to lose, so I am sure it would have benefited Candace a lot less than WT. Think about that. WT could have fought, but they didn't. What does that tell you? Besides, this is not the only legal case WT has ever fought, being exonerated in the eyes of the world doesn't mean that much to them as long as their conscience is clear before God. Jehovah knows the truth of what happened, and that's more important.

16 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

The case was tried in court; the case was appealed in court; both Watchtower and Conti decided not to appeal the Appeal Court's decision. There has been no 'out of court settlement' because the entire case was settled in court.

As far as I am aware, a confidential settlement is a private agreement between parties, involving their respective lawyers only, and not the court. As you see in the docket  link it says: “letter dated June 22, 2015, notifying the court that petitioners, Watchtower and Fremont Congregation have reached a settlement with respondent, Conti”.  In any case whether settled in or out of court the result is exactly the same. Candace gave up on her “noble” quest to change WT policies. Why?

16 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

"We therefore conclude that defendants had a duty to use reasonable care to restrict and supervise Kendrick's field service to prevent him from harming children in the community and in the Congregation." - p. 23

Yes, supervise Kendrick's field service, and as I said, I believe they DID supervise Kendrick's field service by NOT assigning Candace to work with him in field service. This portion was the next step WT would have appealed/ defended as that is the only thing the the court concluded, as you said. The elders could not be expected to monitor Kendrick after field service. They were not expected to watch Kendrick's every move in his private life. The only way Kendrick's movements could have been totally controlled is if he would have been incarcerated, but of course as we know, the police "could only act according to the law at the time".

So, I say again: " Is it believable that the elders purposefully arranged for someone whom they believed to be a danger to children, to be assigned to be alone with children in the congregation and in field service? This assumption is illogical and NO ONE in their right mind would even suggest otherwise except of course if you have ulterior motives; such as opposers, certain news reporters, and certain lawyers….

9 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Because, what they admit to, is how you people got it wrong, and they needed to make that distinction. If you weren't there, then understand what the Watchtower Researcher is conveying. In legal terms, speculation is argumentative, your friend "JWinsider" has a son that's a lawyer if you don't understand it. Or you can ask your former friend that's online again "JTR". So it doesn't matter who likes or dislike comments here, it's about what's accepted as truth vs fiction. THE WATCHTOWER NEVER CLAIMED THE END OF THE WORLD WOULD HAPPEN IN 1975! I was there for, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975. "IF" that was stated as "FACT" then why didn't we "ALL" react to it. Because those of us that understood knew it was just another year. So instead of watching a false narrative from Chevy Chase on the boob tube, I was having Pizza with my regular friends. I attended many assemblies that year, and the reflection was in the 6000 years.

 Ok. Let me put it this way then. When a group of people allow certain opinions regarding themselves to flourish, regardless whether that group of people has actually promoted or instigated that opinion, then they must also accept certain responsibility if others misinterpret certain things.  Many, many JWs, especially the older generation, view the GB as “almost Jesus”. This is a fact. It’s evident from what they say. I have heard it and seen it in action. So then when the GB says something, or insinuates something, especially regarding the end, then people naturally get excited. Why should they get excited if it is clear that no one knows except Jehovah and Jesus?  Precisely! Because they believe the GB has information that no one else has, from Jehovah and Jesus. So if you are going to mention ANY date, then the friends will prick their ears and listen. The society got burned a few times over this in the past, so much so that one of the GB members who gave a talk a few years back in our circuit said from the platform “Brothers, we promise you, no more dates!”  (The talk was about the refined understanding regarding the identity of the toes of the image in Daniel’s prophesy).

Of course I agree with you that none of the friends should have reacted the way they did over 1975 and should have viewed it as merely an opinion.  We have all learned our lesson I think though, and this is why now the explanation of the “overlapping generation” is viewed by many as merely an opinion.....

On 2/8/2017 at 5:03 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

know affectionately as "Armageddon Ernie",

I remember Armageddon Ernie!!!

6 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

Glad you like them. A benefit of preaching over 50 years and being on the Theocratic Ministry School for the same period.

It must be wonderful to go in field service with you!

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Therefore what you're actually, saying? The Governing Body should apologize for “YOUR” lack of understanding. Humility should therefore, be applied to yourselves. Being “dogmatic” about this constant misrepresentation of WTS literature.

Why do you keep trying to defend something which the GB have themselves admitted as being a mistake on their part?

On 2/5/2017 at 3:41 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

On 1/30/2017 at 6:45 PM, Anna said:

Anna:So they let him lose knowing he would re-offend?  That he would go on to molest other children?

Ann:You don't have documentation, then. You do not know what the police concluded. No matter what they concluded, they could only act according to the law at the time.

What did the police conclude then? And thank you for bringing attention to changing laws. Changing laws have a bearing not only on what the police did and what they do now, but also what the elders did and what they do now.

On 2/5/2017 at 3:41 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

The case was not settled out of court. It was settled in a trial by jury. Watchtower (as was their right) appealed, and a panel of appeal judges overturned a part of the trial judgment. An appeal focuses on trial procedures and points of law, that they were applied properly in the trial. They don't determine again the validity of the evidence and testimony by witnesses. 

You are wrong. The entire case ended up being settled out of court, despite Candace claiming money was of no interest to her and that all she wanted was changes to WT policy, lo and behold, when WT appealed, and the court threw out the punitive damages  award, both Candace and the WT could have appealed again, (Candace to reverse the court’s decision about the punitive damages and WT to throw out the entire judgement), but before either of them filed ANY briefs, the parties entered into a confidential settlement.  Which means that Watchtower agreed to pay an undisclosed amount to Candace and drop its appeal, and in exchange Candace agreed to dismiss the case and not to attempt to enforce the jury verdict.  Those ARE the facts. You can check them out. What is evident in all of this is that Candace would have ended up with next to nothing, if anything, and was advised to drop the case.  There is no other reason why, after saying she would fight to the end, she didn’t..... you can form your own conclusions on that, but to me it is evident she did so because it was unwise to carry on as WT in all probability would have won the case. Why do I think WT would have won the case? Because they would be given the chance to defend the duty to watch “during church activity” and would be able to prove that indeed Kendrick was NEVER assigned to work alone with Candace in field service.

On 2/5/2017 at 3:41 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

If the elders did not assign Candace and Kendrick to perform FS together, yet they ended up together, then they were not properly monitoring him. Grossly negligent.

This would have be thrown out of court immediately as it was established that the elders had no duty to watch Kendrick. And it makes logical sense as the elders could not be expected to constantly monitor Kendrick. Very silly to even suggest that this would have been gross negligence.

We will just have to agree to differ I’m afraid. It is evident to me that the elders felt confident that they had matters regarding Kendrick under control, whether they really had Kendrick under control in every aspect of Kendrick's life is not the issue here. The issue here is; is it believable that the elders purposefully arranged for someone whom they believed to be a danger to children, to be assigned to be alone with children in the congregation and in field service? This assumption is illogical and NO ONE in their right mind would even suggest otherwise except of course if you have ulterior motives; such as opposers, certain news reporters, and certain lawyers….

On 1/24/2017 at 6:38 AM, TrueTom said:

I never could get my head around our previous take on the Babylonian exile. Or care. I mean, a one-year period representing such an event?

I never could either! Made no sense, and I said so to one sister on Sunday and I think she thought I was being haughty

On 1/30/2017 at 0:13 PM, Witness said:

“For I know this, that after my departure SAVAGE WOLVES WILL COME IN AMONG YOU, not sparing the flock.”

We can see that these appear among the congregations, AND ARE ANOINTED ONES as verse 30 shows:

Also FROM AMONG YOURSELVES men will rise up, speaking perverse things, TO DRAW AWAY THE DISCIPLES AFTER THEMSELVES. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.” Acts 20:29-31

If you are insinuating that this is the case of the GB then please tell me what are the "perverse things" that you think they are saying, and how are they "drawing disciples" after themselves?

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

If these are very respected elders who are pillars in the congregation and good examples and have offered a lot of excellent spiritual teaching in the past then perhaps many in the congregation will go along. But let's say that some others are still respectful, but don't go along with these elders. Let's say that those who don't go along are told that they are acting like Korah, Dathan and Abiram. In such a case, I think the first thing to concern ourselves with is whether the reference to Korah et al is appropriate. It's only appropriate if the respected, authoritative elders are really in a situation comparable to Moses.

Good point to ponder.

For some reason my responses are merging into one post....I cant seem to change it....never did this before...

10 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

But we won't stop trying ....will we??

Of course not! And it's good to see much improvement, even in our policies. It will be interesting to watch the ARC in March.....Our situation (as JWs) as opposed to other institutions is that many of our cases involve incest, and that is so much harder to identify and deal with, especially when the families themselves are not very active in the congregation....

20 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Sad reality....Eph 6:11-12

I hope nobody misunderstands this as meaning human governments. This has unfortunately been the case in some instances (I think even during the ARC hearing), where some thought that verse 12 is referring to human governments and therefor Jehovah's Witnesses are mistrustful of them and do not want to cooperate with them. We know human governments are a "protection" and help to keep law and order. In the case of handling child abuse, we know government commissions set up for this purpose are doing their best to help victims and prevent abuse. The point is that "the whole world is lying in the power of the Wicked one" (1 John 5:19)  so no matter what we, or anybody else does, we will not succeed completely until  Satan is removed....

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Therefore, parents who are members of the congregation must be vigilant in exercising these responsibilities at all times and are expected to:

• have direct and active involvement in their children’s lives;
• appropriately educate themselves and their children about child abuse; and
• encourage, promote, and maintain regular communication with their children.

Of course this is the ideal situation and assumes that both sets of parents are spiritually mature, emotionally stable and promote a healthy and functional family environment. In such cases a predator has no chance and he knows it. The problem is that where either or both parents are spiritually immature, mentally unstable and the general family environment is unstable and dysfunctional (as was the case of the family of Candace Conti discussed above) then 1.They will fail in the three key responsibilities you mentioned, and 2.these kind of families are ideal targets for predators. They are the very families the predator will seek out. So already we have a problem, the stage is set for abuse.

So although I more than agree with the above, because it's a great recipe for prevention, and what's better than prevention instead of a cure...BUT it will not always work. Realistically, in this system, one will still be left with the "cure" and how to handle cases of child abuse focusing on helping the victim and protecting others from further abuse....

On 1/17/2017 at 3:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

I don't know how you conclude that the police believed this was a one-time occurrence. Do you have documentation stating this?

So they let him lose knowing he would re-offend?  That he would go on to molest other children?

On 1/17/2017 at 3:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

As I keep saying, if they really believed that, they would not have testified that they were keeping a close eye on him. There's no need to closely watch an individual's interactions with children if you don't think the individual poses any potential danger.

And as I keep saying, they did this as an extra precaution

On 1/17/2017 at 3:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

See Abrahamson's and Clarke's testimonies on Day 1, May 29, 2012 transcript, pp. 114, 207-8. Day 2, May 30, 2012 transcript, p. 26. Their acknowledgement of Kendrick's potential to abuse again are implicit in their answers.

On Page 117 of the aforementioned transcript Abrahamson is asked : “Were they the (cong) aware of the fact that he (Kenddrick)posed a threat to children of sexual abuse?

Abrahamson: “We didn't see that he posed a threat to children”

Page 207

Q Did you consider Jonathan Kendrick, then, to be a child molester after this meeting with the family in 1993?

A. Child molester?

Q. Yes

A: Well, he abused his daughter. So, yes, he is a child molester.

This is no proof that Abrahamson believed Kendrick would molest again. He merely stated a fact, that Kendrick was a child molester because he had molested a child.

 May 30, 2012 transcript, p. 26 doesn’t indicate anything about any elder believing   Kendrick would re-offend. You must have got your page wrong

On 1/17/2017 at 3:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Lamerdin said he didn't consider Kendrick to be a danger to children in the congregation (and here comes the important bit) because they were keeping an eye on him to make sure everything was fine (Day 2, May 30, 2012 transcript, pp. 179, 199). He doesn't suggest that he thought Kendrick would not try it again.

Q. Did you consider Mr. Kendrick, in 1993 until he left the congregation, to be a danger to children in your congregation?

A.No. As a matter of fact, we kept an eye on him to make sure that everything was fine, and there was no issue that came up after that, that warranted anything to lead us to think that way.

Again, it is evident that the elders did not think Kendrick would molest again or even try.

On 1/17/2017 at 3:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

No such legal duty to watch over Kendrick that included warning the parents. The extract continues:

Regardless whether it included warning the parents, it still stands the same, they had no legal duty to watch Kendrick. And let’s use common sense. Of course we know they had no legal, or otherwise duty to watch Kendrick. They were not Kendrick’s guardians, and neither did they have a special relationship with Kendrick.  He was free to come and go as he pleased. And after police probation he was also free to come and go as he pleased.  We did not expect the police to watch him did we?

On 1/17/2017 at 3:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

"Therefore, defendants cannot be held liable for negligent failure by the elders to notice Kendrick’s behavior with Conti and warn her parents that he posed a danger."

I don’t get what point you are trying to make here. Isn’t noticing Kendrick behaviour and warning the parents  the same as watching Kendrick and warning the parents? They had no duty to do either. In fact if they were under no obligation to notice Kendrick’s behaviour, how much less were they obliged to watch him? I repeat, they were under no obligation to watch him.

However, the elders were responsible to make sure that during so called "Church sponsored activities" a child would be safe.

But this is my point of contention, I do not believe that Kendrick was allowed to work in field service with a child,- as one of the elders said - to do so would have been suicide.  I have no doubt that WT would have been able to defend that part of the accusation. Unfortunately, the whole case concentrated so much on the issue of supposed duty to warn, so much so that the appellant (WT) was not given a chance to refute the field service situation. This is why WT appealed, and after wining that appeal for punitive damages, it was going to appeal again, and this time defend the field service point properly and present proof and arguments as to why it was impossible for Kendrick to have molested Candace during field service. However, before anyone could appeal, the case was settled out of court.....Interestingly...

I will address your questions regarding Zalkin later....no time right now

On 1/27/2017 at 8:11 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

 

On 1/27/2017 at 8:11 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

it is noteworthy that this policy is available to all members of the congregations in UK wishing to see it.

Just a question. Who is going to wish to see it, if on the whole the friends are not really aware of such policies in the first place? Or are they in the UK?

I posted about the ARC Here

(for some weird reason this comment was merged with the one above to Ann, and so I had to try and delete it, but I couldn't get rid of your quote...so I just took it out, but your name is still there, just blank)

P.S. Ok so it merged with my reply to Ann again, I have no idea why...

5 hours ago, Witness said:

Rely on the scriptures

We do rely on the Scriptures.

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

There were about half-a-dozen points that crossed my mind.

Thank you for putting my thoughts into words

5 hours ago, Bible Speaks said:

For the word of God is alive and exerts power+and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

I don't doubt this at all, what I am doubting is that anyone who read the CNN story would start thinking of studying the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, or even studying the Bible, period. People are happy to be reading those verses, believe God is their refuge, and that's that. But will it necessarily motivate anyone to do anything? Also, it shows that you can pick and choose a passage to suit yourself, because the other passages are not nearly as encouraging, if anything, they could be viewed negatively under those circumstances. This is not the same as finding a Bible study aid in the rubbish, because the Bible study aid actually motivates people to want to study the Bible.

Come on friends, get real . What JWInsider posted

On 1/17/2017 at 10:09 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

Nowadays. We had our “steward” class. These brothers are being using for Jehovah to take care of the whole house of God. This is an enormous responsibility. Always are correct? No. Was Paul always right? Yes… WHEN INSPIRED. So, as the “slave” class is not inspired, grant these brothers at least the same weight than the zero to the Corinthians.

Good point!

A question though. Why then does 2 Tim 3:16 say all scripture is inspired?