Anna

You only sue those you view as your enemy. With that in mind, those who are still active JWs might sue the perpetrator, but they will not sue the organization. This doesn't mean they have been silent. In the case of Candace's molester for example, somebody must have reported him to the police for him to have been convicted in the first place. Do you know it wasn't an elder who reported him? What difference does it make who reports? It should not be left only up to the elders to report. If someone molested my child it would be my prerogative to report and I would hope every parent felt the same. If I was an adult who had been victimized as a a child, and was finally able to speak out, I would report, hoping that the statute of limitations had not run out. Incidentally, Candace's perpetrator was reported to the police by his then wife (for molesting his step daughter) even before he allegedly molested Candace. There was ALREADY a police report about him. It didn't help Candace though. She did not win in the way she wanted to, and the problem wasn't because the elders did not report. They couldn't report because they didn't know about Candace, and the perpetrator had already been reported during the first incident with his step daughter as mentioned above. The court reversed punitive damages because they found WT had no duty to warn (if it did, the same could have been said for the Police who knew about the first incident, and social services who knew about Candace). Eventually the whole case rested on whether the perpetrator was allowed to go in service with Candace unsupervised. Ultimately it was her word against the elders words who claimed that Candace never went in service with the perpetrator on her own. Extract from the final decision of the court: “We hold that defendants had no duty to warn the Congregation or Conti’s parents that Kendrick had molested a child, but that defendants can be held liable for failing to limit and supervise Kendrick’s “field service,” a church-sponsored activity where members go door-to-door preaching in the community. Kendrick had unsupervised access to Conti during field service that he used as opportunities to molest her.Because breach of the alleged duty to warn was the sole basis for imposition of punitive damages on Watchtower, we reverse that portion of the judgment, with directions to enter judgment for Watchtower on the punitive damage claim. The compensatory damage award is affirmed". That's a good job because in the end there was an out of court settlement and Candace probably didn't end up with much after paying her lawyers fees..... Yes, that may have been her biggest motive, revenge on a religion she came to hate. Although unfortunately, even that is disputed because there is no real proof that her story is true with regard to the molestation while out in service. (Had the perpetrator molested her outside of church sponsored activity, she would have not been able to ask the org. for money). If that were the case, then her motive for winning would have been money. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe Candace was molested only once, on a Amtrak trip she went on with her father and the perpetrator. Candace had been shown to have lied at least once in her deposition, where her story didn't match up with facts.

I don't know where you get that idea. In fact I said it's understandable that she was seeking financial compensation for the trauma she suffered.

Well no, Candace Conti was in her early 20's when she was browsing a sexual predator registry and found a picture of a man who had molested her when she was about 9 years old. She had found out that he had molested another little girl some years after her. Candace had been living in a dysfunctional family with a mother and father who were emotionally absent and who had little time for her. No one in the congregation was aware that the perpetrator had been molesting her. Forward wind more than a decade, she had long left the JW's. Had she been an active JW she would have most probably gone about this completely differently. Instead, she claims she had a pang of conscience because she hadn't told anyone what had happened to her, and consequently another child had been molested. So she goes to ex- Witness and silentlambs founder William Bowen who urges her to follow the #metoo route, and jump on the litigation band wagon, apparently because she didn't want the perpetrator to molest anymore children (despite the fact that he had already served a prison sentence for that crime, and therefor was on the sexual predator registry as a warning for everyone in the community). How did the perpetrator end up on that registry? Obviously because he had been reported to the police, was tried, and found guilty. What more did Candace want to do, but to get monetary compensation for her traumatic experience. It's understandable since she no longer had any ties to the JWs, and the organization had money, so why cloak it in anything else?

What's up with my hair....again!

I don't think anyone was saying this was an issue. Also, if you are insinuating that the command on blood should be obeyed because of health benefits, then you are missing the point entirely.

I am sure you've heard the illustration using alcohol. If the doc tells us do not drink alcohol, would he have to be specific and say do not transfuse it into your veins either? Yes, I agree, it gets very complicated...I think what JWI and I were talking about is babies and very small children with similar decision making capabilities as a dog (sorry if it sounds weird . I did read somewhere though that a dog's intelligence is comparable to a 3 year old child) but also those who might be older but considered 'immature' by worldly courts.

More like will the dog's conscience allow him to associate with US

The only type of blood that we are "conscientiously" allowed to use without consequence is processed blood, fractions processed from whole blood. For human blood, processing is the only way NOT to misuse it. I know, sounds like a paradox. But what I meant by the term processing was not the taking it apart, but using whole blood and putting it into something else instead of pouring it out onto the ground. Of course if you are centrifuging blood to separate it into fractions, you are not pouring it onto the ground either. So I guess that's where it becomes a conscience matter... because you are not doing the processing, but you are just accepting the finished product, which are the fractions. Just like when you are paying taxes, you are not concerned with what this money is ultimately being used for (weapons for example). Of course the same could be said about using whole blood as an ingredient in a product, you are not the one that made the product, and with regard to fertilizer, you would actually be putting it back into the ground! edit: P.S. There is no doubt in my mind, that ultimately, the revised stance on blood fractions, i.e. them being a matter of conscience, derived from the recognition that many life extending medical treatments, and vaccinations involve the manipulation of blood in some way.

Herd of the Governing Body? He recommended that we go back and read "Angels & Women," a very interesting book from the 1870s/1920s that he found in the Bethel Library. Yes indeed, lol. And we also know of another quote about 'cows in heat' (from an old publication) that was quoted recently by a member of Bethel . I guess I am just hoping that in this case, the case under discussion, it IS dated....but then again I would have hoped the same for the cows. That was rather surprising, and shocking!

The problem is, we were only show a small clip of the video...

Disagree. Their say is the fact that their blood cries out from the ground over any injustice imposed upon them in this life. (Genesis 4:10) . . . Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground. (Revelation 6:9, 10) . . .the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given. 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying. . . A sheep bleats and bleats to be saved after falling into a pit on the Sabbath. A strict Sabbath-keeper will sacrifice the life of that sheep by imposing his conscience over the life of that sheep. (Deuteronomy 19:10) In this way no innocent blood will be spilled in your land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance, and no bloodguilt will come upon you. (Deuteronomy 27:25) . . .“‘Cursed is the one who accepts a bribe to kill [a soul of innocent blood] an innocent person.’ (And all the people will say, ‘Amen!’) (Matthew 12:11, 12) . . .“If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . . I am sorry, I realized it sounded like I was telling you what you should be thinking. There were a lot of people coming and going out of the house and talking to me, so I found it hard to concentrate, I changed the sentence around a bit and forgot to put the I back. It should have read " so I don't think..." Of course the child has rights, and one of those rights is the right to live. I think I am beginning to understand the angle you are looking at it from. Like what right do the parents have to say that a child is to die as a result of their (the parents conscience). It's complicated, because it's true that no one has the right to decide over the life (as in life or death) of another human. On the other hand the parents are responsible in Jehovah's eyes to uphold the law. I understand now why you brought up the parallel example with the pets. So in effect persons are upholding the law not only for themselves but also for others in their care, whether it be children or pets. (Or as you call it imposing their conscience). I can see that a part of the problem is that both children and pets are dependent on the adults and that both children and pets are not able to make informed decisions like the adults are, and therefor the adults in charge of them make the decisions for them. But I think the main misunderstanding in our dialogue has been because we have both been approaching the issue from different angles, for example the Bible says children belong to Jehovah, and that they are merely in the parents care. So assuming Jehovah really means that the law on blood includes all forms of manipulation with blood, and all forms of ingesting blood whether by mouth or intravenously, what would HIS decision be regarding the treatment of the child? In that case, aren't the parents merely trying to uphold what they believe would be Jehovah's decision, rather than anything to do with imposing their conscience onto a dependent child? So I think that's the angle I was coming at it from. But you were looking at it from the point of view of the rights of a dependent child (or pet) per se. Am I understanding it right?

I agree. What I meant about an apparently loveless stance obviously does not appear loveless to Christians (JW) but it does appear loveless to the world. Therefor if we try to "hide" a certain policy, which we believe is Biblical, it means we are seeking favor with the world, or compromising. Generally, throughout the history of JWs, individuals have put their well being and even life on the line for expressing clearly their loyalty to Bible principles to the highest courts in the land, no matter how they were viewed by the world. But we both know that the term 'theocratic warfare ' means we can find ways of obfuscating in order not to endanger other JWs, and we do not have to say anything to those who are not entitled to it, for the same reason. Obviously this principle can be misused as it appeared to be by the JW lawyer in question. (I don't really like to base my opinion on partial information, as is the short clip of the video. I mentioned that in my first comment. What if the issue really was exclusively about a family member living at home). Agree. I did in fact send a link to the ARC hearings to an elder who was involved in an issue I mentioned to you privately. Both WT you quoted are thankfully rather dated. I think the difference between your scenarios and the examples in the WT is that the WT examples were about processing blood, therefor misusing it. Buying products where blood was added as an ingredient or was specially processed would be tantamount to supporting the misuse of blood. I think that an underage child does not really have a say in the matter, so don't think there is an issue of imposing conscience on the child.

Bold mine. Not sure I quite agree with you there. In my opinion I do not think we are ashamed, but we think others will simply not understand our, what appears to be a loveless stance. Again, I am not sure shame should be credited for this. With regard to CSA I think it was recognized that certain procedures we had in place (eg. having to speak in front of the accused) were not only traumatizing for the victim but essentially unnecessary, and because there was no direct Biblical principle stating otherwise, we were able to 'bend' some of these procedures to be more in line with current more empathetic ways of doing things. As regards corporal punishment, that has always been dependent on the child. Some were thought to need it, others not. Unfortunately we both know that Br. Jackson denied that as an organization we ever practiced corporal punishment. So I will agree with you on this one, that perhaps his denial stemmed from shame, perhaps he never personally liked the idea of corporal punishment himself. But it could also stem from the fact that we do not want to be misunderstood and seen as an unloving organization in this uber sensitive society (especially western society). This might also apply to the shunning of relatives, especially close family members (not living at home). Although Tom has a point point when he says: (underscore mine) I am not quite sure I understand your reasoning about "disfellowshipping" children by allowing them to die. Disfellowshipping is always a disciplinary action, how does that relate to this situation? I agree it is a very difficult situation when we are told what our conscience should be in the case of a minor child receiving blood treatment. And then impose that imposed conscience on the child. Emotions aside, it gets increasingly difficult when as guardians we are responsible for the child before Jehovah (and before the law), and the child is too young to make decisions of it's own. This is why courts will overrule the rights of the parents to make decisions in this case. Have you seen the movie with Emma Thompson 'The Children's Act'? In this movie she played the judge that overruled the parents wishes, AND the child's wishes although he was just months away from being an adult. (Although this movie sounds like it revolved around this issue, it wasn't really about that, but rather about a young man's obsession with an older woman. But it did highlight the fact that this young man's stance may have been because of the influence of his parents, rather than his own conviction). Unfortunately, (or should I say fortunately?) Br. Herd's comments are something to do with his age. That's not to say much younger persons cannot adopt the same stance. I have known elders tell a young woman she should be happy she is not living in Israelite times as she would have been stoned.

I hope I was being a 'factualist'. JW Insider understood what I was saying.

You got it! Thank you!!

No it wasn't any of those. I am sure it was a study article, second part to a similar topic the previous week. I already searched 2017, 16, 15, and 14....grrrr. Thank you for trying! It definitely mentioned a woman who said she preferred to have somebody tell her how things were, instead of her searching for the answer herself. It may have even been a sister. Not sure....

Hopefully not! 😕 @JW Insider you are so much better at searching than me. I think I asked you this before, not sure if you answered, but do you remember the WT study article that started of talking about a woman who said she preferred to be told, rather than using her own brain (paraphrased)?

The lawyer is not lying if he is referring to family members STILL living at home. The problem is, most people understand family members to mean anyone who was originally born into the family, but not necessarily still all living together. The legal definition of family (even immediate family) is: Father Mother Parent’s spouse, if a parent has remarried Child (by blood, adoption, or marriage) Brother Sister Spouse Grandparent Grandchild Further, a person’s immediate family for legal purposes also includes the spouse of his child, brother, or sister, as well as the father, mother, brother, and sister of his spouse. Obviously, rarely do all these members live together all of the time, with the exception of the spouse and underage children. I haven't seen the rest of the video, but had the Judge asked specifically if he is referring to family living outside of the home, then the lawyer would have had to clarify this. However, if there was no further clarification established, then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading. Someone's spouse, parents and grandparents, children and grand children, brothers and sisters, mother in law and father in law, brothers in law and sisters in law, daughters in law and sons in law. Adopted, half, and step members are also included in immediate family Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/immediate-family.html

I've wondered that

What I like about Newton is that as opposed to Russell, Rutherford, Franz, the 1990 leadership and the 21 century leadership is that he "predicted" the "end" to be NOT in his lifetime. All the others did. Interesting.

Some of these are difficult to read, but I noticed the one addressed to Br. Robinson where Rutherford writes: "So far as I know, the law has not made provision for the discharge of enlisted men because of their religious conviction. The statute relates only to those who are drafted and who then make their application for exemption". I am still confused why it should have been a problem to refuse to go to war for religious reasons. How did that equate to sedition, even though Rutherford promulgated that true Christians should not go to war? I have in my files a letter from an Italian brother that was used in court to show that true Christians refuse to kill. Also here is a court transcript of the trial, not sure how complete it is. You will have to figure out some of the words because they are the wrong format (I assume from when the original typewritten text was converted to a PDF file) but over all it is quite readable. https://archive.org/stream/RutherfordVTheUnitedStatesTrial/1918_Rutherford_vs_the_United_States_Trial_djvu.txt

Is that because you've disabled them or some other reason?

Still, this does seem to depend on a few other factors. For example someone who had conspired to marry someone else in the congregation and thus committed adultery with them in order to be scripturally free to re-marry, that usually takes 3 years from when the new couple ask for re-instatement, since it was purposefully planned that way. In a way, when it comes to apparently deliberate sin like this it's difficult to ascertain repentance, and repentance is the criterion for re-instatement. However, if the new couple are at EVERY meeting and there is no other type of sin being committed, then 3 years seems to be the standard applied. Although I have known this to be shorter because BOTH partners (the one wronged and the unfaithful one) were guilty of planning.