Anna

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Anna seems to sit on the fence as I'm sure she has told me of things that she knows about, that are just plain wrong in the Org. But then she seems to condemn me for saying similar things. 

Just noticed this post John. Yes, I acknowledge the org. has made mistakes, and I am sure no Witness on here would deny that the org. has made mistakes, why, even the org. itself acknowledges it has made mistakes. But you on the other hand are saying that the org. is tantamount to Satan's spawn. I don't think that.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

. @Annaactually did rise to the occasion as a therapist for a few comments, and her reward was for you to hurl everything back in her face and call her a hypocrite without a conscience.

I've given up now, as I am sure you will shortly. But what I do want to know from you @John Butler is any news on your report to the Police?

The only shatterhand I know is "Old Shatterhand",  a character in western novels by German author Karl May.  He is the German friend and blood brother of Winnetou, chief of the Mescalero tribe of the Apache.

8 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You are completely missing the point of this Watchtower. It is aimed at the Elders. 

Obviously it's aimed at everyone, otherwise the elders would receive this information in the form of a letter to the body of elders. So I don't know what point you are trying to make...?

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In Jehovah’s Witness congregations, victims, parents, or anyone else, have always been free to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police. The troubling reality is that many chose not to do it. They alerted congregation elders and went no further. Why? Because they thought that by so doing, they might be bringing reproach on God’s name and the Christian congregation.

The "Keep yourselves in God's Love" book page 223. This is from the 2008 edition.  This book was studied in the form of a question and answer at the book study, and is a book that is studied with those wishing to get baptized. Unfortunately, as you say, some chose not to go to the authorities because of worry of reproach, and host of other worries (https://1in6.org/get-information/common-questions/why-do-adults-fail-to-protect-children-from-sexual-abuse-or-exploitation/) Even as late as 2014, one of the elders testifying at the ARC expressed similar sentiments to one of the two adult survivors who wanted to testify, by asking her: "why would you want to drag the organization through the mud?".  To keep child sexual abuse from the authorities however has never been JW policy. But Tom, you can't reason with the unreasonable.

Thankfully, as we know, the ARC turned out to play a key part in what we all see as a welcomed improvement. Not so much in our policies, but in their clear transparent presentation to ALL Jehovah's Witnesses (and anybody else who is interested).

True heroes, those who do not give up what they stand for despite torture etc. only seem to exist in movies, for the most part. And then there are Jehovah's Witnesses.

20 hours ago, Witness said:

Every person can act on his own to represent others, just as G. Jackson did.  No, he had nothing to do with the case and I don't believe Jackson had anything to do with the primary case in Australia.  He barely knew the case. 

You are comparing apples to oranges. The ARC was not a court proceeding. G. Jackson was asked by the ARC to represent the GB. Gerrit Losch was not asked by the court to represent the GB.

20 hours ago, Witness said:

On 2/19/2019 at 12:58 PM, Anna said:

Why would he be in trouble?

It is always easier to run from trouble than to face what trouble may come.  

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have its approval.  Rom 13:3

Think about the case.  Did the Watchtower "do what is good" to begin with?

I am sure you have something specific in mind when you ask that. What is it?

20 hours ago, Witness said:

The GB makes the doctrine, the elders uphold it whether it is sound from a human standpoint or not, and the lawyers step in to defend an illogical doctrine that has caused misery and havoc throughout the congregations.  

As far as I know it is not the GB's objective to be concerned with anything being sound from a human stand point. Something being "sound" from a human point of view doesn't guarantee it is right, nor that God agrees with it.

Which "illogical" doctrine are you talking about?

20 hours ago, Witness said:

Pearl Doxsey - Harlot and Beast, 4womaninthewilderness

I do not subscribe to Perl Doxsey's interpretation of scripture

9 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

He has been and it is now Under WT authority as any other JW member.        

So who runs Watchtower?

5 hours ago, Witness said:

Losch/Loesch (which is the correct spelling) was asked to “testify” for the organization, not for Christ.  This is the difference, a hypocritical organization couldn’t give him courage to “witness” in truth.  If the organization was guiltless before God and had His approval and blessing, would its leaders hesitate in the least to stand before anyone and defend their “decrees” and beliefs?  They would be “inspired” to do so. 

This had nothing to do with "testifying" for the organization but everything to do with being summoned under wrong assertions.

If you testify under certain statements made about about you, then you are agreeing that those statements are true. You cannot do that if those statements are false. It would be like if I was asked to testify in court under the assumption that I was a 6ft black male doctor in his 70’s, whereas the truth is I am a 5ft white female secretary in her 20's. It would be wrong to testify under those erroneous assumptions and I would have to make a declaration to quash that summons by stating that I was NOT a 6ft black male doctor in his 70’s.

Gerrit Losch was summoned by the plaintiff (his lawyer) to appear in court under wrong assumptions about him. And you can see by Losch’s declaration what those assumptions were, and they were not correct. The judge was obviously satisfied that under the correct description of Losch’s function, it was not useful to ask Losch to appear in court. Had the judge decided Losch’s participation as helpful to the case even after the declaration,  he would have not accepted Losch’s declaration as relevant.

(When spelled with an "umlaut" it's Lösch, if you do not use an "umlaut" it should be Loesch)

4 hours ago, Witness said:

I believe Losch knows his weakness, that he knows in his heart that Christ has become a stumbling block before him, because he has chosen to put faith in another “house”, which he realizes can’t deliver him out of trouble. 

You talk as if Losch can act on his own, as if he personally had something to do with that case. Why would he be in trouble?

As I said, if the court (the Judge) was not happy with his declaration they would have summoned him to testify. And he would have gone.

3 hours ago, Witness said:

12 hours ago, Anna said:

You do not go beyond what you are asked to do.

For Christ's sake; yes, you do.  

Not in court

52 minutes ago, Witness said:

he didn’t even have the courage and integrity to represent them.  He could have respectfully shown as directed and explain it in person. 

You obviously do not understand how the legal system works. It's not some kind of discussion at the kitchen table. It is very specific, with rules and regulations and you have to be very exact. You do not go beyond what you are asked to do. Because the court was satisfied with his declaration, he was not asked by the court to testify, nor to represent anyone. 

Here is the declaration in full:

The declaration is legal speak and is absolutely correct from a legal point of view.

Gerrit Losch has never been a corporate officer........employee.......etc. of WT,  and as an INDIVIDUAL he has never had or has authority to make or determine any policy for WT or any other department. This can only be done collectively as the GB with all 8 members participating.

14 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I ‘m not sure I would fit it in,

True, I shouldn't have made it sound like every witness thought that, it's just practically every witness with children in the 80's that  I have known that said it. It became a "phrase".

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So, far, you have TTH, comfortmypeople, JTR, Butler, Srecko, Anna holding on to every fiber of your words and false demonstrations.

Now don't let that get to your head, because you ain't nothing until you have at least 300K followers on Instagram

10 hours ago, FelixCA said:

The Watchtower has shown the closeness each generation gets to the conclusion of this old system. Unfavorable people like to think there are hidden messages. That, of course, is concocted in their own minds.

Sometimes you make me think you have been living under a rock. I don't know what you mean by unfavorable messages, but it is clear that every Witness generation has been living with the thought that "our children won't make it to high school", it doesn't matter whether this is the 20's 30's 40's..............80's 90's.... you get my drift. Perhaps this is a good thing as it keeps everyone on their toes, but it can also backfire, like crying wolf one too many times. 

Being ready at all times doesn't equal putting a date or time period on it.

On 2/8/2019 at 6:03 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

promoting God and Jesus Christ and God's own book. 

He does that too

It depends for how long this would be. I am assuming just for a short time.....few years?.....So I think we would manage just fine! As long as we keep to the laws and principles that make up the foundation of the Bible that all JWs are familiar with, and encourage, remind, and support one another in upholding these standards.

Also most JWs have a Bible trained conscience that operates with or without having access to a Bible.

10 hours ago, Witness said:

12 hours ago, Anna said:

Does anyone need it clearer than that???

 Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence, in a general sense, hypocrisy may involve dissimulation, pretense, or a sham. Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles.

Hypocrisy is never clear.  

Regardless of your accusation of hypocrisy  on the part of the elders or the organization, it is clear to the victims, parents of the victims and others who wish to report the allegation to the police isn't it?  So even if rogue hypocritical elders claimed otherwise, it is clear to everyone else right? And it stands to reason then, when those victims/parents/others are confronted by rogue hypocritical elders who try to silence them,  those victims/parents/others will be able to point to paragraphs  *14 and 15 of the May 2019 Study WT. No questions asked.  And also the elders will read in their shepherding book that ....."One who reports an accusation to the police, the court, the elders, or others who have authority to look into matters and render a judgment would not be viewed by the congregation as guilty of committing slander. (it-1 p. 990) This is true even if the accusation is not proved".

It seems like it's only you, and a few others on here has a problem with it. It's a little worrying because it almost seems like you are wishing the elders will act against these clearly stated instructions  in the wt, and shepherding book like you are not happy that the victims and others are assured that they are entitled to report even if they cannot prove it (two witnesses).

 * Par.14......Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime.

Par 15: 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".

3 hours ago, Witness said:

What are you saying, historical according to time?  The court case happened just this last fall; which in my book is "today".  

Yes, historical according to time. Doesn't matter that the court case happened "today" because it was discussing a historical case that happened:

6 hours ago, Witness said:

over a 13-year period in the 1990s and 2000s

3 hours ago, Witness said:

If the same pressure by these "rogue" individuals is put upon a victim, threatening them not to go to the police saying they will handle it in house,

Well, then those elders  don't have a leg to stand on do they?

paragraph 14:  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/love-justice-face-of-wickedness/

" 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".

Does anyone need it clearer than that???

Also:

@JOHN BUTLER

In chapter 12 of the 2019 shepherding the flock book is this statement:

"One who reports an accusation to the police, the court, the elders,

or others who have authority to look into matters and render

a judgment would not be viewed by the congregation as guilty

of committing slander. (it-1 p. 990) This is true even if the accusation is not proved".

36 minutes ago, Witness said:

sexually assaulted, molested and raped them over a 13-year period in the 1990s and 2000s,

You are talking about a historical case. I am talking about today.

44 minutes ago, Witness said:

except in many "rogue" halls, it has been and will continue, to be done according to the will of the elder body. 

Even if that were the case, this has nothing to do with the authorities handling the matter and convicting the perpetrator. After all, that is what we want isn't it? For the perpetrator to be put on a sex offender registry, (and possibly serving time in prison) so that everyone, including the general public, are warned and protected from further harm.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

BECAUSE HIS FELLOW ELDERS WILL RALLY ROUND HIM TO 'PROTEST' HIM.  THERE WILL NOT BE A PROPER ENQUIRY / INQUIRY TO THE SITUATION AS THE ELDERS WILL SAY THERE IS NO INTERNAL CASE TO ANSWER. THEREFORE THE ABUSER ELDER WILL STILL KEEP HIS 'STATION' AND HIS STATUS.

I thought that the main concern is that there is an inquiry done by the authorities, as most on here commented that: THAT is a proper inquiry: "leave it to the authorities who are qualified" . So even if elders used some kind of buddy system to cover up for each other, the authorities would perform their own PROPER inquiry and investigation, the elders sticking up for one another and saying there is no internal case to answer will make no difference to the authorities who are qualified to investigate these matters because an allegation has been reported to them, and they will do their work.

24 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Not that lost. I do remember saying that I would not bother conversing with you on the matter as you seemed to deliberately 'not understand' my viewpoint. 

 

Ok, you don't want to discuss it, fair enough, although you were the one who brought the two witness rule up and said it was a problem.

So I will reiterate for others in case it is not clear to them either:

The two witness rule only applies to the elders handling an accusation of child abuse in the congregation. The two witness rule does not prevent anyone from taking the matter to the police as stated clearly in par 15 of the study WT May 2019 : https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/love-justice-face-of-wickedness/

which says: .".......Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime.

I am not quite sure, because John won't explain, so I will have to guess: Despite this clear black on white statement in the WT, it seems that John's concern was that elders would not actually follow through. Well....I would think that since this WT article is going to be studied by almost all of Jehovah's Witnesses, then I would think that any one of those Jehovah's Witnesses would feel free to report an allegation to the authorities even if there were no two witnesses, in other words even if the elders were unable to handle the situation congregationally because of a lack of two witnesses. So IF an elder for some reason would feel that a publisher should not report it, because there isn't enough evidence, (two witnesses) then all the publisher has to do is show him this clear statement in the WT. Done.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Well, to quote a fave' group/band of mine  "You can't always get what ya' want "

I was just trying to remind you of our last conversation that we had, since you said you were lost....

@JOHN BUTLER

I wanted to know why you were so upset over this conversation we had about the two witness rule:

19 hours ago, Anna said:

20 hours ago, Anna said:

20 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The Elders won't handle the issue without two witnesses because they will call the victim a liar or slanderer. Then if the victim keeps complaining the Elders will have the victim disfellowshipped for either of the above reasons.  

Paragraph 15   :................ Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime.

Read more  

 

20 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

20 hours ago, Anna said:

* Paragraph 15   :................ Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime.

You really cannot be bothered to understand what I'm saying so i cannot be bothered to continue answering you. 

Read more  

Please explain what you mean.

* Paragraph 15, last sentence:   https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/love-justice-face-of-wickedness/