Anna

9 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 ......marvel at how Jehovah was able to do SO MUCH with what little he had to work with......  How God pulls a rabbit out of his hat with them around I’ll never know, but he consistently does.

I agree!

1 minute ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The fact that GB members show themselves on TV indicates to me that they pull back the curtain upon themselves as well

To a certain extent yes. But we will never know what is being discussed behind closed doors. I would say it doesn't matter, it's not our business, but it is, because it affects everyone of us. (When I get around to it I want to make this a topic in the closed club, here is not the best place)

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

"We do not tolerate in our midst individuals who unrepentantly commit wicked deeds and who bring reproach on the good name of the congregation."

Um, how is it then that some Elders have been found to have commited sex offencies against more than one child and a lot more than once per child, in a congregation ? 

I guess that's because those individuals fooled the elder body into thinking they were repentant. It obviously wasn't because the elder body wanted more children to get molested.

11 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

but internal ‘power struggles,’ if they are that, do not interest me.

I just want to pipe up here. The internal struggles ARE what shaped "what Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done" . I know, and I agree, we do't want to focus on the negative. But in my personal opinion it helps to know these things sometimes because it helps us become more grounded in reality, rather than what we think is the reality, and then get disappointed, to the point of being stumbled. I don't know if I have explained that very well. I'm not talking about fault finding or criticism. Just reality.

 July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205) 

For anyone who wants to read the whole article in context:

https://ia801406.us.archive.org/23/items/WatchtowerLibrary/magazines/w/w1943_E.pdf

6 hours ago, FelixCA said:

 

·  Who realizes that the primary scripture  that stands in the way of his 1975 obsession was when Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, and then he himself toys with that very verse in a dismissive way by saying that 'now is not the time to toy with that verse'?

·  Who calls the non-governing Jehovah's Witnesses the "rank and file"? 

·  Who writes all of the explanations for parables and prophecies as if they are doctrines from on high which cannot be questioned?

·  Who claimed that even doubting 1914 was a form of apostasy whether one stated it out loud or not?

-  Who would refer to the Society as if it was not only the Lord's mouthpiece, but that its pronouncements were the same as "the Lord" himself speaking?

But isn't this based on facts? Or are you saying it wasn't Fred who wrote these things, but someone else in the writing department? But even if that was the case, Fred would sanction everything before going to print, so he would have had to agree with it.

13 hours ago, jado said:

the words and concept ORGANIZATION + JEHOVAH mean exactly the same thing.

Not to everyone.

1 minute ago, Shiwiii said:

In mine, maybe I failed to mention the part of someone going to the elders, but someone DOES know and still refuses to report it.  

Well that is not what we were talking about. You said the victim is afraid to come forward. Maybe that is a little technicality you maybe should have mentioned earlier but didn't.

But as you said, when someone knows, there is nothing stopping them from reporting it

In your own words: Finally, they finally get it that it is the wrong doer who is the bad guy and not the reporter 

And as for your argument that this is just lip service because of the two witness rule, then no, the two witness rule only applies in order to form a judicial meeting. No one has to have two witnesses to bring it to the authorities.

I don't have time for anymore of this rubbish, just going round in circles. You either have a hard time comprehending, or you are purposefully taking my time up.

5 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Go directly to the police or a local authority. 

Then we are in agreement.

6 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Not so in my case, as I've already been accused of slander and was threatened of being disfellowshipped before i left..  

I never did hear back from the Police that i contacted online.  

Whether you have been accused of slander or not makes any difference to the secular authorities. So that shouldn't worry you. Plus you are no longer JW. But what does it tell you that the Police haven't got back with you yet?

1 minute ago, Shiwiii said:

it should be reported because it is abuse and sometimes the victim will not come forward based on fear of more abuse

OMG! How are you going to report it if you don't know about it????

6 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

you're taking us down a hypothetical right? 

If nothing is said and no one knows anything, then yes on your technicality there is nothing to report ( see John, its the loophole thing again). However, we're NOT talking about hypothetical, we're talking about real life and real people and real situations, or else there wouldn't be any lawsuits....right?   

We are  talking about real life, you said it yourself:

47 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

 *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?

therefore as you say: "If nothing is said and no one knows anything, then yes on your technicality there is nothing to report" And that's all that I was saying. It wasn't my technicality was it? Read your quote above*

8 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

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

Ok. What would you do if the victim doesn't speak out?

14 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Yes but if there are not two witnesses then there will be 'no case to answer', especially if the accused is an Elder. 

And if there is 'no case to answer' then there will of course be nothing to report to the authorities. 

Do you think secular authorities need some kind of proof? I am sure you know they do. You have experienced that yourself.

Let's think of a hypothetical case. Let's say a single mother of a child, whom she knows well, notices that her child has been acting strangely recently. She becomes suspicious something is not right, and eventually her mother's instincts tell her someone has been messing with her child. She has no idea who, or she might have suspicions. She talks with her child, and eventually the child tells her that elder "touchy-feely" has been putting his hand up her skirt. She finds out more details, like perhaps since when, and how often and, where. All this depends on the age of the child of course. What do you think the mother should do now?

4 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

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. 

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, if I wouldn't know there was even a victim in the first place? How can anyone do anything if they don't know about it? The perpetrator is not going to say anything, is he?

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

14 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

29 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. 

Who is covering up? 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. 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.

20 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

The point is that people, especially children, are easily coerced into NOT reporting for fear of retribution from the offending person(s).

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?

20 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

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 elders etc. are concerned with congregational matters. With regard to law enforcement, that is obviously left up to the relevant competent authorities. I do not see anything in that article stating otherwise.

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

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

Of course two witness rule has no influence on how secular authorities will handle the case. The two witness rule is merely applicable in a congregational setting, ie. the judicial committee.

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

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" .

You are missing the point completely.

The WT has to make this situation 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 and the rights of the victim/survivor. 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!

So again I repeat: This is because of the confidentiality and rights of the victim/survivor not because the elders are trying to get out of reporting.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Here is how Franz put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205):

Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
These expressions of God's will by his King and through
his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
companions today... The Lord breaks down our
organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
can be properly developed during that time. And for
company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
the Lord through his established agency directing what
is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
and as collective units called "companies". ...
They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
that assignment. ...
... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
months." That becomes our organization instructions and
has the same binding force on us that his statement to
the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
and obey it. 

I know some brothers  who will use very similar expressions with very specific things to do with assignments for  KH cleaning for instance. This is only a slightly exaggerated example; "Jehovah's direction is to use the swifter rather than a mop and bucket to clean the floor in the restrooms". Some people just have a knack....

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

• Who gets called "The Oracle"?
• Who realizes that the primary scripture  that stands in the way of his 1975 obsession was when Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, and then he himself toys with that very verse in a dismissive way by saying that 'now is not the time to toy with that verse'?
• Who calls the non-governing Jehovah's Witnesses the "rank and file"? 
• Who writes all of the explanations for parables and prophecies as if they are doctrines from on high which cannot be questioned?
• Who claimed that even doubting 1914 was a form of apostasy whether one stated it out loud or not?
• Who would rant angrily that Jesus can't be the mediator of "every Tom Dick and Harry" but is only the mediator of the 144,000?
• Who would refer to the Society as if it was not only the Lord's mouthpiece, but that its pronouncements were the same as "the Lord" himself speaking? Example: 

Yes.... I know, I know. He obviously had strong opinions. Perhaps he was covinced these opinions were guided by holy spirit? But were his intentions bad? I think you said everyone at Bethel though he acted haughty and self righteous, and that that was just his way. I wonder how he was received at his final calling. I wonder if he is speaking beyond the veil to the new "kids on the block", telling them not to make the same mistakes. Perhaps he already did, through, Raymond's book 

43 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

More emphasis on the power of prayer and even faith in setting the mental and heart attitude that should lead them to the right Scriptures, lead them to see through previous mistakes and resolve them with a consistent picture obtained from Scripture, and on the ability of each of them to bring further and additional scriptures to the table that each of them appreciate as being in consistent harmony with the spirit of the Bible and of an over-arching view of Christianity. There should be more emphasis on speaking in agreement with one another, seeing the value of these decisions in producing a more loving organization producing more love and other fruits of the spirit. Also emphasis on the evidence of Jehovah's blessing through the success of these decisions in how they are appreciated by the worldwide body of Witnesses as a whole. How problems are resolved. How lives are changed for the better.

Of course I agree with everything you say, and I am sure GJ would too. He obviously didn't want to go into so much detail. The last part of your quote would have no doubt made a good impression on the commission as it could have been linked to the child abuse issue and its resolution. You are probably thinking of the misapplication of scripture which led to problems for the worldwide body of Witnesses in the past. I think now though these are being considered much more, and I would say lives are changed for the better. But this can also be a matter of opinion, because some things are still being judged as a "law" rather than a principle and left to be a matter of conscience.

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

After all, if that 6,000 year point really had been the significant time marker for Armageddon, if we only knew how long it was between Adam's and Eve's creation -- then surely the Son and the angels would have already known that time marker. Right?

Excellent point!

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is why I was a bit disappointed at the implication by GJ that seems limiting when it says that holy spirit created the Bible for us (true) but it seems like the holy spirit is not described as playing a part in the process of helping the GB understand it. It's presented as if the HS has already done its work and congealed itself into the Bible, but reading and rationalizing and remembering how verses might apply is the way the holy spirit "acts." He did mention prayer but gave no connection to the process. It ends up sounding like the way people apply Dylan lyrics to their lives or Shakespeare quotes to describe an experience or a "moral" of a story. (The difference being that the Bible "contains" holy spirit.) 

I can see why you might be disappointed, but I thought it was a pretty good explanation, lol. I just cannot imagine someone (in this case GJ) describing going into some kind of trance or supernatural state, or some inexplicable feeling. I suppose one could say that the HS guiding someone could be similar to someone KNOWING they are of the anointed. I have heard it said that it took some anointed a while to recognize the calling. Could it perhaps be that it takes a while for someone to comprehend what the HS is telling them and that is why mistakes have been made? I do think though that using the Bible as a kind of "mediator" or channel for the HS to do it's work is reasonable. Without the Bible we would have nothing to base our faith on, regardless of the HS.

In any case, those are my thoughts. How do you think the HS works, how do you think GJ should have described it?

16 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote "Otherwise you would be saying God discriminates on account of position, that somebody with a higher position has more value in God’s eyes than someone of a lowly position. "

If 'Experiences' (in Yearbooks / Watchtowers etc)  are to be believed, then it would seem that God / Jesus Christ has / have saved some brothers/sisters in certain circumstances, but not saved other brothers/sisters in other circumstances. Now both God and His Son work in their own ways, working together as one, and i would never question what they do. I am humble enough to know that their ways are much higher than mine. But they must have their reasons for saving some and not others. (If experiencies are to be believed). 

An example of a supposed 'experience' : A sister was on the ministry and knocked on the door of a man. The man turned her away. The man was later arrested for rape/murder of a woman in his own home. When questioned as to why he did not invite the sister in etc, as she had been his first visitor. The man said that she 'had a man stood either side of her', she was not alone. But the sister had gone in to the ministry alone, so the 'man either side of her' must have been angels guarding her. ... True or false I do not know, but I do know it was offered as an 'experience' at a meeting a long time ago. 

 

It is impossible to even fathom how God operates. One thing is sure; He has the power and the desire to fulfill his purpose.  He can do it anyway he wants, and in his superlative wisdom he knows the best way. I cannot deny that He probably works some type of miracles today, but I cannot see how he would single out certain individuals because he thinks their life has more value than another person’s life. The only factor that may play a part is if that certain person has a role in fulfilling his purpose. The person himself will not even be aware of that. But whether Jehovah protects someone because of a role they play in fulfilling his purpose, or does not protect someone because they have a less important role, eventually both persons will gain everlasting life.  So the reward  will be the same for both. And another factor to think about (and I think it has already been mentioned)  is if Jehovah would protect individuals serving him, then Satan’s challenge he raised with Job would have no meaning.  So I am usually pretty sceptical when it comes to claims that Jehovah stepped in and saved someone.  Anyone can claim that, but that doesn’t make it true. I have already shared this story on here somewhere, but it’s relevant so I will mention it again: A while ago a sister, a Bethelite, was walking back to the Bethel from having been out in service all day when someone grabbed her from behind, stabbed her in the neck and ran off with her handbag.  The surgeons were amazed and said that the chance of the blade missing her jugular was almost zero. They told her she was lucky to be alive. This sister (and others) believes Jehovah saved her, by making the blade miss the jugular. Personally, I believe it was chance. But I cannot deny that if Jehovah had wanted to, he could have of course. This sister works in the translating department, so she plays quite an important role. So did Jehovah “save” her because of her role? And had she worked as a housekeeper, would he have allowed her to get killed? Housekeepers are a dime a dozen, good translators are not.  But then Jehovah could bring in a replacement couldn’t he? So where would the line be drawn with regard to “interfering” in man’s affairs, and putting a "protective fence around his people"?

All good things come from God. But they may not always be directly caused by God.  People can do good deeds by themselves, because that is an innate trait created in them by Jehovah when he created man in his image.  We should give thanks to God for every good thing, so there is nothing wrong with this sister thanking Jehovah, even if Jehovah may have had nothing to do with it.

Also, as JW Insider pointed out, many people who believe in God also attribute apparent miracles to Him. If the sister had been a Catholic lady walking to her church, no doubt she would have also attributed this “miracle” to God.

But as @Srecko Sostar mentioned "time and chance happens to them all". Some for better and some for worse.

On 1/30/2019 at 11:39 AM, JW Insider said:

Is God going to do something that is NOT the most timely and most fitting thing for him to do? The paragraph started out saying how "appropriate" it would be for Jehovah to do this. Is Jehovah going to do something that is NOT appropriate, or LESS appropriate than what is appropriate for him to do?

I think we might be a little harsh in judging F. Franz for having said this, as from your statement above it was obviously nonsensical. I feel it was just his way of saying things, or maybe the way some people spoke. Although it came across as haughty, I doubt Fred's intention was to put himself above God. Who does that?

10 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote "These ones need spiritual instruction just like everyone else." The clue comes in the last 4 words 

What the W/t writer is saying is that the Anointed need instruction from the GB / Writing dept' just like everyone else.

GB also needs instruction just like everyone else.  When Jesus fed the 5 thousand with two fishes and few loaves, his disciples were to form groups of people and then distribute this food to them. I have no doubt that the disciples not only distributed the food they had from Jesus, but they also ate it themselves. And Jesus did too.

‘Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every word * that comes from Jehovah’s mouth.’  The GB are not exempt from this. Not only that , but in reply to Satan, about changing the stones into bread, Jesus applied this to himself too, that he relied on his Father for spiritual food. So if Jesus needs "instructions" from Jehovah, how much more so the GB?  The only one that doesn't need to be spiritually fed is Jehovah.

* the Bible