Anna

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Is it t up to your, Anna’s, JTR or many others here, satisfaction? NO! Because you people expect, an above and beyond, approach that doesn’t have support in this system of things by anyone that doesn’t understand the realities and condition in which they live in.

You are wrong in your assumption. I don't think any of us had/has unrealistic expectations. JW insider described the problem that existed in the past quite accurately:

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Part of it is the "invisibility" of children. They were so much less important to the discussion in prior years, especially - not just among Witnesses. Elders were almost by definition patriarchal and patronizing to children. Children's claims of abuse were always considered serious, but due mostly to the extent that it was an older baptized person who was now in trouble for acting on their sinful thoughts. But it was rarely ever considered how dangerous this was to children through their later life. This is the main reason it is now considered a crime on par with rape. 

 

But still, that doesn't mean it was OK does it?

7 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It's IRONY!

You either get it ... or you don't.

Lol. I get it, don't worry.

I have not been contributing much lately as I am away in Europe visiting family and...well....to busy having fun, lol, but I thought I would just post this true life story from the 80's I just found about. I was talking to a sister (who hasn't been going to meetings for years) the other day. Somehow the conversation turned to this one prominent elder (now deceased) we both knew when we were in the same congregation. I told her that years ago I had heard that there was some notoriety surrounding his name, this was while I was still in his congregation, but that I hadn't paid much attention to it at the time. She revealed to me that he had touched her on several occasions while having a Bible study with her. She was 14. She said she never said anything to anyone until this particular elder groped a sister's breast while she was feeding her baby, at a convention of all places. The sister's father created an almighty upheaval (basically he told everyone what this elder had done to his daughter and said he would kill him) and soon others came forward. When my friend found out about it,  she also felt safe to come forward too. She then told me that this elder was summoned to a judicial committee by the CO. The result was that he was taken off as elder BUT remained a regular pioneer. She said that the elder's best buddy was on the committee......She then told me that she slept with the lights on for weeks because she was scared he would "get her" for ratting on him....

Now this sister has no desire to cause any trouble and has no ill feelings towards the witnesses. But reading between the lines this experience contributed to her falling away.

My mom also knew this elder, as she was also in his congregation. I had remembered she had said something about him at the time, so I asked her about it now. She said that she knew about the "breast groping" and she also said that one time when he was visiting our house, he had tried to justify male sexual behavior by saying that if she (my mom) lay down on the couch naked, he would not be able to resist her. My mom told him he was a creep and sent him packing.

Now I was just imagining that had this happened in America, and had this sister become bitter and years later decided to file a lawsuit (assuming the elder wasn't dead) a case may have been opened and who knows what else might have come to light. What I mean by that is what if he had molested other kids later? And here we would have a classic case of negligence by an elder body.....

32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

He said that "it ( contacting the civil authorities) finally puts the fear of God in these pedophiles."

Nothing against your uncle, but I have noticed quite frequently friends making illogical and contradictory remarks such as this. I wonder if upon reflection they realize that what they've just said makes no sense at all, but just leave it at that. I am guilty of this too by the way. Or are they genuinely so blinkered? Or is it just a saying. No need to answer. This is merely a rhetorical question 

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But I do think that honesty is important. We might be 10 times worse, or 10 times better. And either statistic is meaningless if our process is just and righteous. If our message attracted all of the worse sinners of the world who wanted to see if they could overcome their wicked desires just by association with worldwide brotherhood known for morality, then we could shouldn't be ashamed if we have attracted a large number of pedophiles into our number. But if our judicial process is flawed and is inadvertently "lenient" toward child abusers, or helps to hide them from law enforcement, or perverts justice toward children somehow, then we should focus on that.

Excellent point

On 3/20/2018 at 11:33 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Tom says, to try to keep the Org clean, or, was it to be able to hide all the info in one place ? 

If they wanted to hide it, wouldn't it have been easier to not even document it? Or if it was documented, wouldn't it have been better to destroy it?

On 3/20/2018 at 11:33 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Why didn't the Governing Body follow the instruction from God as written in Romans 13 v 1 through 7.

There were no specific laws on how to handle child sexual molestation put in place by governments for a long time. It is relatively recently where governments have begun to investigate this problem in an effort to implement effective remedies.

On 3/20/2018 at 11:33 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The California court, which surely represents the government, demanded the documents that the JW Org / GB had concerning Child Abuse within the JW Org USA. By opposing the court the Governing Body were in fact opposing God. The scripture proves that. 

As far as I am aware Zalkin has many of the documents already, but has been ordered by the court to keep them confidential, and locked up. I am no lawyer but it's evidently not just a simple matter of handing over documents that's the problem. 

On 3/20/2018 at 11:33 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

So in times of spiritual warfare it is proper to misdirect  the enemy by hiding the truth". This article also leads people into the way of thinking that telling lies is OK if you are doing it to protect the Organisation. 

And in my opinion that is what the GB think, and also practice today. 

How you think the GB apply this to pedophiles makes no sense. How would "hiding" the truth about pedophiles protect the organization? The principle of "hiding the truth from enemies" or from those "who had no right to know" was to protect lives. Pedophiles, just like any other Witnesses who are Witnesses in name only, bring shame to the org. but nobody is that naive to believe that these individuals do not exist within the org. and hopefully no one is that dumb to believe that such individuals are purposefully protected and shielded from punishment. 

On 3/18/2018 at 8:27 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

How did there come to be a "pedophile list" in the first place? It is a consequence of internal church disciple so as to present to God a clean people that the Bible says he demands. EVERYONE should have done this and NOBODY did

Good point

On 2/25/2018 at 2:10 PM, AlanF said:

So Anna, will you get back to this thread?

Remember that it was you who wanted to discuss this topic.

AlanF

Yes I will, definitely! I am very interested in this topic, it but I have honestly had no time recently as I am working on some deadlines. I need to be able to have at least a couple of hours uninterrupted which I have not had!

This whole story its extremely sad. It's a tragedy. When something like this happens, people want to know why, and when they feel there is something they can blame, they do. However, blaming a religion (that they voluntarily left) is only an emotional knee jerk reaction. This lady was obviously mentally very, very, sick. Why else would she shoot her two happy successful children and husband? (and dog). Why didn't she just take her own life? No, you cannot blame religion for this.

On 2/20/2018 at 10:46 AM, JW Insider said:

I thought that this was one of the best of the original songs. The singer has an authentic country-music-style voice and the guitar work is crisp, clean and simple.

I was wondering if this is Nicolas King. I tried comparing some you tube videos of him singing and of course this is a different type of song to what he normally sings and the recordings are really bad,  but I thought I could hear similarities in a couple of spots....

Sorry, I've been too busy but I will get back to this thread soon!

17 minutes ago, AlanF said:

it's clear to me that Gertoux accepts modern chronology as set forth by the latest scholars.

I don't think he just accepts it, he arrived at those conclusions himself through his studies of astronomy. He is quite an expert I would say.

https://www.academia.edu/6112370/Basic_astronomy_for_historians_to_get_a_chronology

@Gone Away HA! we posted at the same time!

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It is my opinion that Jehovah's Witnesses ARE the exception to the "God Delusion" hypothesis, but as Governing Body Member Geoffrey Jackson said under oath to the Australian Royal Commission on Child Abuse No. 29, in 2015  (2016?) (paraphrased) ... "I think it would be presumptuous to think that Jehovah's Witnesses are the ONLY religion approved by God."

I cannot remember the exact quote ... but that was the gist of it.

Perhaps others who have the quote will correct me.

.

He wasn't talking about religion. He was talking about being a spokesperson for God.

Here is the exact quote:

Question:   And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?

G. Jackson:   That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to

  say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using.

  The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony

  with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the

  congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going

  back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last

  days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last

  days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would

  have responsibility to care for the spiritual food.  So in

  that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfil that role.

According to Gerard Gertoux:

“Chronology is the backbone of history” is usually taught in schools but in the same time the first fall of Babylon is currently fixed today (2016) either in 1595 BCE or in 1651, 1531, 1499 depending on historians! In Egyptology the situation is still worse because each Egyptologist has his own chronology (+/- 20 years)! Such a difference in timeline prevents one from reaching the historical truth. It is for this reason that from Herodotus, the “father of history” (in fact the father of scientific and chronological inquiry), Greek historians gradually established a system of scientific dating in order to write a universal history. Many astronomical phenomena (observed and described by Babylonian astrologers), which are well identified such as eclipses, enable anyone today (with at least an undergraduate level) to synchronize these ancient dating systems and anchor them on absolute dates. As incredible as it may seem this is still not done (among the hundreds of thousands of theses in history there is none which focuses on chronology, except the one of Isaac Newton in 1728 entitled: Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended). The purpose of the present brochure is to give the chronologies of the main ancient civilizations (Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Sumerian, Hittite, Mitannian, Israelite, etc.) with their synchronisms as well as all absolute dating based on astronomical events (which have been precisely dated in a calendar) like eclipses, solar or lunar, and some Sothic risings".

Download the "brochure" here: https://www.academia.edu/26080694/Absolute_Chronology_of_the_Ancient_World_from_1533_BCE_to_140_CE

I just got this in the mail today! Now to find time to actually read it.....

 

The God delusion- are Jehovah's Witnesses the exception?

Religion seems to be more divisive and destructive than any other belief system. Why does the belief in a superhuman power bear such "rotten fruit"? 

Each religion claims they are the one and only true religion. Is there such a thing as the only true Religion, and one that actually bears "good fruit"?

Please watch the documentary below and feel free to share any observations you might have, or comment on the problem of religion and belief you have identified and/or the areas where Jehovah's Witnesses differ....etc.

At the end of the video Dawkins asks imploringly, appealing to our sense of gratitude: “People sometimes say there must be more to this life....but how much more do you want”?

I guess you can present that question to someone who was born in poverty and disease, and has no way out. Or you can ask someone who has been diagnosed with a fatal illness and has no way of getting better. Or you can ask someone who has lost loved ones who cannot be brought back.  I am sure they would tell you they wished for more.....  

 

 

7 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

He was "righteous" in that he tried to do the right thing, but seemed to be a bit legalistically oriented.

He probably knew that Mary's potential capital crime depended on her being 'promised in marriage'. If the separation was to be done in secret, (presumably without broadcasting the reason), she could  hightail it back to Judah where Elizabeth was and the scene of her "apparent" liason. Then she could possibly get together with her mysterious suitor and cover up the alleged misdemeanour. Or at least, the culprit, if unwilling to marry her, could pay Mary's father the appropriate compensation. Or some other hair-brained reasoning. Who knows?? He just didn't want her to die.

What we DO NOT see Joseph doing is falling on his face before Jehovah, (rather like Hezekiah when receiving the Assyrian threats), and begging Jehovah to make him understand ......Anyway, never one to be stumped by human inadequacy, Jehovah got it all worked out His way in the end.

Interesting how different personality types must also play a role. Everyone reacts differently, and it's not necessarily good or bad, just different..

2 hours ago, "Hammer" Rubi said:

Interesting statements here to me, who knows it all. Learned participants, I can see. No need to set anyone straight. However if a certain ignoramus ventures forth here, he is toast.

@TrueTomHarley  you and your alter egos! 

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Wright was the one who found some additional material that I can't explain within our current perspective about the Mosaic Law. I'll go on if someone asks.

So of course I'm curious. What did he say?

I know I've probably said enough about this, but I've thought of another scenario. Suppose a wife has just given birth and because of loss of blood, she passes out momentarily and drops the baby on its head, and the baby dies. Her husband now becomes the avenger of blood. Is he really going to immediately start beating the life out of her with a stone, knowing that there is no way a woman that had just had a difficult birth is up to fleeing goodness knows how far? Or is it more likely he going to wait until she is strong enough and then pack everything up and take the whole family to a new life in the city of refuge. He could of course lie, and tell everyone that the baby died of natural causes, and stay put. So it's his attitude and respect for Jehovah's laws that would make him choose the correct path and take the blood guilt away from the city, to where his wife would become "clean" again, even if it meant rather a lot of inconvenience. He wouldn't surely have to kill her right here and there to show obedience to the law. Unless he hated her and that was his perfect chance. But Jehovah is the reader of hearts and motives and he will be the ultimate judge.

Nice to see you commenting again @Gone Fishing 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

There are many Jewish sources which are merely additional types of speculation. The speculation is perhaps a bit more likely to be of interest because Jewish sources have often been speculating on such things for a much longer period of written history than any so-called Christian sources. Many, historically, have had the advantage of speculating in the same language the Bible was written in and therefore have noticed nuances of language that most of us would miss. Often the same so-called advantages have led them astray, too. Looking through the Babylonian Talmud for early commentary on various subjects, for example, one might find answers relying on numerology and/or gematria. One also finds pure contradiction in some of the ancient Jewish traditions. For example, paraphrasing (but not by much):

• Rabbi so-and-so said this means one thing, and Rabbi thus-and-such said this means the opposite.

 

True of course. But I didn't want to focus so much on whether Jewish sources were always reliable, but in this case it would make sense because the point of the cities of refuge was not punishment, but rather a merciful provision for those who otherwise would have to be executed, because that was the law, regardless whether it was accidental or not. It would make no sense for example  if the accidental manslayer was a wife, and  her husband and dependent children would have to abandon her. I don't think the point of this law was to break up families.There are so many other  scenarios one could think of, that obviously could not all be covered by the law in detail, so the law must have been applied in principle. This wasn't even my observation but a friend of TTH suggested that the father of a fugitive son who had accidentally killed his brother would be allowed to go with him. It made sense to me....

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Sounds interesting, but isn't it all just speculation?

Ya, you know I love speculation  But apparently (according to the WT) some Jewish sources say the fugitive could bring his family with him/her. So if that is true, and I don't see why it shouldn't be as why would Jehovah want to separate a husband from his wife and children for example, then it stands to reason a young man who had to flee because he accidentally killed his brother living under the same roof with the parents would not necessarily have to be severed from his family. So if that was the case, then why make a "show" of fleeing, if your family was going to join you anyway? And if one member of that family was to be the avenger of blood, would he make a "show" of staying behind just till you made it to the city, and then join you later?

The law was that the avenger of blood was not allowed to touch the fugitive in the city of refuge, it says nothing about the avenger of blood not being able to live in the same city does it?

Someone also made a point that if the accidental manslayer was a son, still living at home, who killed his brother, then the next of kin to be the blood avenger would have been the father of the two boys. However, the whole family of the "guilty" son could go with him to the city of refuge, including the father of course. This shows that it wasn't about the avenging of blood as such, but more about respecting Jehovah's institution of the "refuge", on both the part of the manslayer, and the avenger of blood. In this case, one can imagine the whole family, including the manslayer and the avenger of blood walking together to the city of refuge.