MANDATORY Reporting of Child Abuse

by silentlambs 129 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  joelbear

  Dung,

  I hope you realize that I certainly care. Thats why I push Bill to strive for accuracy in the statements he makes and serioussness in the tone he uses and I call him on it when he doesn't.

  Joel
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hi again, ThatSucks

  My reasons for insisting on public discussion of my questions stems from the nature of my questions, and the fact that the answers are something the public deserves to hear.

  My questions are about statements of position/policy, not about any individual's case. Actual cases of child abuse victims have dynamics and permutations far beyond the singular issues I was trying to gain some understanding of as to what Bill would have people do as a matter of policy. If Bill is unwilling to make public what he feels should be policy given a real life circumstance then he's asking people to publicly support something they can't publicly talk about, which would be absurd.

  You write:
  

  "Unfortnately, unbeknownst (perhaps deliberately?) by you, answering your questions publicly can have a profound impact on legalities later."

  Again, this would only be true if I were asking Bill to comment about an actual case of child abuse. The day has not yet come in the USA where expressing a conviction about "what should be" endangers a person's cause, unless the cause is illegal. Then it might be a problem.
• 

  sunscapes

  I appreciate that Joel.

  I noticed that when Bill said that tweedldee and dum were "little men". I thought that was self-aggrandizing. I mean, the Christian way would be to humble onself to be the "little man" even when you don't understand or agree with another's position.

  I think, though, after reading this LOOOOONG thread, that everybody's views and goals here are NOT THAT FAR apart, despite the rhetoric.
• 

  dungbeetle

  >I think, though, after reading this LOOOOONG thread<

  ROTFLMAO
• 

  ThatSucks

  Marvin,

  You said:

  Again, this would only be true if I were asking Bill to comment about an actual case of child abuse. The day has not yet come in the USA where expressing a conviction about "what should be" endangers a person's cause, unless the cause is illegal. Then it might be a problem.

  You forget that not only is SL dealing with the legalities of the law of the land, he is also dealing with "theocratic legalities" of those whom he is trying to protect, on the terms of the WT's existance as a religious entity. (We are talking about people being victimized because they believe that something is above the law of the land, and who constantly weigh arguments based on perceived motives). Again and again SL is telling people "what should be", Yet people like you seem intent on twisting his words. I personally do not blame him for wanting to keep his "trap shut", otherwise people like you would deter others from helping his cause.
• 

  sf

  Ya know what I was thinkin'?...(yea, i know, i know)...how simple it would be for "SL" to meet each person, individually, who have specific inquiries and (quest)tions, in yahoo VOICE CHAT. That way there are no interjections/ interruptions (distractions) that cloud up the Quest.

  These posts are so hard to get to any crux or Truth because of so many distractions from other posts. No way would, you, "SL" be interrupted and you can stay Focus(ed). What a CONcept, eh?

  By the way, when ARE you disassociating yourself from this Disgusting Thing anyway? Save your answer for our chat.

  If man was supposedly created in gods image, then.....holy krap...we're all doomed.-sKallyWagger

  “What a blessing such integrity keepers are to the congregation!”(5/15/02 WT magazine, pg. 27)
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  ThatSucks

  You write:
  

  "You forget that not only is SL dealing with the legalities of the law of the land, he is also dealing with "theocratic legalities" of those whom he is trying to protect, on the terms of the WT's existance as a religious entity."

  I'm not sure what complication you feel like you see. Given the practical situation that Bill is already in (de facto disfellowhsipped) him making a public "what should be" statement represents no threat to Bill or anyone else regardless of whether a specific case is before a secular or JW tribunal. If you are going to insist that some threat exist that should keep us from voicing publicly what Bill would have us stand for publicly then you should provide some evidence demonstrating this is a true possibility. Otherwise all you've done is introduced a red herring into this discussion. Frankly, the notion is so absurd (i.e., public support for a secret position) I see no possibility that it could exist.

  "Again and again SL is telling people "what should be", Yet people like you seem intent on twisting his words. I personally do not blame him for wanting to keep his "trap shut", otherwise people like you would deter others from helping his cause."

  No, Bill has not given clear details about "what should be." The questions I asked are precisely to gain an understanding on important aspects of what he has said. Of course any of us can choose to keep our traps shut, but on issues of public concern someone has to say what the position is. Otherwise what is to rally around? If Bill wants to lead a unified effort then he has no choice but to express himself as clearly as the public needs it, so they can stand in support. You can believe what you will, but spending my time on this thread of discussion is not for me alone. There are quite a few people watching this thing who are considering just how far they can go in support of Bill's proposals. They can hardly do that unless they understand them.

  If you feel I've twisted Bill's words then please give me one example. We will see who's twisted what. My questions are to avoid twisting Bill's words. I only want to understand what he means when he says certain things. Earlier when Bill hurled the same accusation at me I basically replied by saying, 'Okay, if what you wrote does not mean what I thought it did then tell me what you mean." I guess that dirt simple request is a helluva lot tougher for Bill to comply with than it should be. In any event, my ongoing dialogue demonstrates a desire to understand what the man expects in some critical areas, and to undo whatever twisting he thought had occurred.
• 

  ThatSucks

  Marvin,

  I had a detailed post for you that was just lost *GRRRRR*. Here is a summary of what I was writing...

  SL has stated what he considers the issues to be. Just because you don't understand SL's position doesn't mean that others do not. I also think your idea of 'all information publicly for the good of the cause' is itsself absurd when part of your audience uses "theocratic warfare strategy" on a daily basis.

  You have made it painfully obvious that you do not wish to resolve this matter to your own satisfaction, you instead wish to put SL on the spot, as it were, knowing FULL WELL who your audience is.

  Now, before you go bantering on about "where's the proof, where's the proof", or trying to educate me on what a proper debate is, why don't you contact BB directly and let us know what he says. You tell us what he won't say here.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  ThatSucks writes:
  

  "SL has stated what he considers the issues to be. Just because you don't understand SL's position doesn't mean that others do not. I also think your idea of 'all information publicly for the good of the cause' is itsself absurd when part of your audience uses "theocratic warfare strategy" on a daily basis."

  I have no concern about what others feel they understand. Of course, whether they understand Bill correctly is another question, but that is not my concern. My questions have been for what is not understood by others, including me.

  Theocratic War Strategy is the WTS' way of justifying its leaders' ability to lie when it pleases them. This has nothing at all to do with whether there is some problem created over other people voicing what they feel a position should be in a given circumstance. If we accept your idea without some evidence of relevance to this discussion then we might just as well pack our bags and refuse to talk about anything! I'm sorry, your offering here is nothing but a red herring.

  You write:
  

  "You have made it painfully obvious that you do not wish to resolve this matter to your own satisfaction, you instead wish to put SL on the spot, as it were, knowing FULL WELL who your audience is."

  That's easy enough to say, but all it amounts to is your opinion, which you are entitled. As for an objective evidencing of my wish to resolve my concerns, there is no better to way than to ask questions since that is exactly what anyone wanting to resolve things would do! Without dispute I have asked questions in this discussion! I have practically typed until my fingers are bleeding asking questions!

  As for an audience, the audience is whoever watches this board; we all knew that from the beginning, including when Bill started this thread expressly for the purpose of sorting out misunderstandings. If you would assert I have some hidden agenda other than what I have represented here in writing, let's see some evidence of it. In my case we are only talking about one man that tried to get some simple and straightforward answers to simple and straightforward questions.

  You write:
  

  "Now, before you go bantering on about "where's the proof, where's the proof", or trying to educate me on what a proper debate is, why don't you contact BB directly and let us know what he says. You tell us what he won't say here."

  I won't waste my time lecturing you. Why should I? If you want to know something about logical debate you will either ask questions to increase your understanding (as I have on this thread) or else you will go do some reading. If you want some recommended reading I can supply some suggestions.

  As for contacting Bill in person by telephone, don't you see a correlation between my questions about conditions of personal confidentiality and doing that very thing? If he is unwilling to go on record about his position on agreeing up front about confidentiality on issues as it relates to the very cause he says he stands for, how and why should I trust what he would do with a voice discussion where it is far easier to make trouble for someone out of spite or ignorance?! I cannot trust a man that refuses to explain publicly what he wants people to support publicly! Otherwise, as I have already explained to exhaustion, this discussion belongs in public, and that's where I will keep my part of it.

  By the way, if you decide to actually give evidence of your public accusation that I've twisted something Bill said, I am still waiting to see it.
• 

  waiting

  (((((((((dungbeetle))))))))) I'm a victim of my father and my daughter is a victim of several - including a former ministerial servant.

  There are many of us - and we do care.

  Okey Dokey.........(((((((((((GROUP HUG GUYS!!!!))))))))))))))

  waiting

  ps I suspect there are a couple of more like me - who do get lost in the rhetoric now and again reading this Looooooooong thread - but, imho, an absolutely necessary thread.

  This is exactly what the WTBTS won't let it's followers do - discuss pros and cons......talk about controversial subjects. This is a delicious freedom we shouldn't take too lightly.

  I don't think anything discussed in this thread could be marked Top Secret. It's discussing viewpoints.