WT Public Information-Position On Murder

by silentlambs 49 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AlanF

  You can disagree all you want Cygnus; the comparison remains valid.

  Murder and child molestation are crimes, period.

  Bill's analogy is valid because it parodies how the Society handles a murder case as opposed to a molestation case. It does this by showing the ridiculousness of handling a murder case by the same principles and rules as it does a molestation case.

  The two sides of an analogy by nature do not correspond one-to-one. That does not invalidate analogies. An analogy is valid when it illustrates certain parallelisms between the things compared.

  The Society has two serious problems in its application of the two-witnesses rule: (1) the rule is ancient and outmoded; (2) it does not strictly follow the rule.

  (1) The rule was probably ok within the confines of the simple society of pastoral Israelites. Today there are sophisticated forensic tools that allow someone's guilt to be established even when there are no witnesses. Today we have DNA evidence and so forth. Thus, the biblical two-witnesses rule is not particularly applicable today.

  (2) The Society allows that circumstantial evidence in a few tightly controlled cases is sufficient to establish guilt. For example, if someone is observed by witnesses to stay overnight at the home of a known homosexual, the person can be disfellowshipped on that circumstantial evidence alone. Thus the Society is hypocritical when it demands two eyewitnesses to the much worse crime of child molestation.

  One wonders why Watchtower leaders drag their feet so heavily with respect to child molestation. I think that circumstantial evidence clearly tells us why: many of these men are or have been molesters, and so they don't view molestation as a serious crime. For example, the Governing Body simply gave Leo Greenlees a slap on the wrist and assigned him as a special pioneer, after he raped a ten year old boy. Insider reports indicate that many of the Society's top leaders are soft on molestation, and put the name of the organization or the reputation of a competent organization man who happens to be a molester first. It has been observed that anyone who strongly defends being soft on molesters are themselves molesters -- and it stands to reason why.

  I'm beginning to wonder, Cygnus, if you're not longing for that warm old fuzzy nothingness that comprises the JW world, a world where real thinking is not desired or welcomed. But you know very well that you can't go back. You've seen the light and you can't unsee it. For some reason you don't want to take advantage of the many people you could yak with, and perhaps get whatever is really bothering you out in the open. Whatever -- you ain't gonna be a JW ever again, so figure something else out.

  AlanF
• 

  ChiChiMama

  Check this out!

  This WT letter shows that WTs viev of the crime of murder is not that different that that of the crime of child molestation anyway.
  * http://www.silentlambs.org/
  
  If this link doesnt take you to the letter, go to the silentlambs website.There's a link at the bottom of this page.Click on WT letters, then scroll down to the murder letter.

  It is shocking!

  ChiChi
  
• 

  ChiChiMama

  I sure hope I didn't kill this thread!

  For those who don't want to go to the trouble of looking at the letter I present the following.

  This letter is from WT headquarters to a body of elders.
  The elders had a man in their congregation who had committed several murders and other crimes.He is a fugutive,A Wanted man by the authourities.
  The elders want to know if they should turn him in.(can you believe they have to ask?)
  Their reply is unbelievable and so simular to what the way they deal with child molesters.

  They tell the elders that they have no obligation to turn this murder in.The Wt even tells then that turning the man in could have "major repurcussions" on him and his wife! It is disgusting!!!

  His victims family diserve closure and he diserves to face the consequences of his actions no matter when he committed these crimes.

  I am telling you this is related to and on the same level as child abuse.They are both crimes and we have proof of how WT views it.

  ChiChi
  
• 

  Cygnus

  Hi Alan,

  : Bill's analogy is valid because it parodies how the Society handles a murder case as opposed to a molestation case. It does this by showing the ridiculousness of handling a murder case by the same principles and rules as it does a molestation case.

  That was my point. Stealing, fraud and other crimes are also DFing offences, but every case is handled slightly different. I understand where Bill is coming from but I think he was simply trying to sensationalize the issue.

  : The Society has two serious problems in its application of the two-witnesses rule: (1) the rule is ancient and outmoded;

  I don't disagree, however, the BIBLE has it as a rule, both in the Old and the New testaments. My question was, should the JWs divert from a clear biblical directive because Caesar says so?

  : (2) it does not strictly follow the rule.

  You give the example of two elders spying on a brother who spends the night at a known homosexual's house. That is far different from the accusation of one child against someone who otherwise has a good reputation in the congregation.

  I haven't much to comment on regarding your speculation that high-level JWs are molesters themselves.

  : I'm beginning to wonder, Cygnus, if you're not longing for that warm old fuzzy nothingness that comprises the JW world, a world where real thinking is not desired or welcomed.

  On the contrary, Alan. On this board I see a gang mentality and a lot of people who will jump on the bandwagon as long as it is anti-Watchtower. I have no love for the Watchtower at all, but it seems like nobody wants to ask Bill Bowen or anyone else any tough questions.
• 

  one

  Cygnus said:

  "nobody wants to ask Bill Bowen or anyone else any tough questions."
  
  like what?

  Btw
  do you have any children?

  the overwhelming evidence can offend anyone with decent senisitivity.

  The high degree of indignation because of the 'actitude' of your life long religion makes imposible to question ("hard question")the obvious.

  Again, do you have children?

  What do you do for a living?
  you see the bible is obsolete in many areas.
  it has mistakes too by the way.

  But the point is, as Alan mentioned, procedure obsolesence is speeding up, even long stablished theories have to be thrown out. Can you or the GB read Greek?
• 

  one

  This TWO witness thing,

  Using WT and Court analisis

  What the writter (BIBLE, code)had in mind?
  Or the analogy what the legislator had in mind when writting the law or procedure?

  Deut 19:15 as the original writter mention the two witness requirement

  But Deut 19:16 the next verse talk about the kind of crime the writter had in mind such as uprising, revolt, rebellion.

  NOT CHILD ABUSE.

  Heck, if you read verse 6 on the same chapter the AVENGER could even kill anyone (murderer) BEFORE bringing over the so called two witness.
  The murderer really had to RUN BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE.

  Child molestation consecuences could be worst, for victim and family, than killing outright.

  What the logic tells you?

  If you think wt is right in doing what is doing. More thinking has to be done.

  If under religious protection wt "seem" to be doing it right then what Bill is doing IS right and out of questioning.

  Religious REFORM is what the WT has been doing continuously since its begining. But reforming or reconsidering, "generation" etc instead of the more direct damaging procedures.

  I know, the error has to hit them before they see it.
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello,

  People like Cygnus play a vital role in helping to place the WTS into some sort of realistic and historical perspective.

  It *is* true that this Board tends towards the extreme view of JW's. Why would it not? It is after all made up of XJW's, *all* of whom have grievances, and all of whom have found a long-neglected voice crying out from deep within that wants the world to know just how deeply they feel about their predicament.

  Cygnus is not agreeing with the WTS and its excesses, but it seems to me that as a 'Devils Advocate' he is playing an important role in presenting views that serve to attempt to balance and highlight a different dimension than the mainstream JW bashing that occurs in great measure on this Board, and I for one am grateful for this.

  To inhabit the XJW world of extremes, where black and white, saint and sinner rule can actually serve as a regressive catalyst in helping us to understand what happened to us as JW's and subsequently we might find that we cannot move from this emotional ledge on which we rest, but find ourselves trapped between two worlds.

  Please do not censure the voices that present an alternative scenario, sometimes they can help us reach a level of truth that previously we may not have imagined or entertained.

  Cygnus has a right to question Bill Bowen, why should he not have?

  For example, 'One', you ask:

  "nobody wants to ask Bill Bowen or anyone else any tough questions." like what?

  Well, to answer your question, Cygnus asked Bill to answer the following question :

  I would appreciate a straightforward answer from Bill Bowen in this regard: Does he believe that the JWs have biblical and scriptural support for their protocol or not?

  Now, Alan answered this question, agreeing that the Bible does propose such a scenario, but this scenario is inadequate for our day.

  I am sure we all agree with this, but the WTS does not accept that there are any alternatives to this tight and uncompromising scriptural view. Hence the dilemma.

  How do you get these people to understand that scriptural principles cannot be dragged into the C20th and applied to circumstances that they were never designed for? It worked fine in C1st Israel, but it just does not work now.

  I do not know the answer to this, but I *do* thank Cygnus for raising this important point.

  Best to you all - HS
• 

  one

  hillary_step,

  "Please do not censure"

  every one is just speaking out, inluding Cynus...

  You mentioned that Cygnus did asked the following question:

  "Does he believe that the JWs have biblical and scriptural support for their protocol or not?"

  I dont know about Bill ,
  But I dont think "JW' have scriptural support.

  Obviouly did not have support for the "Generation", Aluminum, military service policy, blood -+, and many other issues.

  They should not just pick a verse and apply it to ANY situation they think fit OUTOFCONTEXT and/or applicability.

  "How do you get these people to understand"

  Well, (HELL) the hard way just like Bill is doing it.

  Usually they dont change anything until hard hit or someone ROAR.

  Stepping in sync I "thank" Cynus too.

  BTW
  you have religious, legal and MORAL issues.

  thing that are legal are not MORALLY correct, morality should the root of any religious org. besides pure theological doctrines, they shoud and can harmonize, unless you (WT) have strange agendas.
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello One,
  
  You note:

  "Please do not censure"

  I do not believe that I have censured anybody, I have striven to be fair to Cygnus, who has the right to express his viewpoint, as we all do. I also have the right to defend his viewpoint, which I happen to feel has some merit.

  every one is just speaking out, inluding Cynus...

  Exactly…please note my statement above.

  You mentioned that Cygnus did asked the following question: "Does he believe that the JWs have biblical and scriptural support for their protocol or not?" I dont know about Bill.

  Perhaps One, this is the point that we are both trying to assess. Your asked what ‘tough’ questions Bill had not answered. Well this was the one that Cygnus asked and that I quoted.

  But I dont think "JW' have scriptural support.

  You may be correct One, but I feel that they do have support for this scriptually. What they do not have is the ability to understand that this is a very different world from the one in which the principles the WTS uses were penned. Alan has already dealt with this point earlier in this thread.

  Obviouly did not have support for the "Generation", Aluminum, military service policy, blood -+, and many other issues.

  Of course the WTS would argue that *they do* have support for these things scriptually. That they changed their understanding of these issues is also something that they feel they have scriptual precedent over. They are after all not the only group who have interpreted these scriptures in a similar fashion.

  They should not just pick a verse and apply it to ANY situation they think fit OUTOFCONTEXT and/or applicability.

  I agree entirely. We know what the WTS views are here, Cygnus was asking Bill what his view of the matter is.

  "How do you get these people to understand" Well, (HELL) the hard way just like Bill is doing it. Usually they dont change anything until hard hit or someone ROAR.

  This is where I for one disagree with you. They do change their modus-operandi, usually for the good of their adherents and due to pressure from Legal avenues and their 'Satanic' opposition, but I do not agree with you that they understandwhy these changes are necessary.

  You have religious, legal and MORAL issues.

  I am not sure what you mean here, can you explain further.

  thing that are legal are not MORALLY correct.

  Some are, some are not.

  morality should the root of any religious org. besides pure theological doctrines, they shoud and can harmonize, unless you (WT) have strange agendas.

  I am not sure if you are suggesting that I reflect the views of the WTS here or not. I will leave you to explain this. On the matter of morality and doctrine, well One, religion has always struggled to present morality in a way that is socially tenable. It fails continuously where the Bible is concerned for many reasons, not the least of them being that they are always open to individual interpretation, and that doctrine seeks to blend the human frame into one shape, something that has never worked for long, and never will.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  deddaisy

  what ever happened to "common sense?"