PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus 173 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

Focus

Kind Friend shared:
> Xandit is correct, you are an idiot!
> Initially, and incorrectly, you stated:
>> So - the summary [of w73 11/15 QFR] is: "YES, YOU MUST NOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST A FELLOW JW - NO EXCEPTIONS".
>> A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW - if the matter is serious enough, and the JW is unrepentant,
>> he/she will be disfellowshiped and then one will not be taking a "Christian" to court if one proceeds. But a JW must not
>> act until the disfellowshiping happens, as the above article makes clear.
> By your own words you later refute yourself, yet you are apparently too stupid to see it!
> After being asked about an instance of a JW witnessing another JW commit a serious criminal wrongdoing
> and whether that JW would be free to report the crime, you answered, "Yes." What does that mean?
I'll tell you - it means that you are a liar. What you have quoted above was NOT the question which you put to me, and you know it. Your question was whether it would be against WT policy (as distinct from counsel) to report it.
Quite a different thing, in a Borg like the Watchtower where eating a sandwich with the wrong person gets you DF'd. Ummm, there was no policy banning that.
You have learned your lessons well, O Deceitful One, from thine Spiritual Mother.
[Spurious reasonings snipped]
> If you don’t understand that then I suppose it must be spelled out with a crayon.
> Alas, there is no crayon feature on this forum! I guess you must reside in your idiocy!
Nice to see we have penetrated your armor, F iend .
LOL!
And those poor molested kids are still there, too afraid to come forth AT ALL because they believe they must go to elders first (A TERRIFYING PROSPECT - Daddy/Uncle is one of them!) before Social Services or the cops. After all, they have heard the stories of what happens behind closed doors.
I always wonder how apologist scum of a certain sort manage to sleep at night. Care to share?
--
Focus
(Highly Unamused Class)
expatbrit

Friend:
You use the well-worn JW technique of expecting that everyone must comply with your conversational ground rules and answer leading questions the way you wish them to.
Your question is predicated upon my putting myself into a hypothetical situation of your choosing, namely:
1)that I have a daughter
2)that she has been abused by a JW
3)that I am still a "loyal" follower of the WTS
4)that I feel that informing the secular authorities will worsen my daughter's circumstances.
5)that I wish to seek help from the elders.
Very well, if all the above circumstances were true, then the answer is that of course I would not feel comfortable seeking help from the elders if I knew they were obligated to inform secular authorities.
But, in feeling so, I would make myself an accessory and compounding factor to the abuse of my child, and I would share responsibility for the suffering of any further victims of the abuser.
My opinion is unchanged. The WT operates one policy for the secular world based on deception, that attempts to show that it is open and honest in declaring instances of child abuse. Meanwhile it operates another policy within it's congregations to cover up child abuse and stifle victims by means of emotional pressure. The GB is aware of this: the pain of the victims is on their heads. They care only for the preservation of their power and image.
Any organisation or person that attempts to reserve to itself the prerogative of whether or not to inform the duly constituted authorities of an instance of the abuse of another person is part of the problem.
Friend, we are obviously not going to agree on this subject. But thank you for a thought-provokng discussion. I hope we can exchange views on other subjects in the future.
Expatbrit.
Focus

Xandit burbled:
> I know of a number of elders that have been removed for bad advise,
> or acting outside policy in matters similar to the discussion here
Sure, sure. Weren't you the joker telling me off for quoting examples of private prosecutions (you ignorantly called them "Civil prosecutions", quite a telling contradiction in terms for someone insolently proffering legal advice!) on the grounds that they were "two cases out of a few billion" and were "so rare they don't even appear on the radar scope".
Hey - so too are your elders, then - two in a few billion! Elders get booted for proven immorality and for not toeing the party line, kissing the right posteriors etc. Not for what you claim. Have you ever been a jW??
And I provided citations. You, Mr Credibility-Zero, didn't.
So, run along now - grownups (and F iends too) are talking. I've reviewed your posting record, you are a worthless and ignorant troll: note that the "FRED HALL" handle is up for grabs at H2O. Bid for it by guessing a nine letter word (all CAPS) that describes folks like you and he - it is the password. And keep out of discussions as serious as these ones. OK?
--
Focus
("Love" - WT-style Class)
Edited by - Focus on 4 March 2001 16:29:2
Focus

happytobefree wrote on Mar 3, 2001 9:14:03 AM
>>Shame on you, Friend. Having the brains to see the FILTHY, PUS-FILLED PAPS OF THE WHORE for what they are - and to continue FEEDING and VENDING the FILTH
> Focus, where do u come up with these terms. You crack me up. Tears are rolling down my face.
I learned it from the Prominent Bethelite. Sadly, he got banned here - you know him as the one-day wonder "Danielle" .
Go to alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, where the PB holds Religious Court on a semi-regular basis. You'll find him easily. Just follow the loudest howls and protests from assorted cult-apologists
--
Focus
(Pupil Class)
Focus

ISP posted on Mar 3, 2001 9:54:11AM:
>[re the fullness of the quote] are you correct or incorrect?
What's your point? On Mar 3, 2001 at 7:58:49AM I had already written:
"If I didn't quote the article in entirety, it was wholly inadvertent - sorry." Is some part of that unclear to you?!
Whether the quote was in its entirety or not is a simple matter of fact (not open to debate), so asking me if I am correct or incorrect is a bit silly of you! You have provided a couple of lines from the QFR that were not in my quote (and were apparently on the next page) so I must conclude either: (a) You are a fraudster; or (b) You have been deceived; or (c) I was wrong.
> I don't accept your explanation about having material available to you BTW.
I happen to believe (c) as my source was a list of clippings provided to me by Prominent Bethelite, who extracts them en masse for me to collate and cut from. His clipping I assumed (absence of " .. ") was complete. I do not have access to the CD - my involvement with the WT was over a long time ago. PB won't make duplicates. Clear enough?
And your aggressive "I don't accept your explanation about having material available to you BTW" runs rather contrary to your assertion
5 hours earlier that "I thought you have overlooked/misrepresented a few things, whether intentionally or not I hardly care".
Why didn't you paste the whole thing, then? Is there something else there that you have spotted is further damaging to your case? . After all, the additional snip you provided supports my contention re deterrents against reporting, anyway!
>The injured party does not have to consider the expense and the time is not a factor either. It is simply not that persons decision.
LOL! Are you TRULY{/b] this naive? The decision is whether or not to report it, KNOWING WHAT THE CONSEQUENT COST IN TIME (and therefore expense) IS GOING TO BE. Do you know what court-attendance compensation fees run at? LOL!
> or do you think you can say to the police in a murder investigation...'I've been reading this WT article
> and I don't think I should get involved becasuse of the time and money involved'....duh?
Ummm, put your thinking cap back on.
WHAT YOU DO IS NOT REPORT IT. Or feign poor memory or whatever
Your confusion is hilarious.
[snip for brevity]
>to correct your statement which was.....
>>So - the summary is: "YES, YOU MUST NOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST A FELLOW JW - NO EXCEPTIONS".
> So are there exceptions or are there not?
NO, THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. The wording of the article that I have, read with the extra snip you provided, make that clear.
Tell me - do you really not understand the true import and menace of "There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers."?? LOL!
Note that in making an insurance claim, it is the insurance company that causes the action to come about (though it may be nominally your action) once you have notified them (often, a contractual duty of your's). We are talking substance here, not form.
As to the probating of wills that you quoted - that is not taking another JW to court!! Please, engage brain first.
> So whats ya problem, if you want to sue your brother because he owes you money, theres nothing stopping you in actual fact.
What was the biblical sanction against a Christian for eating blood?
> I agree this is a serious subject but I don't think the WTS QFR has much bearing on this matter.
You would be right if the WTBTS operated in the competent, aboveboard and honest manner that Friend's arguments predicate. [b]But it does not. JT has explained perfectly how the QFR would be applied - address yourself to that if you really wish to get yourself mired in deeper.
>ISP
By the way, your's is the most cogent defense here. Well done! Got a CD burner? I can arrange for a drop box in the US or in whatever country you are in. It'd really help my kingdom-preaching, disciple-making work (see lists in my sig).
--
Focus
(Serious Class)
TO KNOW ALL THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, VISIT :-
http://www.freeminds.org/history/part1.htm
http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
http://localsonly.wilmington.net/jmalik/TheList.zip
http://www.concordance.com/watchtower.htm
http://www.intrex.net/tallyman/the_list.html
http://www.3dom.freeserve.co.uk/main.htm
Focus

Waiting posted on May 13, 2000 at 9:35:09AM:
> Correct.

> Even some jw's don't understand the emotional damage until it occurs in their immediate family.
When and if Friend experiences it, his tune will rapidly change. Till then, it remains an intellectual exercise for him, methinks.
> I think most, including me last year, jw's don't understand at all what "disassociation" is or how it will impact their lives.
Disassociation = Disfellowshiping, as the quotes below show:
"One who has been a true Christian might renounce the way of the truth, stating that he no longer considers himself to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses or wants to be known as one. When this rare event occurs, the person is renouncing his standing as a Christian, deliberately disassociating himself from the congregation. The apostle John wrote: 'They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.' -1 John 2:19. Or, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of an organization whose objective is contrary to the Bible, and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Compare Revelation 19:17-21; Isaiah 2:4.) So if one who was a Christian chose to join those who are disapproved of God, it would be fitting for the congregation to acknowledge by a brief announcement that he had disassociated himself and is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Persons who make themselves 'not of our sort' by deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses should appropriately be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing. COOPERATING WITH THE CONGREGATION .. Though Christians enjoy spiritual fellowship when they discuss or study the Bible with their brothers or interested persons, they would not want to have such fellowship with an expelled sinner (or one who has renounced the faith and beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, disassociating himself). The expelled person has been 'rejected,' being 'self-condemned' because of 'sinning,' and those in the congregation both accept God's judgment and uphold it. Disfellowshiping, however, implies more than ceasing to have spiritual fellowship. -Titus 3:10,11. Paul wrote: 'Quit mixing in company .. not even eating with such a man.' (1 Cor. 5:11) A meal is a time of relaxation and socializing. Hence, the Bible here rules out social fellowship, too, such as joining an expelled person in a picnic or party, ball game, trip to the beach or theater, or sitting down to a meal with him. (The special problems involving a relative who has been disfellowshiped are considered in the following article.).. Other problems arise in connection with business or employment. What if you were employed by a man who now was expelled by the congregation, or you employed a person to whom that happened? What then? If you were contractually or financially obliged to continue the business relationship for the present, you certainly would now have a different attitude toward the disfellowshiped individual. Discussion of business matters with him or contact on the job might be necessary, but spiritual discussions and social fellowship would be things of the past. In that way you could demonstrate your obedience to God and have a protective barrier for yourself. Also, this might impress on him how much his sin has cost him in various ways. -2 Cor. 6:14,17. SPEAK WITH A DISFELLOWSHIPED OR DISASSOCIATED PERSON? .. Would upholding God's righteousness and his disfellowshiping arrangement mean that a Christian should not speak at all with an expelled person, not even saying 'Hello'? Some have wondered about that, in view of Jesus' advice to love our enemies and not 'greet our brothers only.' -Matt. 5:43-47. Actually, in his wisdom God did not try to cover every possible situation. What we need is to get the sense of what Jehovah says about treatment of a disfellowshiped person, for then we can strive to uphold His view. Through the apostle John, God explains: 'Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God.. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.' -2 John 9-11. The apostle who gave that wise warning was close to Jesus and knew well what Christ had said about greeting others. He also knew that the common greeting of that time was 'Peace.' As distinct from some personal 'enemy' or worldly man in authority who opposed Christians, a disfellowshiped or disassociated person who is trying to promote or justify his apostate thinking or is continuing in his ungodly conduct is certainly not one to whom to wish 'Peace.' (1 Tim. 2:1,2) And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple 'Hello' to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?" - 1981WTWR 9/15 pp20-6
""DISASSOCIATION .. The term disassociation applies to the action taken by a person who, although being a baptized member of the congregation, deliberately repudiates his Christian standing, rejecting the congregation and stating that he no longer wants to be recognized or known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. As a disassociated person, his situation before Jehovah is far different from that of an inactive Christian who, having grown weak spiritually, no longer shares in the field ministry. Such an inactive person may have failed to study God's Word regularly, or his zeal for serving Jehovah may have cooled off due to his experiencing personal problems or persecution. (1 Cor. 11:30; Rom. 14:1) The elders, as well as other concerned members of the congregation, will continue rendering appropriate spiritual assistance to the inactive brother. (1 Thess. 5:14; Rom. 15:1; Heb. 12:12) However, the person who has disassociated himself by repudiating the faith and deliberately abandoning Jehovah's worship is viewed in the same way as one who has been disfellowshipped." - 1989 Organized To Accomplish Our Ministry, p150
etc.
And Disfellowshiping = Lifelong Shunning (for people of integrity).
--
Focus
(Information Class)
Focus

Friend on Mar 3, 2001 10:26:24 AM opined:
You also (and errantly) feel that your question to me about whether a JW is required to report a crime is germane to your initial assertions, which assertions is what my criticisms were about. Your assertions have to do with JWs being prevented from reporting, not, I repeat, NOT whether they are required to report them.
I have already pointed out the refutation to this line of "reasoning" that you (for reasons obvious to me, LOL!) persist in following.
It is that:
JWs are trained to do what they are told, not show initiative (nothing else provokes getting slapped down by the elders better!)
Why did you omit addressing this (during my enforced, muzzled absence)? I realize that red herrings suit your palate - but don't strawmen stick in the throat?
> What in the world kind of reasoning ability do you have, anyway?
Excellent, as it happens - >99 percentile of graduates, according to the GRE Analytical section. How about your's? I ASSume little. And when I'm mistaken, I provide the reasons and readily admit it (see above re ISP and the fullness of the quote I provided).
> As for categorizing my responses here as a defense of the Society, shame on you, Focus! Do you suppose it is a defense of the Society that I point out your error ?
Where "the error" manifestly is not an error, and where your track record reveals - to those competent at dealing with rogues and swindlers, at least - yes.
> I suggest that you get an education!
What would you suggest?
The PB, with whom I share an educational background (which brought us together elsewhere in cyberia), took this line with the particularly insulting, pompous, pious, legalistic Usenet JW-Apologist "One Brow" M.Sc.(Math)... and the results were fruitful indeed. Some reading (David? You here?) this may recall the protracted mathematical and logical tests that ensued. The upshot is that Mr "One Brow" no longer posts to Usenet.
While I would not normally have brought this up - I have a Ph.D. in Topology (no thanks to the WTBTS). How 'bout yuse?
> When you are ready to critically examine yourself first,
Ever willing! Where should I begin, sir?
>In the meantime those choosing to be persuaded by your brand of folly are being guided by a jester.
A jester who tells the truth. Contrary to the teachings of your filthy Spiritual-Mother, having a sense of humor and being productive are not mutually exclusive.
--
Focus
(HTH Class)
Focus

ISP wrote on Mar 3, 2001 3:30:52 PM / 7:43:42 PM
>In a criminal case the state is at the helm .. The difference is you have no choice.
Yikes. You just don't get it. You, as the victim (we are talking about victim's courses of action, remember?) do have a choice. A BIG CHOICE. WHETHER OR NOT to report it all, and save a lot of "bother" and reproof (against God's Organization)!
>If you fail to assist likely you will face legal action yourself for contempt of court.
Thanks for proving that it can cost you "time and expense"....
NEXT CASE!!!
> The article has no direct bearing on matters of criminality.
It does EXACTLY BECAUSE IT STRESSES THE NEED TO AVOID ACTION THAT WILL DAMAGE THE REPUTATION OF THE CONGREGATION AND BRING JEHOVAH'S NAME INTO DISREPUTE.
The precise circumstances do not matter. Ejusdem Generis applies: rather than following F iend's unlearned legal pap, feed that into a good multi-engine search engine like Dogpile.com, or the Usenet search at Google.com, and learn.
>I don't think this QFR supports the contention re. the topic title or where I've indicated.
You are free 'not to think'.
> Re. 'legalistic' points, there used by both sides
You started. And JT avoided taking that line, so I have kept it up else the F iend Class claims technical victory.
> and when you're using them your beating them at their own game and when they do its obfuscation!
Delusional... quite funny, actually!
Stop being conned by F iend. His line that "the Society is often wrong, but..." and "yes, I agree, but we should make sure it cannot be rebutted so therefore [do nothing constructive]" is a well-worn one, suited perfectly to the Shill Class employed(*) by the Filthy One.
* Probably a member of the Special Order of Full-time Servants.
Stop arguing for the sake of it. This area is unsuited for it. I've asked for your help above. Man enough to assist? Who could resist such a charming invitation, eh?
--
Focus
(Face The Facts Class)
Friend

Expatbrit
Thanks for your answer. I am not seeking to change your mind about anything at all. I am trying to elucidate things a bit, that’s all. Added perspective usually helps when addressing serious and difficult problems.
As you said, of course you would not seek out the elders in the situation I described. But the problem is that, though you may not be in that situation in real life there are persons in that very situation.
There are loyal JWs that have an abused daughter (by a JW or otherwise), do not want it reported to secular law enforcement officials but do want and need help from elders, at least as much help as they can get from that source (or any source for that matter!). We are here talking about the real world, right? Well, in the real world the scenario I described happens and the answers are not necessarily easy ones. Look back at that same question again to see why. Asked another way, my question reads:
"If you learned that your daughter had been abused but were concerned that reporting to law enforcement might make your daughter’s circumstances worse, would you feel free and comfortable seeking medical help from physicians if you knew they were obligated to report the crime whether you wanted it reported or not?"
Today physicians face that very problem and just how to handle it is sometimes extremely difficult to determine. In most developed lands physicians are required to report known cases of child abuse and oftentimes they are required also to report suspected cases of child abuse. But that only addresses cases that physicians are familiar with! Physicians fear that some of the worst cases involve situations where parents or victims do not come forward for some sort of help because of fears of reporting that they feel unable to cope with. What a hopeless and helpless situation that is! It is for this reason that many physicians will argue that having some sort of clergy to go to for help is good even though they may not be required to report and maybe do not report. They feel that this gives some outlet at least for those who feel unable to cope with all that could come along with reporting an incident or incidents. This is why some feel the only change that the Society need make in its policy is to train elders to be more encouraging about victims reporting to authorities, but not take the prerogative from those victims or their families. This is pretty much what clergypersons do in most other religions today. The difference in their case is that they usually have no shunning policy in the case of child abusers where those persons would be shunned like they would be among JWs. Also, they do not usually have the sort of incident investigation as exists among JWs, and one thing that pedophiles really hate is being confronted with questions!
Regarding JWs, the Society and its policies, there are, of course, others details of this issue that critics would do well to more fully consider, that is, if they are most interested in helping victims rather than just being critics. From the looks of things, though, some critics appear to want no more than to say a lot of words. That is a pity! But, I guess we will always have that kind to cope with.
Friend
Focus

Friend postured:
> From the looks of things, though, some critics appear to want no more than to say a lot of words.
Don't rely on the looks of things so much! I have counted - and, within this thread, you have used more of your own words (as distinct from quoted ones) than has anyone else in this thread. And that is usually the case in any thread which you dignify by your presence, whether here or elsewhere - isn't it?
Pot, kettle, black. Try hard, focus, fit in some verbs (a bit like vowels - start with YHWH, you know... , and a sentence will parousiacally appear before you!
Perhaps it was the same lack of care in reaching conclusions as to quality that got you enmeshed in the Beast in the first case? Care to share? I may be able to help. Since you do not claim it is fear of shunning that "keeps you in her", it should be intriguing reading...
Now, please do not take any of this personally. It is strictly business.
--
Focus
(MERE WORLDLING Class)

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

Share this