PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus 173 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

ISP

Hi Focus here's the clipping that Danielle or PB forgot to let you have! I should have posted it earlier. LOL BTW with the really funny explanation as to how you/he/she omitted it! I guess it is easy to forget who's who sometimes and who does what job. And Danielle can be a tad unpredictable, one day an apologist next day not. A womans's prerogative, mind you! So you did really well considering!
*** w73 11/15 704 Questions from Readers ***
There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers. This might be to obtain compensation from an insurance company. In some countries the law may specify that certain matters have to be handled in a court, such as wills that may have to be probated by courts. But this does not create adverse publicity or bring reproach upon the congregation. In handling such legal matters that would not affect the congregation adversely, Christians can be governed by what they consider to be best under the circumstances.
However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God's Word on this matter, such one would not be "free from accusation" as a Christian. He would not be one who has "a fine testimony from people on the outside" of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.
When you said…..
>Firstly, the article - which I quoted in full……
It is agreed that you didn't. Hey no problem there Focus, we all know the extreme difficulties you must have!
And when you said……

>So - the summary is: "YES, YOU MUST NOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST A FELLOW JW - NO EXCEPTIONS".
That probably was n't quite right either but if you are going to call me some mean names I might just go along with you!
And there's the sanction there for not doing what the article said at the end. I said you might not be able to hand out the mikes but I guess it would have been far worse like untimely death, followed by ressurection then a mean death again or a night out with Danielle.
I said the article referred to civil disputes. I don't think any guidance is required in connection with criminal matters.
*** w73 11/15 703 Questions from Readers ***
They make mistakes, and problems arise in connection with business matters and the like. But differences of this nature ought to be settled within the congregation, for God's Word provides the needed guidelines and there are men in the congregation who are well grounded in the Bible.
Yup they're civil type offences I think but I would defer my opinion to the holy trinity!
ISP
Rather Die Than Have A Night Out With Danielle Class
Edited by - ISP on 4 March 2001 18:38:52
Focus

Earlier Friend postulated:
>When it comes to serious criminal actions, I am referring to the Society’s only policy.
This is an example of "Proof by Assertion" by Friend. He says so, therefore it is true. It is what Mother does all the time, btw.
Friend conveniently disregards heaps of evidence re other, conflicting positions taken by the Society - and which are nowehere stated to be overruled by the one {i]he deems to be The Policy. For example, the stern counsel to do nothing that would malign the name of God's people.
No, no, kind Friend expects the poor victim of child abuse to display crystal-clear logic, weigh everything up carefully, disregard any local, congregational influences (umm, how?) that might conflict with what the FDS meant to get written, and comply with The Policy (stated where???).
Especially when in Friend's post of 3 March 2001 13:49:10 he admitted:
As for the Society’s actions regarding issues like reporting child abuse, there are many misconstruals about what the Society’s policy is.
Quite a joke, really - if it wasn't so tragic.
Further:
Friend posted on Mar 3, 2001 at 1:26:39 PM:
>Expatbrit:
>> I'm afraid I must differ with you on the society having only one policy on this issue.
>> Quite often, the policy the society puts in print is very different to the actual attitudes and actions reflected in the congregations.
Very true!
> I understand what you are saying in that statement, but please keep in mind that you equivocate Society policy with actions of local congregations
In the context, "equivocate" is a nonsense. You meant "equate", not "equivocate", Expatbrit. There is a big difference:
Expatbrit and JT and I equate.
F iend equivocates[/i].
To equivocate is to avoid making an explicit statement. (See Synonyms at lie)"
> they are not always one and the same.
So? Who is the FDS? Who is morally responsible? Who set it up? Who has absolute power within the Borg, backed up by a string of Supreme Court victories? (Spare me the answer "God").
> My comments responded to your question asked, which was strictly about Society policy.
And there whines the legalistic, nitpicking Moroni Class (note to Simon: that is a respectful Mormon reference, I swear).
> the Society is certainly accountable for libelous actions
[snipped long series of red herrings, at least the first of which was introduced by Friend]
> then how do you explain the contradiction of the Society instructing elders to report child abuse when the law requires it?
"when the law requires it"... Here you truly reveal your I.Q., Friend . Check up the New Light on "superior authorities, subjugation to". It has been steady for quite a while. Romans might help. Hint: They ain't Hesu and Yahweh any more...
Therefore, there is no contradiction to explain.
Before you run away with yourself, deluding yourself that you have something with which to claim some form of victory over me: the victim him/herself is not obliged by law to report abuse; there is no legal sanction against a victim for not so doing.
>If you learned that a JW had abused your daughter but were concerned that reporting to law enforcement might make your daughter’s circumstances worse, would you feel free and comfortable seeking pastoral help from congregational elders if you knew they were obligated to report the crime whether you wanted it reported or not?
A different issue altogether, and not an easy one to answer. Another thread, perhaps. This one has enough to deal with yet.
--
Focus
(Focussed Class)
Edited by - Focus on 4 March 2001 19:35:33
Focus

SixofNine wrote on Mar 3, 2001 5:58:22PM:
>ISP, Friend...
>I really wish you would get thee to the righteous side of this issue.
ISP reveals his belligerence by not so doing. Now, that can be a virtue! But Friend reveals his agenda.
>It would be a real shame if your good work on the blood issue (and Friend, your work on the blood
>issue was the truth that set me free, btw)
I would think that was not his intention. He believes the WTBTS's best interests are served by a controlled exit from the blood madness, simple as that. He is far more dangerous than the obviously rabid extremist JW.
> was completely undone in a pissing contest over who can retain the most anal retentivity.
Friend won. ISP was no match whatsoever (I know his heart was not in it), and Xandit ran away once his legal knowledge was brought out from where the sun couldn't reach.
Anyone who has been a JW for more than 2 minutes can understand perfectly how this pedophile issue can be (and evidently often times is) a real problem with the organization as it is set up, and as it is run.
Hear, hear!!!
Get that? "as it is set up, and as it is run". Neither of you are ignorant of the above. The evil at the top (the way it is set up) screws over lives at the bottom (the way it is run). I could get specific about some of your arguments, but I will leave that to others for now. Meanwhile, there is a problem. Get on the side of the solution, or go shoot yourself in the head. Choose one, but don't waste precious time and expense trying to hammer out who can come up with the absolute mostest literal*, mostest legalistic** translation of a 73 QFR. You'll just shoot yourself in the foot doing that
Sixofnine is totally right. And F iend will manage both head and foot with just one shot, as we know where his foot is at present so firmly positioned- don't we?
Here - this was written for followers of Friend:
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
--
Focus
(Unmuzzled Class)
Focus

Frenchy wrote on Mar 4, 2001 9:56:31 AM "to" Friend:
If you believe for one minute that the Society's ‘stated policy' is what is promoted exclusively then either you did not live through the 1975 fiasco or you are still blinded by all that flashing light. According to them they never said that the end was coming in 1975.
Actually, I have had a thought. We all know how dear Chaz Russell (the Society's first child-abuser and founder, starting a venerable tradition) thought there was a year zero and got all his math wrong. All sorts of things had to be done to bring things back into line then (not the lengthening of pyramid passages, that was for another reason altogether - getting a "theocratic increase" by moving a past wrong date to a future wrong date).
Now, for Friend, perhaps the year zero does exist and instead the year "1975" is deemed not to exist! Mathematically, in the light of present truth, it would have a similar effect.
And so convenient! 1975 was a "zero year"!
Of course the Bethel bosses had no idea of the ferment in congregations!! Didn't you read:
*** km 5/74 3 How Are You Using Your Life? ***
Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end.
Please don't confuse Friend with facts about the nature of his precious Society, which he defends on the grounds that "No one told them"..
Probably Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann & Co. too were innocent - they had no idea what their congregations were up to either, or why all the tickets issued by the German Railway to the reluctant travellers were one-way..
--
Focus
(I Saw 1975! Class)
Focus

ISP wrote on Mar 4, 2001 6:30:37 PM
>Hi Focus here's the clipping that Danielle or PB forgot to let you have!
Thanks! I deduce that in assuming that it fits immediately after the bit I quoted, and the two together make the whole?
> BTW with the really funny explanation as to how you/he/she omitted it!
?? Do explain where lies the humor! Did you think angelic channelling was involved?
> I guess it is easy to forget who's who sometimes and who does what job.
I am the peacemaker. If you were around when the PB visited, I'm sure you'd agree!
> And Danielle can be a tad unpredictable, one day an apologist next day not.
>A womans's prerogative, mind you! So you did really well considering!
If Danielle's a woman, or an apologist, or both, then I'm Friend.
From the omitted bit we can seee clearly I acted in good faith - AS IT CONTAINS ITEMS I WOULD HAVE USED TO FURTHER SUPPORT MY CONTENTION:
*** w73 11/15 704 Questions from Readers ***
There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers. This might be to obtain compensation from an insurance company. In some countries the law may specify that certain matters have to be handled in a court, such as wills that may have to be probated by courts. But this does not create adverse publicity or bring reproach upon the congregation. In handling such legal matters that would not affect the congregation adversely, Christians can be governed by what they consider to be best under the circumstances.
Had I had this, I would have included it, and not just because neither of the two quoted examples is "jW vs jW" (in substance, the insurance case is Insurance Co. vs Tortious-Respondent/jW). IT IS BECAUSE IT AGAIN MAKES CLEAR THAT TO ACT SO AS NOT TO "create adverse publicity or bring reproach upon the congregation" IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE - EXACTLY MY CASE.
*** w73 11/15 704 Questions from Readers ***
However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God's Word on this matter, such one would not be "free from accusation" as a Christian. He would not be one who has "a fine testimony from people on the outside" of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.
And this further proves my point - a FOURTH REFERENCE IN THE SAME ARTICLE TO "the good name of the congregation" or similar! How shocking of F iend not to have made full disclosure on this! But his attitude is precisely that of an attorney under an adversarial judicial system - it is the other side's problem to get their case together - and to tell with truth (cf. the truth).
As to the sanction - I repeat that the JW trained to OBEY does not weigh up how much the punishment is for failing to OBEY. He just OBEYS.
I recognize the rest of your "points" as mere posturing and trolling. However, I shall forgive you and not attempt to set you up for a date with Danielle (which would be disagreeable to you beyond your ability to comprehend disagreeability, I imagine - I somehow do not picture "her" as a pliable companion) if you respond on the BURNING^H^H^HER topic. Comprendez-moi?
By the way - Absurd Legalism is a hallmark of a Cultist, per the US Government and Steve Hassan's studies. Just thought I would share that.
--
Focus
(Frenchy Class)
Edited by - Focus on 4 March 2001 19:31:58
Friend

From further up this thread:
Focus
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? It means that an assertion otherwise is false! So, your assertion is false. 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!
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. Please review your quoted assertions above. Plainly you assert that JWs "MUST NOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST A FELLOW JW - NO EXCEPTIONS" and, "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…"
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? That an assertion is evidenced as false is construed as a defense is ludicrous! Defense means that you stand beside a subject and protect it, in this case allegedly the Society. All I have done here is point out your blunder! What in the world kind of reasoning ability do you have, anyway? The subject of my responses here has not been the Society, rather it has been your assertions! Claiming that my actions herein are a defense of the Society is no less than you introducing a red herring into our discussion, which is a thoroughly dishonest act (or else an act of ignorance!).
I suggest that you get an education! When you are ready to critically examine yourself first, then we can perhaps pursue some semblance of conversation. In the meantime those choosing to be persuaded by your brand of folly are being guided by a jester.
End of copy.
Calling me a liar does not hardly answer the facts above, Focus. The question I put to you was directly to correct the very errors I pointed out as outlined in my statement above. That you cannot understand that does not make me a liar, it makes you, well, you know. Enough of you!
Friend
Edited by - Friend on 4 March 2001 19:36:35
Focus

Friend wrote on Mar 4, 2001 at 2:11:27PM:
>Honestly addressing a discussion includes giving straightforward answers to straightforward questions .
That's rich indeed! now, why am I minded of the equally impudent:
**** g97 9/8 3 Why so much hate? ****
Now on to Friend's much-vaunted QUESTION.
"If you learned that a JW had abused your daughter but were concerned that reporting to law enforcement might make your daughter’s circumstances worse, would you feel free and comfortable seeking pastoral help from congregational elders if you knew they were obligated to report the crime whether you wanted it reported or not?"
The question which Friend asks is a good one (I have written this earlier) but is not germane to the issue under discussion, which is WHETHER THE WAY THE SOCIETY WORKS MAKES IT LESS LIKELY THAT VICTIMS WILL WHISTLE-BLOW
For, by the VERY NATURE OF CHILD ABUSE, usually only the victim and the perp know about it until someone blows the whistle (discovery is rare - the perp makes sure of that).
And, surprising as it may be to you, Friend, it usually ain't the perp who blows it
So I quite understand why Friend introduced the red herring (for red herring it is).
How the Elders may or may not whistle-blow is rather moot when the system makes it very unlikely that the poor waif will complain in the first place - as it would set into motion something (s)he has reason to believe (there being no guarantee that someone will not whistle-blow, once the story gets out at all - rumors tend to spread, as the recent spate of reported cases shows) will result in reproach to/besmirching of the congregation's/Jehovah's name - THE AVOIDANCE OF WHICH WAS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, as I have shown.
I honestly wish I could attribute your attempts to divert the argument down paths of your choosing to incompetence rather than to cunning and duplicity...
--
Focus
(Not One Bit. Class)
Friend

Focus
Why you cannot focus yourself on the issue at hand is beyond me, unless my earlier conclusions are correct, that is. The question I asked you is the subject of my comments to you. You have yet to honestly answer for yourself! My question to you was,
"If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is it against Watchtower policy if right away they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?"
Since earlier you expressed some unspecified concerns about terms in my question, I will also ask the same question another way.
"If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is the JW violating any organizational or local congregational sensitivities if they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?"
If the answer to either question is, "No" then your assertion that "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…" is a false one.
As for whether the Society’s workings makes it less likely that JW victims will report to authorities, that is not at all what I corrected in your assertions or anyone else’s. That you pretend that it is demonstrates lack of reading comprehension skills on your part. For a fact there are tendencies within the community of JWs that lean toward discouraging JWs from reporting child abuse. The question is, what exactly facilitates those leanings and how to best rectify it. Since elders are told not to interfere with reporting and since the publications encourage reporting of serious criminal actions, then the most glaring flaw is in how elders are trained, specifically that they are not trained to explicitly encourage reporting when a serious crime is made known to them. Instead they simply leave the matter to publishers to report (or not) as they see fit. That needs changing! At the very least elders should be trained to encourage victims (or their family) to report what is perceived as serious criminal behavior. Sexual abuse of a child is certainly an example of such a crime!
Friend
Focus

Friend stated on Mar 4, 2001 At 7:39:29 PM:
>Focus
Firstly, Friend, I remind you that you have already made the statement to me which you declared was the final one ("I hope you learn something from my final reply to you." from your contribution to the "For all you supporters and well-wishers of "F iend" thread in H2O)!!
Or is your "final" a bit like the WTBTS Armageddon - something that can happen more than once?
Secondly, Friend - in a complex debate, where threading is poorly implemented on a DB, it helps if you state a posting time rather than a vague "From further up this thread". I'm sure you don't need to rely on confusion now, do you?
Calling me a liar does not hardly answer the facts above, Focus. The question I put to you was directly to correct the very errors I pointed out as outlined in my statement above. That you cannot understand that does not make me a liar, it makes you, well, you know.
Eeps, you are careless, Friend - you don't read very carefully (as you discovered yourself, and seeing your error made a further post at 8:55:26 PM which I address further on down. Of course you neglected to apologize - just like Mother, eh, once you are rattled).
I explained clearly why I called you a liar. It was because you - with characteristic duplicity - changed the question you put to me AFTER I HAD ANSWERED IT. The question that appears on page 1 relates to Watchtower POLICY, and that is the question that I answered. You then attempted in your post of Mar 3, 2001 10:26:24 AM to attribute my answer to a question which YOU NEVER PUT TO ME - relating to a JW's FREEDOM - which has to do with much more than official "Policy", but also practice and a whole lot besides.
>Enough of you!
But you clearly decided you hadn't had enough - even without further movement by me on the specific matter at hand (no worry, I forgive you) for you continued at 8:55:26 PM - and now change the question the honest way, though without an apology for your earlier attack which the very redoing of the question implicitly admits was unwarranted!:
Why you cannot focus yourself on the issue at hand is beyond me, unless my earlier conclusions are correct, that is. The question I asked you is the subject of my comments to you. You have yet to honestly answer for yourself!
Translation for onlookers: Mere bluster and noise. He realizes the folly of his 7:39:29 PM submission and wishes to cover it up. Heard of TJ45? LOL!
My question to you was,
"If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is it against Watchtower policy if right away they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?"
Sure, that was the question. To which I replied, without equivocation, "NO".
Since earlier you expressed some unspecified concerns about terms in my question, I will also ask the same question another way.
"unspecified concerns" my foot - YOU CHANGED THE QUESTION, AND WERE CAUGHT DOING IT. I EXPRESSED MORE THAN CLEARLY WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS. STOP TWISTING AND OBFUSCATING!
"If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is the JW violating any organizational or local congregational sensitivities if they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?"
And the answer to this question is "YES".
If the answer to either question is, "No" then your assertion that "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…" is a false one.
Fine, we agree on that. As my answer is not "No" the avenue is irrelevant.
As for whether the Society’s workings makes it less likely that JW victims will report to authorities, that is not at all what I corrected in your assertions or anyone else’s. That you pretend that it is demonstrates lack of reading comprehension skills on your part.
How so? Would not such pretence indicate instead duplicity (relying, inter alia, upon poor linguistic skills of the readership - just like the WTBTS has done "We never said it would be 1975" is technically true)? I don't understand your inferential technique.
For a fact there are tendencies within the community of JWs that lean toward discouraging JWs from reporting child abuse. The question is, what exactly facilitates those leanings and how to best rectify it.
Encourage elders to encourage victims to report the abuse, simple. Seeing justice done is therapeutic, protects others (a lot better than silly blue envelope letters ever will), may help the perp etc.
Of course we know why a certain Class cannot see this simple solution. Because, as a side effect, it'll "bring reproach on God's name .. bring the congregation into disrepute .. have a bad effect on the good name of the congregation .. affect the congregation adversely" (umm, sorry, I'm near-quoting from the article which YOU HOLD TO BE IRRELEVANT - LOL!). This might cause long-term publicity problems for the Publishing Business (bad), make for rumbles among the Slaves (bad) and even (in the right circumstances - spare us your legally-naive assessment of what these are, Friend, no one is interested and you'll be wrong anyway) $$$ in a lawsuit (bad).
QUITE SIMPLE, IF YOU PUT YOUR MIND TO IT.
Since elders are told not to interfere with reporting and since the publications encourage reporting of serious criminal actions,
What was that? I saw one quote referring to rape, in a context which differentiated it from child abuse.
then
Irrelevant as the conditional is clearly unfulfilled. And I have placed material in a new thread, helpfully named A New Nail in "FRIEND"'s COFFIN ;-), which I would advise you to peruse before hastily responding.
Truth does hurt - but "the truth" hurts even more, and for quite different reasons.
--
Focus
(Truth Class)
Friend

Focus
I asked:
"If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is the JW violating any organizational or local congregational sensitivities if they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?"
You answered:
"Yes."
If you really believe that answer of yours then there is nothing further to discuss between us. Believe what you will.
Friend

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

Share this