Elder video is up~

by alamb 206 Replies latest jw friends

  • alamb

    Bottom line: a counsellor explained that the children were JW's. I no longer was. I changed. Their dad still was, he didn't change.

    I argued: They are minors. The WT itself has proclaimed that minors cannot be members of the Organization, just by-standers. They need to be exposed to a broad range of beliefs, and lack of beliefs, to become well-adjusted adults. As the youngest said, at age 4, "Dad says if we go with him, we'll be in the New System and have horses."

    First Amendments Rights as to Freedom of Religion v. Freedom FROM Religion v. Parental Rights

    There it is.

  • alamb
  • enigmatoo

    Did you notice the elder bag ? Propably full of books and magazines. He was "prepared" to "give witness in every time" to the court and to "convert" the Judge and the Lawyers to JW Cult. HA ! What a "Stench, I mean strenght of faith" in JW dogma ! doctrines, I mean "JW beliefs, they are not dogmas ??? HA !

  • Nellie

    UGH! I want to hear this, but it keeps cutting off after a few seconds!

  • enigmatoo

    Nellie, try the link:


    The Elder of the corporateTower of the scum of the earth society.

  • Quotes

    Let me say how pleased I was to see Watch Tower quotes used to catch the man's lies. Of course, we'll never know where the quotes came from, but it still gave me a warm feeling.

    Also, we learn an important lesson (all you lawyers take note): if you misname a document, a JW will use the minor error to deny the existance of that document.

    This guy said he never heard of the "Custody Packet". That may be true, although we all know -- as did he -- that the lawyer was referring to the document published by WTS called "Preparing for Child Custody Cases". It probably made it easy for Honest Elder Johnson to LIE when it was called by another name.

    Again, he later said he'd never heard of the "Organization Manual". Again, technically true, but Liar C.O. knew they were referring to "Orgznized to Accomplish Our Ministry".

    I saw this tactic used by another liar, under oath: WTC Canada President Ken Little, at the Vickie Boer trial. The book in question was the "Pay Attention..." book, but Vickie's lawyer incorrectly referred to it by another (I think older) name. Ken promised that he had "no idea" what the lawyer was referring to... until a copy was magically presented to him in court! Caught in a lie, he protested that "this book isn't called {whatever the incorrect name was}."

    Take heed, you lawyers. JoeHoes will use the slightest missed comma or mispronunciation as an excuse to lie, if it furthers their interests.


  • jwfacts

    That made my blood boil. A JW has no concern about lieing if they believe it will further their cause. They may feel they are correct and sincere, but that does not excuse dishonesty. Lieing is one of the things spoken strongly against repeatedly in the bible, so I can not see how the WTS feels it can justify and even encourage such behaviour.

  • enigmatoo

    I wonder if the Presiding Oversier is proud of his "witness to the truth" in the court ? Maybe he expect the Judge and the Lawyers, and others people seeing this video to sign wit him for bible study to become Jehova's Witnesses ?

    Maybe somebody should send him this video, so he can watch it with his family and friends in the private of his home?

  • Mary

    I'm sorry, but the lawyer was incredibly weak on his cross-examining this liar of an elder. There are PLENTY of articles proving that Witnesses are forced to shun their own family members if they do not live in the same household, as Garybuss illustrated. Why did this lawyer fail to show the court through the WTS's own publications that this guy was a filthy liar? Surely he could have had access to this information. Not only that, but he should have brought up the point that that Pharisees thought Jesus worthy of shunning or DF'ing or whatever, because he associated with people who they refused to associate with. The comparison could have easily been drawn that this whole shunning-----sorry, I mean Disfellowshipping (like there's any frigging difference) never originated with Jesus. While it's not a legal point, it's certain a moral one that might have made a strong impact on the judge.

    Plus, I thought the elder saying that shunning involves "tarring and feathering" was rather bizarre. Is he claiming that the Amish tar and feather their members? If so, does he have documentation that the Amish or any other Christian religion does such a thing? And his trying to say that "shunning" and "disfellowshipping" are not the same thing is absolute ridiculous and it could easily have been shown that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Here's the definition of "shunning" on Wikipedia:

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Shunning is the act of deliberately avoiding association with, and habitually keeping away from an individual or group. It is a sanction against association commonly associated with religious groups following excommunication or dismembership. In some cases, the shunned person or group is considered anathema , abominable, or spiritually diseased by shunning group.

    I would have read this to the moron and then ask his specifically to point out anything in that definition that doesn't apply to the way Jehovah's Witnesses treat someone who's disfellowshipped.

    Also, the scripture that they used in 1 Corinthians that talks about drunkards, idolators, etc. is irrelavant. I would have pointed out that it said absolutely NOTHING about DFing someone who doesn't believe everything the Organization teaches.

    Another thing I would have asked him is this: If a Witness comes to an elder and says "I don't believe this certain doctrine and here's the scriptural proof why", and tells others in the congregation what he's discovered, will he be Disfellowshipped? I'm sure the elder on the stand would try and dodge the question, but I would pin him down and force him to admit that yes, they would be disfellowshipped. I would then say, "but what if, in 5 years time, the WTS changes their mind on a doctrine and it is now in line with what the person who was disfellowshipped for? Will that person be contacted by the elders and apologized to? Will they automatically be re-instated into the congregation? After all, they were right all along and it was the Organization that was in error.

    The elder on the stand, would of course, try to say some crap about "running ahead of the Organization". I would then ask him to show me where this term or idea is used in the bible. Naturally he wouldn't be able to. I would then make sure I summarized the situation by asking "So what you're telling me, is that a Witness can be disfellowshipped for believing something that the Organization might have taught as "fact" 10 years ago or 5 years from now, and he will receive no apology and will continue to be shunned by the congregation?

    I shoulda been a lawyer!!

  • lisaBObeesa

    Just a reminder, alamb said:

    We had submitted over 100 affidavits showing what shunning does to families. My children's father was trying to persuade the court to give him custody saying that there is no such thing as shunning in families. We dropped the 100+ affidavits the afternoon before court. That is why the "brother" states that for every bad experience there is, there are many more good ones. They didn't have one. We knew he was picking for words and so did the court. On the paper I help up, I had written, "Custody Brochure, Custody Information, Custody Packet, Custody Tract,...." My attorney said it was like trying to nail Jello to a tree. It took three attorney years of this stuff and me sending hundreds of e-mails and having people call them for them to believe that this stuff actually happened. It threw him for a loop when it happened to him in court. Also, we obtained the Custody Brochure and it's counter document along with over 300 pages of documentation as to Theocratic War Strategy at it's finest. Just having him deny it, was enough. The Judge got the picture. When someone lies, I was told by attorneys, you let them sit. Dont' ask additional questions to wiggle out. Let it ride. It's a lie.

Share this