WOULD SUCH A PERSON BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED?
WHAT IS JW VIEW ON TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS?
by badboy 19 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
FadingAway
Don't they put safety seals on witnesses to make them tamper proof?
-
compound complex
Regarding a post on 'Child Custody Cases'! Thank you for the addition of information from another case. I hope you'll get to read what follows on "twisting the truth".
IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM, page 283:
Similar examples of inconsistency [Witnesses in various countries "living a lie" due to the Watch Tower organization's sanction of double standards when it suits the Society's purpose] may also be found even in Watch Tower counsel given Witnesses, including young people, who are to testify under oath before a court. The legal department of the Society now supplies a brochure to Witnesses who are faced with child custody cases (the opposing mate in such cases generally being a non-Witness). The brochure of more than 60 pages supplies guidelines to Witness parents, their children and their attorneys, as well as local elders and others who may testify, by reviewing difficult questions that may be presented by the opposing side and then offering suggested sample responses. Recalling the WATCHTOWER article on honesty cited earlier, we may remember that it asked:
What about truthfulness? Do we really respect the truth, or are
we willing to twist the truth a little bit, to get out of an inconvenient
circumstance, or to get something we want?Compare that [twisting the truth] with some of the responses suggested in the Society's manual. Under "APPROACH BY WITNESS PARENT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION," we find this question and suggested answer (page 12):
"Will all Catholics (or others) be destroyed?"
"Jehovah makes those judgments, not we."
This sounds good, implies freedom from a dogmatic, judgmental attitude. Yet the Witness so responding knows that his organization's publications clearly teach that only those who are in association with "Jehovah's organization" will survive the "great tribulation," and that all those who fail to come to that organization face destruction. [66]
footnote:
66 The February 15, 1983, WATCHTOWER, for example says
(page 12): "Jehovah is using only one organization today to
accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly
Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God
as part of it." The September 1, 1989, WATCHTOWER on
page 19 says: "Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the
anointed remnant and the 'great crowd,' as a united
organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer,
have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of
this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil." -
compound complex
IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM, Ray Franz, p. 284
Under the section "DIRECT EXAMINATION AND RESPONSES FOR LOCAL ELDER," the booklet presents these questions and responses (pages 29-31):
+ What view does church [that is, the Witness religion] take toward people of other religions?
(Jesus taught love neighbor as self, includes all: we respect others' right to worship as they choose.)
+ Does church teach that young people should learn only about religion of Jehovah's Witnesses?
(No. Consider following objective consideration of other religions in our publications.) [This is followed by a list of articles in the WATCHTOWER and AWAKE! magazines.]"Again, the responses imply an attitude of considerable tolerance and even broadmindedness. Yet, once more, the Witness elder responding knows that his religion teaches that "people of other religions" are all within "Babylon the Great," the empire of false religion, depicted as a "great harlot" in Scripture, that the worship they have chosen is considered unchristian and, if continuing in it, they face destruction. He also knows that witnesses are urged not to have social relations with such "people of other religions," since such would have a "corrupting" effect, the only approved association with such being in "witnessing" to them in the hope of changing their religion. He knows that all the articles set out in the brochure's list emphasize negative aspects of the "other religions" discussed and that the organization discourages reading literature directly proceeding from other religions; only what it itself publishes about such religions is viewed as safe reading."
-
loosie
TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS?
I think that is called heavy petting and they are against it. -
compound complex
Nice attempt to discredit or miminize 'my testimony' The type of 'evidence' you are looking for will never be found. You want something on Society letterhead advising that this booklet was created to deceive the court? They aren't THAT stupid.
I have proven myself and my claims over the years, from H20 through to the child abuse issue (have gone on television and given testimony) to now. I too have 'defended' the Borg against wrongful/bogus attacks. I have long insisted that there is enough honest evidence against them that stuff does not need to be made up to prove they cannot be representatives of god.
Where we differ is that I am not a disfellowshipped person trying to weasel my way into the proverbial grey area 'just in case' the JW's are right. Imitating the worst of the lawyer stereotype, you are so caught up in the loopholes thinking that somehow you may still warrant salvation/ divine acceptance, with your luke-warm cowardice. "be either cold or hot but luke warm, I will vomit you out of my mouth."
I however recognized the faults of the JW, walked away from it on my own and unlike yourself am not a mealy-mouthed ego-maniac as is evidenced by your online biography. To quote a lawyer "sometimes a good man has to stand up for what is right, even if it is not popular amongst one's peers." Have you ever taken a stand on anything without covering your ass... oops I mean hedge you bets with a bunch of legal loopholes? Taking a stand on principal alone and being willing to take a hit on that firm stance?
JW lawyers regularly attempt to deceive the courts. For example, Bethany Hughes. To have a Bethelite Lawyer (Shane Brady) claim to represent the best interests of the child as the child's attorney is an outright lie. Should a minor child represented by a Bethel attorney, make the personal choice to accept blood, would that lawyer continue representing the child? No. The child and the family would be left high and dry.
During a divorce hearing, the JW attorney is not representing the JW parent but protecting the JW religion. Yet they continue to be the sole representation in some JW custody cases. They are not filing for Amicus status, they are claiming to represent the individual.
When preparing elders, expert witnesses and children to give testimony in court they encourage deceitful practices tantamount to and including outright lying. That is the purpose of the booklet under discussion.
I have heard elders testify in court (per their coaching) that family relationships are not affected by the act of disfellowshipping. How is that for teaching people to lie under oath? It is justified using the 'Theocratic war strategy' of bending the truth. Disfellowshipping does not end the relationship, 'he will always be your father.' You don't need to elaborate any further to the court. But with rare exception, anyone disfellowshipped has had their familial relationships negatively altered as a result. That is but one example.
How do you slant your answers (slant as in alter from your normal pattern of truthful response) in order to get what is best for the religion, NOT what is in the best interests of the child. No-where in those publications does it discuss that element. What is best for the child. In some cases the non-JW parent IS the better parent in other cases it may be the JW parent.
That point is lost to the JW's. It is all about protecting their religion. It has nothing to do with their clients nor the children. That in and of itself shows the deceit. I am hopeful that even you as a lawyer can recognize that fact.
Uzzah
-
compound complex
While Eduardo speaks in theoritical terms I actually worked in the Watchtower legal department and personally used this publication in preparing JW's for court cases. I helped re-write the School brochure to make it more "court-friendly" as well as some of the 'refuting' booklets (refuting claims against "My Book of Bible Stories, Your Youth etc). Little side point Carolyn Wah and Sarah Mott-Trille Hamilton were the actual individuals responsible for re-writing the School Brochure circa 1991.
The INTENT of the booklet was to ensure the JW parent cast the best possible light before the Court and the extreme nature of the the religious expectations upon JW's was minimized.
It was the experience of WT Legal that the majority of the JW's that actually got involved in religious issues during custody battles were not balanced nor respectful of the non-JW parent, expecting religious tolerance and freedom to be uni-directional. In fact, in some cases were not the better parent but the JW Legal team defended them just the same. So much for the "best interests of the children."
I had some elders and one CO claim I was actually espousing apostate teachings while using these materials to prep them for Court. They disagreed with the approach and called some of the statements outright falsehoods. Amazing how they saw it (followed Society direction regardless) but a learned person like Eduardo is willfully blind to this fact.
So let Eduardo blow all the smoke he wants, this booklet was prepared and printed with the sole purpose of deception and deceit of the courts and to coach in witness preparation.
One other example comes to mind. During Vicki Boer's case, Canadian bethel lawyer, John Burns gave testimony. He was asked about the "flock book." He claimed not to have any knowledge of such a publication. It was then referred to as the "Pay Attention" book, the elder's handbook. He continued to claim ignorance of knowing any such publication.
It was not until the actual book was presented, the title read off in full that he then acknowledged that he has seen and read that publication.
John Burns is a congregation elder, a Bethel elder and the lead lawyer in the Canadian legal department (Glen How is just a figurehead now). Are you telling me that the above testimony by an officer of the court was anything close to truthful? His intent was to be deceitful. He felt he didn't actually lie since the 'real name' of the publication wasn't used initially, but it cannot be viewed as completely honest (the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.)
[The above are Uzzah's words.]
-
changeling
Don't they put safety seals on witnesses to make them tamper proof?
My thoughts exactly!
changeling :)
-
Tired of the Hypocrisy
Tampering with a witness is tantamount to tampering with the labels on pillows, mattresses and chairs.
-
WTWizard
They do it all the time. Every time a pedophile strikes, the victim is silenced under threat of being disfellowshipped.