by dgp 66 Replies latest jw experiences
Sola - Since corroborating evidence (including police dna evidence, court conviction etc) can be used as the "2nd" witness", a lying child abuser can get DF'd on the basis of just the child’s testimony,
Really? What publication is this policy detailed in?
To sherah:
J.R. Brown, Watchtower spokesman, is reported by the Associated Press on February 11, 2001 to have said: "...corroborating evidence can be used instead of a second witness to prove wrongdoing."
on page 111 of the Elder guide book it says "strong circumstantial evidence" could be considered.
(So victims, go to the police 1st. Get a conviction from Caesar. Then bring that to the Elders as your "strong circumstantial evidence". If that doesn't get them df'd then at least they will be tagged and bagged for the entire congregation to see.)
The Elder guide book also states that 2 separate witnesses of the same kind of wrong doing on separate occasions could stand together and accuse their perpetrator. (I personally know of a case where this worked perfectly to get a lying no good pedophile disfellowshipped.)
Oh, I see. This not a clear-cut WT procedure for dealing with pedophiles.
Sola - (So victims, go to the police 1st. Get a conviction from Caesar. Then bring that to the Elders as your "strong circumstantial evidence". If that doesn't get them df'd then at least they will be tagged and bagged for the entire congregation to see.)
Do elders still call WT Legal first? Or do they encourage the victim to the police and defer to the authorities in handling child abuse cases?
Sola,
I appreciate your kind manner, however every time you post I shake my head because it's nothing what we have experienced.
I know you prefer to think it's the elders fault for going against the written policy. My problem with that is.. WHY? What would they have to gain from it? I would think any elder would be totally sickened by a child molester!! So the question is ..Why? what would cause a normal man to turn against written policy and the bible accounts of how Jesus treated those who were hurt and in need?
It took me a great deal of time and heartbreak to figure this out. I mean these elders knew us, they knew our child they knew the kind of family we were so Why would they leave us to ourselves. Why did they make us feel as if we didn't matter and our child's victimization 1. by the molester. 2. by the questioning they put her through was of no concern to them?
I finally realized they were only doing what they were told to do. Did it make it easier? No. Will I ever trust "Men" again? No. But I have forgiven them because they were put in a horrible position. Does or will Jehovah forgive them for stumbling my family right out of the Org? I have no idea..It's something they will have to worry about.
To sherah:
You said:
Oh, I see. This not a clear-cut WT procedure for dealing with pedophiles.
---
To truthseekeriam:
You Said:
I appreciate your kind manner
I finally realized they were only doing what they were told to do.
But I have forgiven them because they were put in a horrible position.
I ask this next question respectfully:
Did you come to this realization on your own? Or do you have concrete evidence that members at Bethel ordered your Elders to treat you this way?
If you do have Concrete evidence or names of Bethel members from the Service Desk that ordered your Elders to treat you this way, please pm the evidence. I can use it to continue my Quest to expose the Weeds at Bethel and beyond.
Sincerely,
Sola Scriptura
---
'A simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it'
- Martin Luther
Again Sola,
You quote to me a scripture, 2 Cor. 13v1 using this in the dishonest JW way (as with 2Tim 3v16)
Paul in 2Cor 13 is talking about 2 or 3 witnesses proving to him the problems when he gets there. Not talking about procedure that should be followed by later congregations, he is simply saying he will not act against sin that is not corroborated properly.
Ref 2Tim3v16 What was Paul referring to ? not his own letters surely.
And yes, he was saying the principles found in all the Jewish scripture, which would include more writings than you have in your NWT, were useful, valuable , but he was not saying they had to be slavishly adhered to when they evidently do not work, as in child rape cases.
Paul argues at length that the Law is finished, fulfilled, in the Christ so taking a bit of it and making it a rule, goes against a belief in Christ.
He is encouraging a study and use of scripture,by Timothy, similar to the Jewish method of Midrash, which, if properly practised, would not make the mistake the WT does of following to the letter little bits that suit them.
Please look at the context, don't just pull verses out and quote them to fit your argument, I had 58 years of the WT doing that, and it stinks.
Sola, you are trying to explain something to insincere people.
When I show them what common Jehovah's Witness vulgaris can do - to go to police, and nobody will try to stop him, because that's what our book "God's Love" says - then Lady Lees argues that it is only in publication for public, and therefore it is not real and important.
Now, when you say Sherah that "...corroborating evidence can be used instead of a second witness to prove wrongdoing", because WTBT$ says so, she asks - in what publication it is?
They claim that they feel compassion for victims, but the only emotion they really feel is - bitterness. So - stop to allude on common sense.
BTW, I too appreciate your kind manner.
COMRADE TITO
To wobble:
Please Re-Read What I said.
I think you are missing my point.
Respectfully,
Sola
---
To Titus:
You said:
BTW, I too appreciate your kind manner.
Thank you.
Sola, you are trying to explain something to insincere people.
I've been following this board for years and I feel, although some are bitter and insincere, many on here are genuinely honest and hurt from injustices done to them by so called respected Leaders from the JW world. (This is Fact not Fiction).
I will not judge between who is being insincere and who is not. I will initially take everyones story, question or statement at face value. God thru Christ as well as the Court of Public Opinion will judge if their sincerity has the ring of Truth.
As I stated on another thread here:
I'm not here to score a touch down for "Team JW".
I'm here to Defend & Learn "Truth". No one on this planet has ALL of the answers.
Make it as clear as you can to all you meet that you're on their side, working with them and not against them.
Let everyone see that you are considerate in all you do.
Let all men know and perceive and recognize your unselfishness (your considerateness, your forbearing spirit).
(Please forgive me Titus if I offended you with my soap box rant... Sola stepping down now )
Agape,
---
Sola Scriptura
"Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts." - Charles T. Russell
Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence. pp. 8-9 July 1879
Dear Sola,
I took your point, but still maintain that to misuse scripture as the WT has done since its inception, is wrong. Context is everything when coming to an understanding, and slavishly following the 2 witness rule shows how easy it is for error in belief and in Christian living to be established.
At last the Wt has "tweaked " its policy and practice, but for many decades "God's spirit directed organization" got it so woefully wrong that child rape continued, and the victims were abused again when dealt with by Jehovah's "shepherds", not getting the loving care they needed.
Why did Jehovah allow this ? In His organization ?
Why now has He not whispered in to the ears of the Governing Body that they should have a Child and Vulnerable Person programme in place at each K.H and meeting for F.S ? (with a duly appointed person responsible for its implementation always present)
A policy for dealing with the problem after the crime is not preventive, does not protect the flock.
So Caesar should handle the Crime While the congregation handles the Sin (To Disfellowship or not). The Parents have the number one responsibility and right to protect their children and go to the authorities to stop further abuse. If the Society, CO, Local elder etc takes away that right, then they are scripturally wrong to do so.
You are correct in both respects. Unfortunately, the Society has not lived by these standards. They prefer to spend far more time worrying about their tattered reputation (or what's left of it) than in protecting victims of molestation. This is not to say that they want children to be molested, but when they are forced to choose between the victims and the Society's reputation, well----they've chosen the wrong priority. It was only by publically exposing the problem on national television that hopefully, something will change.
And as for your assertion that the idea that the early Christians faithfully still practiced the 'two eye witnesses' on all matters before passing judgement, I think Wobble summed it up pretty well. Yes, the spirit of many of the laws would have still been practiced, but certainly not to the Letter of the Law that you are implying. The Ten Commandments were most likely still practiced in spirit, but there was certainly no more death penalty for those who lit a fire on the Sabbath.
The main problem is that low-lives like Ted Jaracz lived in a bubble for most of his life. As far as I know, he never had any kids and lived like a Caesar: He had people who practically worshipped him, he never had to work for a living, he had all his meals prepared for him, he never had to do laundry, go shopping for groceries, pay a hydro bill or do anything that resembled the real world. People like that make A LOT of bad decisions because the only thing they care about is themselves and their position. They mumble and whine and cry about needing two eye witnesses to sexual molestation (knowing full well that these things always happen in private) yet they have no problem whatsoever in ruining tens of thousands of lives by their insane interpretation of the scriptures.
So don't waste anymore energy trying to defend their stupid policies because it's neither scriptural, practical or humane.
