by AndersonsInfo 101 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Wow! on a Momentous Day as April 5th, I am further dismayed and NOT surprised by this recording.
Wouldn't it be grand to get a "Copy" of this letter for all to read. Hes to say that JW are not Volunteers and not part of the WTBTS. UnHoly amazing after all these years and all the lives lost to be a "Witness" in history, We certainly are living in monumental times.
THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END for the WTBTS.
Such Bible study activity is part of a publisher’s personal ministry and the publisher is not a representative or a volunteer of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia.
WAIT A MINUTE!
Are they not collecting DONATIONS for the World Wide Work?
WHOSE World Wide Work? Their own?
Legal Dept better get to looking into this issue!
Doc
4. My opinion is that the recording is genuine.
Marvin Shilmer
Thanks, Marvin. This was what I thought in the first place - the "perp" and "borg" were mis-transcripted (mis-translated) and nothing to get worked up about.
So, what we have left is that the Society wants to shirk any responsibility for compliance with the registration and to continue to deny that they could possibly have any child molesters in their midst.
As usual.
Such Bible study activity is part of a publisher’s personal ministry … I’ll read that again, again … Such Bible study activity is part of a perp … publisher’s personal ministry and the publisher is not a representative of the Borg … (whistle) … Sorry, I’ll start that sentence again. Such Bible study activity is part of a publisher’s personal ministry and the publisher is not a representative or a volunteer of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia.
Thanks Marvin, for your opinion after hearing the actual tape of the above quoted lines
In studying the transcription I can see the 'verbal stumbles'.
When the speaker stumbles and supposedly says, "...study activity is a part of a perp..." it is quite possible the speaker was getting ahead of himself. He was reading "personal" as he was trying to say "publisher's personal" and it came out "perp".
And when the speaker supposedly said, "...a representative of the borg...", he was again reading ahead of what he was actually saying, so instead of saying, "...the publisher is not a representative or a volunteer of the Watchtower..." he possibly stumbled and placed the "or" ahead of where he should have, as in, "...the publisher is not a representative of the or...pause/whistle" and it just sounded like "borg" to an apostate leaning mind.
It is unfortunate that whoever transcribed it, did so using these words without really clarifying that these words were the actual words uttered. While it could have been an honest mistake, a small part of me wonders if they were a bit disingenuous in their attempt to expose, which is also unfortunate as well as dishonest.
If the baptism questions ask you to confirm that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah's witnesses in association with god's spirit directed organisation then this question is meaningless if subsequently you cannot claim to represent or volunteer for that organisation. How do you identify yourself as a JW if not by your ministry? When they seek to DF you isn't it the importance of the ministry as a means of identifying Gods spirit directed organisation that is put before those that have doubts.
If I were in Victoria I would be shocked by this legalese. If they had complied in the beginning there would be no need for this inelegant back track now. It is another example of the society saying we did nothing wrong but it's you publishers who don't live up to your obligations that got us into this mess.
I guess now we are left with the question - WHO DID THE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE TAPE?
marking
It is unfortunate that whoever transcribed it, did so using these words without really clarifying that these words were the actual words uttered. While it could have been an honest mistake, a small part of me wonders if they were a bit disingenuous in their attempt to expose, which is also unfortunate as well as dishonest.
There's no way on God's green earth that a mistranscription of that magnitude could possibly be construed as an honest mistake. That's an incredibly apologetic opinion to hold. It could have been done to discredit the transcription which seems more plausible than an "oops." I'm scratching my head on where honesty factors into your scenario at all. It's either the elder indeed refered to the Society as the "borg", or the transcription was purposefully altered or fake altogether.
-Sab
There's no way on God's green earth that a mistranscription of that magnitude could possibly be construed as an honest mistake. That's an incredibly apologetic opinion to hold.
I can't prove it one way or the other so until it is (if ever), I have to accept that the possibility is there. It's possible it was an honest mistake...and it's possible it was on purpose so as to garner attention. I think raising the possibility of shenanigans is enough to allow each person to come up with their own opinion until such a time when the actual course of events is confirmed.
Well, it could be made clear if the person who actually wrote the transcription would come forward and explain himself...
