This article makes me sick!

by VioletAnai 7 Replies latest jw friends

  • VioletAnai

    I had memories come back after an operation at 14...they are lacking detail to say the least, but does that mean I didn't experience it? It's a repressed memory that can't be trusted! What about me behaviour since the age of six, does that not count for anything....

    This is the hardest obstacle I have to get over with the jw' just should neva have happened!

    It was a joke! And you fell for it like the fascists you are! - Rick - The Young Ones

  • picosito

    They sure quote a lot from Solomon, a true "apostate"-to-be.

  • DakotaRed

    That is a hard one, Vi. Some repressed memory is proven to be faulty, while others are real and actual. No one can really tell which it is and I feel each case should be taken by itself and looked at. In your case, it sounds very real and should have been dealt with.

    No one should just issue a blanket statement insinuating that all may be faulty or invented just because a few were. That is irresponsible. Each case should be thouroughly investigated by professionals, not lightly looked into by wannabes.

    If God's Spirit is filling a Kingdom Hall, how is it that Satan can manuever the ones within that Kingdom Hall at the same time?

  • qwerty

    What about this bit.........

    If the accusation is denied, the elders should explain to the accuser that nothing more can be done in a judicial way. And the congregation will continue to view the one accused as an innocent person. The Bible says that there must be two or three witnesses before judicial action can be taken. (2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19) Even if more than one person "remembers" abuse by the same individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain to base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence. This does not mean that such "memories" are viewed as false (or that they are viewed as true). But Bible principles must be followed in establishing a matter judicially.

    That's it WT, blame the God's Word!

    2 Corinthians 13: 1. THIS IS the third time I am coming to you. Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
    2. I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them--
    3. since you desire proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful in you.
    4. For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we shall live with him by the power of God.

    1 Tim 5:17. Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;
    18. for the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."
    19. Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
    20. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
    21. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality.

    Paul's words not taken out of context. Do the Borg apply 1 Tim 5:20?
    Two or three whitnesses. If others came forward to support the one abused, shouldn't this then be a matter for the authorities?- Paul said "rebuke (or try) them in the presence of all". The only way to do this would be in a Court before a dury.

    Just my thoughts.


  • avengers
    Among the vilest perversions is the sexual abuse of innocent children.

    If that's the case then the WT has the vilest Organization there is. Shouldn't they heed this article?

  • Francois

    Some here may remember I was involved for 6 years with a woman who had MPD, multiple personalities, as a result of sexual abuse by a married couple, special pioneers. I was with her many times when she experienced episodes of "intrusive recall." It was terrible to have to watch as she remembered vivid details of receiving abuse from these special representatives of God. It's real enough, alright.

    I'd also like to point out that child abuse was a "silent" crime up until just a few years ago, even in this country. When I was a child, even if there was blatantly obvious child abuse going on, the adults would discuss it in hushed tones and run the kids from the room. No one wanted to discuss it. It was just to horrible to contemplate, even as recently as, say, the sixties. In fact, there was not much understanding of multiple personalities, or post-traumatic stress disorders until the last twenty years or so.

    My point here is that in contemplating the so-called biblical requirement to have two witnesses in order to make a charge stick, you must ignore the fact that if child abuse wasn't mentioned in polite company in 1980, how much less was it dealt with in, say, 50 A.D.? No one was contemplating secret child abuse when they said you needed two witnesses to a sin. All this requires is a little common sense on the part of the GB, but they've never shown much of that in the past, so I doubt there's gonna be much of it in the future. You don't call a couple of friends over to watch you screw an 8 year-old now do you?

    Thus, I suppose we can continue to expect pedophile JWs to get away with it.

    This article makes me sick too!!


  • patio34

    As if it weren't bad enough to insist on two witnesses to the charge, notice their next qualification:

    Even if more than one person "remembers" abuse by the same individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain to base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence.

    Supposedly, they will discount the additional witnesses also. Talk about "going beyond what is written." Hoist by their own petard.

    All intelligent people are confrontational.--HBO's Winston Churchill

  • Hyghlandyr
    No one was contemplating secret child abuse when they said you needed two witnesses to a sin.

    No one needed to be contemplating such things when Torah was written. Remeber, God himself gave these instructions to Moses. And there was no mention from god of an age of consent. I guess it must have slipped his mind. Then there is the ole 'it was the culture back then' thing. Exactly. That is why we say god didn't have anything to do with these or other writings. If he was giving us regulations, let him start where he needs to, with how we treat children.

    As to the two witnesses, and judicial hearings and so on...Well my father confessed, and got six months dfing. The elders must have felt that he reformed years of behaviour in that time. Then the court gave him 20? or so. But he was out in two. Again he must have reformed. He was after all a model prisoner. Since prisons are just full of kids, they had plenty of time to watch him and realize that he wasnt molesting those kids eh?

    A friend of mine remembers in the seventies there being some hubub about some pictures at an art gallery, child pornography. Apparently it was not made illegal until shortly after then. Though I don't know the facts. If it is true, well the watchtower society, is like the rest as far as I am concerned. It is time we evolved.

    Repressed memories are a touchy subject. Some psychologists and other professionals accept them, others do not. If you were talking about two seperate people remembering the same fella molesting them, in the same pattern, say from far flung congregations, I think that would do well to verify. On the other hand people have had false memories implanted as part of research studies. We know that memories can be implanted, we as yet have no verifiable research into whether repressed memories are real.

    But all in all who cares? The society uses this ploy in those articles to beg the question. We are not talking about them hiding molestors of people who have repressed memories surfacing. We are talking about brother and sister So and so, whose son, little johnny, comes to them and says that brother whatshisname has been touching him. They get details, maybe even from janie his sister, who says the same thing. Go to the elders, are told there is not enough evidence. If they report to the police they will be disfellowshipped for spreading malicious gossip. Why is it that only in regards to child molestation can people get dfed for gossip?

    Are there cases of people who have real or imagined repressed memories surfacing and reporting them to the elders? Sure. But by and large they are the smallest number of cases. Most are things that are right now happening.

    The same goes with rape cases.

    We will deal with repressed memories later GB. For now stop the current molestors.

Share this