In our local news... Jehovah's Witnesses LIED to Man with Brain injury

by Newly Enlightened 60 Replies latest jw friends

  • AndDontCallMeShirley

    @ Apog: It's just that it's embarrassing to be a part of the forum when people play the mountain out of a molehill game.


    It's all a matter of perspective, Apog. In this case, a molehill- the Kingdom Hall- is blocking the view of Jim's mountain. He has a right to be upset.

  • Apognophos

    I agree that he can be upset, but you know what? Stuff happens. The JWs thought that they wouldn't be blocking his view, but then they had to. Since we don't know the exact reasons, why are we turning this into a "JWs are loveless and hate handicapped people" tirade?

    Building is pretty complicated. There's a ton of codes at state level and town level. For instance, did town draining requirements ( cause a certain area of the parking lot to be claimed for drainage unexpectedly (this happened to my Hall when the town inspector sprung some surprises on us while the Hall was being built)? This could have required the building to be moved to allow for replacement parking spots. Did the state require more handicapped spaces than they expected or did the town make additional demands on top of the state standards? Etc., etc.

  • AndDontCallMeShirley

    Apog, I was being facetious. I understand what you are saying.

    It'll be interesting to see how all this works out and what the true story is.

    I think what many are reacting to here is the fact that WT is using more heavy-handed corporate bullying to get what it wants, whether it is bullying JWs or "worldly" people. The "new" donation arrangement being a prime example. It's understandable if the first reaction may be to not give WT the benefit of the doubt, especially since this man made his concerns known and had a "gentlemen's agreement".

    If the JWs who gave him assurances that his concerns would be honored were disingenuous or hasty with their promises (not "counting the cost"), it is not unreasonable, when those agreements are not honored, for whatever reason, that people assume the worst.

  • Londo111

    One problem here seems lack of transparency, which is systemic to the whole Organization.

  • problemaddict

    This is all about transparency. Clearly the hall didn't do anything illegal, but they certainly didn't do anything "nice" either. Neighboors and people in neighboorhoods complain about all kinds of things. Some legit, some just their personal beef.

    In this case, this man with traumatic brain injury certainly in my opinion should have been given the benefit of the doubt. As far as not sharing plans, it is my guess, that the homeowners perhaps are not that savvy, and didn't know how to read them, or that they could request them from the city in person.

    If they had a handshake agreement with local elders not to block this mans view, then that is a dick move no doubt.

    If the neighboors do not like the lights, perhaps they can negotiate a time they automatically go off. The city should have local light ordinance if I am not mistaken.

    In short......they were jerks.....but its not as big of a deal as some are making it in my opinon.

  • Coffee House Girl
    Coffee House Girl

    Yes they were jerks...they should have reconsidered their plans if it was thought that it would result in negative PR for the group- with social media (like the fb campaign to save Jim's view, and the local news piece) fanning the flames of bad press for the JWs- they should just tear down the foundation and alter their plans....

    With meetings NEVER being at 100% capacity (with memorial being a possible exception)...three less parking spaces will not be a hardship for anyone, and saving the poor trapped JWs who have to preach in that neighborhood would be well worth the effort and inconvenience...

    but we all know that the jerks in watchtower management will not see it that way...they will stick to their guns and "rejoice" that they are being persecuted for their uncompromising sad


  • AudeSapere

    Rule One: Always get it in writing. Always.

    I feel bad for the non-jw couple, though.


  • rocketman

    "With foundation already poured, the family still hopes the Jehovah’s Witnesses have a change of heart." - Fat chance.

  • rocketman

    Apognophos - The least the JW elders could have done is commented, or visited the family to explain whatever the situation was that spurred the decision to not to honor their handshake agreement.

    Also, words and gestures mean things. If they could not have been certain, they should not have made an agreement.

    Whatever happened to "let your yes mean yes"? Do they not claim to obey the words of Jesus?

  • Watchtower-Free

Share this