Bill Bowen's unfortunate attack

by Jim Penton 86 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Jim Penton

  Hi Carl,

  Great to hear from you. The point you make about the Watchtower Society and the two or three witness rule is excellent and shows that Ray was not the author.

  I am very interested in doing a careful historical study of Watchtower "legislation" regarding disfellowshipping, judiccial committees, theocratic law, etc. I am convinced that the whole business of closed hearings before courts of servants or elders was a direct result of the Moyle case that cost the Society a good deal of money. Curiously, Watchtower lawyers have had little respect for principles of justice, and I think the whole business of disfellowshipping committees, as they were called originally, was dreamed up by Knorr, Fred Franz and Covington. Like Glen How in Canada, Covington could talk out of both sides of his mouth. He could spout libertarian principles when arguing for organizational religious freedom, but was totally autocratic within the organization.

  I am deeply troubled by the ferment among former Witnesses. The psychological effects of having been Witnesses and of leaving, often under traumatic conditions, cause many to go off the rails. For that reason, and for my own mental health, I am less and less inclined to work with former Witnesses or to spend much time on forums. Sometimes the hatred expressed by ex-JWs is overwhelming. Furthermore, I often feel that the retreat of some into agnosticism and atheism is an excuse to allow them to do whatever they want without restraint. So here in Mexico, I am spending more and more time with people who have never been Witnesses. Although the number of real Christians is limited, there are some.

  Blessing and keep up the good work,

  Jim
• 

  DannyBear

  Jim,

  I have enjoyed your comments here. They seem to balanced and fair, a trait to be respected, when discussing issues like child abuse.

  In your above response to COJ you make one statement that I would respond to:

  ***Furthermore, I often feel that the retreat of some into agnosticism and atheism is an excuse to allow them to do whatever they want without restraint.***

  Over the year's, since leaving the tower, I have heard 'christians' make statements like this. Some even more aggressive in tone, regarding those who have chosen to abandon traditional 'bible based' spirituality. To me, it smacks of pure bigotry and intolerance. Why?

  To assert that because one concludes that the 'god of the bible' is a figment of archaic man's imagination, does not automaticaly allow for the assumption "allow them to do whatever they want without restraint". On the contrary it may well allow such individuals to further shake off the often rigid, intolerant judegementalism, so much a part of following 'bible standards'.

  The bible a book full of condemnation and self serving 'causes'.....all predicated on a god, who exacts everlasting punishment, for those who will not conform. No matter how many scriptures a 'christian' uses to show the contrary, the simple truth is, if you abandon the god of the bible, YOU DIE! So the 'christian' mentality is set in stone, 'your either with us or against us'.

  When your mind is so focused, it seems, that 'true believer's' cannot even fathom living a life of good moral character without the guide book, and it's respective god. I beg to differ with this assumption.

  Even the radical beleif that there is no God, cannot be compartmentalized as you have just done. A leap, of pure 'religious' intolerance when doing so.

  I find it interesting that all three of you fine author's RF, COJ, and yourself, still cannot make any statement without some reference to biblical or related authority. I think if all of you tried, you could say the same things, based solely on logic and reasoning, without any requirement for Jehovah to put his stamp of approval.

  At least when individuals like Ray and yourself do so, you do so with class and humility. I must say though that many of your 'brothers' in 'christianity', tout the same reference's with little, if any tact or sensibility.

  I hope you take the above for what it is, simply an obeservation, from someone who used to quote scripture with the best of them, but no longer consider's the bible a work of God's own hands.

  Danny

  Edited by - DannyBear on 1 November 2002 8:42:26
• 

  rondoggy

  I have supported SilentLambs and will continue to do so. However I can not agree with Bill on this issue and his attack on Ray Franz. Just because one is not in agreement with another is no cause to discredit that person, Bill provides no "proof" that Ray was the author of the policy inforced by JWs.

  Only Accusations and enuendos. While I think it is great that Bill is fighting the WT and for the innocent victims, I have often wondered why he also fought to not be disfellowshipped.

  I would wear that as a banner. I do not agree with Bill, Ray or anyothers who still support the Watchtowers Doctrinal Beliefs or their Religion(CULT).

  They have never had the truth. You don't have truth then loose it. This is proof that JESUS is The Way, The Truth and The Life.

  I have read both of Ray's books and I got a clearer picture of the Watchtower Society and it only backed what I had felt about this disgusting apostate religion ( antichrist ). I also saw the Watchtower Society clearer through Bill's Coming out with Silentlambs. So I personally thank them Both For that.

  Please Sirs be gentlemen about it. You both think that while the Watchtower is wrong in certain areas you still believe in some of their so called truths, and that is where I differ with you both. This is a dangerous cult and you both should be warning others about becoming a JW, and should be witnessing to others about Christ.

  Just my humble thoughts,

  Ron

  Edited by - rondoggy on 1 November 2002 9:27:49

  Edited by - rondoggy on 1 November 2002 9:29:32
• 

  hawkaw

  So Dr. Penton, you were talking about the rape shield law as you call it.

  Interesting.

  I also noticed that you ... well... seemed .... to ignore my post on how the law was developed by both genders.

  .... hmmmm .... you do realize I know some of these people don't you? Why would you say something that I know is kinda ... well ... wrong?

  Dr. Penton .................... Are you trying to tell me some of the most honourable Judges that I know ... who by the way are of both genders interpreted the law are wrong???

  The case law that has been created has to withstand the test of "appeal" which by the way has a few "conservative judges" (such as good old Roy McMurtry(sp?)) sitting on those appelant courts in Osgoode Hall in Ontario.

  And of course this case law has withstood appeal. And like I said a lot of MEN were involved in the decision making too. And again - why do I say that? - Because I personally know them!

  Each crimminal case as Commie Chris or Concerned Lawyer will tell you is based on serious facts of admissible evidence and the points of law. Yeah there is bound to be the odd one but the whole idea is to put independent evidence in play that goes to the alleged crime.

  I noticed that you slamed Bowen for NOT being factual or giving a factual case ... Now that is quite okay ... I really don't care as I try and work with all ...... but it looks like you are doing the same thing and in the process trying to slam a woman's intelligence with some example that you apparently dreamed up???? I wonder if I should read the November 15, 2001 article in the WT on hypocrisy again.

  Like I said before - you sat through Vicki's trial and heard how down right awful it was with the ad hominem attacks on Vicki and how "irrelevant" it was to the facts of the her "child rape" case. That could have put her over the edge .... do you think irrelevant evidence is okay? That's what the law is about. Its not about taking "rights" away from the "accused". Do you think the past sexual history of the "accused" rapist is brought up????? The answer is NO.

  I will tell you this .... I showed your wonderful statement to a few of my legal friends of mine who have either prosecuted rapists and of course defended rapists - some of them being women of course. You want to know what they ALL think??? Want to know what two superior court judges (who are males) think? Want to know what a Justice of the Peace thinks?

  I also showed it to my buddy who is sitting right beside me. She is a famed structural geologist and survived the days when geology was a man's world. She was one of the first in the world to break the wall! Want to know what she thinks??? She is still yelling at me over your comment.

  I just don't know .... if you want to hack up Bowen - go ahead. Let him have it and tell the world about how Ray never wrote the policy. In the end .... I really don't care - let Bill have it. Bill has this style of writing and talking that can be harsh and overpowering at times. So let him have it back. I know many who are like Bill.

  All you had to do was probably put up your last paragraph and let him have it. Then you could have had all those people on this thread explain how your post was "reasonable and balanced".

  You think the Penton post is "sober" COJ????

  Please don't start babbling about "so-called" forensic science. As a scientist who practices forensic environmental science all you do is pi$$ me off. Then making it sound like divorced women use child abuse as a way to get at a man's money. That is one of the worst strawman's I have ever read - kinda like the JWs saying blood transfusions are bad for you because there is a one in a million chance of getting AIDs. - even Fred Hall wouldn't have gone there. And of course feminists making laws to take rights away from rapists. Oh .... I'm .... just .......

  Finally, COJ and Dr. Penton, I must admit I am getting sick and tired of this "well the child abuse in the JW Borg is just as bad as the Catholics or whoever" based on the ratio of pedophiles per member in each organization. As someone who does not want a friggen child rapist coming to my door as is the case Sault Ste. Marie area and Scarborough area - all I gotta say about your comment is - The number of sickos in the Borg is NOT the point!!!! I don't dare ask what your thoughts are on homosexuality.

  To me your comments about women are an indication. An indication of how a person thinks. If someone starts babbling (yes babbling) about women taking away rapists rights without completely understanding the law and who actually changed the law then what does that say about your knowledge and thinking on child rape and rape in general?

  You are right Dr. Penton - take more time away from db's like this and enjoy your family.

  hawk
• 

  Focus

  Hello, Jim - and welcome to Apostate Central.

  Jim Penton wrote:
  

  Hi Carl [...] The point you make [...] the two or three witness rule [...] shows that Ray was not the author.

  May I first say that no sensible person has suggested that the "two witness" policy had originated with Ray - and conceptually origination is somewhat akin to "authorship". Of course the policy predates Ray's involvement by decades and may be claimed to be scriptural in origin - in much the same vein as is much of the genocide, rape, brutality and sundry inhumanity can be seen to have divine sanction in the pages of the Old Testament. I am confident your views on this are not quite the same.

  What is of more interest is whether or not Ray was an expositor of it. By that I mean, did he actively (as distinct from merely being part of a Society, Body or Department, or a colleague of the person(s), so involved) assist in its explanation, expounding, statement, restatement or similar propagation.

  As COJ, RP, you and I (and no doubt others) have remarked, "Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot" [yl] from 1967 is the source from which much in the 1972 Organization book (viz. "Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making" [or]) is directly derived. This includes the matters relating to the two witnesses rule.

  You correctly point out that 1967 is:

  four years before Ray Franz became a member of the Governing Body

  However, the date of his co-option into the GB (effectively, in a junior role at that) is not that relevant here. The GB and its members do not, in general, write the Watchtower publications: Nathan was no Rutherford. It is Ray's participation in, work for, and responsibilities within the WRITING DEPARTMENT that is more relevant to these assertions.

  I think you will therefore find this relevant:

  "Karl Adams, who was in charge of the Writing Department when I entered it in 1965, [snip]"

  The emphasis is mine. The source of the quotation I have given above is "Crisis of Conscience", Third Edition, Commentary Press, 1999, page 70. The "I" in the quote refers to the author of that book, Raymond Franz.

  So, Ray was on the Writing Staff - indeed, he was their 'Fresh Blood', now settled in, and already renowned for his undoubted verbal standards and linguistic competence - at the time of the writing of "Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot", 1967, which book contains on its pages 177-178:

  Judgement of matters affecting the lives of dedicated servants of Jehovah carries with it a great responsibility, and, for that reason, the committee is obligated to be sure that it has all the facts before it renders its decision. (1 Time. 5:21; Prov. 18:13; Deut. 13:12-14) For a matter to be established as true, there must be two or three witnesses. (1 Tim. 5:19; Deut. 19:15) These cannot be persons who are simply repeating what they have heard from someone else; they must be witnesses of the things concerning which they testify. No action is taken if there is just one witness; it is not that brothers discredit the testimony, but the Bible requires that, unless the wrongdoer himself confesses his sin, the facts must be substantiated by two or three witnesses in these serious matters.

  which is clearly the source of the "Organization" text.

  I therefore humbly counsel both COJ and yourself to be (even more?)careful in your assertions, and to "make sure of all things". In this way the appropriate questions may be asked, and accurate answers obtained, without too many blind alleys being traversed.

  I have carried out a careful examination of the English used in "Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot", in general and around pages 177-8. It is rather better than the common Writing Staff anodyne. May I suggest that you, and COJ, direct your activities to similar research? You may not have this quite as unravelled as some may say you believe.

  Carl may remember me from gentile times on H2O. I recall how he, AF and I jointly attempted to educate the delusional Bibleman/Joshua1992 about elementary spherical geometry and astronomy; specifically, why a setting full moon must perforce be around dawn.

  --
  Focus
  (Facts Class)

  [Edited only for forum code]

  Edited by - Focus on 1 November 2002 9:57:9
• 

  patio34

  Has anyone but me noticed the specific words that have conveyed strong actions when other words may be more applicable?

  I'm thinking of the consistent use of the word "attack" referring to Bill Bowen's statement about Ray Franz.

  The word "criticism" seems more accurate and lowers the temperature of the discussion a bit.

  I wonder why humans seemingly tend to sensationalize and inflame situations with stronger words than necessary. Mr. Bowen's statement would more accurately be described as a criticism, imo, and would certainly be acceptable. Or objection, complaint, refutation, etc. It seems to me that the word "attack" has been accepted by most of us, when it really is a matter of opinion.

  I object! Words, as we know from the WTBS, can sway opinions drastically; e.g. The Truth, Apostate, Organization, Mother, etc. It's something to think about.

  Pat
• 

  DannyBear

  Hawk,

  Your ranting, proves a point. Anyone who see's things from a different perspective is subject to this kind of rejection;

  ***You are right Dr. Penton - take more time away from db's like this and enjoy your family.***

  What a self serving, opinionated 'put off' you so cavalierly make!

  Better not do that in court, the judge would caution you.

  Danny
• 

  mouthy

  ((((((((((((((Jim))))))))))))) Grace here( as if you didnt know by my logo)

  I dont get into the "FRAY" because my own opinion really doesnt count-I have the opinion where ever MAN is!! there is sexual abuse. ( Am I radical ?Maybe)

  I have read all comments & know much thought has gone into each & every comment.

  The scripture that come to my "UNEDUCATED mind"is "every mans hand is against his brother"

  All I know is those who I have had contact with since being "ousted" (Over 1914)that have been abused -it has done so much mentally, physically( Remember the woman that ran out at the BRCI convention breaking off antennas,throwing rocks,etc: was abused within MOTHERS arms of the WT

  I think YOU, RAY,BILL COJ,Hawkaw, are doing a service to lost sheep-I pray for you all.But as I have learned after helping EX JWs for over 12 years we make friends & enemies Of which I have alot.

  I think that happens to each of us that "stand up & get counted"

  ((((((((((((((((((((((Hugs to Marilyn-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
• 

  one

  To form an opinion it would hel to know:

  What they say

  What they did not say

  What they said "between the lines"

  Possible motives for all of the above,

  But it takes time to find out.
• 

  hawkaw

  Different perspective Dannybear???

  As one who gives "opinion evidence" as an expert in court in a science field, I can hardly wait to observe the "voire dire" when Dr. Penton is called.

  That is where I am coming from if you can't figure it out.

  hawk