An Obvious Contradiction Mr Stewart is Missing

by cofty 20 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • cofty

    All JWs on the stand have stuck to the same line that they have no problem with cooperating with mandatory reporting when state law requires it.

    If the law does not require it then bible principles absolutely prevent them from taking away rights of the victim to report abuse to the police or not.

    We have already heard from a JW rep a couple of days ago who proudly asserted that when the law conflicts with bible principle they will always obey the bible and quoted Acts 5:29 "We must obey god rather than men".

    Please join the dots!

  • Nitty-Gritty
    I don't see a conflict with the Bible, reporting an abuse to the police even if the family do not wish it disclosed. I reckon the new instructions to elders in Australia will be that if allegations are brought to their attention they will have to report it to the which case they will also have to warn the congregation of this policy. Pretty much this is the case with disclosing to a trained professional, they have to warn the client/patient/victim that if they disclose they have been sexually molested, the counselor will have to tell the police, whether they like it or not. In any case, I don't see why governments cannot implement mandatory reporting in every country, in which case there would be no question whether the elders should report or not report. Simple really.
  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    "We have no qualm at all about mandatory reporting. If the government wants us to report every allegation of sex abuse that ‐ of child abuse that we ever hear, we're more than happy to do it. But the problem we have is, scripturally, elders don't have the right to take away that right to decide what's in the best interests of the family from the family. If the law requires us to do it, we have no hesitation in doing it."--Mr. Toole testimony to the Royal Commission.

    So, according to Toole, elders DO NOT have the scriptural right to decide what's in the best interests of the family when a family does not what child molestation to be reported. Yet if the law tells elders they have to decide what's in the best interests of the family by reporting allegations of child abuse then they will do so despite NOT HAVING scriptural right to decide what's in the best interests of the family by reporting when a family does not want it reported. Hence, it's contradictory to claim when the law conflicts with bible principle elders will always obey the bible principle.

  • freemindfade
    Hopefully the arc is just letting them have rope to hang themselves later. They may be playing poker letting them say certain things that will be revisited later.
  • Brighid
    Agreed. They're (the commission) are doing a very good job but I'm afraid they're missing a lot of the double speak and "inside" references that you'd only recognize having "been in". However, was glad to hear that obviously, they've been clued into "Theocratic Warfare" concept. It's also not lost on me, as it seems obviously lost on the "brothers", that all those times congregants were told, even after suffering grave injustices to "wait on Jehovah, he'll bring it all out", that that is precisely what is happening. I call it Natural Law, and not Jehovah's but either way, you can't trod all over good people, call good bad and bad good without there being eventual grave consequences.
  • cha ching
    cha ching

    Cofty.... That is the point, reporting does not conflict..... JW's already report when mandatory, right?

    Two witness rule? they can do that too....

    Just let the police do their job (as JW witnesses keep bragging "We do not get in the way of a police investigation") and THEN the JW's can do whatever ritual they very well like to do.

    The law will not be taking away their right to worship as they please, interpret the Bible as they please, the JWs will simply do it AFTER the police investigation.

  • cofty
    I have sent an email to Mr Stewart
  • cha ching
    cha ching

    I agree Marvin, JW's claim elders are suppose to be shepherds and look out for the flock, right?

    However, whenever you do not put someone's best interests first, you clearly are not 'looking out for them.'

  • cha ching
    cha ching

    I am going to write one also.... with many things included. Tho Angus and the judge, and the one woman attorney that we heard from at the end, have been very well educated as to many things the "GB/ ORG" can do, you really have to know the mind of them, don't you?

    The subtleties, the nuances, the innuendos, the twisting and manipulation are difficult for the outsider to get a good grasp of.

  • Nitty-Gritty

    @ Marvin Shilmer

    The question is, is the law of mandatory reporting against scripture? I don't think so. Now if the elders took it upon themselves to report without the law there, then they would be infringing on the rights of the family.

    To get around that the elders could warn the congregants that any disclosure of child molestation will be reported to the police (as per what what the RC wants) and thus give the families the right to disclose to the elders or not. It already works this way with councilors as I mentioned. Of course this could bring with it many problems. I wonder if the RC has fully thought that one out??

Share this