News from Bill Bowen!

by UnDisfellowshipped 87 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  waiting

  There's a lot of thought provoking posts in this thread, including Bill's original. Thanks for making me think, no little feat.

  IMO Bill Bowen was not making an issue of Ray Franz, but of policy he is believed to have penned. Asking not, why did Ray Franz pen this policy? But why is the WTS still employing such a policy? Since this apostate penned it (Org. Book) and other books that were written by apostates, such as "The Book of James". Did they not stop distributing materials by the same authors when disfellowshipped/disassociated? Why not stop using their believed ideals as well? - long winded cassie

  Good questions. Why IS the WTBTS still employing such a policy when they denounce the author of it as "Satan's Sperm."

  Why wouldn't the WTBTS update their policy.....just like they did their songbook? The Proclaimers' Book?

  I would assume money issues & legal culpabilities.

  waiting
• 

  IslandWoman

  Hi Waiting,

  Why IS the WTBTS still employing such a policy when they denounce the author of it as "Satan's Sperm."

  I suppose the Watchtower could say because the policy is Bible based. It is the Bible that calls for the two witness rule, shunning to the point of not even giving a greeting to someone etc., etc.

  Of course the Watchtower will twist scripture and apply it as they like (as most religions do) but it still remains that most of what is wrong with the Watchtower is strongly supported and based on scriptures found in the NT and how the Watchtower chooses to apply them.

  IW
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  The New Testament is very clear that it is the Governments of the world who have the responsibility of dealing with CRIMES.

  See Romans Chapter 13.
• 

  waiting

  Why IS the WTBTS still employing such a policy when they denounce the author of it as "Satan's Sperm." - waiting

  Hi IW - it's so nice to speak with you in less than argument tones.

  I know the "two witness" rule is bible based - even Dr. Penton pointed that out in his post on helping "victims" of prostitutes who might be overcharged. Remember?

  However.............the "two witness" rule falls flat on it's face with many crimes/sins mostly committed in private. Even decades ago, if a man & woman spent the night together alone - but both (or one) claimed that it was innocent "We just actually slept together" - I was told that it wouldn't hold up before the elders. No proof. No two witnesses. The WT waddles around the scriptures as they wish

  The scriptures have nothing to do with it. A convenience in explanation to ignorant people, of which I was one.

  Besides, we ALL know that gluttony is a sin worth disfellowshipping, according to the Bible. Have we actually ever heard of anyone being df'd for gluttony? What about selfishness? What about smoking? Oh yeah.........lots of people for smoking....but it's not even mentioned in the Bible, eh?

  So..............in this late stage, most people accept that two witnesses are most likely not going to available, to same or different events to a person molesting/raping a child. There are other types of evidence, of which professionals are aware. Thus, go to professionals - as other organizations are doing.

  The WTBTS could take the Easy Out and do away with their ruling - and follow the lead of some other organizations. The Methodists seem to have a decent one in active use.

  Why wouldn't the WTBTS update their policy.....just like they did their songbook? The Proclaimers' Book? - waiting

  The WTBTS doesn't seem to want to take the Easy Out (prior apostate erroneous influence) - which begs the question....."Why?" Money? Cover up? Pride?

  waiting

  Edited by - waiting on 4 January 2003 9:49:18
• 

  RevMalk

  The WTBTS doesn't seem to want to take the Easy Out (prior apostate erroneous influence) - which begs the question....."Why?" Money? Cover up? Pride?

  All of the above and more. If they changed their policy now, they'd be ruined for sure. See, to recant everything they've said and done would be admitting guilt, and if they were to do that, then they'd surely lose every court case against them. Now, personally I don't think they have to change their two witness rule, and I don't think they should. It is a protection from false accusations, and although their aren't many, they do happen. You get a 16 year with an agenda and the next thing you know she's accusing someone of something untrue (I suppose this happens with guys too). It happens in schools, churches, in the workplace and in the Kingdom Hall. You cannot DF a man because one person has accused him of something, you just can't.

  Even if these cases went to the Police, nothing can be done. Why? Because there's no witnesses. So if the legal system works in the same exact way, how can we fault the Watchtower for the same? Come on now, we've been fighting for how long to get them to change a rule you will never see changed. Again, they do not, and should not change the two witness rule, I don't care what anyone says. What they need to change is the fact that they're handling these cases on their own, with no training. First thing they need to do when they learn of these things is call the authorities. Most religions work this way, why not them? The Mormon's official policy is just that. When they have a meeting with the accused, it's to inform him that they are turning him/her in, but they give them the chance first to do it themselves. If they don't, they go ahead and call. Obviously it's just like anything else, it doesn't always work that way, but that's their official policy. What's different with the Watchtower? They think they're above the law.

  Here's a quote from JR Brown that sums up their stand:

  Although Witnesses comply with secular laws when necessary, Witness spokesman Brown says, the group prefers to deal with such matters spiritually. -We handle wrongdoing, sin, and transgression,- he says. -This is what a religious organization is supposed to do. We are not getting into law enforcement. We are just going to handle the repentance.

  He's correct. They are not in the law enforcement business, so they need to leave that to the proper authorities by contacting them immediately when they learn of abuse within the congregation. So That's what we should be trying to convince them of. You will never get them to change the two witness rule, we're barking up the wrong tree!

  Edited by - RevMalk on 4 January 2003 11:42:32
• 

  waiting

  ..

  Edited by - waiting on 4 January 2003 11:20:13
• 

  jst2laws

  Cassi,

  I appreciate the balance in your post:

  How much of this constant bashing is truly necessary? Could this be taken to a private level?

  If we could simply keep the big picture in mind and not get caught up in our indignation at a thoughtless are harmful comment perhaps we could more often go to email or the phone and express ourselves, without fanning flames publically.

  I wish we as ex-jws could work in a cohesive manner to assure errors are not made and the "real truth" is made available to all.

  Now that is my wish. Some will throw off restraint in making their point. But hopefully most will see themselves not just as supporters of this or that cause but as part of an EXJW community with a responsibility to support all who have suffered, all survivors, all who are emerging with need of support. This does not mean ignoring issues that are touchy but at least addressing the ISSUES with dignity and respect for each other.

  What I like about this thread is for the most part it was informational. With a few exceptions, people who knew the facts and had an opinion espressed themselves without attacking the one with whom they differed.

  Edited to include:

  There was questions raised about the non-profit status of Silentlambs. I wish that could have been researched more thoroughtly, as Grits has, before the question was raise. Bill's reaction was commentable in this case. He did not attack anyone for casting doubt, but simply clarified. I suspect he was HURT by the casting of doubt and yet reacted modestly.

  Jst2laws

  Edited by - Jst2laws on 4 January 2003 12:38:20
• 

  IslandWoman

  Hi Waiting,

  Hi IW - it's so nice to speak with you in less than argument tones.

  Yes, it is!

  My point with the scripture thing is that most religions will hypocritically use their holy books to back up any twisted thing or teaching they have, regardless if it really makes sense or even if their own holy book can be shown not to entirely support their stand.

  Oh well, so much for truth in religion, that imo is an oxymoron!

  Jst2laws,

  Many of us were badly trampled in the JW religion by men who felt the ends justified the means. Their Organization and their doctrine came first before the individual and before fairness. Now I am out of that torturous place where men could degrade others at a whim and where a man's name and reputation hung upon the word of the GB, the CO or some Elder.

  I am out of that place where the GB could vilify and cause death and never apologize or make amends, I am out of that place where I remained silent for the almighty cause!

  There are some xJWs who imo have fallen into that trap of putting the cause of "getting the Watchtower", before the individual, before even friends. This is well, just another sad lesson in life, the lesson that what the GB members do they do in part because they are men with total control, men with power and when men have those things many of them will use it to their liking, disregarding what others think or how it effects others. I am afraid that now just the hint of that sort of stuff puts me in battle mode, a feeling I have to control but will never abandon.

  On another note, would you happen to know who the writer of the "Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot" is? I would appreciate whatever help you can give me on this.

  Thanks,

  IW