Reveal News: How Jehovah’s Witness leaders are responding to child abuse scrutiny by Trey Bundy
hey, NN... enough of the Christmas cheer. You're cut off! It's Trey Bundy, the journalist.
silly man .... :P
I wanted to know what it was like to have poor reading comprehension like so many here.
It's almost FUN!
Key Phrase: "The journalist has a closed mind. The journalist isn’t interested in the truth".
In which case, what can they do about it? They have no choice but let the story die.
It is plain to see that Splane's reality tunnel is pretty narrow if he thinks the Portuguese Jehovah Witnesses are going to be used by Jehovah to set the record straight to the public about this scandal in their organization.
His reality tunnel is so fucked up that he thinks these people are that stupid that they will believe any bull shit he feed them and he's stretching their gullibility to the limits of insanity and he still expects these people to listen obey and be blessed. If only!
hehehe, the Force is strong with this one! xo
I've had the privilege of speaking with Trey at length on more than one occasion and one of the interesting things he told me was that he has visited Brooklyn Bethel multiple times in order to give Watch Tower representatives a chance to tell their side of the story, on their own turf and at his expense mind you. Each time they chickened out and wouldn't even speak to him -- at all. Period. So, they are lying to their people when they say Trey has a closed mind, when in fact THEY are the ones with the closed minds.-Brock Talon
As a journalist, all Trey is interested in is facts. It's one of the reasons he contacted me, and contacted many others in the ex-JW community he thinks might be able to shed light on whatever he is reporting. In my case it was my Bethel experience from my first book he was interested in when preparing for his last visit there. He does extensive research on anything he is writing about, which is something most of us can see in his reporting.
I'm positive that if he were to come up with exonerating information on the Watch Tower, proving them innocent, he would simply report that. He has no agenda other than finding out and then reporting on the truth. It is just as good a story to report a poor innocent religious organization being set up and persecuted by allegedly lying disgruntled ex-members, than it is to write what he has been reporting.
Of course, what he has found instead is that all the things people like Barbara Anderson, Candace Conti and others have been telling him are 100% true and it is this religious organization that are the liars.
If all these accusations were truly false, the WTS would have sued the accusers up the yinyang.
The fact that they have not done this even once is telling in and of itself.
I've also come to suspect that one of the reasons elders have been so willing to follow the Org's woeful policies was because to do otherwise would feel too much like acknowledging out loud that there was a real problem.
"Of course, what he has found instead is that all the things people like Barbara Anderson, Candace Conti and others have been telling him are 100% true and it is this religious organization that are the liars."
So, how did he find all the things that ex-jws have been telling him are 100% correct? From talking to more ex-jws! So that hardly inspires me with confidence that his discovery is truly objective!
Not quite Nitty-Gritty. Trey's findings are based on many inputs, not just ex-JWs.
For example, the Watch Tower published their official rebuttal regarding the Royal Commission, which Trey's paper publishes a link to after each article about it so that anyone can read the official words from the Watch Tower themselves. Nothing can be more fair than that. It's a long read, but it will back up Trey's summary of how the Watch Tower defends itself. The link is here if you wish to see it.
Whether it's the Watch Tower's take on the so called "two witness rule" or their take on recidivism, it is clear to an outsider like Trey that although they claim a high moral ground in their rebuttals, the proof is in the pudding: countless child abuse cases coming up again and again with the same issue always at the core. That issue is simply the abusers are coddled and protected more often than not.You have to read all of Trey's articles to understand what I mean by this, I won't try to recap all of the points here. If you haven't read Trey's articles, you should. They are excellent objective journalistic works. Read first, then judge later.
I know from speaking with him that Trey will speak to anyone who can help shed light on the subject. He actually has spoken to many current JWs, at least those who will talk to him. Unfortunately, he has found that just speaking with local elders only goes so far because in the end, the arrow always leads to Bethel. We all know that local elders do not have that much personal discretion when it comes to things like these: they ALWAYS write the headquarters to get advice on serious cases and they always get the same advice. So, that said, when Trey tries to speak to those at Bethel making the policy, he is stonewalled as a "tool of Satan". (He has actually been called that.)
Trey has also spoken with lawyers on both sides of the issue as well, who each add their own viewpoint into the mix. Most of the prosecuting attorneys' have no personal dog in the fight. They are not ex-JWs... they just prosecute the cases they take on to the best of their ability from a secular standpoint. The defending attorney's of course are usually Watch Tower controlled, but he will speak to them if he can as well.
So, no, you are wrong my friend. It is not only ex-JWs that Trey is speaking to. That's the Watch Tower excuse you are positioning yourself with. I'm not trying to change your mind though, believe what you wish. I am saying this for those reading this thread that I believe Trey Bundy is trying his best to find out what the real truth is about all these things, and that he will simply report what he finds.
Again, read all of Trey's articles and reference materials first, then judge afterwards. Then you can speak from a position of knowledge.