ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks 347 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I agree that they should have articulated the stand of Jehovah's Witnesses better - re why disassociated people (inc victims of child abuse) are shunned, they didn't articulate the stand of Jehovah's Witnesses at all.

  This is because had they done so, they'd have said: "the reason why we shun disassociate people is because the Governing Body tells us to". Pretty f**ked up, huh?

  Similarly, when I asked you directly why JWs shun disassociated people, you chose not to answer.

  You would have looked silly if you did answer.
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  Sorry. In the case that I was referencing I incorrectly stated it was a civil matter. It was that the defendant tried to have the evidence suppressed because of the communication between the elders and him over the child pornography. The court rejected that appeal.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  I did choose to answer. You just don't like the answer.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  I agree that they should have articulated the stand of Jehovah's Witnesses better and to be quite honest most anything would have been a better response than what was given. I think that they should have expected that as a question and had prepared it better or put it in their opening statement so that they could have pointed to the statement.
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/crime/article39058014.html

  Shows that Elders did view it as a form of child abuse and did answer questions even though the defendant later claimed that it was a matter of clergy-pentinent privilege.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up

  Is this your answer?
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  Yes that is my answer. I feel that one who is DA is just as someone who is DF.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Ok, let's look at your answer more closely.

  Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother - Paul added his own opinions to nascent Christianity - Jesus didn't say this. This might be why the GB orders JWs to shun disassociated people.
  

  I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ - false equivalence. Jesus chose to stop associating with someone who he knew was going to kill him. This has nothing to do with JWs shunning child abuse victims who have chosen to disassociate themselves from Watchtower.

  ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not - this is a choice that JWs make with the threat of disciplining and shunning hanging over them, thanks to the GB. Ultimately, it's a choice under duress.

  I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA - that obviously doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Look up what happened to Ray Franz.

  I may be living in a fantasy world - no comment (!)

  I feel that one who is DA is just as someone who is DF - really?

  In the context of this thread, we're talking about the ARC and victims of child abuse who disassociate themselves. These are surely not 'just as someone who is DF', right?

  "the reason why we shun disassociated people is because the Governing Body tells us to" - this is it, in a nutshell.
  
  
  
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  LoveUniHateExams Please read your own question:

  LoveUniHateExams16 hours ago

  @Richard Oliver - why do JWs shun disassociated people?

  Where in your question did you state that of child abuse victims. I answered your question. So yes Jesus did shun someone who was going to participate in a plot to kill him, but he did choose to shun Judas. Second, JWs believe in the comments to Timothy that All scriptures are inspired by God, so it is not that just because Jesus didn't say something doesn't mean that Christians don't believe it, that is true for most denominations of Christians.

  Also, I know that I will be accused of being callous and un-loving, but those that have gone through a traumatic situation does not get a pass for everything else that they do in their life. Look at how the law views veterans who have post-traumatic stress disorder and then commit a crime, there past does come into play for mitigation of a punishment but doesn't mean that they aren't punished for the things that they do later in life. Would you excuse a person who had sexually abused a child because as a child the perpetrator was abused as a child? No you wouldn't, you may want some mercy to be shown to them and the punishment to be less severe but you would still expect that person to be punished.
• 

  OUTLAW

  So yes Jesus did shun someone who was going to participate in a plot to kill him.....RO