by OldSoul 604 Replies latest members private
***full of malarky and not knowing which way is up.***
Alan...buddy...what exactly is malarkey (BTW I think you spelt it wrong)?
I'v heard that term used by really really really old people like yourself but never quite understood what it meant. I know what it refers to, but, I don't know what the word itself means. Could you please explain without using any scriptural references?
Your humble grasshopper,
Dave
SH: If the scriptures using this term are being misapplied and should really refer to individuals rather than a class, would that preclude the formation of some organizational administration that could be instrumental in helping people adhere to the scriptures? If those scriptures were not applied in the way that they are and the arrangement was still the same would there still be a problem?
I have an appointment that I'm late for, but I wanted to tell you that I will think this over and reply tonight. I have a gut reaction but I do not think that would be fair, given your consideration.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
DOF,
Actually, I've been at this forum for 4 years but thanks anyway for the news flash that this site is full of x-JW's.
OS,
If the thread gets too clogged with attacks and counterattacks, just send me a PM. I will reply as soon as I get a chance.
Jared, that picture of the baby all marked up is frightening to me!! I worry for that baby's eyes. OMG! What was the older baby/child using?
Seven006, this is the "malarkey" you were referring to, isn't it?? Or was it something silly and nonsensical?
From John Eddy:
Yes, I want to know the history of the word malarky (or is it malarkey?). I've heard the word used too many times in the current Massachusetts Senatorial Race, and a few friends of mine were trying to decide what it could mean.
If you ever find the etymology of malarkey anywhere, it will likely be a bunch of malarkey, because the origins of this word are not known. All that is known is that it originated in America in the late 1920s and has meant approximately the same thing since then: `pretentious language that means nothing.' Both spellings are acceptable.
Can you believe a roofing company with a name like Malarkey?? |
Quality Residential Roofing About those storms and 100 mph winds... Created with the roofing contractors in mind, Malarkey has developed the revolutionary Zone technology. The Zone offers greater ease and protection in comparison to the industry?s more conventional nailing line. THE ZONE makes it easier for contractors to apply Malarkey shingles correctly every time. It provides a 1¾ inch nailing area compared to the industry?s standard ½" nailing line. For more information, click here for THE ZONE. Class 4 Impact Resistant The Legacy ® Alaskan & Hurricane SBS Modified Shingles all meet UL 2218 Class 4 Impact Resistance as tested by Warnock Hersey. More About SBS Malarkey Class 4 Impact Rating Statement Legacy, Alaskan or Malarkey's Revolutionary Laminated Shingles featuring The Zone... |
Hello afriendinneed!
I read the extract from the US BoE letter re child abuse and noted that it was of recent origin - dated February, 2002.
As an outsider (never been a JW), the following struck me about this extract.
There are 4 reminder items listed and the wording in each instance is worthy of note. The first is a reference to an earlier letter (1989) which had a direct instruction to the elders.
"Reminders Regarding the Handling of Cases Involving Child Abuse:
(1) As directed in the July 1, 1989 , letter to all bodies of elders, you should immediately call the Legal Department for direction if you learn of a case of child abuse. Child abuse would include sexual abuse, self-evident physical abuse, and extreme neglect involving a minor.
The second 2 are requests.
(2) If the alleged victim is now an adult but was a minor at the time of the abuse, please call the Legal Department.
(3) If you become aware of a past case of child abuse and you are not certain whether the elders involved at the time called the Legal Department for direction, please call the Legal Department for assistance as soon as possible.
The first 3 reminders make no mention of the police or other authorities, just the Legal Department. Why would this be? Could this be so that elders could determine which States have mandatory reporting?
The 4th includes a direct instruction, thus implying that, previously, elders had been suggesting to members that they should not report allegations to the police or other authorities.
(4) Child abuse is a crime. Never suggest to anyone that they should not report an allegation of child abuse to the police or other authorities.
Please note that the next sentence is conditional - beginning with 'If', so this instruction is a reactive action, rather than a pro-active one.
If you are asked, make it clear that whether to report the matter to the authorities or not is a personal decision for each individual to make and that there are no congregation sanctions for either decision. That is, no elder will criticize anyone who reports such an allegation to the authorities.
This reminder could be far stronger by omitting the - 'If you are asked' - and by stating 'Make it clear that...'.
BUT, underpinning these reminders and the 'personal decision' referred to above, is the JW interpretation of what they term the 'two witness rule'. Please note that this extract from the official Watchtower site relates only to an accusation of child abuse against a Jehovah's Witness. As an outsider, I find this pertinent and wonder how an accusation of child abuse against a non Jehovah's Witness would be handled and whether the 'two witness rule' would be brought into play here, or whether the abuseds family would be advised to go direct to the police?
When any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is accused of an act of child abuse, the local congregation elders are expected to investigate. Two elders meet separately with the accused and the accuser to see what each says on the matter. If the accused denies the charge, the two elders may arrange for him and the victim to restate their position in each other's presence, with elders also there. If during that meeting the accused still denies the charges and there are no others who can substantiate them, the elders cannot take action within the congregation at that time. Why not? As a Bible-based organization, we must adhere to what the Scriptures say, namely, "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good." (Deuteronomy 19:15)
Having some experience of child abuse investigation, this procedure strikes me as seriously flawed. By definition, cases of 'child' abuse feature minors as the abused.
We are no longer in an age where the 'word' of witnesses alone has to be relied upon as evidence, as we have moved into an era where the results of scientific and medical investigation can be classed in the category of - 'at the mouth of two witnesses'. To fail to encourage the family of an abused child to avail themselves of the expert assistance provided via the medical, scientific and criminal investigative bodies, yet to possibly require a child to face their alleged abuser in front of two other adult males would suggest a gross disregard for the mental and physical well-being of that child.
It takes tremendous courage on the part of a child to report an abuser (I know people up to 70 years of age who still cannot bring themselves to 'out' an abuser) and unless we take all reports seriously and encourage families to report to the police or other authorities trained to carry out investigations, we are, by our inaction, allowing child molestation to continue and children to suffer emotional and physical damage. Abused children generally require great support from experienced, trained professionals to enable them to have any possibility of recovery.
I would suggest that the society's interpretation and application of the 'two witness rule' is in error (the explanation would require a lengthy post) and I am mindful of the following scripture:
***
Rbi8 Matthew 18:4-7 ***4
Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one that is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens; 5 and whoever receives one such young child on the basis of my name receives me [also]. 6 But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who put faith in me, it is more beneficial for him to have hung around his neck a millstone such as is turned by an ass and to be sunk in the wide, open sea.7
"Woe to the world due to the stumbling blocks! Of course, the stumbling blocks must of necessity come, but woe to the man through whom the stumbling block comes!***
w77 8/15 p. 505 "Have Salt in Yourselves" ***10
The person being stumbled to a fall might be ?a little one,? but that would not minimize the seriousness for the one causing the stumbling in this case. Why not? Because it involved "one of these little ones that believe." This would designate a believer in Jesus as the Messianic Son of God. The belief of such "little ones" puts them in the way to everlasting life. So, if anyone willfully, purposely, inconsiderately caused such a ?little one? on the way to eternal life to take due offense and stumble out of the living way into destruction, it would be tantamount to committing murder. It would show a lack of love for the one stumbled.Perhaps the above words relating to blood-guilt will give the Governing Body pause for thought and encourage them to swiftly review their current instructions rather than 'waiting on Jehovah'.
Watchtower Society literature = a lot of bunkum
A previous thread on the child abuse issue, for anyone who may be interested.
Watchtower Society literature = a lot of bunkum
Kenneson, Is that a Native American term?
Annie.....who had a high school teacher named Mrs. Malarkey!
