Must obey!

Joined

• started 13 topics
• posted 216 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Must obey!

• 
  10

  boxing champion: Paulie Malignaggi......... Ex JW

  by DaCheech in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  a couple of years ago when this guy was a younger we were friends.

  i am married with kids, but some witness friends of mine still attend his matches.. he is fighting next saturday night, always a big talker and showman.

  my wife thinks his brother is cuter.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Must obey!

  I remember hearing about a champion mixed martial arts fighter who used to be a JW too.

  Just goes to show: for every experience the Society can produce for some famous worldly person who became a JW, an experience of the opposite can be found.
• 
  27

  Kingdom Hall is packed

  by Junction-Guy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  right near my apartment there is a kingdom hall that sits next to the interstate.

  i passed by there tonight at 5 pm and it was totally packed.

  i mean there were cars lined all up and down the driveway.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Must obey!

  The GB are announcing exciting "new light" for 2008: Kingdom Halls can be scripturally proven to be modern-day "cities of refuge"...we must urgently flee to our nearest Kingdom Hall to not be bloodguilty when Armageddon shortly breaks out! Start running now!!!!
• 
  30

  George Couch Dies - Brooklyn Bethel

  by SadElder in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  george couch, a longtime fixture as the big wig of home overseers at brooklyn bethel, died friday.

  .

  we never interacted much with them, he was a strange duck from our brief visits with them over the years..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Must obey!

  Poor George. He was a classic brainwashed Watchtowerite: focused entirely on serving & furthering the interests of a human organisation rather than the interests of the master, Jesus Christ. May he RIP.
• 
  27

  Information Control- The Governing Bodies Way of Controlling JW ' s

  by flipper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  by now , most of you have probably been aware that the watchtower society and governing body has done a real cover up on the child abuse scandal that came out this year .

  it has truly been amazing , that in spite of nbc news coverage of the child abuse crisis in the organization - probably 90 to 95 % of jehovah's witnesses did not know it even took place or happened at all .

  the governing bodies way of exercising " information control " on the jehovah's witness rank and file members !

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Must obey!

  I agree Flipper, but most JW's are still prepared to overlook these faults because they rationalise they must still be the true religion since only they have Jehovah's name, reject the trinity, reject the immortal soul/hell teachings, believe in the future paradise earth, etc. They feel that while there may be a few jokers in their pack, they still hold the trump cards doctrinally over other religions.

  JW's suffer from a similar syndrome as beaten wives do who are psychologically incapable of leaving their physically & mentally abusive mate. They rationalise all his bad qualities away and exaggerate his good qualities in their minds, reasoning to themselves "there is nothing else to go to..I'd be lost & lonely without him". Many JW's say the same thing in their minds when it comes to their abusive mother organisation, no matter how much you reason & intellectualise with them.
• 
  24

  Is it official policy that elders MUST advise the parent to report abuse?

  by Must obey! in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  notwithstanding the plain fact that the watchtower's heinous "two witness" rule is obviously flawed (scripturally and in terms of natural justice), it seems to me that as long as the elders are advising the parent/caregiver to go to the authorities in every case where an accusation of child abuse has occurred that this is sufficient for the elders to discharge their legal duty, shouldn't it?.

  i have heard rumours that this is in fact the official current policy (since when i don't know) of the society: that they tell the elders to advise the parent/caregiver to inform the authorities of alleged child abuse.

  but how firm is this policy?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Must obey!

  Thanks Elsewhere. Where is that official policy formally contained? It is good that at least the elders are under instruction to make an anonymous phone call to the police (but only in reporting states); but why do you say this is totally useless to the authorities though? If the police have been provided with the names of the complainant and alleged perpetrator, the police can easily follow it up from there. It's pleasing also that apparently in the UK they seem to have a fairly proactive approach towards advising the police.

  It is also good that the elders appear to now be telling the parent/victim they are free to go to the authorities but clearly this still seems too discretionary, too hit and miss. Instructions need to be issued worldwide to all elders that they must encourage the parent/victim to inform the police, and the elders should follow up on whether or not this happens. This must be made mandatory for elders to do.

  Good point too that the elders must themselves take the initiative in informing the authorities if it is the actual parent/caregiver is the alleged abuser. The child is in even greater danger in such a situation so the elders obviously have a greater moral duty to act themselves.

  The procedures lack clarity and consistency and in practice different bodies of elders seem to be doing different things, according to anecdoctal reports. Sadly there is still an attitude to try and do the very minimum at best.

  It is bizarre, frankly, that the Society do not seem to be making this top of the agenda in changes needed in the organisation. Perhaps it is (in light of the recent large pay-outs), we can only hope. This policy glaringly needs to be stronger & universally more consistent, even if they refuse to reconsider their 'two witnesses' gnat-squeezing interpretation. There is still more they can do to help the victim, bring the alleged to justice, and prevent the alleged from committing further abuses, even with the 'two witness' rule.

  And as I mentioned earlier, it is repugnant that someone with privileges can continue with those privileges even when under accusation of child abuse, given the clear scriptural principle that they are no longer fit for such privileges by merely by being under suspicion. They should not have their privileges removed only once proven guilty; that is not what the relevant scriptures indicate. Because this crime is so horrible the mere suspicion of it, on reasonable grounds, should be enough for the brother to have all privileges stripped. If the brother moves congregation, the policy must surely also be that the new congregation must be informed of his record, even that he has been merely accused. This must be the policy given that paedophiles nearly always commit their crimes without witnesses. Children need extra protection but the organisation's policy is weighted the opposite way. Repugnant is an understatement.

  It really is quite a mess isn't it. Infuriating & disturbing. Let's pray something concrete happens soon to improve the situation, although it appears that is unlikely under the current leadership. Let's hope that the Society's lawyers are having another look at this in light of the recent out of court settlements, shocking media attention and pressure being exerted by Barbara Anderson et al. They really are skating on thin ice over this.
• 
  24

  Is it official policy that elders MUST advise the parent to report abuse?

  by Must obey! in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  notwithstanding the plain fact that the watchtower's heinous "two witness" rule is obviously flawed (scripturally and in terms of natural justice), it seems to me that as long as the elders are advising the parent/caregiver to go to the authorities in every case where an accusation of child abuse has occurred that this is sufficient for the elders to discharge their legal duty, shouldn't it?.

  i have heard rumours that this is in fact the official current policy (since when i don't know) of the society: that they tell the elders to advise the parent/caregiver to inform the authorities of alleged child abuse.

  but how firm is this policy?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Must obey!

  Thanks for the comments so far. Was not aware that the elders are only told not to discourage victims reporting it to the authorities, rather than actually encouraging the alleged crime to be reported. That is rather disturbing. It seems that this complete lack of proactiveness and "do the bare minimum (& less if possible)" policy is all about protecting the name of the organisation rather than protecting children.
• 
  18

  I am needing info about the Ratio of mental Illness in jwdom vs general pop

  by sosad in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i remember some studies referred to about the rates of suicide etc.

  does anyone have that link?.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Must obey!

  There's a lot of fruitcakes in the organisation & Jesus did say by their fruits you will recognise them. So there you have it: all the nutjobs in the org is proof the JW's are the true religion.
• 
  2

  Who got closest to the 2007 anointed prediction?

  by Must obey! in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there was a thread on here a few months back where posters were placing their predictions on how many the 2007 memorial partakers would be.

  i wonder who was the closest.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Must obey!

  There was a thread on here a few months back where posters were placing their predictions on how many the 2007 memorial partakers would be. I wonder who was the closest.
• 
  24

  Is it official policy that elders MUST advise the parent to report abuse?

  by Must obey! in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  notwithstanding the plain fact that the watchtower's heinous "two witness" rule is obviously flawed (scripturally and in terms of natural justice), it seems to me that as long as the elders are advising the parent/caregiver to go to the authorities in every case where an accusation of child abuse has occurred that this is sufficient for the elders to discharge their legal duty, shouldn't it?.

  i have heard rumours that this is in fact the official current policy (since when i don't know) of the society: that they tell the elders to advise the parent/caregiver to inform the authorities of alleged child abuse.

  but how firm is this policy?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Must obey!

  Thanks Poztate, but I am specifically asking about any 'official policy' about whether or not elders are told to advise the parent/caregiver/child to go to the authorities? I should have made that clearer.

  Elders have certainly in the past discouraged persons from going to the higher authorities, but I don't believe that is the case anymore. The Society has tried to put that right by telling the elders to tell the parent/caregiver that they are fully within their rights to go to the secular authorities, without fear being censured by the elders for doing that? Is that not the case?
• 
  24

  Is it official policy that elders MUST advise the parent to report abuse?

  by Must obey! in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  notwithstanding the plain fact that the watchtower's heinous "two witness" rule is obviously flawed (scripturally and in terms of natural justice), it seems to me that as long as the elders are advising the parent/caregiver to go to the authorities in every case where an accusation of child abuse has occurred that this is sufficient for the elders to discharge their legal duty, shouldn't it?.

  i have heard rumours that this is in fact the official current policy (since when i don't know) of the society: that they tell the elders to advise the parent/caregiver to inform the authorities of alleged child abuse.

  but how firm is this policy?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Must obey!

  Notwithstanding the plain fact that the Watchtower's heinous "two witness" rule is obviously flawed (scripturally and in terms of natural justice), it seems to me that as long as the elders are advising the parent/caregiver to go to the authorities in every case where an accusation of child abuse has occurred that this is sufficient for the elders to discharge their legal duty, shouldn't it?

  I have heard rumours that this is in fact the official current policy (since when I don't know) of the Society: that they tell the elders to advise the parent/caregiver to inform the authorities of alleged child abuse.

  But how firm is this policy? Is this a clear directive issued by the Society to all elders worldwide? Are the elders under instruction to always tell the parent/caregiver to go to the authorities or are the elders merely encouraged to do this? Are there any official forms where the elders must note their actions in this regard? What does the elders book say?

  Although the argument is that elders should always be reporting the allegation themselves & not just leaving it to the parent/caregiver, whether or not the law requires them to (an argument which I fully endorse), surely as long as the elders are clearly telling the alleging parent/caregiver to tell the authorities (or someone else who will tell the authorities) about the allegation, then the matter can then be dealt with properly by the "higher authorities" and investigated thoroughly by the police. What is wrong with that approach?

  Pending investigation by the secular authorities, surely the policy must be that the mere allegation of such an evil crime as child sexual abuse (only murder seems worse) should be enough to bar the accused from all privileges, whether or not guilt is established. This seems clear from Titus 1:7 and 1 Timothy 3:7& 10. In other words, once an allegation is made, the accused cannot claim to be "free from accusation" (different from "guilt") and no longer has a "fine testimony" (both from inside and outside the congregation). The mere existence of an allegation and it's accompanying suspicion of guilty should, scripturally, be enough for the accussed to lose all privileges. Since it can often be very difficult to prove paedophiles guilty (because of the secret, insidious nature of their crimes), this is surely why the scripture are worded this way...guilt or a criminal record are not necessary...scripture demands a higher standard of those overseeing the flock. They must be irreprehensible, not under any suspicious of gross wrongdoing. Clearly the mere accusation/allegation of child abuse is enough for them to no longer meet that high standard.

  What is the Society's position on that? Are elders/ministerial servants/and others with positions of responsibility free to remain such even under accusation....or do they have all their privileges removed only if they confess or guilt is otherwise established?

  Is the Society's policy comprehensivelys spelled out in one document? I find it confusing as it seems to be contained in piecemeal letters & directives issued from various branches over the years.