Posts by djeggnog

posted

50
How could Jesus be ruling the world since 1914 yet Satan is the ruler of the world?
by yadda yadda 2 in
1. jw
2. friends
july 2011 awake (p.5) says: the ruler of this world.

the bible states: the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.

(john 12:31; 1 john 5:19) that wicked one is satan the devil, a powerful spirit creature who is described as the ruler of the authority of the air.
djeggnog

@Terry:
I found your piece in Post 10716 to be written rather well, and despite the typos (for which yours truly is famous) provided an excellent recitation of history of the religion practiced by the Jews until it was built upon by Christianity. You didn't say this exactly, but I got your drift. What I found amazing about this history of religion you recounted is that no mention whatsoever was made of Islam, which in my reading of history, figured mightily into the history of religion as well, what with Abraham being a major patriarchical figure in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
While well-written, your Post 10716 is very dangerous to the minds of those that cannot discern when they are reading an agenda-driven piece, so with this quick response, I thought I should let every lurker that read your post here know that one clear way to determine when a post is "agenda-driven" is when it leads to the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses and, by extension, Jehovah's Witnesses pursuing its worship of God using their own interpretation of the Bible. I don't really know what it is about Jehovah's Witnesses that brings out the ire in some folks, but some people seem to believe, and quite strongly, that Jehovah's Witnesses are using the Bible to force people to unite with them in their worship of God, that people are unitedly worshipping Jehovah because of being duped to do so through they manipulation of the scriptures in order to give people false hope.
You believe the Bible to be based on a "false premise," and I think it to be ok for you to believe this to be the case, @Terry, for I believe everyone is entitled to have their own opinion. But let me ask you this one question: Why is it that you feel the people that are becoming Jehovah's Witnesses are not entitled to have their own opinions? Why, for example, are you entitled to decide, based on your recounting of religious history, that something is wrong with the Bible and with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses believing that what thing the Bible teaches are true, but other people are not entitled to decide for themselves whether or not they believe something to be wrong with the Bible and with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses?
It's clear to me, @Terry, that you've given quite a bit of consideration to the things you believe and to the things that Jehovah's Witnesses believe (and/or to the things that you think we believe), and you are evidently comfortable with your beliefs, and you have decided that the teachings found in the Bible are based on a false premise and are not for you, but I, too, have given quite a bit of consideration to the things I believe and to the things that I've learned from Jehovah's Witnesses and I'm comfortable with my beliefs, but this seems to bother you for some reason.
Why does this seem to bother you, @Terry? Do you believe I would be happier were I to walk on the "dark side" with you by viewing the Bible as little more than excrement and putting my faith in your beliefs? What is your hope for the future? Is death all you see in your future? I'm not judging you here, but many people I know do not want to live their lives in a state of hopelessness, but they would rather live in hope for a better and brighter future just as they also live in hope of providing a better and brighter future for their own children than they themselves had growing up.
I am like these people, @Terry, believing in a spiritual Father that cares for us as we would care for our own children, and this belief is based upon the evidence that exists all around us, despite the "dark side" of life we all have to endure today, that demonstrates that our God is a loving Father. But what positive prospects for the future can you offer me? What are your prospects for the future, @Terry?
You may want me to follow you, but only a weak-minded person would actually be will to follow you to death, unless you happened to have been able to offer them a better hope than the hope I now have by my having learned, through reading and studying the Bible, what things my God, Jehovah, has promised He would do in the future were I to loyally serve Him and keep faith with the Christian principles taught by his son, the Lord Jesus Christ. If you are able to convince me that that for which you are hoping is a better hope than the hope to which the Bible speaks, then I will gladly follow you.
It seems that it wasn't until 1943 that they realised they hadn't seen the "Sign" of Christ's presence before 1914.
In 1993/4 they realised they hadn't seen the "Sign" of Matthew 24:30 although for years they had claimed they had.
You quoted exactly what @The Finger stated in his post, so I suppose @The Finger is one of your disciples, but here's the thing: While Jehovah's Witnesses have wrongly interpreted certain Bible texts many times, and while they have not always gotten it right the first time, one of the things that distinguish them from other Christian denominations is the fact that they are willing to abandon beliefs when they come to realize that such beliefs are premised on wrong conclusions.
While other Christian denominations seem unwilling to adjust their theological viewpoints, even when they are presented with clear evidence demonstrating flaws in what are essentially the underpinnings of their theological beliefs, because Jehovah's Witnesses embrace Bible truth, we, unlike what other Christian denominations do, distinguish ourselves by championing Bible truth over what we may have thought at one time to have been Bible truth. IOW, Jehovah's Witnesses are honest enough to admit when we were wrong in the early-1900s, in the 1930s, in the 1960s, in the 1990s, and today, and you know what? Our God knows at all times who it is here on earth that is doing their best to do His will, even when He knows we've gotten something wrong.
@djeggnog
50
How could Jesus be ruling the world since 1914 yet Satan is the ruler of the world?
by yadda yadda 2 in
1. jw
2. friends
july 2011 awake (p.5) says: the ruler of this world.

the bible states: the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.

(john 12:31; 1 john 5:19) that wicked one is satan the devil, a powerful spirit creature who is described as the ruler of the authority of the air.
djeggnog

@yadda yadda 2:
It's good that we can agree that Satan and the governments of mankind are clearly ruling this world, not Jesus since 1914. I think the actual evidence of our own eyes unmistakably supports that.
Jesus has been ruling "in the midst of his enemies" since the year 1914, even though you may not be able to discern this fact, and are evidently of the belief that if you cannot see Jesus actually ruling, then this would be unmistakable evidence that he has not been ruling since 1914, which is not what I have said here at all. Frankly, based on this "standard," I would find it hard to believe that you can discern the fact that Satan has been ruling since the rebellion in Eden, let alone since the year 1914.
Now let me get this straight: you are saying that when Jesus became King in 1914 he has ONLY been reigning over the anointed remnant of the spiritual Israel, and over those who have chosen to live under his rulership who you identify as the 'other sheep'. I believe that's your position, right?
What you say here is pretty close to what I would say: I would say that Jesus has been ruling over spiritual Israel since the year 33 AD, and has continued to do so since the end of the "appointed times" were fulfilled in the year 1914.
Could you kindly support that with scriptures and quotes from the Watchtower Society publications, because I noticed that you failed to do that in your earlier post.
Now why on earth would I do something for you that you could do for yourself? You could visit any one of the local Kingdom Halls near you and tell one of elders associated with that Kingdom Hall to provide such to you, letting him know that you were once one of Jehovah's Witnesses. For all I know, you may be one of those folks that do not respect the Bible and tend to read it whenever you do read it with a view to finding alternative explanations to those provided by Jehovah's Witnesses that make sense to you, and our publications aren't even infallible! Much of the information contained in our publications is dynamic in nature, so that some of what is in them is now outdated and requires supplemental explanations that is available now, but weren't available when they were written.
I really have no interest in providing any quotes here from Watchtower publications regarding the 144,000 or the "other sheep" for your benefit, but I'm willing to post here, as an example, quotations from other threads to which I've posted regarding the generation of the sign that began in 1914, which topic had been discussed at length here in various threads started last year here on JWN while a few of the "Remain Close to Jehovah!" District Conventions were still being held in various cities. I would rather talk to you about the Bible using the Bible, and nothing more than this, since whatever you would find in our publications are things that I am qualified to discuss with you since in missionary work often all that a missionary has in their possession is their Bible and not even one stitch of our Bible-based literature.
There have been some interesting topics raised on JWN based on one or more Watchtower articles on which I've commented, and in a different thread, I quoted a "Question From Readers" article that appeared in the September 1, 1952 issue of the Watchtower, which I'd like to bring to your attention since based on the question you asked in this thread, it seems to me that you might appreciate a snippet from what things I posted in this other thread regarding what Jesus stated at Matthew 24:34:
[T]he Bible ... gives no number of years for a generation.... [I]n the texts mentioning the generation [Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32]..., we are not to take generation as meaning the average time for one generation to be succeeded by the next, as Webster’s does in its 33-year approximation; but rather... "the average lifetime of man." Three or even four generations may be living at the same time, their lives overlapping....
[W]e could not calculate from such a figure the date of Armageddon, for the texts here under discussion do not say God’s battle comes right at the end of this generation, but before its end. To try to say how many years before its end would be speculative. The texts merely set a limit that is sufficiently definite for all present practical purposes. Some persons living A.D. 1914 when the series of foretold events began will also be living when the series ends with Armageddon. All the events will come within the span of a generation.
However, Jehovah's Witnesses subsequently came to understand from an article that appeared about 60 years later in the April 15, 2010 Watchtower (page 10) that it cannot be stated for a certainty that what Jesus meant at Matthew 24:34 regarding the "generation" that would "not pass away" before all of the things he indicated had occurred during the conclusion of this system of things referred to his anointed followers that were alive in 1914, which is what we had previously speculated Jesus meant, but that Jesus may well have been referring to the generation of the sign in which the lives of some of his anointed followers that were alive in 1914 during the generation of the sign might well overlap the lives of some of his anointed followers that would see the end of this system of things:
"[W]e do well to keep in mind several things about the word "generation": It usually refers to people of varying ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period; it is not excessively long; and it has an end. (Ex. 1:6) How, then, are we to understand Jesus’ words about "this generation""? He evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation."
Not many Jehovah's Witnesses today are aware that we had speculated almost 60 years before this Watchtower article appeared in 2010 that Jesus may have been referring to his anointed followers as contemporaries of the sign, whose lives may overlap during the generation of the sign that began in 1914. With this understanding, there is no reason that anyone should be attempting to force two, three or even four generations into becoming a single generation since Jesus specifically spoke of "this generation," which is only one generation, the one that began in 1914 and ends with the great tribulation.
Just as Exodus 1:6 states in referring to the death of Joseph, it not only refers to all of Joseph's brothers, but this verse also refers to them by saying "and also all his brothers and all that generation," so based on how old Joseph was when he died -- which was 110 -- then Joseph's contemporaries would have been "all [of] his brothers," whose lives overlapped Joseph's, as well as Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who were both living when their father died, whose lives also overlapped Joseph's, making them Joseph's contemporaries.
Thus, the generation of Joseph began with Joseph's birth in 1767 BC, but ended, not with the death of Joseph, but with the death of Joseph's contemporaries, including Levi, for example, who died some 22 years after Joseph at age 137 (Exodus 6:16) and the death of Joseph's two sons, both of whom had been born in Egypt. Thus, the generation of Joseph would be at least 110 years + 22 years, or 132 years, plus the longest number of years beyond these 22 years that Manasseh or Ephraim, both of whom were Joseph's contemporaries that survived their father's death.
Those of Jesus' spiritual "brothers" that were alive contemporaneous with the "sign" that became manifest (or "born") in 1914 would correspond to those that became contemporaries of Joseph at his birth, which would include not only Joseph's 11 brothers, but to Joseph's two sons that were alive when Joseph died, they being "all that generation" (Exodus 1:6). Thus, these contemporaries of Joseph's generation would correspond to Jesus' anointed brothers, who from 1914 until now were all contemporaries of the sign as all of them could bear witness to the composite sign that became manifest in 1914.
Start a new thread about this topic and maybe I'll join it, as it does relate to the sign of Jesus' presence when he indicated that he would be ruling "in the midst of his enemies." I really only joined this thread to answer your opening salvo: "How could Jesus be ruling the world since 1914 yet Satan is the ruler of the world?" which I feel I've done.
I'm curious to know because I have never seen a single statement published by the Watchtower Society that says what you are saying, ie, that the only subjects of Jesus rulership since he became king in 1914 are the anointed remnant and the other sheep. I can't find a single scripture to directly or indirectly support that.
Perhaps you should consider a Bible study.
Presumably that also applies to those of the 144,000 who were resurrected shortly after 1914? They also are only ruling as kings over the anointed remnant and the 'other sheep', but neither Jesus nor the 144,000 have been ruling over anything else since 1914, right? Would you mind also showing me some scriptures and quotes from the Watchtower Society that supports that. I'm struggling with that concept because my New World Translation at Revelation 20:4 and 6 says that those who receive the first resurrection and sit on thrones rule with Christ for a thousand years; but if the thousand year reign of the 144,000 and Jesus has not yet started, which is the WTBS's position, then who are the resurrected 144,000 presently ruling over? What have they been doing since 1918 or 1919 when they are supposed to have been resurrected to heaven?
Yes, I would mind.
And can you please explain how it is possible that these 'other sheep' are presently the subjects of God's reigning Kingdom since 1914, as you assert, since the Watchtower says that Matthew 25:34 is fulfilled in the future. How can the 'other sheep' be subjects of the kingdom government since 1914 and yet they have not 'inherited the kingdom' yet?
Of course, I could do that, but I will not do so. I feel I've given you enough already so that if you were truly interested in pursuing a discussion about these things, you will do what is necessary to obtain answers to these questions, rather than relying upon the information provided by anonymous people on a board like this one. In the event you haven't noticed, JWN is put up primarily for the entertainment pleasure of folks that do not necessarily believe the Bible to be God's word and whjo enjoy bashing Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, not everyone that comes to JWN are here for these purposes, but you cannot have a serious Bible discussions here, for there is always someone (like @thetrueone, @cantleave or @OUTLAW) who will toss a post or two into any thread that reflects their contempt for God and for God-fearing people, usually off-topic commentary.
I'm also a little perplexed at your comment: "Jesus has been ruling over the anointed remnant of the spiritual Israel since 33 AD, which means that Jesus has continued to rule over them since 1914." Hmmm...so what you are saying is that Jesus was already ruling over the anointed remnant since 33 CE but in 1914 he began ruling over them. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Can you please explain, backed up by scriptures and Watchtower quotes, in what way Jesus began ruling over the anointed remnant in an especially different way in 1914 than how he has always ruled over them since 33 CE?
No, I believe I was quite clear in what things I have said here already, and I'm not really in the habit of quoting Watchtower publications since I am much more comfortable using my own words to explain Bible prophecy to folks anyway. Although it's true that many Jehovah's Witnesses are tied to specific publications and do not feel comfortable speaking without them, not all of us use Watchtower publications when teaching others unless we should be conducting a Bible study in one of them.
@djeggnog
50
How could Jesus be ruling the world since 1914 yet Satan is the ruler of the world?
by yadda yadda 2 in
1. jw
2. friends
july 2011 awake (p.5) says: the ruler of this world.

the bible states: the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.

(john 12:31; 1 john 5:19) that wicked one is satan the devil, a powerful spirit creature who is described as the ruler of the authority of the air.
djeggnog

This is a repost of my previous post, which contained a typo in it (shown in red type), now corrected in this repost.
If I were to tell you that you could catch a ride with me to a basketball game at Staples Center here in Los Angeles on the condition that you get to my house by 6:55 pm, since I intend to get to Staples Center and be in my box before tip-off, and you told me not to worry, that you'd be here "soon," whether you meant a minute before 6:55 pm, 15 minutes before 6:55 pm or whatever it was you meant by "soon" would be fine from a human standpoint as long as you got to my house by 6:55 pm. Now no one knows the "day and hour" (Matthew 24:36), but some of us know and believe that we are living in momentous times, the period that the Bible refers to as "the last days" and the "time of the end," and so whenever it is that the end comes, on the condition that all of the things that Jesus foretold must occur before the end comes, then it follows that from God's standpoint the end will be coming "soon."
@djeggnog
50
How could Jesus be ruling the world since 1914 yet Satan is the ruler of the world?
by yadda yadda 2 in
1. jw
2. friends
july 2011 awake (p.5) says: the ruler of this world.

the bible states: the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.

(john 12:31; 1 john 5:19) that wicked one is satan the devil, a powerful spirit creature who is described as the ruler of the authority of the air.
djeggnog

@cantleave:
Eggnog - you really believe that throughout the last 2000 years there have only been 144000 Christians?
I don't believe I suggested that between 33 AD and now there have only been 144,000 Christians. I would say that between 33 AD and 1931 there were what remained of the 144,000 anointed Christians here on earth that had a heavenly calling.
Of course the 144000 were sealed in 1935.
It was by the year 1935 when it came to be discerned that the sealing of those who had been sealed in their foreheads -- the 144,000 anointed Christians -- that there were not unsealed Christians, who had not ben called to an earthly hope, who did not have a heavenly calling, but who were associated with the "great multitude" (KJV) or "great crowd" (NWT) that John saw in his vision at Revelation 7:9, and that these were the same "other sheep" that had been identified back in 1931, who were being marked in their foreheads by the man with the secretary's inkhorn at Ezekiel 9:1-11.
Although I really hate posting messages to you, because, quite frankly, about a third of former Jehovah's Witnesses leave our ranks knowing none of the fundamental doctrines about the Christ, and think themselves able to fend for themselves spiritually when discussing the Bible with those of Jehovah's Witnesses that are students of God's word and no more than just the fundamentals, I do so for the sake of the lurkers whenever I feel something I say could benefit those reading these posts thinking that some objection raised by you or someone else that have left our ranks to be valid, when the fact is that hardly any objections raised here on JWN has any merit. It was for this reason that I responded to your post, @cantleave. You really ought to change your attitude and your study habits, otherwise you are going to keep getting things wrong (like confusing things that were discerned in 1931 with things that were discerned in 1935), and maybe consider returning to Jehovah before it becomes too late for you to do so.
@djeggnog wrote:
As you read this post today, @yadda yadda 2, this may be for you the very last appeal that Jehovah makes through me that you become reconciled to Him through Christ. I take what the Scriptures say quite seriously and I realize that you, for whatever reason, may not, which is your choice, but whatever your objections may be to the preaching campaign of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout the world with the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses taking the lead in providing an organized approach to how this work is being accomplished in the earth, the preaching of the good news is the touchstone by means of which the entire world of mankind will be judged, and so you need to know that whether it is in the year 2012, in the year 2016 or in the year 2025, God's will is going to soon be accomplished to Jehovah's satisfaction with or without your help, and then the end will come.
@Botzwana wrote:
And 2025 is NOT soon. If I said I was going to come over your house and that I would be there soon, would you be happy if I showed up 40 years late?
I recall reading somewhere in the Bible -- and maybe you do, too -- where it was mentioned how 1,000 years are as one day with Jehovah, so when I said "soon," I wasn't so much speaking from a human standpoint of reckoning time, but according to God's standpoint. Maybe you know, maybe you don't know, or maybe you know, but choose not to believe, but it was Jehovah God that gave us the sun, moon and stars, not just to provide visible evidence to us of His existence (which only the foolish among mankind deny), but in order "to make a division between the day and the night ... [that] they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years" (Genesis 1:14) so that among other things, we, His, human creation, could mark time.
If you were to tell you that you could catch a ride with me to a basketball game at Staples Center here in Los Angeles on the condition that you get to my house by 6:55 pm, since I intend to get to Staples Center and be in my box before tip-off, and you told me not to worry, that you'd be here "soon," whether you meant a minute before 6:55 pm, 15 minutes before 6:55 pm or whatever it was you meant by "soon" would be fine from a human standpoint as long as you got to my house by 6:55 pm. Now no one knows the "day and hour" (Matthew 24:36), but some of us know and believe that we are living in momentous times, the period that the Bible refers to as "the last days" and the "time of the end," and so whenever it is that the end comes, on the condition that all of the things that Jesus foretold must occur before the end comes, then it follows that from God's standpoint the end will be coming "soon."
@djeggnog
50
How could Jesus be ruling the world since 1914 yet Satan is the ruler of the world?
by yadda yadda 2 in
1. jw
2. friends
july 2011 awake (p.5) says: the ruler of this world.

the bible states: the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.

(john 12:31; 1 john 5:19) that wicked one is satan the devil, a powerful spirit creature who is described as the ruler of the authority of the air.
djeggnog

@yadda yadda 2:
Djeggnog and SuperSpook, thank you for your attempts but you have not answered my simple question: what exactly has Jesus been ruling over since 1914?
I admit seeing your question --
Can a JW apologist please explain to me with scriptural support exactly what Jesus has been ruling over since 1914?
-- but I intentionally ignored this portion of your post since you were seeking, or so I thought at the time, "a JW apologist" to provide an explanation as to that over which Jesus has been ruling since 1914. You see, contrary to what you and others here might believe, I am not a JW apologist and you shot yourself in the proverbial foot by loading your question by restricting responses to "JW apologists."
Now I don't care that you like to cast active Jehovah's Witnesses as "JW apologists," but I resent your making it appear that if I happen to have a different point of view regarding than you regarding what things the Bible teaches on this topic or on any topic that you might name, that because my beliefs resonate with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, then I am someone one that is positing ridiculous arguments just to justify the policies adhered to and followed by Jehovah's Witnesses, like the Civil War apologists that posit ridiculous arguments just to justify their viewpoint as to the virtue and morality of the Confederate States' desire to preserve their right to own slaves.
If you were able -- and I don't think many of the folks here on JWN are -- to listen to my arguments carefully, I believe you would realize that they aren't ridiculous ones at all, but are quite sound were you able to consider them objectively, which you may not be able to do. If you must view me as "a JW apologist," then this will like retard our discussion here and other discussions. Your choice.
Ousting Satan and writs of execution and judicial eviction etc is not the same as rulership! Can you see the difference?
No, the analogy I provided is about rulership, "possession" so to speak of "the kingdom of the world." Maybe you cannot see the connection, but there it is.
Who exactly has Jesus been ruling over since 1914?
The anointed remnant of the spiritual Israel and the "other sheep," who are the ones wearing the white robes in serving Jehovah God day and night in His spiritual temple as kingdom proclaimers in obedience to Jesus' command to preach the good news about God's Kingdom, for it is based on the reaction of those hearing the message that Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats. The anointed ambassadors of the Kingdom and the "other sheep," who are envoys of it, are both united in worship of Jehovah God, and while 144,000 were chosen by God to become co-rulers with Christ in the Kingdom, the latter have themselves chosen to live under Christ's rulership and are thus exercising faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Ransomer and their King. Let me repeat this for emphasis: Those who today represent the "other sheep" that did not come to exist until we came to realize after 1931 that those who were exercising faith in Jesus without a heavenly calling have chosen Jesus' rulership over them and thus recognize Jesus as their king.
Who are the individual subjects of the Kingdom since 1914?
The individual subjects of God's Kingdom are the anointed remnant of the spiritual Israel, and those who have chosen to live under Christ's rulership are themselves subjects of the Kingdom as well.
If Satan still has temporary rulership and Daniel 2:44 has not yet been fulfilled, then Satan and the governmental systems are still clearly ruling the planet, are they not?
Yes.
Revelation talks about a beast on a throne which gets its power from the dragon, Satan. This beast on its diabolical throne still holds total rulership over the world, correct?
Yes.
Is it the anointed remnant that Jesus began ruling over since 1914? No, he has been ruling over his anointed brothers in the "kingdom of the son of his love" since Pentecost 33 CE, correct?
My answer to this question is yes, that Jesus has been ruling over the anointed remnant of the spiritual Israel since 33 AD, which means that Jesus has continued to rule over them since 1914.
Is it the 'great crowd' or the organisation in general that he is ruling over since 1914? No, I see nothing in scripture or any of the Society's publications claiming this. Anyway, the 'great crowd' does not form until the great tribulation we are told.
Technically, you're absolutely right, that the Lord Jesus Christ isn't ruling over "the great crowd," for no "great crowd" emerges until the great tribulation occurs, and none of our publications have ever suggesting otherwise (which makes me wonder why it is you are even asking this question), but, as I say above, the Lord Jesus Christ does, in fact, rule over those of the "other sheep" that exercise faith in him as their Ransomer and King.
But here's the point I would make here, @yadda yadda 2: If one doesn't have appreciation for the Scriptures, for what they say and mean, then even though I am here able to agree with some of things that you have said here regarding what the books of Daniel and Revelation state, and what many other scriptures, that I decided not to quote in my responses, state, I don't believe none of this matters in the grand scheme of things since the Bible wasn't written for everyone, just as Jesus' ransom sacrifice is not going to be appreciated by everyone now living for whom he died.
As you read this post today, @yadda yadda 2, this may be for you the very last appeal that Jehovah makes through me that you become reconciled to Him through Christ. I take what the Scriptures say quite seriously and I realize that you, for whatever reason, may not, which is your choice, but whatever your objections may be to the preaching campaign of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout the world with the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses taking the lead in providing an organized approach to how this work is being accomplished in the earth, the preaching of the good news is the touchstone by means of which the entire world of mankind will be judged, and so you need to know that whether it is in the year 2012, in the year 2016 or in the year 2025, God's will is going to soon be accomplished to Jehovah's satisfaction with or without your help, and then the end will come.
@djeggnog
50
How could Jesus be ruling the world since 1914 yet Satan is the ruler of the world?
by yadda yadda 2 in
1. jw
2. friends
july 2011 awake (p.5) says: the ruler of this world.

the bible states: the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.

(john 12:31; 1 john 5:19) that wicked one is satan the devil, a powerful spirit creature who is described as the ruler of the authority of the air.
djeggnog

@yadda yadda 2:
How can it be that Satan is the ruler of this world and "the whole world" is in his power, and yet in 1914 "The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever." (Rev 11:15). It is the Watchtower Society's official teaching that Rev 11:15 was fulfilled in 1914.
The permission God has given to Satan to exercise rulership over earth's inhabitants expired in 1914 AD. Yes, Satan had been the ruler over the kingdom of the world since Adam and his wife's eviction from Eden, but in 607 BC Satan was served with what would be equivalent to a lawsuit for possession of a foreclosed home in which he has "occupancy" as ruler of the world. Until 1914, Satan has the legal right to live in that "house" for Jehovah had decreed that that house would belong to no one "until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him." (Ezekiel 21:27) The year 607 BC was when "the appointed times of the nations" began. (Luke 21:24; Daniel 4:25)
When 1914 arrived, however, Jehovah God issued to Jesus a writ of execution against Satan's occupancy so that "the kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ." (Revelation 11:15) You may have heard is said that "occupancy is 9/10 of the law, and the application of this axiom means that Satan was judicially evicted in 1914 from his occupancy as ruler of the world, for when Michael and his angels cast Satan and his angels down from heaven, this was equivalent to his getting a five-day "Notice to Vacate" here in California, which has been the cause of 'great anger to Satan, for he knows that he only has a short period a time' before he is finally evicted from occupancy. (Revelation 12:7-9, 12) The year 1914 AD was when "the appointed times of the nations" were fulfilled.
Now where this analogy falls apart is whereas when a judge issue a writ for occupancy, the sheriff then becomes an agent of the court to execute the writ against the unlawful occupant, and the sheriff is not also the litigant to whom the writ was given, but Jesus is not only the litigant, but he will soon act as "the sheriff" to evict Satan from occupancy as ruler of the world.
Is the world ruled by Satan or Jesus? Does Jesus have world power or Satan?
Just as the unlawful occupant of a foreclosed home is still in possession of keys that permit him to enter the premises where he lives, Satan is still in possession of "keys" that permit him the freedom to act as ruler of the earth, even though Jesus, since 1914, has a writ of possession signed by Jehovah, who adjudged Jesus as owner of the premises, that is to say, 'the kingdom of the world did at that time become the kingdom of both Jehovah and Jesus Christ' at this time, so you might say that while Jesus does have the writ of possession, Satan still lives in the house as the unlawful occupant and so he continues to exercise authority over the "kingdom of the world" since he has never surrendered, nor has he any intention of surrendering, the keys to the house in which he lives. Satan is not leaving voluntarily, and he will only be giving up his occupancy of the house that is no longer his to live in when the sheriff comes to evict him from the premises and not before.
@djeggnog
84
In general, what is the ethically correct response if a minor tells you someone is molesting him/her?
by InterestedOne in
1. watchtower
2. child-abuse
i was thinking about what the elders are trained to do versus what i personally would do if a minor confided in me that someone was molesting him/her.

i'm not sure what the ethically correct first response should be.

my first thought is to contact some kind of law enforcement that specializes in investigating situations like this with people experienced in getting to the truth of the matter.
djeggnog

@mrsjones5:
If a child came to me out of trust and told me that someone was touching them there is no doubt that I would contact the proper authorities. I do not consider jw elders to be the proper authorities.
You and I finally agree on something. The elders are not the proper authorities to whom reports about improper touching or any similar allegation ought to be reported.
The ethically correct response if a minor should tell you that someone has been or is molesting him/her is to inform their parents or guardians of the child, whose are responsible for rearing that child as to the abuse reported to you by the minor. Your ethical responsibility is discharged once you have informed the child's parents of the crime. It is up that child's parents or guardians to carry out their ethical responsibilities toward their own child, not yours. If one of the child's parents or guardians is the one implicated by the minor for molesting him/her, then the ethically correct response would be to report the crime to the police, so that you do not become an accessory after-the-fact by being sworn to secrecy about the matter by the spouse of the abuser. Your ethical responsibility is discharged once you have informed the authorities of the crime.
Reporting such matters to one of the elders only wastes time that could best be spent by law enforcement officials should they decide the report warrants their launching a criminal investigation into the matter, for they are equipped to apprehend the accused child molester, and thus protect other children that might also have become would-be victims, if not already victims, of this predator than is the elder, who often has a family of his own and may not be immediately available to advise you or be there at your home when investigators arrive at your home.
In contrast, the responsibility of the elders is to protect the flock from apostate reasoning and thinking, from 'the rocks hidden below water, animalistic men lacking spirituality,' from men that 'defile the flesh and disregard lordship,' and from those that 'bite and devour' and from those in the congregation, who, through gossip, slander others and are "meddlers in other people's affairs" (Jude 12, 19; Galatians 5:15; 1 Timothy 5:13). Their role is to exhort in order "to incite to love and fine works," and to be both an upbuilding and encouraging spiritual influence to the flock. (Hebrews 10:24; Romans 14:19) It is error to conflate the role of the elders with that of law enforcement officials whose responsibilities are markedly different.
@djeggnog
84
In general, what is the ethically correct response if a minor tells you someone is molesting him/her?
by InterestedOne in
1. watchtower
2. child-abuse
i was thinking about what the elders are trained to do versus what i personally would do if a minor confided in me that someone was molesting him/her.

i'm not sure what the ethically correct first response should be.

my first thought is to contact some kind of law enforcement that specializes in investigating situations like this with people experienced in getting to the truth of the matter.
djeggnog

@djeggnog wrote:
What's wrong with you? You confusing two things. I wrote that "criminal offenses be reported to the authorities," and that "theocratic" investigations do not mitigate the legal obligation to report all suspected cases of child molestation." I didn't say our theocratic investigations into such matters mitigate our duty to report such crimes, did I? It is you that is putting these words into my mouth, words that I did not say.
As Chapter 12 of this textbook makes clear, child abuse is a crime, and so, in addition to contacting the branch, elders would make clear that it is the absolute right of the victim, and this would include his or her parents or guardians, to report such to the proper authorities since child abuse, sexual or otherwise, is a crime.
@DanaBug wrote:
This is the key though. Which happens first? Does an elder report the alleged crime or does he call the branch? See jgnat's post. I'd like to see what you have to say about that.
What is "the key"? I'll let you read @jgnat's post, but in response to your question, an elder would report the alleged crime to the branch. The reason the victim (that is, victim's family), and not an elder, would be responsible for reporting the crime to the police is because that report made by the elder would be a second-hand, hearsay, report of the elder's interview of the victim. If an elder should be the first to report the alleged crime to the police, then he will have inserted himself into the investigation of the matter and this could cause undue delay in the investigation that ought to be taking place between law enforcement and the victim and not law enforcement and this elder.
In the case of a rape, law enforcement investigators might ask the victim the kind of questions that would tie the accused to the crime that elders would not necessarily ask, things such as whether the victim could recall the color of the shirt and/or the color of the pants the accused was wearing (these items could have the victim's DNA on them), if the victim fellated the man (the accused's DNA found in the victim's mouth after a sexual assault is prima facie evidence of rape), whether the victim could recall smelling any fragrances, like cologne, on the accused's person. Part of my line of work involves probing legal issues that arise in civil matters, not criminal matters, but occasionally the attempt to serve a subpoena on someone or a broker's illegal breaking and entering of someone's home in foreclosure in order to change the locks on the doors of a foreclosed home absent a court order to do so and forcible removal of a former titleholder, who is lawfully in possession of a foreclosed home by police officers or sheriffs without legal authority to do so will lead to criminal allegations being filed and litigated in criminal court. But this is the point I wish to make:
While an elder can be helpful to a victim of a sexual assault or the sexual molestation of a minor in making the initial report to the authorities if the victim and/or victim's family is/are too distraught in the aftermath of the alleged crime to do so, the elder is not a witness to the crime, and investigators need to be able to speak to all witnesses as they must work against the clock to obtain physical and biological evidence of the crime before all incriminating and exculpatory evidence is destroyed, evidence that might either tie the suspect to the crime or exonerate the suspect. If an elder should speak to the victim of a sexual assault or other crime before police investigators do, it is possible that the elder could become instrumental in actually protecting the accused by his deliberately or unintentionally planting ideas into the mind of the victim according the elder's mindset or belief as to what occurred, so that what investigators get upon interviewing the victim is so hopelessly confusing that their investigation becomes derailed due to a lack of probable cause to arrest the accused.
Note that I have said "deliberately or unintentionally" because an elder might be covering his own actions, the actions of another elder or the actions of someone else! The Society would not want elders interfering in such criminal investigations so, contrary to what you, @jgnat and others here with anti-JW biases and prejudices might believe to be important or necessary for an elder to do, or that you or others might believe an elder should do or ought to do in such cases, "you guys" here are amateur sleuths, perhaps you're gotten some of your ideas on crime-fighting and criminal investigation from tv or from the books you've read, but for very sound reasons, the Society has instructed elders to first contact the branch, whose legal department is in a unique position to advise them as to what they should do next. What elders have not been instructed to do though is to first report the crime to the police. While the victim or victim's parents or guardians have the absolute right to first contact law enforcement officials about the alleged crime, the elders are required to first contact the branch.
@GLTirebiter wrote:
Molestation is a criminal matter. It is up to the courts to decide which witnesses are credible, not the elders.
@djeggnog wrote:
Yes, this is true; this is what I have consistently stated here.
@GLTirebiter wrote:
The elders' job is to report every case of suspected abuse to the legal authorities.
@djeggnog wrote:
This is not true. It is the victim's responsibility to contact the authorities about the alleged crime, not the elders' responsibility to do so, but if one of the elders is requested by the victim to report the alleged crime to the authorities -- and by this I don't necessarily mean the child, but the parents or guardians of the child -- then the elder is free to oblige.
@DanaBug wrote:
Whose responsibility does it become when the victim confides in someone else? If the victim doesn't ask an elder to report the crime, is he not obligated to report ethically or legally, depending on the state? Would it not be in the best interests of the victim, in most cases, to report the crime even if they don't ask the elder to report so the victim can be protected from the perpetrator and receive appropriate care and potentially stop the perpetrator from molesting more victims?
You seem to be asking me whether an elder is ethically or legally required to report the alleged crime (since we do not really know that there has been a crime, do we?) to law enforcement officials upon his obtaining knowledge from the alleged victim that he or she has been sexually molested, but what if that elder should unwittingly be filing a false report? The victim of an alleged crime should, in all cases, report the crime to the authorities and then afterward the report regarding the matter may be made to the elders. However, what if this elder to whom such a report is made is merely being used, not by a "victim" at all, and this report should turn out to be based on a lie in furtherance of a scheme to hurt an innocent brother or sister in the local congregation, the real victim? Again, why are the elders instructed to first contact the branch? Well, here's one reason:
What if there is no victim, no perpetrator? Did you not think of this?
What if a teenager, let's say a 14-year-old teenager, should get it into her head that she is going to "punish" the elder that refuses to let her associate with his teenaged 14- and 15-year-old daughters due to a certain incident that occurred involving this 14-year-old teenager involving a theft about which the elder is aware, but about which the entire congregation has no knowledge, by "confessing" to her teenaged confidants while swearing them to secrecy that this elder had touched intimate parts of her body on several occasions when he was driving her home from field service when no one was in the car but the two of them, so that by the time this "confession" came to the attention of the elders, the entire congregation had come to hear of it? Remember all of this resulted from the retaliation of a teenager "scorned" by an elder who only wanted to protect his family and his possessions from someone he thought might potentially be a thief. Maybe the police investigation comes to an end upon there being found no tangible evidence that a crime has been committed, but the life and reputation of this elder in the community has been left in tatters as the late night visits from police detectives and visits to the police station to speak to investigators and assistant district attorneys all take their toll of him.
About 15 years ago, there was a bombing at Centennial Olympic Park on July 27, 1996, during the Olympics being hosted in Atlanta, Georgia, and a man named Richard Jewell, a security guard at Piedmont College there in Georgia, discovered a bag that contained three pipe bombs, and while he was instrumental perhaps in saving many people's lives (although two were killed and over a 100 people were wounded by the explosion), he became a "person of interest" to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who pored through the man's life making it impossible for the man to make a living until he finally got his life back some nine years later upon his being exonerated on April 13, 2005, when a man named Eric Rudolph pled guilty to having been responsible for the 1996 bombing at the park. Everybody thought Jewell to have been responsible. This man was never arrested during the nine years that he fought to get his life back, but at the end of his ordeal, money was all that could be offered him, for his reputation had been ruined.
If a story about the elder's arrest for suspicion of child molestation should appear in the local newspaper, it doesn't go away in the minds of people just because the investigation into the matter fizzles out. Would you like to be involved in the unravelling of all of this when and if the truth finally come to light? Maybe as a result this elder is uprooted and has to move to another city or to another state with his family, find a new house and a new job, a new Kingdom Hall. As a result, he might not ever want to serve as an elder again or his family may not want him to serve in this capacity again. Not just his life, but the lives of his family has been ruined by a lie.
@djeggnog wrote:
BTW, we do not require a second witness to the alleged offense for it will suffice to have the "second witness" be the victim of the same offense allegedly by the same individual.
@DanaBug wrote:
What does that even mean? My reading comprehension is failing me again. Does that mean if it happens again to the same victim then the victim will be believed or if it happens to another child?
What I should have written is this:
BTW, we do not require a second witness to the alleged offense for it will suffice to have the "second witness" be the victim of the same offense allegedly perpetrated by the same individual, but against a different victim.
This is not a case of your having a reading comprehension problem as much as this being a case of my having a proofreading problem. I don't know if you know, but I talk to my computer, but unlike a human being, software doesn't know how to say "Huh!" when something I'm dictating to it makes absolutely no sense at all. <g> I apologize for the confusion, @DanaBug, and thanks for catching that one.
@AK MCGRATH wrote:
Christ! I'd hate to have you as someone to turn to for comfort and encouragement, let alone in a "theocratic investigation". ANYONE who thinks the two witness "rule" is okey dokey needs to have their fuckin head examined! Where the hell is your common sense man!? Where is your love for "God's chosen sheep"? Your compassion? You think the "rule" would be just hunky dorry with you if it was YOUR child?
@djeggnog wrote:
What "rule" do you mean? Believe me, our children do not need or require either you and your ilk to protect them from predators. Whatever we cannot do on our own, our God has the power to undo whatever harm should beset them, including the outing of anyone in our ranks that should prove to be a counterfeit Christian (like yourself). If you really want to help us, just leave our children alone, and I don't mean you personally, but pedophiles generally.
@DanaBug wrote:
This is the exact attitude that harms your children (and by your children I mean all Witness children). God will fix it. How long was it until Anthony Burns was punished for his crimes, how many kids did George Cockerill and Michael Porter molest and for how long before they were outed? Why did it take God so long to out these "counterfeit Christians"?
I didn't say that Jehovah God could fix anything. What I did say was that "God has the power to undo whatever harm should beset" those of our children that become the victims of predators. Read what I wrote again and I think you will then see that this is what I said. If a child should be harmed by a pit bull so that the attack results in the loss of his or her right foot, God is not going to fix the problem, but by means of Christ Jesus under Kingdom rule, He will certainly undo the harm to that child by restoring that right foot to health.
Racial intolerance is something that led to not just the 6,000,000 people of Jewish (Semitic) ancestry being exterminated in Germany, a number that offends the human psyche, but there were some 6,028,000 Poles murdered in Poland, 3,200,000 being of Jewish ancestry and 3,000,000 of which being of Polish ancestry whose deaths were all caused by the political policies forged and prosecuted by Adolf Hitler during World War II. Perhaps you are of the belief that the lives of these 12,028,000 that died some 66 years ago do not deserve to be avenged as much as the lives of the children who were the victims of child predators, and you are entitled to your opinion, but Jehovah has the power to undo whatever harm that has beset all of these victims of man's inhumanity to man, which I am convinced He will do at His appointed time. (Revelation 11:18)
Many will see the salvation of Jehovah when it arrives while others will only get to see "the sign of the Son of man." My hope that you will not continue faithless by blaming God for His not interceding in the affairs of this world to avenge the many atrocities that have been committed against children and adults alike when you would have liked to see such atrocities avenged, for while mankind was created in God's image having the attribute of justice, you have to believe that Jehovah is not a man, but is the almighty God that also knows what is just, and "He will cause justice to be done ... speedily," having reserved the cutting off of all unrighteousness for an appointed time, even if you should think it too late for justice to be done for those victimized by injustice. (Luke 18:7, 8) The "destruction of ungodly men" in our world has been "reserved to the day of judgment. (2 Peter 3:7)
The patience of God waited in Noah's day until the day when that ancient world "suffered destruction when it was deluged with water." (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:5, 6) Clearly, the destruction of that ancient world demonstrates that Jehovah knows how "to reserve unrighteous people for the day of judgment to be cut off, especially, however, those who go on after flesh with the desire to defile it" in our own day. (2 Peter 2:9, 10) In fact, Jehovah "has committed all the judging to the Son" and I have the utmost confidence in Jesus' judgment. (John 5:22)
I hope you are not one of those that would dare ridicule whether or not Jesus' presence has even occurred, which it has, by "saying: 'Where is this promised presence of his?'" (2 Peter 3:3, 4) Regarding the day of judgment, "the vision," the prophet Habakkuk wrote: "The vision is yet for the appointed time.... Even if it should delay, keep in expectation of it; for it will without fail come true. It will not be late. (Habakkuk 2:3) The question is, do you believe this? Do you have confidence in the One that Jehovah Himself has placed His confidence that justice will eventually be done?
@djeggnog
84
In general, what is the ethically correct response if a minor tells you someone is molesting him/her?
by InterestedOne in
1. watchtower
2. child-abuse
i was thinking about what the elders are trained to do versus what i personally would do if a minor confided in me that someone was molesting him/her.

i'm not sure what the ethically correct first response should be.

my first thought is to contact some kind of law enforcement that specializes in investigating situations like this with people experienced in getting to the truth of the matter.
djeggnog

@djeggnog wrote:
You totally misunderstood the points I was making regarding criminal investigations and theocratic investigations, but I thought I distinguished these two kinds of investigations. Even if the brother(s) or sister(s) were to be cleared in a criminal investigation, theocratic investigations are independent investigations to determine whether there is repentance on the part of anyone accused of such criminal conduct. Not only will criminal offenses be reported to the authorities, but there will typically be a judicial committee empaneled for the purpose of determining what effect, if any, the brother(s) or sister(s) accused of such criminal conduct might potentially have upon the spiritual welfare of the congregation, which is of prime importance.
I don't recall saying a thing about elders taking on the role of detectives or prosecutors or judges in any of the things I wrote. You might enjoy putting words into my mouth because you happen to have an agenda to maintain and you think to make today "thrash an elder day," but I am able to speak for myself without any assistance from you or from anyone else here.
Again, what I stated about "two witnesses" does not accord with the standard in criminal investigations that are undertaken by law enforcement, but, in fact, is consonant with theocratic investigations that are undertaken by the body of elders in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses.
@GLTirebiter wrote:
These "theocratic" investigations do not mitigate the legal obligation to report all suspected cases of child molestation. Hearing witnesses and conducting an "theocratic investigation" is not part of the legal mandate to report. Going "beyond what is written" in the law, using an amateur investigation as an excuse to not do what the law requires, is neither scriptural nor lawful.
What's wrong with you? You confusing two things. I wrote that "criminal offenses be reported to the authorities," and that "theocratic" investigations do not mitigate the legal obligation to report all suspected cases of child molestation." I didn't say our theocratic investigations into such matters mitigate our duty to report such crimes, did I? It is you that is putting these words into my mouth, words that I did not say.
Neither is it up to the elders to decide whether youths and "unbelievers" are credible witnesses. According to the 1991Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock elder's manual....
You may know that we now have another manual called "Shepherd the Flock of God--1 Peter 5:2," the new Kingdom Ministry School Textbook, which is a copyrighted work. Your mention of the Pay Attention manual to me is immaterial to this topic, and if you should no longer be an elder, you should have already destroyed your copy of this manual since it was only issued to elders, who are actively serving as such.
Based on many of the things you have said to me in this thread, I really don't believe you are scripturally qualified to serve as an elder, and your appointment as such, if it hasn't already, should be rescinded, so that you are deleted as such. If the body of elders at the local congregation had caught wind of the kinds of things that you have said here that are in complete disregard for your appointment as an elder, things that they did not know about your positions on scriptural matters which differ from what they thought they knew about you at the time you were recommended to serve as such, then according to Chapter 3 of the Shepherding textbook, you have to know that you would not be an elder today. As Chapter 12 of this textbook makes clear, child abuse is a crime, and so, in addition to contacting the branch, elders would make clear that it is the absolute right of the victim, and this would include his or her parents or guardians, to report such to the proper authorities since child abuse, sexual or otherwise, is a crime.
Molestation is a criminal matter. It is up to the courts to decide which witnesses are credible, not the elders.
Yes, this is true; this is what I have consistently stated here.
The elders' job is to report every case of suspected abuse to the legal authorities.
This is not true. It is the victim's responsibility to contact the authorities about the alleged crime, not the elders' responsibility to do so, but if one of the elders is requested by the victim to report the alleged crime to the authorities -- and by this I don't necessarily mean the child, but the parents or guardians of the child -- then the elder is free to oblige.
That "we know what's best" attitude is exactly what I meant by "investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury".
I have no idea what you are talking about here, since, as I've pointed out, the elders are not policemen, who are often called as witnesses in a criminal trial, neither are they prosecutors, judges or jurors as all such have roles to play during a criminal trial, if the accused should not otherwise plead guilty or the matter settled without a full-fledged trial.
@djeggnog wrote:
Actually, what you and others here need to do is learn how to live quietly and to mind your own business and stop thinking that Jehovah's Witnesses need suggestions from you on how their elders carry out their scriptural responsibilities, for we understand both our legal responsibilities toward the superior authorities (i.e., police officers, local law enforcement, and so forth), and our spiritual responsibilities to Jehovah God and to the Lord Jesus Christ, so that we are able to walk orderly and decently toward those on the outside. (1 Thessalonians 4:10-12)
@AK MCGRATH wrote:
@djeggnog-I can't help but wonder what the good Lord would have done in his day, upon learning the religious leaders did not protect the flock from perverts who fondled children, or made these precious sheep touch or perform sexual acts on them. Especially if it was ONE OF THOSE RELIGIOUS LEADERS perpetrating these heinous crimes! If he was pissed at the money changers...look out! I'm only guessing here, but I don't think our King would be none too happy 'bout it, nor turning a blind eye, um i mean "2 witness rule"!!
When I wrote that @GLTirebiter "and others here" should 'learn how to live quietly and mind their own business,' I was thinking how their notions as to what the elders need to do when they are handling child abuse matters were rather off-putting since their input is neither requested or necessary. Your mention of the 'two-witness rule' suggests to me that you are confusing the discharge of our scriptural obligations as Christians regarding theocratic matters with the discharge of our ethical/legal obligations obligations toward "the superior authorities" (Romans 13:1) regarding criminal matters. BTW, we do not require a second witness to the alleged offense for it will suffice to have the "second witness" be the victim of the same offense allegedly by the same individual. I just thought you should know.
Your remarks indicate you are one stone cold bastard. AND an elder.
I would suppose you would so opine about the apostle Paul as well, but if you are now living in your last days, then I accept that your opinion will perish along with all of your thoughts. I'm wondering if my saying this reinforces your opinion as to my coldness.
Christ! I'd hate to have you as someone to turn to for comfort and encouragement, let alone in a "theocratic investigation". ANYONE who thinks the two witness "rule" is okey dokey needs to have their fuckin head examined! Where the hell is your common sense man!? Where is your love for "God's chosen sheep"? Your compassion? You think the "rule" would be just hunky dorry with you if it was YOUR child?
What "rule" do you mean? Believe me, our children do not need or require either you and your ilk to protect them from predators. Whatever we cannot do on our own, our God has the power to undo whatever harm should beset them, including the outing of anyone in our ranks that should prove to be a counterfeit Christian (like yourself). If you really want to help us, just leave our children alone, and I don't mean you personally, but pedophiles generally.
And then, because you love your child and want justice for that loving being of your very own loins, you do what needs to be done outside of the kingdom hall walls and WTBTS "rules", and go to the authorities, in all exhausted hopes that SOMEBODY will genuinely care and do what should have been done in the first place: Make sure this does not happen EVER AGAIN by this person!
There is a semblance of justice in this world, but you have to know that this isn't true justice at all. It may make one feel good that an individual has been "put away," so to speak, for 20 years or so for such criminal offenses, but you know as well as I that the harm done to such children cannot be undone, so for true justice, we will all have to wait for the Millennial Reign of Jesus Christ.
@djeggnog
84
In general, what is the ethically correct response if a minor tells you someone is molesting him/her?
by InterestedOne in
1. watchtower
2. child-abuse
i was thinking about what the elders are trained to do versus what i personally would do if a minor confided in me that someone was molesting him/her.

i'm not sure what the ethically correct first response should be.

my first thought is to contact some kind of law enforcement that specializes in investigating situations like this with people experienced in getting to the truth of the matter.
djeggnog

@djeggnog wrote regarding matters involving criminal investigations undertaken in matters where child abuse is alleged:
I do believe that there was a time when Jehovah's Witnesses in the local congregation would investigate the circumstances surrounding the report, and then, based on the results of their investigation, would report (i.e., child abuse, spousal abuse, extortion, other criminal acts that might be taking place) to the authorities, but those days have ended.
[T]he families of alleged victims of child abuse are asked if they are comfortable about reporting the alleged abuse themselves, especially since the accused abuser may be a family member living in the household (e.g., a father or a sibling), and, if not, we will report the abuse on their behalf.
[T]he elders are going to ask the family of the alleged victim if they feel comfortable about reporting the alleged abuse themselves, and if they would prefer not to do so, then the elders will do so, period.
@djeggnog then wrote regarding matters regarding theocratic investigations undertaken in matters where child abuse is alleged:
The kinds of things with which we deal in the local congregation has to do with the spirituality of the parties involved, so no matter what the superior authorities might require the accused and his or her victims to do, we are going to investigate the facts of the report made, and if at least two witnesses confirm the report, the matter is established in our minds, regardless of what police and judges do. If we learn that the alleged abuse of a child in this case was reported by another child in a different case, then where, in both cases, the same allegations involving sexual abuse are made against the same individual, but by different children, this, too, will establish the matter.
@GLTirebiter wrote:
So, the WT thinks elders should be the detectives, and the prosecutors, and the judges, and the jury?
You totally misunderstood the points I was making regarding criminal investigations and theocratic investigations, but I thought I distinguished these two kinds of investigations. Even if the brother(s) or sister(s) were to be cleared in a criminal investigation, theocratic investigations are independent investigations to determine whether there is repentance on the part of anyone accused of such criminal conduct. Not only will criminal offenses be reported to the authorities, but there will typically be a judicial committee empaneled for the purpose of determining what effect, if any, the brother(s) or sister(s) accused of such criminal conduct might potentially have upon the spiritual welfare of the congregation, which is of prime importance.
I don't recall saying a thing about elders taking on the role of detectives or prosecutors or judges in any of the things I wrote. You might enjoy putting words into my mouth because you happen to have an agenda to maintain and you think to make today "thrash an elder day," but I am able to speak for myself without any assistance from you or from anyone else here.
They aren't! Where in the reporting laws does it mention "investigation" by civilians and "at least two witnesses"? It doesn't!
Again, what I stated about "two witnesses" does not accord with the standard in criminal investigations that are undertaken by law enforcement, but, in fact, is consonant with theocratic investigations that are undertaken by the body of elders in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses.
When the WT needs to use so much strained wording to justify what they are telling the elders to do, that's a pretty reliable indication that they are telling them to do the wrong thing.
Actually, what you and others here need to do is learn how to live quietly and to mind your own business and stop thinking that Jehovah's Witnesses need suggestions from you on how their elders carry out their scriptural responsibilities, for we understand both our legal responsibilities toward the superior authorities (i.e., police officers, local law enforcement, and so forth), and our spiritual responsibilities to Jehovah God and to the Lord Jesus Christ, so that we are able to walk orderly and decently toward those on the outside. (1 Thessalonians 4:10-12)
@djeggnog