just saw the episode of the simpsons where bart calls moe's tavern and asks for "amanda huggenkiss" and it made me laugh again .
amanda huggenkiss.
hugh jazz.
I love this thread. I am now 14.
Cleo Torus
Hugh Dick
Ivor Hardwood
Phil Maanus
Murphy Fitzpatrick
Patrick Fitzmurphy (the two Irish gay guys)
Fanny McSpreader
A, Nalprobe
Dwayne Pipe
Mike Hunt
Wayne Kerr (see the actual company in Bognor Regis, England - www.waynekerrtest.com/)
I am sure my drunken, 14 year old, stupid self will think of more...
hi everyone, i'm new here, i've been following the rc reports, and i was hoping you could help, my question is are jw allowed to be police, i heard the jws saying in one report with enthusiasm that they had jw in the policeforce.
and would there be any conflict from the force with any of their teaching, that would be contrary to duties..
There is an elder who is an officer on one of the Spanish islands in the Med. He has special permission not to carry a weapon.
i posted this on a pro-jw site:.
this is the official policy sanctioned by the governing body.
it's not about indivuals being molesters/deviants.
Playing devils advocate, is there not a very small subset of convicted sex offenders who pose no long term threat as their conviction was based on their age and the age of the person they had sex with? I am thinking ONLY of those people in some relationship where one is just above the age of consent and the other just below.
I know that often the authorities look on these situations differently but there is still the feasible prospect of someone getting a conviction or caution under these circumstances.
Is this person a paedophile?
so i got coerced into watching this crap last night.
a few observations:.
1) it personified the witness mantra that doing more for the org = happiness, doing not enough = misery.
The "bad" girl has been in other things, most noticeably the Jeremiah book where she also played a bad girl getting hitched to a guy "out of da troof", rejecting counsel but then turning around and coming back. She is depicted in the painting with all the other people from the other illustrations in paradise as well.
I wonder how good/connected you have to be to play a bad person?
why won't they (the wbt$ head honchos), simply change policy on sex offenders?
will they?..especially after the arc for eg?
it seems that with all the bad press and now the arc among other institutions that are exposing the wbt$ for a haven for paedophiles, why hasn't the wbt$ simply changed it's insane policy?.
There are some key differences in how the WTS sees it's own responsibilities when compared to other religious organisations. These include, but are not limited to, things like:
- no congregational child specific activities and child leaders (e.g. sunday schools)
- no congregational requirement for a leader to be alone with a child who is not their own
- no clergy/laity differentiation
- the judicial process being a theocratic one with essentially no criminal/civil legal responsibilities
- victims/families having the right to do whatever they wish as far as reporting is concerned
- elders not being policemen but spiritual shepherds only
- scriptural instruction for having two witnesses before judicial action can be taken
- long track record in alerting members and the wider public in general to the risks posed by child abusers
- no systematic process for simply moving offenders who are appointed men around to another congregation
Of course these all generate much debate as to their implementation and impact but the point is that these factors build a perception of their own scope of responsibility. The WTS is very careful not to go too far in conceding any organisational responsibility or duties. If so the legal and financial obligations become far greater. They will resist change as much as possible for these reasons.
ask any jw the question "why do jehovah's witnesses impose their views on others?
we do not impose our views on anyone!".
do you impose your views on others?
From my observations of the cart work, Witnesses are doing anything but forcing their views on anyone.
shout out to jwfacts.. just saw the drum.
excellent job !
!.
anyone heard anything about this report on a j.w.
app?
there has been some comment on the latest rc proceedings on that well know jw friendly site.. one set of posts has been particularly interesting as the poster related their own experience as an abuse victim when they were a child in the congregation.
this of course took courage and the poster deserves no criticism at all for this.
he is, however, still very supportive of the organisation.. this is his latest post:.
There has been some comment on the latest RC proceedings on that well know JW friendly site.
One set of posts has been particularly interesting as the poster related their own experience as an abuse victim when they were a child in the congregation. This of course took courage and the poster deserves no criticism at all for this. He is, however, still very supportive of the organisation.
This is his latest post:
Okay, I've now read the transcript of today's hearing, and I have to say I am so monumentally frustrated by this enquiry!
I'm glad to see them finally interviewing someone from the branch office, but they keep repeating their questions, and in my opinion not listening to his answers.
For example they repeatedly refuse to accept that abuse survivors are not expected to confront their abuser. There is a 1995 WT article and advice in the elder's manual that says that they can write a letter.
They also say it's unwise for the judicial committee to be led by elders who know the accused, but again the guidance is that the CO will nominate an experienced other elder from another congregation to chair the committee.
I suspect that there will be more information given on the 1,006 cases issue when they interview the brother form the legal department, but from what we've seen so far, many of those cases were reported to the authorities, just not by the Society, but by the victims or someone else. And in confirmation of what I was also told by a CO, the list includes people who never were JWs but included interested persons and children of baptised witnesses etc.In fact if I remember correctly the CO said that even if an 18-year-old brother has consensual extra-marital sex with a 17-year-old sister, as it's technically a crime that would go on the list, but it would not be reported to the police for obvious reasons.
The number of times when reading this transcript I have wanted to shout at the commissioners and say "he's already answered that!" or "read the material!"
Whilst I have nothing but sympathy for his experiences I can't help wondering how someone who was abused and whose abuser was not sanctioned can have this much support for the organisation still.
watching the royal commission videos from day 6.. the head of the australian branch is such a liar.
he keeps saying they have the right to make decisions and regulations if they are in accordance with the scriptures, but we all know this is such a lie!!!!.
he is just trying to protect the gb members from bring forced to testify!!
There is some limited truth in what was said.
Branches are responsible for organising the work in the territory they cover. They will choose RC locations for example and manage the administrative aspects of the work without too much discussion with HQ. Of course there are top down processes and procedures. Larger construction projects are very much managed centrally. However on a day to day level the branch does not have to run every little detail past HQ.
When it comes to more serious issues like this then the branch has the right to change rules to suit local requirements. In the case of child abuse policies this will be limited to ensuring the process conforms to any legal requirements such as mandatory reporting. The hands of HQ in NY are tied in this case.
Does it ave the ability to change doctrinal situations such as two witnesses? Not unilaterally. If the Australian government made a law giving a victim the right to converse only with a woman for example, then the Branch would likely reformulate the policies to make some allowance for that. Any change would be agreed with HQ. It would be the minimum possible to meet the legal requirements.
No branch can make unilateral instructions about anything that has some interpreted scriptural mandate around it, like two witnesses or elders only being male etc. No branch would or could ever come up with changes to fundamentals like this. You would never see some schism opening up between countries where one country allowed female elders, two witnesses, gay marriage or whatever and other countries did not.
To illustrate the relationship with a slightly difference use case, cast your minds back to the Mexico v Malawi situation. If you consider the difference between how these were handled, it was not a branch decision as to how the rank and file were instructed. They did not say "this is what we will do in our country". The differences were from HQ. They decided that it was alright to treat the two situations differently. Neither branch had the power to say what they might have really wanted to do.
The same applies in these cases. Sure, the local branch might implement specific modifications to the core process but ONLY to suit the legal requirements of the state or country. They will never build heir own policy. It's not unknown for large numbers of, even whole, branch committees to be reassigned when they don't play ball with HQ.
