I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.
Richard Oliver
JoinedPosts by Richard Oliver
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Like I said, I think that they should have handled that question better. I am not sure what they should have said but certainly, it could have been handled better by them. Again there were some good parts and some bad parts. In reality we will see how the Commission viewed it when they present their final report later on.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
I think that the two witnesses at times did very well and at times did poorly. I think that they presented what has been done since the previous hearing. I did notice that as Mr. Stewart or a member of the commission made a specific suggestion for the policy that they made notes in order to either consider it or if it was a reasonable suggestion to ensure that the suggestion would be put into effect. An example, it may have been small but Mr. Stewart suggested that the policy should read "a child" and not just child, because it could be construed to mean that it was only that specific child and not any child in general. You saw one of them make the note and he indicated that he was going to make that change to make sure it was clear that it was not just if the specific child was still in danger but a child was still in danger. They explained well why it seemed like there were more procedure papers that were submitted to the Commission, that it was to show what has been adjusted and what has stayed the same in policies. I think that they did poorly on when it was asked about shunning, I think that they should have been more straight forward in stating why Witnesses believe in shunning. And at the end about Pastoral arrangements, it was a little dodgy but it also seems like they have hired an outside law firm to give objective advice to them and to handle the claims as objectively as possible. I certainly don't think that it was all positive but I don't think it was a train wreck either.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Ok, Orphan Crow, I read through your whole last statement. And I agree with you that child pornography does affect children both inside and outside of a congregation. And in fact an abuser of child pornography theoretically could go much longer without detection just by the nature that they don't have a victim that either knows them or is aware that the specific person even exists. And yes if a elder does investigate a matter of child pornography and they view the image they would be breaking the law.
I also understand your point that there is that specific statement that says that they don't view child pornography as child abuse and it is your right to be furious with the implication that it has. And certainly it is not a huge thing to ask for them to change that one phrase.
I have acknowledged all of that and agree with you on all of that. And I understand that you may not see it as carrying the same weight or any weight, but do you acknowledge that the BOE Dated August 1, 2016, that it does state that child pornography is child abuse.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
And again it is great that you cannot argue with the facts but just with what you think about me. Please argue the fact that Watchtower did state that child pornography is child abuse when it provided the definition of child abuse. See you can't argue that statement. You want to attack me as a person because those are the facts.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
What argument that i have stated here is a Strawman argument please provide me with a specific example.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
So attacking me and not the argument is what it has come down too. Please dispute the fact that Watchtower did state in the BOE Protecting Minors from Abuse that it clearly states that child pornography is child abuse.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Outlaw:
Even from Wikipedia itself:
Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2][3]
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
California statutes on child pornography is broken up into 5 separate statutes.
California Penal Code 311.1 which is the statute that can be used to prosecute the possession of child pornography does not use the term child abuse nor child exploitation.
California Penal Code 311.3 does use the term sexual exploitation and specifies it is for those under the age of 18. Though this statute only applies to the creation and/or distribution of child pornography, not the possession or viewing of child pornography.
California Penal Code 311.4 which is used to prosecutes individuals who either attempts or gets a minor to perform in child pornography. This statute does not use the term child abuse nor child exploitation.
California Penal Code 311.10 which is used to prosecute individuals in promoting or distributing child pornography. This statute does not use the term child abuse nor child exploitation.
California Penal Code 311.11 which is used to prosecute individuals who possess child pornography. This statute does not use the term child abuse nor child exploitation.
So Orphan Crow by your logic, because the State of California does not specifically correlate child pornography and child abuse or exploitation together except for the creation and distribution of it, then the state of California’s Penal Code has cracks in it and the rest of the house cannot be built on it. That is not what the law is saying. Again just because it doesn’t say it in one part of the penal code doesn’t mean that the legislature doesn’t view it that way, it is dealt with in another part of the code. Just like with Watchtower’s Policy, you have to take the whole policy in total not just a small part or a part of a sentence.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Yes outlaw because Wikipedia is the most reliable and is an authoritative resource. High School teachers won't even allow their students to use Wikipedia as their only source when writing a paper. That is the problem, with allowing anyone to edit a encyclopedia, you don't get the best results. You should look up the sources in that Wikipedia article and use a primary source.