17 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePage 1 and page 6 as I have said several times.
I can find NO reference where the Gman stated that two witnesses are a prerequisite,
1. But if this person did not repent or satisfy the congregation and it wanting to protect
the individuals in it, then the authorities could be notified buy the victim.
2. The reason the Bible wants 2 witnesses is to prevint false accusations. If another
c ...[text shortened]... ll be more than happy to address your 'serious', concerns.
at present i need to go to work.
Was he right to say that the decision on how to proceed in an abuse case depends on the wisdom of "the elders"? Yes or no, robbie?
If he is right, then clearly it is not a satisfactory procedure for handling abuse accusations. Neither you nor I would accept such a procedure if it were the Catholic Church's policy.
17 Nov 11
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFI have produced both his statements, not one of them states that two witnesses are
Page 1 and page 6 as I have said several times.
Was he right to say that the decision on how to proceed in an abuse case depends on the wisdom of "the elders"? Yes or no, robbie?
If he is right, then clearly it is not a satisfactory procedure for handling abuse accusations. Neither you nor I would accept such a procedure if it were the Catholic Church's policy.
a prerequisite as you have erroneously claimed and produced nothing to the contrary.
For your other assertion that an abuse case depends upon, the wisdom of two
elders, I also find not one piece of evidence supporting that assertion either. Clearly
the guidelines are in place if any elder, or any person for that matter has knowledge
of a child abuse case. The fact of the matter is, that we have a child protection
policy which the charity commission of the United Kingdom has accepted, but then
again, they are only a professional body with experience working from something
other than merely unsubstantiated claims and a somewhat cynical approach.
I repeat it again, for the last time, if any Jehovahs witness has knowledge of, or
suspects that a case of abuse has occurred, they are under duress to contact the
civil authorities. This is clearly outlined in our policy, available on the public domain
and ratified by professional bodies such as the charity commission for the United
Kingdom. End of.
17 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you are dealing with the yawning gap between what galveston75 said and what you think is correct by simply denying he said the things he said earlier on this thread?
For your other assertion that an abuse case depends upon, the wisdom of two
elders, I also find not one piece of evidence supporting that assertion either.
17 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNo i have posted his two statements none of which contain any assertions that two
So you are dealing with the yawning gap between what galveston75 said and what you think is correct by simply denying he said the things he said earlier on this thread?
witnesses are a prerequisite which you have erroneously asserted without
substantiation nor that a case depends in its entirety upon the wisdom of the elders,
when clearly there are publicly available and professionally recognised guidelines to the
contrary. The yawning gap is between your assertions based upon a somewhat cynical
interpretation of the Gmans words and the actual reality of the matter as evidenced by
our actions and approach to child abuse, readily available in the public domain. But
then again perhaps you know something the charity commission of the United Kingdom
are unaware of, then I petition you to contact them with your concerns.
17 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI haven't offered any "interpretation" of galveston75's words. I have simply quoted his words verbatim. Several times. A verbatim quotation can hardly be "cynical". Do you endorse galveston75's claims - as I have quoted them verbatim, without "interpretation" - or do you distance yourself from them as being in fact incorrect?
The yawning gap is between your assertions based upon a somewhat cynical
interpretation of the Gmans words and the actual reality of the matter as evidenced by our actions and approach to child abuse, readily available in the public domain.
Or is galveston75 perhaps inadvertently describing the everyday reality on the ground and the gap between what this is on one hand and the corporate policy statement on the other is something you would rather pass off as somehow my "insincerity" or "cynicism" rather than be unequivocal about it and state plainly that he has got it wrong?
17 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFLets clear this up as you seem to have some confusion about what has been stated by both Robbie and myself.
Page 1 and page 6 as I have said several times.
Was he right to say that the decision on how to proceed in an abuse case depends on the wisdom of "the elders"? Yes or no, robbie?
If he is right, then clearly it is not a satisfactory procedure for handling abuse accusations. Neither you nor I would accept such a procedure if it were the Catholic Church's policy.
First it has been shown to you by Robbie the stand on this by the Watchtower Society. That is very clear and it's a policy that can be seen by anyone from the Watchtower society.
My original statements were to establish the Bibles view and then how we under all possible means try to follow it. You have to understand that up until the science we now have with such things as DNA testing,all we had was one persons word against another unless there would happen to be signs of physical abuse that ones could see on the victim.
Hence the law was established by God himself to have 2 witnesses in order to proceed with judgement on the guilty party which could lead to the "death" of that person. Do you see the seriousness of such a situation? Do you see why one should not just take the word of one person against another that could possibly be innocent of those charges?
Chances are today one would not be put to death for sexual abuse, at least not in this county but it still happens in many others.
So again this law was established by God to protect this form of possible injustice.
Now we have the help of science to determine if such accusations are true and we now have the authorities to take the legal aspects over as we don't have that authority as Witnesses.
But we would still apply the 2 witness rule as a basis to try and get to the bottom of any problems that may arise "IF" the victim comes to the congregation first. If they decide to go to the authorities first that is fine and will not have any issues with the congregation because of it. As has been stated that if 2 witnesses doen't exist then we now have other avenues to help that didn't exist years ago.
So to make this as clear as I can...if someone comes to the elders first and wants help to stop this abuse from happening then the elders will help in anyway they can and will never go against the laws of the land on this as we need all the help we can to solve these terrible abuse situations.
17 Nov 11
2 edits
Its rather interesting that at the moment within the Scottish parliament they are
discussing an article of Scots Law known as corroboration. What this means is that for
a case to proceed to court there needs to be two corroborating sources of testimony.
Victims groups and other have welcomed the review, the judiciary says that it will lead
to weak cases being presented and will in essence lead to fewer convictions rather
than more. I just thought it was interesting within the context of this discussion. Scots
Law is perhaps unique in this regard and others such as a not proven verdict, which is
a verdict given when there is not enough substantiating evidence to warrant a
conviction.
17 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFi have tried to be as fair and objective as i can in this regard FMF, bottom line is, if you
I haven't offered any "interpretation" of galveston75's words. I have simply quoted his words verbatim. Several times. A verbatim quotation can hardly be "cynical". Do you endorse galveston75's claims - as I have quoted them verbatim, without "interpretation" - or do you distance yourself from them as being in fact incorrect?
Or is galveston75 perhaps inadver sm" rather than be unequivocal about it and state plainly that he has got it wrong?
know of any cases of child abuse, suspected or otherwise, report it to the authorities.
this is our policy and should be everyones policy.
17 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieQuite frankly - and I say this in good faith, robbie - your evasiveness and your flurries of topic-sidestepping ad hominems are making you come across as almost furtive on this thread. If not furtive, then oddly fumbling and effusive. I don't see why this is necessary at all, IF galveston75 is wrong AND your take on the effectiveness of JW corporate policy is right. But you seem to want to endorse BOTH galveston75's very troubling claims about the needs for witnesses and 'decisions being in the hands of elders' AND claims about an 'official' policy that is quite different.
i have tried to be as fair and objective as i can in this regard FMF, bottom line is, if you
know of any cases of child abuse, suspected or otherwise, report it to the authorities.
this is our policy and should be everyones policy.
17 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75This is deeply troubling, as were your previous comments on this thread. Do you concede that you are perhaps describing a 'reality on the ground' that is not the same as the JW corporate policy as laid out in order to comply with the law?
But we would still apply the 2 witness rule as a basis to try and get to the bottom of any problems that may arise "IF" the victim comes to the congregation first. If they decide to go to the authorities first that is fine and will not have any issues with the congregation because of it. As has been stated that if 2 witnesses doen't exist then we now hav of the land on this as we need all the help we can to solve these terrible abuse situations.
You said that if a second witness cannot be found then the wisdom of the elders and knowing the facts and situations would lead them to a decision on how to proceed. You also said that if the accused did not repent or satisfy the congregation and wanting to protect the individuals in it, then the authorities could be notified buy the victim. Where do the laws of the land on this issue address these considerable "ifs" you mention? Where does the law empower the "wisdom of the elders" in the way you claim? Where does it make how to proceed the business of "the elders"? What is the legal definition of "repent" and the "satisfy"? Why is it, in your stated view, a case of what "could" happen in terms of informing the authorities external to the JW organization "if" certain things happen?
18 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYour not understanding this issue. Every single case is different with different situations with different pepole and different settings. No two would ever be alike.
This is deeply troubling, as were your previous comments on this thread. Do you concede that you are perhaps describing a 'reality on the ground' that is not the same as the JW corporate policy as laid out in order to comply with the law?
You said that if a second witness cannot be found then the wisdom of the elders and knowing the facts and situations would ming the authorities external to the JW organization "if" certain things happen?
So to think this is a black and white issue is very, very far from ther truth.
But again....if they approach the elders FIRST instead of going to the legal system, then the elders have all these different situations to try and work thru just as a detective would have in their initial interviews of someone who is reporting to them that they have been abused.
For example if this person making the accusation has not always followed the morals in an upright way and has had issues before, even with children, then maybe more questions would need to be asked to get to the heart of the abuse. Maybe by questioning with a little patience and insight, might, maybe, possibly, this abused person was not as inocent as they say.
Again we are not the law and we're not police but with just a few questions maybe a truth might come out that may shed light on the matter.
Abuse is wrong 100% but sometimes instead of just calling the police immediatly, a resolution may happen that could resolve the problem and keep an innocent one from being falsely accused. And remember the abuseds parents would be there too and have the choise to decide to take the elders advise or not. Others on the internet may report that they don't have that option but that is not the truth at all.
But again if this is not taken to the police first but instead brought to the elders first then they would question all the facts as they......
I know first hand as my step daughter came back from school early when she was in the 6th grade one morning. She was bruised and crying and as hysterical as I had ever seen a human being. I had no doubt she had beed attacked as a parent could be. She said it was by some guy in one of the apartment buildings we lived at. We immediatly called the police and they took her aside and the women police officer was very kind but had to interview her. Well thru experiance it finally came out that she was lying and was scared of a test she was going to take at school that day and had fabricated the whole thing. Now I could have killed..... her but the point is not all that report abuse are actully tellling the truth. It's rare but it happens. This is why the elders don't always respond when approached with abuse with a knee jerk reaction.
I hope this helps as I have no idea what else to say to you.
Here is the contact information if you would like to ask them for yourself on this issue: http://www.watchtower.org/
18 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOn the contrary you were provided with concrete reason time and again, verifiable
Quite frankly - and I say this in good faith, robbie - your evasiveness and your flurries of topic-sidestepping ad hominems are making you come across as almost furtive on this thread. If not furtive, then oddly fumbling and effusive. I don't see why this is necessary at all, IF galveston75 is wrong AND your take on the effectiveness of JW corporate polic ing in the hands of elders' AND claims about an 'official' policy that is quite different.
third part references in the public domain illustrating our position, it is not my fault that
you were and remain uninterested in them, despite your protestations to the contrary.
18 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you are still endorsing the troubling things that galveston75 said on pages 1 and 6?
On the contrary you were provided with concrete reason time and again, verifiable
third part references in the public domain illustrating our position, it is not my fault that
you were and remain uninterested in them, despite your protestations to the contrary.
18 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFI have said all i need to say on the matter, if you check through the thread you will find
So you are still endorsing the troubling things that galveston75 said on pages 1 and 6?
that this is the case, i need not answer the same question again and again, as i have
already stated, with reason and with reference that i find nothing to either substantiate
your 'interpretation', that they are troubling or disharmonious with the publicly
available policy of Jehovahs witnesses. You are wasting my time and yours FMF trying
to rehash the same questions.
18 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI ask the same question again because you keep saying you have already answered it, when in fact you haven't.
I have said all i need to say on the matter, if you check through the thread you will find
that this is the case, i need not answer the same question again and again, as i have
already stated, with reason and with reference that i find nothing to either substantiate
your 'interpretation', that they are troubling or disharmonious with the public ...[text shortened]... ovahs witnesses. You are wasting my time and yours FMF trying
to rehash the same questions.
Galveston75 said that if a second witness cannot be found then the wisdom of the elders and knowing the facts and situations would lead them to a decision on how to proceed. He also said that if the accused did not repent or satisfy the congregation and wanting to protect the individuals in it, then the authorities could be notified by the victim.
Where do the laws of the land on this issue address these considerable "ifs" that galveston75 mentions? Where does the law empower the "wisdom of the elders" in the way he claims? Where does it make how to proceed the business of "the elders"? What is the legal definition of "repent" and the legal meaning of "satisfy the congregation"? What is the legal definition of a 'satisfied congregation' when it comes to 'repentance'?
Why is it, in galveston75's stated view, a case of what "could" happen in terms of informing the authorities external to the JW organization "if" certain things happen?