18 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFFMF, I dont know if to compliment your patience or tell you that you are wasting your time. In the thread "Mental Health Warning" researchers identified the same predicament you are now facing with JWs .. "Any attempt to dissuade them logically is frequently met with a further monologue of their inflexible belief system..."
I ask the same question again because you keep saying you have already answered it, when in fact you haven't.
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 a ...[text shortened]... the authorities external to the JW organization "if" certain things happen?
They will repeat the same nonsense irrelevant answer to your questions until they tire you, then they will claim victory. If you say something harsh they will claim that the Bible predicted that Gods people will be persecuted and they are happy that prophecy is being fulfilled.
Either way you lose.
18 Nov 11
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFas has already been pointed out to you above to three or four times, the procedure upon
I ask the same question again because you keep saying you have already answered it, when in fact you haven't.
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 a the authorities external to the JW organization "if" certain things happen?
which the elders utilise their wisdom is based on the clear and publicly available child
protection policy. If you have any reason to 'believe', that they will not follow through
on this publicly available and professional sanctioned procedure then i suggest you
write to the charities commission of the United Kingdom. So far you have produced
nothing other than purely hypothetical assertions without the slightest basis in any
reality. If you have a problem with their ability or determination to follow through on
these clear, independent and professionally acceptable guidelines then contact the
charity commission of the United Kingdom you can tell them on what your concerns are
based, that being your personal interpretation of a statement on an internet forum,
this is the reality.
18 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo do you distance yourself from what galveston75 said or endorse it?
as has already been pointed out to you above to three or four times, the procedure upon
which the elders utilise their wisdom is based on the clear and publicly available child
protection policy. If you have any reason to 'believe', that they will not follow through
on this publicly available and professional sanctioned procedure then i sugges ...[text shortened]... being your personal interpretation of a statement on an internet forum,
this is the reality.
18 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFI whole heartedly embrace everything the Gman says in this regard, for as I have
So do you distance yourself from what galveston75 said or endorse it?
already explained nothing seems to me to be incongruous with anything that is not
already available in the public domain concerning our child protection policy.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThanks for finally admitting unequivocally that you endorse galveston75's troubling explanations. The arrangements he described will clearly result in the extent of abuse that is going on being underestimated. While the corporate policy that JW lawyers drew up in order to protect the organization and deflect criticism is encouraging, I presume galveston75 is describing the far less reassuring reality on the ground. It is troubling. If galveston75 was a Catholic and the approach he has described was that of the Catholic Church, neither you nor I would accept it, I think.
I whole heartedly embrace everything the Gman says in this regard, for as I have
already explained nothing seems to me to be incongruous with anything that is not
already available in the public domain concerning our child protection policy.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFI think your problem is your looking for fault and not looking for the facts both Robbie and myself have explained. And the problem is you do not agree with God's view which he clearly states in the Bible. Until you come to terms with God's view then you will continue to have issues.
Thanks for finally admitting unequivocally that you endorse galveston75's troubling explanations. The arrangements he described will clearly result in the extent of abuse that is going on being underestimated. While the corporate policy that JW lawyers drew up in order to protect the organization and deflect criticism is encouraging, I presume galveston75 is des ...[text shortened]... h he has described was that of the Catholic Church, neither you nor I would accept it, I think.
And there is a world of differance between the Witnesses and the Catholics. We would never HIDE and abuser where as the Catholics have hid them for centuries and will continue to do so.
So view it as you will.
19 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75I am not 'looking for fault'. Somebody else started the thread. The information you gave is troubling, regardless of you claiming it is "God's view which he clearly states in the Bible". The different information robbie gave is reassuring. Robbie's endorsement of your stuff about 'repentance' "satisfy[ing] the congregation" and how to proceed being dependent on the "wisdom of the elders" etc. etc. is predictable, I suppose - in as much as it is loyal and earnestly partisan. Your comments describe a procedure and attitude that is likely to be downplaying abuse. Robbie's information describes the corporate line, which is far more encouraging. But his refusal to distance himself from your claims, suggests that you are describing a reality that is more troubling than that corporate line. Petty little ad hominems about me "having issues" or "problems" do not help your argument at all, galveston75. And I have never once suggested that either you or robbie would "hide an abuser". That is an out and out straw man.
I think your problem is your looking for fault and not looking for the facts both Robbie and myself have explained. And the problem is you do not agree with God's view which he clearly states in the Bible. Until you come to terms with God's view then you will continue to have issues.
And there is a world of differance between the Witnesses and the Cath ...[text shortened]... e Catholics have hid them for centuries and will continue to do so.
So view it as you will.
19 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWell I explained my postings the best I can. If you have issues with them then that's fine. But I absolutly abhor child abuse of any kind as well as any other Witnesses I know.
I am not 'looking for fault'. Somebody else started the thread. The information you gave is troubling, regardless of you claiming it is "God's view which he clearly states in the Bible". The different information robbie gave is reassuring. Robbie's endorsement of your stuff about 'repentance' "satisfy[ing] the congregation" and how to proceed being dependent on ither you or robbie would "hide an abuser". That is an out and out straw man.
The point of this thread by the original poster as I know him and his cunningness is to discredit the Witneses on all levels and to try to cause any divisions he can is his plan. It will not happen here or any other time as we beleive in the Bible and it's truths no matter who doesn't agree with them.
I'm sorry if somehow you misinterpreted anything I said but I completely agree with Robbie and his comments.
All we can do when faced with a horrible thing such as child abuse is the best our conscience and wisdom tells us.
But let me ask you a question....would you agree or not with the Bibles view of the "two witness" command from God?
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by galveston75Ad hominems about the poster of the OP mean nothing to me. Ad hominems about the person who started this thread do not affect my understanding of what you have yourself claimed and said on this thread. I have never suggested - not in any way whatsover, not even a tiny hint or insinuation - that you do not "abhor child abuse", so you seem to be attempting to set up a rather clumsy and unpleasant straw man with this.
Well I explained my postings the best I can. If you have issues with them then that's fine. But I absolutly abhor child abuse of any kind as well as any other Witnesses I know.
The point of this thread by the original poster as I know him and his cunningness is to discredit the Witneses on all levels and to try to cause any divisions he can is his pla ...[text shortened]... tion....would you agree or not with the Bibles view of the "two witness" command from God?
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie@ 40k annually ? Crap at that rate there will be no more J-Dubs left 😉 in just a few years.
we remove annually some forty thousand person from the ranks of Jehovahs witnesses
globally for immorality of one sort or another, FACT. Let the accusers accuse, the liars
lie and the fraudulent make their claims, the caravan rolls on and the dogs bark into
the night
Manny
19 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFFMF you should be a lawyer 🙂
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.
'Two witnesses'
Jehovah's Witnesses' congregational judicial policies require the testimony of two material witnesses to establish a perpetrator's serious sin in the absence of confession,[5] based on their interpretation of scriptures such as Deuteronomy 17:6 and 1 Timothy 5:19. This policy is felt to be a protection against malicious accusation of sexual assault. The Watch Tower Society's Public Information Department specifies that this two-witness policy is applied solely to congregational discipline and has no bearing on whether a crime is reported to the authorities. It is not necessary for both witnesses to have observed the same instance of child molestation to establish guilt. As of 1991, statements by two victims of separate incidents by the same perpetrator may be deemed sufficient to take action and impose internal sanctions.[2][6][7] DNA evidence, medical reports, or information from forensic experts or police that proves sexual abuse is also accepted as a valid "second witness".
In cases where there is only one eye-witness—the victim—to an allegation of child abuse, elders are instructed to monitor the accused individual closely, and in most cases suspend his conspicuous privileges. If there is evidence to suggest that the alleged perpetrator did abuse children, privileges are revoked and a warning is given to the congregation for its protection.[8]
RC makes this reference to two witnesses on page 3
Manny
19 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFmore unsubstantiated twaddle borne not from any reality but the cynicism of your own
Thanks for finally admitting unequivocally that you endorse galveston75's troubling explanations. The arrangements he described will clearly result in the extent of abuse that is going on being underestimated. While the corporate policy that JW lawyers drew up in order to protect the organization and deflect criticism is encouraging, I presume galveston75 is des ...[text shortened]... h he has described was that of the Catholic Church, neither you nor I would accept it, I think.
mind, unworthy of any serious comment and will now be archived to relative obscurity
by being drop kicked over the moon!
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs I have said, your ad hominems don't mean anything to me and do not enhance the validity of the things you say.
more unsubstantiated twaddle borne not from any reality but the cynicism of your own
mind, unworthy of any serious comment and will now be archived to relative obscurity
by being drop kicked over the moon!
19 Nov 11
1 edit
I can't help but draw a parallel here with G-man's 2-witness scenario and what is happening today with Herman Cain (Republican candidate for President), Jerry Sandusky (Defensive coordinator for Penn State University football team), and Bernie Fine (Syracuse University basketball coach).
In all 3 headline scandals, it's going to boil down to credible witnesses as to whether or not the accused are punished.
In a sex abuse allegation, it is just too dangerous for society to simply take the word of the accuser. There has to be corroborating evidence and/or multiple credible witnesses.
What is sad is, and Bernie Fine just got through saying something about this publicly, we live in a society where if someone is simply alledged to have perpetrated a sex crime... by the time the 24-hour media and the internet gets through with it, the accused is found guilty without a shred of bona fide evidence.
I think Bernie Fine said something to the effect that today, someone can be sitting on top of the world, and within MINUTES they can be victimized by false allegations in the media and on the internet, and.. it's game over.
Crazy stuff..