Since: Sep 11

Brantford, Canada

#175 Nov 13, 2012
acrobat wrote:
You do realize that the Police passed the baton to U2, right? ;)
I never thought that I would actually converse with Satan. What a lie, kinda. Satan.

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Houston, TX

#176 Nov 13, 2012
acrobat wrote:
Since this was supposed to be a thread about me, not Marvin Shilmer, not Candace Conti, not any other issue, let's bring it back full circle.
What do I believe re: the subject of child abuse reporting?
I believe that the elders in the christian congregation have a scriptural, moral, civic, and legal duty - they just have a duty, period - to report *allegations* or *accusations* of child sexual abuse to the proper legal authorities, especially if that child's parent abdicates in their *own* duty to protect their own child. For whatever reason this parent is being such an idiot.
The fact of the matter is Jehovah's Witnesses don't particularly care if a person who commits a crime punishable by law has to do some time. They're simply concerned with doing the right thing. This was made quite clear on January 1, 1997 when clergy were declared mandated reporters.

w97 1/1 pp. 28-29 Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked

What if a baptized adult Christian sexually molests a child? Is the sinner so wicked that Jehovah will never forgive him? Not necessarily so. Jesus said that ‘blasphemy against the holy spirit’ was unforgivable. And Paul said that there is no sacrifice for sins left for one who practices sin willfully despite knowing the truth.(Luke 12:10; Hebrews 10:26, 27) But nowhere does the Bible say that an adult Christian who sexually abuses a child—whether incestuously or otherwise—cannot be forgiven. Indeed, his sins can be washed clean if he repents sincerely from the heart and turns his conduct around. However, he may still have to struggle with the wrong fleshly impulses he cultivated.(Ephesians 1:7) And there may be consequences that he cannot avoid.

Depending on the law of the land where he lives, the molester may well have to serve a prison term or face other sanctions from the State. The congregation will not protect him from this.
----------

The policy enforced by Jehovah's Witnesses is compliant with the Christian arrangement and compliant with federal law and always has been.

You seem to be overly concerned with Jehovah's Witnesses while ignoring legal statutes that endanger children.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode...

CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1030-1034

1032. As used in this article, "penitential communication" means a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member's church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.

1033. Subject to Section 912, a penitent, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege.

The language used in Section 1033 indicates the abuser could not be reported to the secular authorities or excommunicated without subjecting an organization to adverse legal consequences. Under this arrangement, a “penitent”(alleged molester), could prevent another from disclosing a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege. Under this law, a priest, pastor or an elder would have to keep the disclosure between the abuser and himself even if he waived his privilege to confidentiality.

This has something to do with why two elders are always in the room when a person confesses to something or why two elders always participate when called to any kind of meeting. With a third person, they won't be bound by Section 1033.

Who really enforces a "secrecy policy" in religious institutions as vile defectors allege? The federal government or Jehovah's Witnesses?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#177 Nov 13, 2012
Wow, I thought my humor was warped. I totally didn't get that last one. I'm getting tired *and* slow lol

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#178 Nov 14, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is Jehovah's Witnesses don't particularly care if a person who commits a crime punishable by law has to do some time. They're simply concerned with doing the right thing. This was made quite clear on January 1, 1997 when clergy were declared mandated reporters.
w97 1/1 pp. 28-29 Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked
What if a baptized adult Christian sexually molests a child? Is the sinner so wicked that Jehovah will never forgive him? Not necessarily so. Jesus said that ‘blasphemy against the holy spirit’ was unforgivable. And Paul said that there is no sacrifice for sins left for one who practices sin willfully despite knowing the truth.(Luke 12:10; Hebrews 10:26, 27) But nowhere does the Bible say that an adult Christian who sexually abuses a child—whether incestuously or otherwise—cannot be forgiven. Indeed, his sins can be washed clean if he repents sincerely from the heart and turns his conduct around. However, he may still have to struggle with the wrong fleshly impulses he cultivated.(Ephesians 1:7) And there may be consequences that he cannot avoid.
Depending on the law of the land where he lives, the molester may well have to serve a prison term or face other sanctions from the State. The congregation will not protect him from this.
----------
The policy enforced by Jehovah's Witnesses is compliant with the Christian arrangement and compliant with federal law and always has been.
You seem to be overly concerned with Jehovah's Witnesses while ignoring legal statutes that endanger children.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode...
CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1030-1034
1032. As used in this article, "penitential communication" means a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member's church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.
1033. Subject to Section 912, a penitent, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege.
The language used in Section 1033 indicates the abuser could not be reported to the secular authorities or excommunicated without subjecting an organization to adverse legal consequences. Under this arrangement, a “penitent”(alleged molester), could prevent another from disclosing a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege. Under this law, a priest, pastor or an elder would have to keep the disclosure between the abuser and himself even if he waived his privilege to confidentiality.
This has something to do with why two elders are always in the room when a person confesses to something or why two elders always participate when called to any kind of meeting. With a third person, they won't be bound by Section 1033.
Who really enforces a "secrecy policy" in religious institutions as vile defectors allege? The federal government or Jehovah's Witnesses?
things could be changing and the WT will have to go the wAy of Christendom, just as they adopted their clery privelege of confession.... man up

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/break-t...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#179 Nov 14, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is Jehovah's Witnesses don't particularly care if a person who commits a crime punishable by law has to do some time.
You may be somewhat right in general, but we're talking about a crime of violence against children. Not many Witnesses I know - truly very few - think a child molester should be free from jail time, regardless the outcome of the spiritual discipline they get. I read about JWs in other places that apparently "don't particularly care", and I always shake my head in bewilderment, because for the life of me I always wonder "who are these people?". It's not a commonly held belief, not by the "rank and file" as you nonJWs like to put it.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
They're simply concerned with doing the right thing.
I'm sure as a collective body speaking generally, we are. I know I am. But sadly, this has not translated into actually *doing* the right thing. In some cases, it's been the patently wrong thing.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
This was made quite clear on January 1, 1997 when clergy were declared mandated reporters.
w97 1/1 pp. 28-29 Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked

<snipped because we all (should) know the Scriptural counsel on this>

And there may be consequences that he cannot avoid.
Depending on the law of the land where he lives, the molester may well have to serve a prison term or face other sanctions from the State. The congregation will not protect him from this.
Yes, yes, ok, we all read that article, now what? Are you asserting that because the article said it was so, that is exactly what took place in every congregation in the world? NO, it did not. And frankly, that was in 1997, after alot of the abuse that cases we are now hearing about took place.

But since you quoted it, here's a question for you: you made this statement "This was made quite clear on January 1, 1997 when clergy were declared mandated reporters." You then quoted that article, ostensibly to back up your claim that "clergy"(? elders?) had been "declared mandated reporters" - so, firstly, who declared them mandated reporters - the Society? Because there is absolutely no evidence or even hint of it in the quote you wrote right after your statement that declares the elders "mandated reporters". Period. So what does that quote have to do with your claim?

And here's a second question: Why do you think this article came out in 1997? Did it just drop due to "new light"? I don't think you really do know, because you weren't involved at the congregation level like I was, but I'm interested to here your best guess...

Again, you post these articles in hindsight, but you don't really have a clue about why they were written, what was going on at the time in the congregation, the letters in private that went back and forth that resulted in these articles, nothing! You just plop them on your screen and say "There! See! This is how it was!". It's patently absurd.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
The policy enforced by Jehovah's Witnesses is compliant with the Christian arrangement and compliant with federal law and always has been.
No it's not wholly compliant with a true Christian arrangement, as evidenced by the refinement of the policy, and even at that level it has not been "enforced" in an even manner across all congregations, period. And frankly the only law it's been compliant with are the ones that spell out the bare minimum legal requirements. And it's only changed when the law has made it obligatory to change. If you can't see how that has provided a get out of jail free card for predators to remain in the congregation in some cases, there's something seriously wrong in that head of yours.

cont'd

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#180 Nov 14, 2012
-

From post 171[1]:

[QUOTE who=”Stingo"]Imagine being falsely accused? How would that affect you?[/QUOTE]

No one wants to be falsely accused, and no one wants children (or anyone else) to suffer harm. And there is the conundrum.

If I understand you correctly, what you suggest of FH Chandler in this discussion is that the notion you write above (in question form) represents the golden morsel underpinning his perspective. If so, you’re wrong. You’re wrong because images of being falsely accused do not tell us how to weigh the problem; it only tells us the weight of one side of the conundrum. Moreover, it tells us nothing new. Everyone already knows that being falsely accused is a horrible thing!

So far as I can tell, FH Chandler is not interested in discussing the problem faced by congregation elders of how to best protect children and innocent adults upon hearing accusations of child molestation in the form of rumor. When presented with the idea of having elders report such rumor to secular authorities for them to investigate he balks at the idea but, when questioned about specifics as to why, he dodges and weaves like a wily coyote. Well guest what? The rumor is already out there, which means reputation is already compromised. So what is his point, that is other than throwing noise? So far all I see is noise coming from FH Chandler.

I’ve known men and women who were falsely accused of child abuse. These folks knew they were innocent and the moment the accusation grew legs in the form of rumor they went to law enforcement themselves to report the matter for investigation. They did this to preserve their reputation in the face of rumor.

I do not pretend to think each person would feel the same way as those adults did, but this discussion is not about how principals to such a rumor would choose to act but rather this discussion is about how a third-party should respond to such a rumor when principals are not going to report on their own volition. So far as I can see there are four options.

1. Tell the target of the rumor what’s you heard. Problem with this option: In effect it lets the fox guard the hen house.

2. Do nothing in reaction to the rumor. Problem with this option: Either an innocent person’s name is left to be ruined or else a child (or children) is in grave potential of harm.

3. Investigate the rumor yourself for remedy. Problem with this option: Unless you’ve been trained for this sort of investigation and remedy then potential for effective result is tenuous and potential is great to make things worse.

4. Give the information to someone trained to investigate the rumor for remedy: Problem with this option: Even the most highly trained resources sometimes screw things up and make a mess of it, with a result of ruining reputations.

When I weigh the conundrum at issue every time the scale points to option 4 above as the best reaction for a third-party congregation elder.

When FH Chandler weighs the options what does he recommend? One of the four above? Something else? What? And important for sake of discussion, why does he support whatever option he recommends, and what are his responses to objections posed toward his view? Answering these questions is where the golden nugget is at, and nowhere else.

In short, to date I don’t see anything other than noise coming from FH Chandler.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 171: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#181 Nov 14, 2012
-

Correct formatting…

From post 171[1]:
Stingo wrote:
Imagine being falsely accused? How would that affect you?


No one wants to be falsely accused, and no one wants children (or anyone else) to suffer harm. And there is the conundrum.

If I understand you correctly, what you suggest of FH Chandler in this discussion is that the notion you write above (in question form) represents the golden morsel underpinning his perspective. If so, you’re wrong. You’re wrong because images of being falsely accused do not tell us how to weigh the problem; it only tells us the weight of one side of the conundrum. Moreover, it tells us nothing new. Everyone already knows that being falsely accused is a horrible thing!

So far as I can tell, FH Chandler is not interested in discussing the problem faced by congregation elders of how to best protect children and innocent adults upon hearing accusations of child molestation in the form of rumor. When presented with the idea of having elders report such rumor to secular authorities for them to investigate he balks at the idea but, when questioned about specifics as to why, he dodges and weaves like a wily coyote. Well guest what? The rumor is already out there, which means reputation is already compromised. So what is his point, that is other than throwing noise? So far all I see is noise coming from FH Chandler.

I’ve known men and women who were falsely accused of child abuse. These folks knew they were innocent and the moment the accusation grew legs in the form of rumor they went to law enforcement themselves to report the matter for investigation. They did this to preserve their reputation in the face of rumor.

I do not pretend to think each person would feel the same way as those adults did, but this discussion is not about how principals to such a rumor would choose to act but rather this discussion is about how a third-party should respond to such a rumor when principals are not going to report on their own volition. So far as I can see there are four options.

1. Tell the target of the rumor what’s you heard. Problem with this option: In effect it lets the fox guard the hen house.

2. Do nothing in reaction to the rumor. Problem with this option: Either an innocent person’s name is left to be ruined or else a child (or children) is in grave potential of harm.

3. Investigate the rumor yourself for remedy. Problem with this option: Unless you’ve been trained for this sort of investigation and remedy then potential for effective result is tenuous and potential is great to make things worse.

4. Give the information to someone trained to investigate the rumor for remedy: Problem with this option: Even the most highly trained resources sometimes screw things up and make a mess of it, with a result of ruining reputations.

When I weigh the conundrum at issue every time the scale points to option 4 above as the best reaction for a third-party congregation elder.

When FH Chandler weighs the options what does he recommend? One of the four above? Something else? What? And important for sake of discussion, why does he support whatever option he recommends, and what are his responses to objections posed toward his view? Answering these questions is where the golden nugget is at, and nowhere else.

In short, to date I don’t see anything other than noise coming from FH Chandler.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 171: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#182 Nov 14, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be overly concerned with Jehovah's Witnesses while ignoring legal statutes that endanger children.
Uh, Captain Obvious, I'm "overly concerned" with Jehovah's Witnesses because it's the congregation in which I, my children, my brothers and sisters children, etc, find sanctuary. I'm not "ignoring legal statutes than endanger children", which is precisely why I've repeatedly said things like: "since when do we as JWs only do what the bare minimum that the law requires". Which is why I've repeatedly rejected the notion that we should be searching every little code and solely governing *our* policies based on what is minimally required by the law. Here, I'll put it in all caps for you: WE ASCRIBE TO A HIGHER LAW, A HIGHER POWER. A FAR GREATER MORAL AND THEOCRATIC CODE AND WE HAVE GREATER CONCERN FOR OUR CHILDREN, AND EVEN THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD, THAN PERHAPS THE LAW DOES IN FACT DICTATE. Do you get that? Therefore, I could give a flying leap if the law has loopholes and statutes that could endanger children,*I* will do everything in my power to protect them, and I will also look for every loophole and provision to protect me in doing so - not the other way around, where I'm looking for every legal way to not get involved or to stay out of it on some flimsy premise that the accused child molester just might come back and sue me. Good grief!

And now, your "legal argument" is about to get flushed down the toilet. Watch, and Topix readers, please take note:
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode...
CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1030-1034
1032. As used in this article, "penitential communication" means a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member's church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications
..stop..if you didn't know, this "penitential communication" is in both definition and practice what is referred to in common terms, as "confession". Can you please direct me and fellow readers to the policies and procedures of JW "confession"? Be careful here ;)

But at any rate, this is Confessor, relating a sin to Clergy in confidence, a sin that he/she has committed.*NOT*, accuser, parent, child, congregation member - accusing another congregation member of the criminal offense of sexual molestation. Please read that back to yourself.

Am going to pull something further out of that first snip:
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware,
Again, where exactly does this apply to the JW congregational judicial committee setting? There are always third parties present. In fact, it's appalling that you try to use this quote, because this very line of reasoning is exactly what has been shot down time and time again by the courts - the JW judicial committee proceeding is decidedly not a "communication made in confidence". This has been ruled over and over by courts, and yet you continue to try and perpetuate an intellectual fraud on this board and others when you know (or darn well should, if you've read *any* of these cases at all) that these communications quite patently do not fall under "penitential communication" as outlined in this code, period.

Stop this lying fraudulent line of reasoning!

New post needed because you are about to get blown out of the water here, so I want it to stand out..

“THEY SEE HIM TROLLIN...”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#183 Nov 14, 2012
acroMOONbat wrote:
FC Chandler's last statement, which is ridiculously reductive in both theory and logical practice, is not supported by the laws of most states now. Period.
My last comment, spoke of responsibility in general, not responsibility under the law.

acroMOONbat: There is no legal hiding spot behind "well, I figured it was the parents responsibility".

Reply: So you think it is "silly" that parents fulfill their actual fiduciary duty to their own children rather than, instead of reporting such an allegation to police, sloughing it off on a third party?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#184 Nov 14, 2012
Continuing on in your horrific misapplication of the bits of law you imagine suit your purpose:
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member's church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.
Do you understand sentence structure, and comma placement? I'll simplify it for you, with emphasis so you get it this time: this law applies to the clergy member who is authorized to hear such communication *AND*,*AND*, according to the tenets (rules) of his church, has a duty to keep those communications secret.
Now: Is there any discipline or tenet incumbent upon the elder or body of elders under either scriptural or WBTS/GB direction, that says elders must keep the allegations of child abuse secret from law enforcement? A step further, even the self-confessions of the child abuser, secret from law enforcement?
Can you point me to it? Wait..no, why, you've outright quoted the WT of Jan 1 1997, which plainly states that "The congregation will not protect him from this" - this being the lawful prosecution and legal consequences of committing the crime of child sexual assault, right? As you say, it is WT policy that we will *not* "keep secret" these sins.
So, sadly for you, and has been ruled many times over by courts due to the reasons of how *MY* religion operates, these communications are *NOT* secret, and they are not protected under your twisted interpretation of the California penal code. This is why I say you have no clue what you are talking about when you run your mouth off about how judicial procedures work, the law, etc - you don't even have an accurate understanding of how the basic thing works.
The funny thing is, neither do the worldly lawyers who the WT has sometimes hired to defend them, and they get tripped up every time and this argument of yours rejected. So you trying to repeat it here is just an outright fraud.
But let's continue on, why not just rip it completely apart, it's fun:
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
1033. Subject to Section 912, a penitent, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege.
An accusation or allegation made to the body of elders is not penitential communication under either the law nor JW tenet. A confession of a child molester is also not penitential communication under either the law or JW tenet. Therefore, the penitent cannot claim the privilege nor do the elders have the privilege to refuse to disclose same. This has been ruled time and time again. Woops (for you lol!)
Going to break your next statement apart into two statements/claims, because I want you to see how absurd your logic is:
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
The language used in Section 1033 indicates the abuser could not be reported to the secular authorities without subjecting an organization to adverse legal consequences.
Nope, no it doesn't, in no way shape or form does it, and the courts have ruled as much. Repeatedly.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
The language used in Section 1033 indicates the abuser could not be excommunicated without subjecting an organization to adverse legal consequences.
Stop, hold up, wait a minute...are you hereby claiming that the accused (or confessed, either way) child molester cannot be excommunicated/disfellowshippe d if they (absurdly) claim "penitential communication privilege"? Ohahahahahahahahhhahahahaaahah ahahahah oh man, I'm sorry, that's a hoot. So now you assert that the law can tell us who we can and can't disfellowship?????? Where do you come up with this stuff?
cont'd I mean, I don't need to but why not lol!!

“THEY SEE HIM TROLLIN...”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#185 Nov 14, 2012
The MarvTower Announces Shilmers Pimpdom wrote:
I asked if investigation by secular authority finds there is no evidence to support rumored child molestation then why on earth would a person’s good name and reputation be jeopardized by investigation from local law enforcement, AND you respond with an incident where secular authorities felt they HAD FOUND EVIDENCE resulting in public trial and prosecution resulting in damaged reputation.
They didn't "find" evidence; they MADE UP evidence!

Egad!

34 of 36 of the individuals prosecuted had their convictions overturned; the other two had the misfortune of dying in prison before their innocence could be revealed!

You are out of touch with reality in a way that defies imagination.

MarvTower Announces: I don’t understand you, FH Chandler.

Reply: Obviously not. I care more about the TRUTH of an allegation, not the severity of it.

MarvTower Announces: I ask for something reasonable and I get what you share above that is nothing near resembling what I asked for. Is my question bad?

Reply: With regard to the incident to which I linked, those people were wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted based on made up "evidence" at the behest of an overzealous prosecutor and in collusion with "law enforcement."

Or, in other words, "law enforcement" investigated a series of false claims that had NO MERIT WHATSOEVER [which, coincidentally, began in the mind of a mentally ill grandparent], resulting in the destruction of the lives and reputations of INNOCENT people - two of which died in prison despite their innocence.

You, personally, may be okay with that, because it was all done in the name of, "protecting" children.

Such is immoral. YOU are immoral.

“THEY SEE HIM TROLLIN...”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#186 Nov 14, 2012
Stingo wrote:
On a side note. I've told FH that I think he's a personal injury lawyer. He never denied it. I'll be crossing the border soon, and making a claim. I'd take him as my lawyer any day
If you asked me this, I don't recall it. I do apologize for that oversight. I am NOT a personal injury lawyer, but if I were I'd be glad to represent you.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#187 Nov 14, 2012
-

From post 176[1]:
Dream-weaver wrote:
CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1030-1034
1032. As used in this article, "penitential communication" means a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware,…


Say what?

1. Are JWs standing accused before a Watchtower style judicial committee informed A WRITTEN REPORT OF RECORD is going to be made of the hearing (and finding) that will be retained in a congregation file and available for future somebodies unknown to them to open and READ?

2. Are JWs standing accused before a Watchtower style judicial committee copied on those WRITTEN REPORTS OF RECORD?

3. Are JWs standing accused before a Watchtower style judicial committee given opportunity to object to any misrepresentation they believe is on those WRITTEN REPORTS OF RECORD?

4. And, finally, are JWs standing accused before a Watchtower style judicial committee informed that A COPY of this WRITTEN REPORT OF RECORD is going to be sent to a central office in upstate New York to be read by persons UNKNOWN to them (not to mention UNKNOWN even to the men to whom they may have confessed to!!!)?

You tell us, Dream-weaver.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 176: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#188 Nov 14, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Under this arrangement, a “penitent”(alleged molester), could prevent another from disclosing a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege. Under this law, a priest, pastor or an elder would have to keep the disclosure between the abuser and himself even if he waived his privilege to confidentiality.
Nope, sorry, I've already thoroughly demonstrated how this is absolutely not true, it defies both the very legal definition you tried to fraudulently claim supported it, it flies in the face of logic, and it directly contradicts Jehovah's Witnesses own theocratic arrangement. Your point has failed, absolutely and miserably.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
This has something to do with why two elders are always in the room when a person confesses to something or why two elders always participate when called to any kind of meeting.
So now it's your assertion that a section of the California Penal Code is responsible for informing the procedures and policies of how judicial committees have been carried out for decades? Good grief you really are a lost sheep.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
With a third person, they won't be bound by Section 1033.
Wait, what? You mean you knew all along that this entire argument doesn't apply to us JWs'? I typed all this out for nothing? What an insane little troll you are. I would be madder, if it weren't for the fact that the worldly lawyers the WT has sometimes hired have tried this same argument and failed miserably too, so it was worth reminding you and the rest of the board that.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Who really enforces a "secrecy policy" in religious institutions as vile defectors allege? The federal government or Jehovah's Witnesses?
So now this is about who protects children less?

Un-be-lievable.

“THEY SEE HIM TROLLIN...”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#189 Nov 14, 2012
The MarvTower Announces Shilmers Pimpdom wrote:
So far as I can tell, FH Chandler is not interested in discussing the problem faced by congregation elders of how to best protect children and innocent adults upon hearing accusations of child molestation...
What discussion do you imagine is necessary on that point?

My position [1] on that matter is as clear as it can possibly be.

Reference:
_____

[1] From: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
I wrote:
They shouldn't even allow themselves to be made an accessory by a dimwitted congregant; at the outset, when they get the "I need to talk to you about a serious matter," speech, they need to say, up front:

"I appreciate your need to speak with me about a serious matter; I feel I should tell you, however, that if you're about to either make an allegation of or confess to a serious criminal offense, you should know that I cannot - and will not - keep that communication secret. I am mandated, legally, to report certain serious criminal offenses - sex crimes, for instance - to the Department of Public Welfare [or comparable agency], to give them personal information about the claimant, the victim and the alleged perpetrator and, in that vein, may be subpenaed to testify in any legal action taken. Additionally, as you're well aware, the investigative process for congregational discipline requires that communications between parties be shared. Since this can cause problems for a criminal investigation, we cannot - and will not - engage in either spiritual counseling for a victim of a crime, nor can we take congregational disciplinary action against a perpetrator until you first take either your allegation or your confession to the proper authorities - which would include both the police and the Department of Public Welfare [or comparable agency]- and there is a proper criminal investigation."

IF the person requesting the sit-down is either an MS or an Elder, then I would add to it:

"You should also be aware that it would be highly improper for an individual who, at the very least, is not free from accusation to serve the congregation as either a Ministerial Servant or Elder; if you wish to confess to a serious crime - a sex crime, for instance - not only are we required by statute to report that confession to the Department of Public Welfare [or comparable agency], but an announcement will also be made to the congregation that, in line with Biblical requirements for servants, you are not presently free from accusation due to possible legal action and, for the sake of propriety, you've temporarily been removed from your position. It will also be made clear that if the matter is resolved in your favor, you will be restored to that position upon conclusion of any criminal investigation and legal action."

That's all they need to do. "Mandatory Reporting" laws don't, in my opinion, do much of anything to actually protect anyone, but they can be a fine tool toward protecting the organization from liability and deflecting the attempts of perpetrators and dimwitted parents from sloughing-off their own duties on "the elders."

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#190 Nov 14, 2012
-

From post 185[1]:
FH Chandler wrote:
They didn't "find" evidence; they MADE UP evidence!
Egad!
34 of 36 of the individuals prosecuted had their convictions overturned; the other two had the misfortune of dying in prison before their innocence could be revealed!
You are out of touch with reality in a way that defies imagination.
MarvTower Announces: I don’t understand you, FH Chandler.
Reply: Obviously not. I care more about the TRUTH of an allegation, not the severity of it.
MarvTower Announces: I ask for something reasonable and I get what you share above that is nothing near resembling what I asked for. Is my question bad?
Reply: With regard to the incident to which I linked, those people were wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted based on made up "evidence" at the behest of an overzealous prosecutor and in collusion with "law enforcement."
Or, in other words, "law enforcement" investigated a series of false claims that had NO MERIT WHATSOEVER [which, coincidentally, began in the mind of a mentally ill grandparent], resulting in the destruction of the lives and reputations of INNOCENT people - two of which died in prison despite their innocence.
You, personally, may be okay with that, because it was all done in the name of, "protecting" children.
Such is immoral. YOU are immoral.


So John Elder (whose secular specialty is carpentry) hears rumor that Bob Publisher has molested a 5-year-old boy when the boy was camping out with the man and his son, and that the boy’s parents are not going to do anything at all about the rumor.

What do YOU recommend that John Elder do in response?

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 185: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#191 Nov 14, 2012
-

From post 189[1]:
FH Chandler wrote:
My position [1] on that matter is as clear as it can possibly be.
Reference:
_____
[1] From: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
Insofar as mandatory reporting jurisdictions are concerned your recommendation is one I completely agree with. But then, that’s not really where the problem lay, given that Watchtower instructs elders to comply with legally mandatory reporting requirements.

The issue arises of what to do in the face of rumored child molestation when the elder faced with the dilemma is NOT in a mandatory reporting jurisdiction. In an instance of this:

So John Elder (whose secular specialty is carpentry) hears rumor that Bob Publisher has molested a 5-year-old boy when the boy was camping out with the man and his son, and that the boy’s parents are not going to do anything at all about the rumor.

What do YOU recommend that John Elder do in response?

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 185:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#192 Nov 14, 2012
Stingo wrote:
<quoted text>
And now we have open dialogue. That is a fantastic point you raised, and I applaud you for it. Chandler and I don't agree on almost anything jw related.
You know what Stingo, I appreciate the moderate approach you take, but I was bit too tired to respond to your post properly. I think you mean well, but you sortof ignore a few glaring points about this character. So I want to talk to your points a bit for a sec:
Stingo wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine being falsely accused? How would that affect you? Do you think that as a jw, who are maligned in the press as it is. Could you get over a false accusation?
I actually have been falsely accused of something before, twice. Not child molestation, that's for sure. But in both cases it was a simple case of mistaken identity. In one case, someone was personally robbed at gunpoint, and in their panicked state they gave a description to the police which I, unfortunately, matched. When I was arrested, it was in public, on my way to work, co-workers saw, and I had to answer to my boss for why I didn't make it in to work that day. Of course, I had to tell him what had happened. You can well imagine the suspicion cast on me when I told my fantastical tale of being jumped on in public by 6 officers, in a case of mistaken identity. There was a definite undercurrent of "oh right, like *that* happens to everyone accused of a crime" (mistaken identity). To top it all off, once the police received confirmation from the victim that there was no way that I could be their assailant, they refused to even write me a note explaining what had gone on or call my employer to confirm that I had been detained. I literally had to depend on my employer believing my word and my word only as to my absence, and I felt compelled to provide evidence to him for months down the road that I wasn't facing any charges in the matter and was no longer a suspect. The police finally helped me in this regard, but there was a period of time where it was just me and my word, and it was agonizingly embarrassing. So I need not imagine anything, I've lived it.

Do you know what saved me? My reputation as one of JWs. My boss knew me to be a person of unimpeachable character, and while however bizarre my story was, he just couldn't find it in his heart to believe that this honest Christian he knew could be a. lying to him about his whereabouts, and b. guilty of robbing someone. He actually went to bat for me at a staff party when the whispers were still floating around that, well, ya know, maybe the guy did *something* cause, ya know, nobody gets arrested for nothing.

I've rambled on a bit there, but I can actually identify with being falsely accused.

But guess what. We're not talking about idle talk on the internet, we're talking about the actual allegation of child molestation made by the child, their parent, and/or an adult the child has confided in. This is not an allegation or accusation that elders have any training, or business, investigating. It just has to be done by persons far more capable and legally responsible, to carry out. It just has to. What happens after that, yes, that's congregational. But the allegation needs to be fleshed out by law enforcement.

Therefore, I find this "good question" of his to be a red herring. It doesn't get to the meat and potatoes, if you will, of the issue. It also paints a picture that there have been numerous cases of JWs falsely accused, the police involved, the persons reputation shattered - and, to top it all off, the person was actually innocent, and turned around and sued the elders or the WT. What? Cmon. Give me one solid example that fits these criteria. I'm not concerned with worldly cases, I mean actual civil suits filed against elders who made a report of child abuse in good faith to law enforcement. Is there even one?

(cont'd)

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#193 Nov 14, 2012
(cont'd to Stingo)
Stingo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm getting it now from Hmmm. She called me and FH both pedophiles, and it was after the fact that I said I couldn't even look at those threads, due to the filth in them. Yet the blanket statement comes on.
I get that, I hear you on the Hmmm thing. But then again, consider the source. Have you noticed that, after correcting that poster a couple of times, I have not since responded to them? I mean, what's the point. Not only are they clearly troubled, all they are clearly trying to do is stir trouble. There is no dialogue, no rational discussion.

So just let it roll off your back. They make no sense, and the accusation is false, so it doesn't stick, you know what I mean? I'm not trying to minimize your feelings, but it is just the internet, and it's not really comparable to the real life issues we're discussing. In my mind, anyways..

But back to your point that FC Chandler raises good questions and why don't I engage them: this morning is a perfect example. Look at this question he tries to bait me with:
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
acroMOONbat: There is no legal hiding spot behind "well, I figured it was the parents responsibility".
Reply: So you think it is "silly" that parents fulfill their actual fiduciary duty to their own children rather than, instead of reporting such an allegation to police, sloughing it off on a third party?
Firstly, he's been bastardizing my name since almost the first moment we engaged. Does that sound like someone who's interested in rational debate?

Secondly, his "reply" clearly indicates he didn't even read the 3 examples I very clearly spelled out yesterday. I'm trying to imagine him being somewhat intelligent and capable of reading and comprehension, and yet he clearly misses - or tries to portray a different slant of what I said - that I called such parents who would abdicate their duties to their own children "idiots" and "dimwits". I've clearly stated that the parents should obviously go to the police! But the problem is, is that many times they did not. They went to the elders first, and the elders tried to "deal with it" at the congregation level. This may have caused some parents to think it need go no further, and this is horribly wrong. Were they wrong for thinking this? Yes! Were they idiots? Yes! Should they be charged with negligence? Yes! But that doesn't change the fact that the elders were aware of these very serious allegations and have a responsibility to follow through to protect not only the victimized child, but other children in the congregation and community.

Now, he knows this is what I mean, yet he still tries to paint me as saying something different.

And it's absurd! I just saw that he reposted his "guidelines" for what he thinks elders should do and say when confronted with allegations, and the incredibly ironic thing is that for the most part I agree with his ideas in principle! Yet, he's got his head so far up his butt on this Conti thing, that he fails to realize that a. this is *not* what elders have done in the past b. it's not what some still do to this day and c. it's *not* the officially sanctioned directive from the GB!

And so, Conti's issues, the case, how much money they'll finally pay out, etc etc ad naseum, is irrelevant in the bigger picture, because at the end of the day all most want is to get to a place where elders are in fact operating along those same principles -*all* of them!

So do you really think the endless trolling and debating of verbage and legal mumble jumble is really all that reasonable, after a while? It's just deflecting from the real issue, one that matters to me as a JW very much!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#194 Nov 14, 2012
And then, finally Stingo..and not to make this into the Acrobat Pity Party, but,

Do you imagine what it is to someone like me who is so passionate about this issue - and for all the right and sincere reasons - to have to listen to a self-avowed apostate, an exJW, a nonJW, and their hangers-on, revile me and accuse *me* of trying to subvert the faith and of being wicked, morally bankrupt, a criminal, a human trafficker etc etc insult after insult? It's just reprehensible.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Are Jehovah Witness being baptize by fire 18 min Supremeliberal 6
Now they want money from the kids!!! 20 min truthsetsfree 61
Close to the end 45 min truthsetsfree 48
Who here has recieved a blood transfusion? (Jun '14) 1 hr Covered 79
Why is the GB member Stephen lett admitting ..? 1 hr Aneirin 321
how bout a subject jws wont discuss? 1 hr doug 37
Who is Nomi? 1 hr Alyson Kate 11
Poll Should women be allowed to serve on the Governbody 4 hr Covered 236
Tell me we are not living in the last days...... 7 hr Matt9969 328
Poll Why are XJW here on this forum ? 13 hr Brother P 73
More from around the web