2017 Watchtower convention: Children must “dress modestly” to avoid sexual assault.

Anyone who types the words “Jehovah’s Witnesses” into google these days will quickly see that many of the search results relate to some form of child abuse, be it a major payout from Watchtower to an abuse survivor, a news story about fresh allegations of Watchtower coverup in this area, or the devastating findings of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse.

This growing scandal, which most recently gained fresh media attention at a cross disciplinary conference of lawyers, journalists, activists and law enforcement organised by the Reveal News organisation, is sadly coming to be the issue by which the Watchtower religion is being defined.

Thus it is no surprise to see that the 2017 Regional Convention has on its Saturday program a talk entitled “Safeguard Your Children From What Is Evil,” quite possibly in response to this growing scandal. The talk presents itself as containing advice to parents on how to protect their children from possible abuse.

Like all the other 2017 convention talks, the outline for this talk has been leaked online, and can be viewed here at the website AvoidJW.org, which hosts an extensive library of Watchtower documents, and of articles that analyse Watchtower news and teachings.

Here at JW Survey we’ve been analysing the outlines, and whilst by and large it appears that the talks will not be as controversial as the infamous 2016 convention (dubbed by this website as The Worst Convention Ever) this talk on child abuse struck us as being extremely problematic, both for what it contains and for what it does not contain.

Not asking for it

The talk begins with some basic but essentially reasonable advice for parents. It acknowledges that often an abuser will be someone the child knows and trusts, cites certain behaviours to look for that might raise red flags, and discusses possible situations in which a child may be at risk of abuse. It then encourages parents to talk to their children about sex frankly and openly, and at an age appropriate level.

 

However, then the outlines states the following (bold is mine);

“Parents ask yourselves; Have I trained my children regarding what are proper displays of affection, the importance of wearing modest clothing, and the need for others to respect their privacy.”

Essentially, this outline is advising children to “dress modestly” to avoid sexual assault. And by doing so, this talk is making a slew of unfortunate implications.

Firstly, the implication is that children who Watchtower might deem to have dressed “immodestly” may bear a degree of responsibility for their own assault, provoking their attacker with seductive attire. Such an attitude is sadly still very common when it comes to the issue of rape;

“Well, did you see what she was wearing? She was asking for it, if we’re honest.”

The simple fact is that no-one is ever asking to be sexually assaulted, no matter what they are wearing. Such an attitude amounts to victim blaming, and can make survivors who often struggle with feelings of guilt after their ordeal feel even worse. It also serves to give sexual predators a sense of justification and inadvertently lessens the culpability that should otherwise quite rightly fall on them like a ton of bricks.

Now, it is awful enough that adult survivors of sexual assault and rape can be treated this way, but to extend this victim blaming mentality to children is reprehensible. It also has the unfortunate side effect of framing children as sexual beings, who can be seductive and appealing if dressed in a certain style, which is clearly not a healthy attitude to be promoting, even inadvertently.

Glaring by omission

The serious policy failings of Watchtower uncovered by the ARC are addressed nowhere in this talk

However, this talk outline is not just reprehensible for what it contains. It is also reprehensible for what it does not contain.

  • Nowhere in this talk are parents instructed to contact the police should their child make an accusation of abuse.
  • Nowhere in this talk are elders instructed to contact the police and co-operate fully with the legal investigation should they be informed of an accusation of abuse.
  • Nowhere in this talks is the audience informed of Watchtower’s actual policies in handling accusations of child sexual abuse.
  • Nowhere in this talk are children assured that elders will assist them and report to the police on their behalf if they secretly confide to those elders that they are being abused.
  • Nowhere in this talk is an admission that elders require two eyewitnesses to an incident of child abuse to take any congregational action.
  • Nowhere in this talk is an admission that elders may be aware of sexual predators in the congregation, but may not be allowed to warn the congregants unless the Branch specifically approves this step.
  • Nowhere in this talk is an admission of the significant and systematic failings found in Watchtower’s policy during the Australian Royal Commission Case Study 29 and 54.
  • Nowhere in this talk is professional physiological help or counselling promoted as an effective recourse for abuse survivors.
  • Nowhere in this talk is an apology to any of the thousands of previous abuse survivors who have been let down by these failings.
  • Nowhere in this talk are JW abuse survivors informed of any compensation scheme available to them if they feel Watchtower has been negligent in handling their accusations of abuse.

Watchtower still doesn’t get it

Essentially, we see here a talk that, on the plus side, contains a small degree of useful information for parents in the basic matter of being aware of potential “danger signs.”

However, this talk also peddles an awful, victim blaming mentality and promotes a “modesty culture” that actually has the side effect of sexualising young children and inadvertently lessening blame on abusers.

Additionally the entire talk is focused on casting this issue firmly into the realm of the parents and family, and stays very far away from any process or responsibility that Watchtower might have once its Elders are informed of an accusation.

And lastly, not once does the talk discuss what happens after abuse has been committed, and the congregation must handle both an abuse survivor and a sexual predator. This ommission is glaring by its absence.

In short, if this talk is any indicator, Watchtower has no intention of responding to the unfolding thunderstorm of scandal in any kind of effective way. As the legal costs mount, and the Watchtower brand becomes increasingly toxic with the general public, one has to wonder how bad the damage will become before Watchtower’s Governing Body understands that its outdated approach to the issue of child abuse has no place in the 21st century.

 Follow me on twitter @covertfade

Follow JW Survey on twitter @jwsurveyorg

Bookmark the permalink.

137 Responses to 2017 Watchtower convention: Children must “dress modestly” to avoid sexual assault.

  1. annoyedbyWT says:

    The talk also implies that child sex abuse is something that happens “in the world, not in the kingdom hall.”, there should at the very least be a note that the congregations are not immune to child sex abuse and all steps to guard children apply within the congregation as well. Since parents can often be the perpetrators of abuse, they have no safeguarding or advice for children who may have nowhere else to go. The have learned absolutely nothing from the lawsuits and government actions against them.

    • Chiafade says:

      You’re right. It’s no different than the officials in Chechnya when asked about their abuse towards homosexuals. They say “there are no homosexuals in Chechnya so how can we be abusing them?”

    • Animity says:

      Excellent article. The elders and watchtower Governing Body should be instructing this victims to report these instances to the police. The US has a website that list sex offenders by the level of their crime. The elders could instruct the congregations to go to the website and search by their towns to see the local offenders.

    • Christian Freedom says:

      Please let me quickly respond… Based on the outline, unless this outline is not complete, but based on this outline, no mention will ever be made of child sexual abuse.

      Maybe it can be mentioned in one or two places, but this outline will simply be presented as it is, the brothers presenting this part of the talk will have no idea as to the problem of child sexual abuse in the organisation and how the talk should properly be delivered.

      If fact! If this talk is meant to help in the case of child sexual abuse currently perplexing the organisation, this outline and the talk does nothing about it.

      In fact, I can boldly say that child sexual abuse will never be mentioned in more than 98% of convention locations by the speakers delivering this talk. They don’t even know this is supposed to address the audience about the issue at stake.

      If fact it is a classical example of the organisation barking the wrong tree.

  2. alanv says:

    If my daughter dressed in a very sexual way, I would certainly have something to say about it. Of course there is no excuse for any child sex abuse, but parents can certainly offer some good advice, about what can help keep their children safer.

    • Chiafade says:

      I suppose you mean your teenage daughter. A 3 year old doesn’t even know what sexy is. The same applies to a 4,5,6,7 year old where it’s the parents that usually dress them. No normal person looks at a child wearing a tank top in a hot summer day and thinks “that little floozy should cover up”.

      It’s an absurd statement made by a group of deluded men detached from reality. What they get from glimpsing at reality is confirmation for their delusion. A confirmation they pass on to their followers whereby they damage the eyesight of them as well.

      • I was thinking the exact same thing. I was molested at 5 and I did not know anything about Sexy what-so-ever. OMG. I was
        a tom boy with short hair and I was always dirty looking cause I played in mud. Really????????? They dont get it.

    • Meredith J says:

      alanv, if your daughter dressed in a sexual way…..do you realise what you are saying? It has been proved that children have absolutely no concept of sex, so why claim she could look sexy by what she wore. Sexy is in the eye of the evil beholder, in other words, pedophiles. The Watchtower is really sick to give out this advice and those who listen to it should realise just how pathetic and disgusting that sounds.

      Covert has brought out excellent points regarding how dangerous this language is, which can affect the victims and the perpetrators. Telling small children about sex is also disgusting. They have no need to know about this. What lame and dangerous advice. Why spoil their childhood to please those who make up the evil rules.? Wake up Witnesses. You are being so deceived to the detriment of your precious families. Don ‘t fall for it.

  3. Phenomenal article, as usual. There are adults right now that were abused as kids who will never reveal their secret to anyone. Due to embarrassment, fear of backlash or just not wanting to ‘deal’ with it. This a group we never hear from.. ‘The Silent Minority’. But, if they are devout JW’s and struggle with feelings of guilt or despair, wondering what they could’ve done to avoid this from happening, what would a talk (like this) do to them? It could make them go deeper and deeper into depression and self-blame.

    With so much talk about ‘light’ and ‘new light’ in the organization, I am truly thankful to you, Covert Fade, and your team for shining SUCH a bright light on this organization which is more concerned about image and self-preservation than caring for children.

  4. Chiafade says:

    Watchtower doesn’t see a problem with it’s disgusting policies. To omit so much from this talk makes that very clear. This could’ve been an opportunity for them to clear the air and show how the exjws “got it all wrong”. That’s the problem. The so called apostates got it all right. It’s​ also not the apostates who are conducting Inquiries into their policies. It’s government agencies. The organization doesn’t want to touch this with a ten foot pole. Lest one mention of such things could lead JW’s to an investigation. It’s deplorable behavior. Highly unethical for a holier than thou religion.

    • Ricardo says:

      @Chiafade,
      Yes, what you say can be clearly seen by WT response. The only positive response by WT so far is the Child Protection Document in Australia, which shows that WT can make changes. Why the GB is so incredibly slow to make any appreciable change is a mystery, but may have to do with what you mention: the holier than thou attitude. The elders and CO’s are conveying a view that the org is pearly white in purity with regard to the way child abuse is dealt with.

      With this attitude, there can be no doubt that more abuse will happen, more court cases will occur, more multi-million dollar compensations will be paid and hopefully the org will go bankrupt. The GB will have so sabotaged the org that the org destroys itself. Maybe it will be seen as Jehovah’s reaction to his reputation being smashed by the org.

    • Christian Freedom says:

      Most JWs have heard about the issue of child sexual abuse into the organisation. But they don’t know the details fully and don’t have interest in it, since it came from ‘apostate sources’.

      The organisation knows this to be so. They carefully crafted the talk not to give much away, especially concerning this same issue. Omitting child sexual abuse is really intentional.

      Just think about this!

      If the word ‘paedophile’ or ‘child sexual abuse’ ever occurred in the outline, what do you think most JWs listening to the talk will think?

      What do you think JWs listening to the talk will conclude if it was contained in the outline that children should be protected even among fellow Witnesses?

      It will simply give credibility to the story of the ‘apostate’. Most will know that really, there exist problem within the organisation and most will likely search more.

      The big org knows exactly what they are doing. Leave them, their judgement from God will come in their own time.

      Don’t forget! They recently posted in their website that they don’t have to respond to accusations, citing examples that will suite them.

      I would really love to see how their judgement will be. But we may not be alive on earth when it happens.

      • Ricardo says:

        @Christian Freedom,
        I think you are right in your conclusions as to why the GB crafted the talk in this way. My goodness, they are too clever for their own good.

        I, too, am waiting to see their judgement. But I don’t think we will have to wait too long. The worldwide decreases are about to happen, brought on even closer because of the ban in Russia. A split must happen soon; a split or a toppling. Just wait for the press to look further into the org and bring out the garbage and scandals and make it embarrassing to be a witness. The org will fall, and we are on the cusp of a very important shameful time for the org.

  5. DavidR says:

    I’m all for ripping on JWs for their lack of protecting children from predators, but in the portion cited in this article I didn’t get an inference to child molestation. They have talked about children dressing modestly throughout the years in varying contexts. Did I miss a link to the full outline where they are attaching this to the cause of sexual assault? I know I’ve heard witnesses make that leap, but it doesn’t show here.

    Again, no love for them at all, but maybe I missed the correlation.

    • jbob says:

      +DavidR – you didn’t miss a thing, DavidR. This article makes a giant leap to conclude that an admonition to dress modestly is blaming the victim; it could also conclude that parents advising children on proper displays of affection and guarding respect of their privacy are also putting blame on parents or children. This is your basic article advising parents to be smart not stupid in letting their children run rampant or attract the wrong kind of attention. What I find amusing is the author screams at us that the Watchtower “still doesn’t get it”. Well, duh–have you read their history of conflict and non-conformance?

      I wonder if the author is looking for the Watchtower to reform its ways, or posting to warn persons interested in being JW to protect their children. Or, existing members of the dangers of letting children roam free.

      What exactly were the intentions, here?

      • Caroline says:

        jbob and DavidR, I think you are missing the point of the article. The point of the article, isn’t what the Society says is wrong but it’s what they are leaving out, that’s wrong.

        Of course, we all know that we can attract the wrong kind of attention by how we let our children dress and none of us want our children to get raped and will take precautions to make sure they are safe. All those things that the Society says is just good common sense but it’s what the Society leaves out, is the problem.

        • DavidR says:

          I get what you are saying, but that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with this particular outline. This just seems like their typical safeguard your children from the evils of Satan’s system garbage they’ve peddled for ages. Making the leap of linking it to them blaming victims of abuse will just take someone who is questioning and put them back on that side of the fence and say see they are just making leaps and manufacturing a problem.

          That is not to say that rank in file witnesses and elders don’t make that connection and try to blame the victim. I’ve experienced that myself and know that it is done. I’m just saying I don’t see that here.

          • Gayle says:

            One of the main problems is that many of the rank and file are not even aware their organization has a sexual abuse problem. They have been told to NEVER read negative things written about JWs. It was a missed opportunity to make members aware these molesters could even be among them.

            It also irritates me the article makes it appear it’s only lil girls who get molested, tell me please how lil boys can dress sexy, but many who are molested in the organization are male.

          • Caroline says:

            David, by the Society not saying it’s a crime, they are putting the “blame” on the victim. They are in effect saying that it’s the parent’s fault for not paying closer attention to what their kids are doing or not watching them close enough and it’s the child’s fault for the way they dress. You need to watch Alexandra James’s videos to see what we are saying here. The Society has always put the onus on the female victim, right from the start. Don’t you remember that if the woman doesn’t scream when she’s being raped, that she will be called into a committee meeting for fornication?

            The Watchtower has had many articles saying that a woman is to die before giving into rape even if threatened with a knife or gun.

            When the Society leaves out from that talk that it’s a crime and should be reported to the police, they are very deliberate in that omission is telling the rank and file NOT to report it to the police.

            The Society will never come right out and say that they discourage anybody from reporting the abuse to the police in writing for the rank and file to see or the magazines that are placed with the public (to protect themselves) but it’s in their Shepherd the Flock book that the elders get.

          • Meredith J says:

            DavidR, I don’t know how long you have been a Witness, but I believe that you need to educate yourself on the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Pedophilia. It is quite an extensive history which the rank and file know nothing about because they have been told that anything negative about the Society is from Satan and should be shunned. Well, that is just plain garbage. TV channels and newspapers have been reporting about this subject for years.

            Watchtower’s policy is to remain silent on the subject. Up until now this has worked for them, but it won’t work forever as God’s will is for it to be exposed as it should be. A good place to become acquainted with JW’s and their problem with pedophilia is at http://www.silentlambs.org where you will learn about how the victims have been treated like silent lambs for many years now, unable to speak for themselves because of a cruel organisation refusing to acknowledge their existence because it puts into question their own existence. Look into it. You will be shocked that you were never told the truth.

        • silentlamb_silent_no_more says:

          No one, and I mean absolutely no one should be afraid of being molested or raped, no matter what their attire.

          Would you say that if a woman was wearing a short skirt, knee high boots and dressed to the nines, that she was “asking for it”?

          Just take a look to see where I am coming from with this. It’s shameful that anyone thinks they can take advantage of anyone.

          This is just classic victim blaming from Watchtower and many of the other uneducated ones in the world. Stop victim blaming!

          • DavidR says:

            After looking at the rest of the leaked outline the context shows it is very clearly outlined as measures parents can take to safeguard their children. Wow.

            And to top it off the rank in file will now assume that anyone who was abused simply weren’t following the direction they’ve been given, which makes my stomach sick. Holy crap. So how are parents of children who’ve been abused supposed to react to this?!

    • Simon says:

      The argument made was weak at best (although I’m a big fan of the fade man) it would be tough making this stick with any jw. However the things mentioned that ARE NOT in the talk is a great bring up and a legit point to bring up when talking to any witness. Overall good job CF

    • Tree says:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwqmWMK7dwtleHNOR2ZiU3lEWHM/view

      Here is a link to the outline you may have missed. It talks of the dangers kids face and steps parents can take to prevent these dangers such as children being dressed modestly.

      And you don’t have to be an apostate to make the connection. This is a rehash of counsel they have been promoting for years.
      The result? Comments such as:
      “Don’t you think her clothes were too tight?”
      From an elder’s wife in referrence to a gawky 14 year old girl who had been molested.

      The implication that a child is complicit in their own molestation or rape is disgusting victim blaming.

      The outline of this talk does nothing to change the prevailing attitude.

      • Kelly Curlee-Horn says:

        Thank you and yes, your’e right. It is victim blaming. It is setting children and their families up to feel guilt and blame if a child is attacked. I can hear the elders counseling the parents of a raped child. Elder:”What could you have done to avoid this situation?” Parent: “We should have made sure our four year old daughter’s underwear weren’t showing when she bent over.” …”We could have put a training bra and baggy a baggy blouse on our ten year old daughter sooner, since she was starting to develop breasts.” NO. It is a CRIME and it’s never, NEVER the child’s fault, nor is it the parents unless they knowingly exposed their child to a SEX OFFENDER. The only reason why a JW would not immediately understand this is because they have been brainwashed to NOT see it.

        • Shibboleth says:

          I was just told by an elder in the congregation that “if a child gets sexually abused, it’s the parents fault for not keeping an eye on them” I almost vomited when he said that.

          • Eyes opened says:

            Hi Shibboleth, ask him if he or another elder has ever organized field service arrangements and assigned a child to a different car group. We all know this happens and we’ve all been taught to cooperate with the arrangement. Some parents will very innocently believe their child is in good hands. If he wants the parents to be responsible then he better never hassle a parent for taking a firm stand where their child is concerned. As a matter of fact a long time ago two elders wanted to speak privately with our 17 year old child and both my husband and myself simultaneously said no. Elders have no authority over another family but being submissive to those taking the lead is so hammered on that parents may feel like their authority is being taken from them. What a mess!

            Regards

    • Kelly Curlee-Horn says:

      It doesn’t take a leap to understand the implications of what they are saying. They are saying that if a child is too affectionate or affectionate in the “wrong” way, the child may attract a sexual predator. They are saying if a child dresses immodestly, the child may attract a sexual predator. How might a child dress that would turn on a non-sexual predator? What about bathing suits? Does wearing a bathing suit at the pool at an assembly invite a sexual predator? I mean, that is clearly the implication. The problem is NOT the child OR the child’s CLOTHING, and it should not even be mentioned, because it certainly DOES imply that the child is INVITING sexual advances from a child molestor. If you’re trying to say that there is no connection between telling parents to dress their children in a modest way and make sure they express “appropriate affection”…with child molesting, you either have a bad agenda or bad reading comprehension. This outline is in speech about protecting their children. What are they protecting them from??? Do you think they’re telling them to bundle them up so they don’t catch cold??? Are they worried the child may suffocate if they get hugged too tightly??? NO. This article is exactly on track. The fact is that the implication is EXACTLY what this article states. They are engaging in victim blaming, and from such an early age. When a child OR adult in the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses are raped, they DO have to have a witness (two witness rule) to substantiate the claim before they will look into it any more. They will question the victim as to details, how they fought the attacker, if they enjoyed any part of it, what acts were committed and whether or not they climaxed. This is SICK SHIT. There is no leap here. Do all JWs abuse children? Certainly not. Do most JWs want to protect their own children? Sure they do. It’s not the members that are the problem. If they were instructed properly to go to the police or child protective services and allow THEM to investigate, as they are properly TRAINED to do, they would be helping the problem. But the fact that they try to handle it in the congregation and discourage police reporting says they care much more about their reputation as a superior people..(After all, they are God’s chosen people!), than they do the safety and welfare of children. In closing, you say that within a talk about protecting children, the comments about dressing modestly are not connected to sex abuse. You are wrong. Anyone can see the attitude of the Organization from this outline toward child sex abuse. They don’t want kids being abused, but they would rather hush it up when it happens, and talks like these are COACHING the families and children of sexual abuse, so that when it DOES happen, they will be more inclined to blame themselves, and not the child rapist.

  6. Zara says:

    and i just got my flashy tube dress outfit for the convention

  7. Caroline says:

    The Watchtower was very deliberate in making those who have been abused and raped feel guilty and responsible about what happened to them so that those people don’t blame the Society for what happened to them and come forward with their stories about how when they reported the abuse to the elders, the elders didn’t listen to them and told them that if they couldn’t prove the abuse with other witnesses, that going to the police or disfellowshipping that person would bring reproach on Jehovah. That is also why nobody is encouraged to seek professional help too because anybody they go to will tell them that it was a crime and they were not responsible.

    The video the Society has with a little girl pushing an adult perb away from her and saying no is so stupid, it’s beyond words.

    There is an amazing conclusion to a series of videos where a former sister confronts her elders and you all have to listen to it. The elders told her that she should be “ashamed” for watching Jackson’s testimony before the Australia Royal Commission 2 years ago.

    Those videos by bridget azaz show that trying to talk to the elders is impossible. I wonder what it takes to break through.

    https://youtu.be/LL4SUfZwvKs

  8. Leesa Hawes says:

    Quote: ‘Child sexual abuse is a crime. Child sexual abuse is when an adult or someone bigger than the child uses his or her authority or power over the child, or takes advantage of the child’s trust and respect, to involve the child in sexual activity. ” Wt is all about male power and is based on sexist,misogynistic assumptions that the males in that cult have been given authority by divine law. And yet they put the onus on a child to self protect when it is 100% the adults responsibly to protect children. And an organisation(a legal entity) like WT should have policies and procedures which clearly outline its legal and moral “duty of care for children”.

  9. Jason D says:

    When I was serving as an MS and overseer of our sound department, I had a young, MTS grad elder say the sisters need to be counciled to not wear dresses that could be too revealing to our “poor brothers” who handle microphones.
    Poor brothers!??
    As if all responsibility rested on the women. I was even then thinking, “why the fuck can’t the guys just control themselves?” It was almost as if the microphone handlers if they saw a little too much flesh or god forbid a nipple would have to run home and commit the unforgivable sin of making a pile of sticky tissues on their bedroom floor.

  10. gumby40 says:

    can you image them telling people: “Don’t google us. ONLY GO TO JW.ORG”. My first question would be why can’t I google you? You must be hiding something. The death spiral is hastening.

  11. Sharon Christensen says:

    Glad to see…not only me is a “Boov”….How did it go now…Can I come out to the “in” now! Gd grief…what does not kill one mks one stronger…and braver…good to see…I am proud of all comming out to the “in” now…not an easy thing to do! Never mind about Apostates giving each other grief…happens right amoung our Dear loved ones…all Hell breaks lucy and no one really knows what hell broke lucy now and why, when and how…like I said…”Chicken livers” anyone? Ever watch show…Chicken little? GB has us all geared to…run like chickens with heads cut off…and believe me…I helped my mother butcher chickens…and yeah…they chop…and we, well not really run, but flip and flop…and they gotcha! Roast beast latter…Bk rm! Or the flock of…shadow passes…they scatter in every direction to their…bunker videos! Not sure which “Song Bk “this is from…;)… But the song goes…When Eve first said to Adam…Honey which outfit do you like…Maple or the fig leaf? Adams response…Honey they both lk nice…But go ask the snake…cuz I like the “shake!”. Very puzzling response…right?…I like Raggin Bone Manz answer…We are only “Human” after all….Go figure! I like how the sister I went to see for Massage therapy….Each body is ….”ART”….Can a person not be like Mr. Bean…And be an “art critic”, without being carried away? GB wants to cover, hide…no tight pants…No cleavers…;). …. When on a diet…what does one crave? They want everyone on diet…so every thing is an obsession…and instead of focusing on how they are foxing a person…the person is sitting there thinkng …I am so very evil…I saw a boob…I wanted to pinch a butt! Heavens folk…go to the assembly….examine the ART!!!!! Yep…I have decided…Ethel costume! Bogiday Bogiday! Wearing skirts to the floor did not protect me from getting molested! So try udder forum! Like My Fashion Designer friend from Slovakia said to the bros…in back rm…her and I….I am badt, I have nice breasts…No! I am not badt, I have nice breasts, I tanking Godt every day I have nice breasts..I feed my childern…they are very smart childern…You know what is badt? Not me showing breasts, cuz Godt giving me…YOU ARE BAD MENZ! You looking and tinking…me badt! Uh uh….I am proud Godt giving me…and I showing…you lookng and tinking bad…YOU bad not me! Hmmm, I think she has a point! Gd day to all…Welcome to the…”in”….

  12. Winston says:

    Hi all. I have a question! I have been inactive for about two years, however I am thinking about attending the meetings again due to family reasons. I would like to know whether there are any implications or restrictions if I start to attend the meetings again. Would I be allowed to go out on ministry and answer up at the meetings? Can anyone help me please!

    • Ricardo says:

      @Winston,
      Those who have been inactive and wish to join in field service again should (sometimes the elders don’t follow these directions), should have a meeting with two elders to discuss what has happened while they were inactive, had they done anything that would disqualify them from preaching. In case there was, depending on the seriousness of the sin, you may not immediately be allowed to preach; you may even be subject to a judicial committee and be privately or publicly disciplined, even disfellowshipped.

      However, there is nothing stopping you attending meetings, unless you have been told you cannot attend a certain hall by the elders.

      By attending meetings you are putting yourself in speaking distance with the elders, who may be wanting to catch up with you for something you have said or done.

      If you’ve been a good boy while you’ve been out, you have nothing to fear. If you’ve been naughty, it may be wise to think again.

    • Ricardo says:

      @Winston,
      I suggest you don’t mention you’ve been making comments on jwsurvey. That will probably lead to trouble.

    • Sarah says:

      Yes you can do all of those things. It depends on the congregation, of course. Some elders will view you with suspicion. Your comments on JWSurvey will get you disfellowshipped.

  13. winston says:

    Thank you Ricardo and Sarah, I haven’t done anything wrong while I have been out. They can view me with suspicion but I don’t care. Who are they! I don’t trust them either. That’s why I came here to seek advice instead of speaking to them. Yes I won’t mention to them that I have been making comments on jwsurvey. That would certainly get me into trouble. I can’t tell them that I want to attend the meetings purely for family reasons. What would be a good excuse? Any suggestion please!.

    .

    • Ricardo says:

      @Winston,
      The usual excuse people give for coming back is the world situation they see. You were distracted by something that needed your attention, but now you see Donald Trump and you feel scared. Like the CO said while he visited us, we are on the brink of a nuclear war. That sounds quite convincing to me: Winston got distracted for a little while, but the threat of a nuclear war has brought him to his senses.

      One friend in the bunch of heretics I mix with recently wanted to return to field service (he had been inactive for 4 years). He turned up at the preaching group, but the elders would not allow him to go preaching; he had to be questioned as to his qualifications to preach. Two elders had an interview with him then and there, and he confessed that he had recently bought some lottery tickets. The elders were very holier than thou, tut tutting and looking down their noses. They decided he couldn’t go preaching for a year and he would not be allowed to answer at the meetings until they gave him the go ahead. The elders must have relented cos they gave him the go ahead after 2 months, but he was only to go out preaching with elders. (I took him out last weekend cos he doesn’t want to work with elders).

      If you haven’t done anything wrong you should be given the clearance straight away to answer and go preaching. But it’s better to attend meetings for a few months before approaching the elders to ask if you are allowed to answer and go door to door. It reassures them of your sincerity if you wait a few months.

      Be sure to tell us how it goes.

      I don’t know how you are going to stand returning to the meetings: all the nonsense at the meetings and surrounded by nodding zombies incapable of real thought. While you are there think of me, Messenger and Whip It, who are in our Kingdom Halls falling asleep to cope with the BS. And think of Messenger’s advice when preaching: If you feel so disgusted with the org that you don’t want to direct anyone to it (because you don’t want them to suffer like we have), then just direct people to the Bible. Preaching Christianity is more important than cult indoctrination.

    • messenger says:

      @WS

      My suggestion is to go to the hall if and when you want, and not to say anything to the elders there except hello. You are not obligated to ask them for anything, or ask their permission to do anything. Also, show up for service, if you wish, without asking for their permission. WS, you have Christ’s permission already. Chances are elders won’t say anything to you about it. Most will probably be glad to have you back, viewing your return as some sort of victory over Satan’s world. My suggestion is to have as little interaction with elders as possible, if and when you return.

      As far as these sexual abuse problems, and the way the Society handles those. Christ stated, “a good tree cannot produce rotten fruit, and a worthless tree cannot produce fine fruit. By their fruits you will recognize these men.” It is therefore impossible, according to Christ, for a rotten organization to produce fine fruit. It cannot (will not) be done. Our organization does not even carry out with Christ’s instructions, written in Matthew chapter 18, for settling serious sins that affect its members. Any Christian organization producing fine fruit would follow Christ words there. Refusing to do so identifies WT for what it is. Christ told us what to look for in others, including so called Christian organizations. WT does not fit that bill for being a good tree. A rotten tree always will produce rotten fruit.

    • Sarah says:

      You could ease back in slowly so they get used to you. It’d be useful for us to have someone else on the inside making comments here. There’s no way I could go back, even the thought of it makes me ill.

      I hold with those who say let the children alone. Let them enjoy their childhood and let adults keep them out of perverts way. The article show that anyone who rapes a woman will salve his conscience by saying she wore tight clothes. As for training kids to be careful how they show affection, whatever are WT up to?

      WT is changing though, folks, albeit slowly. The radio four Sunday discussion read out a comment from WT. They now allow victims to report to police. Previously they discouraged it. Victims had to keep silent about their abuse because if there weren’t two witnesses to the act, spreading the story and thereby warning others, was viewed as slander! Such warped reasoning.

      • Gwen Little says:

        Winston,

        Just say you miss your family. You don’t have to make any explanations than that. It’s none of their business.

        • messenger says:

          He doesn’t have to say that. Nothing need be said to anyone about his return attendance. Whenever I stopped going and returned I was never questioned and never volunteered information about myself. Why place yourself under another’s thumb, unless they are a boss of yours or your god?

      • messenger says:

        “They now allow a victim to report to the police.” Don’t you think that’s a really ridiculous statement you made. They allow? Maybe some of you guys and gals need to get some ba–s. Why would you ever put yourself in a position where someone has to allow you to report crime? Even an indoctrinated JW doesn’t have to be a wimpy Wilbert. We are adults here, right?

        WT has only created more rules over the past hundred years, not less. I see nothing to indicate that pattern will not continue. In the future it may loosen some rules while still creating others. Nevertheless the allowing or not allowing a JW to report a crime is ridiculous. WT is not comprised of total morons, and it is afraid of law suits. For an organization to sanction someone for reporting a criminal offense perpetrated against them or their child is most likely a crime WT is aware of, and also opens the way for a lawsuit. It’s one of the factors that caused WT to lose some past suits, even when elders came up with that silly suggestion to the victims, and it was not WT’s decision.

        • Caroline says:

          messenger, when you say that some of “you guys and gals need to get some ba–s” you are talking to the choir. You and I and most on here commenting have had our own little “armageddon” of one sort or another where we went on the internet to get some kind of help for the armageddon we were going through and we discovered that we weren’t in the “truth” after all and we woke up from our indoctrination finally.

          The Watchtower will go on and on until it gets to the point where the rank and file will have to see that there’s something really wrong with it but they are like I have said before. It’s like putting a frog in cold water and the water gets warmer and warmer and when enough time has gone by, the water is so hot that it kills the frog. Most people in the Society have been killed gradually. They have no more thinking ability and if they did have some thinking ability, they face the ostracism of everybody they have known their entire lives if they leave. That’s the situation. That was me and it was you.

          Up until I faced my own “Armageddon” 3 years ago, I was completely convinced that the Watchtower was run by God and that Armageddon was coming any minute.

          I was depressed every day since I came into the “truth” but I didn’t know what was causing my depression or that I was actually depressed until I left and woke up to the fact that the Watchtower is not only not the “truth” but just a bunch of lies.

          Once we woke up to all the lies, it seems so easy to see what a crock it is but when we were in it, we believed that all the bad stuff was because people are imperfect and we were to forgive all those bad things against us because if we didn’t forgive, then Jehovah wouldn’t forgive us.

          The rules and the talks and the videos have to get to the point where people can’t be afraid to turn to the person next to them and ask them “did you hear that?” “Did you hear what I just heard?”

          I am hoping that enough people sitting in the audience this summer have actually read about what happened Mephibosheth and that something as simple as that can help them to see that if the Governing Body actually write the talks that they give, they don’t know as much about the Bible as the average person sitting in the audience, so how in the world are they supposed to look up to them as “the faithful and discreet slave who is giving them food at the proper time?”

          • Ricardo says:

            @Caroline,
            I get comfort from the amount of own goals the GB is kicking at the moment. The overlapping generation theory has caused a lot of witnesses to wake up, and then with the ARC these waking witnesses went to the internet and found Condace Conti etc and UN association and jwsurvey, which completely knocked them out. And as there is no explanation from the GB or the elders, they had nowhere to go for support, nowhere but out. The GB needs to fear the next stupid thing that comes out of the GB’s mouth rather than the words of anyone else.

            I strongly think that the decreases happening, and the worldwide decrease about to happen, will knock quite a few witnesses about. They only hear wonderful things about how the organization is doing, and when they see numbers decreasing, when all this time we have been told that increasing numbers is a sign of God’s approval, they will start to wonder. And they sure as blazes are not seeing people streaming in from the territory.

            The future is not bright for the org.

          • Caroline says:

            Ricardo you are wrong about them seeing decreases and thinking about getting out because we were always told that the greater number would cool off. It will only make the fully indoctrinated even more determined to stick with the organization until they die.

          • Ricardo says:

            @Caroline,
            The decreases will go on for a while. I should think a whole decade. The zombies will no doubt stay in. But I believe many will wake up. I’m going by what I hear from brothers in the field who are seeing no result and no increase in their local congregation decade after decade. As congregations get dissolved and combined, there is a great lack of morale. I have seen it. There is a great deflation effect. Just see the situation 5 years from now. There will be a great lack of confidence among the brothers compared to now.

          • messenger says:

            @ Caroline

            The WT’s belief about the love of the greater number cooling off (spoken by Jesus) is that the idea is applied to people who are not JWs, those outside the org. WT does not claim it applies to JWs. WT claims the idea does not. I’ve discussed that scrip in talks after getting WT’s understanding of it. That is WT’s belief, unless it has been changed fairly recently. That thought of outsiders’ love cooling off goes back many years in WT teachings, at least 20-30 yrs, probably a lot more.

          • Shibboleth says:

            @messenger…the org teaches that 2Tim 3:1-5 applies to the congregations because the letter by Paul was written to the congregations and the love of the greater number cooling off applies to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Just thought I would add my two cents in here. That is an updated teaching for years now.
            Shalom

          • Caroline says:

            Messenger I always understood “the love of the greater number would cool off” as a warning to Witnesses so they don’t get wrapped up in pleasing themselves and not heeding the “sign” of Jesus’ presence but when people would fall away from the “truth” it was because it was in fulfillment of that scripture and if they were in the “truth” and fell away, then that meant they were living for the pleasures of the world.

            Otherwise, how could those people have loved Jehovah in the first place? I always understood that scripture to apply to former Witnesses at the time of the “end”.

            Can you show me where in the literature that the Society only applied it to the world?

          • messenger says:

            @ Caroline and Shibboleth

            Caroline WT’s opinion on those points are not important enough to me to look up. So sorry. I remember their view on it from giving talks years ago. Also, WT applies 2 Tim 3:1-5 to people outside the congregation more than they apply it to people inside it. They always have as long as I’ve been in. Check out the Truth book. It’s probably commented on there.

            But the Mat 24 scrip vs 12 WT definitely applied to those they consider in the world, not in the org. That point was not brought out often so many might not have known it, but that’s what WT believed, at least 30-40 years ago. If you heard a servant say differently he didn’t know WT’s belief on it.

            Most everything I know about WT is from memory, unless they change something that I read now. Sorry I’m not taking time to look their viewpoints up now so as to quote them. But I have a good memory, and I used to give their talks every week.

          • messenger says:

            @ Caroline

            Here’s a side point commenting on something you said. If you take Jesus’ answers on their face, without adding any interpretation then notice what Jesus actually said would be the sign of his presence. Notice where he actually used the word sign in his answer. It definitely does not proceed what the WT claims is the sign. Christ answered three questions in the order those were given. Destruction of Jerusalem sign was Jerusalem surrounded. But that was not the sign of his presence. He told them later on all people would see the sign of the Son of man after seeing other signs in the heavens.

            What WT claims is the sign of Christ’s presence is probably not that sign. It probably is Christ saying don’t worry those things are not a sign of his imminent arrival. That’s why he linked those events to the previous thought “the end is not yet” with the word “for” (short for therefore,a word similar to because). Luke wrote about wars and disorders. Those disorders could be caused by earthquakes, food shortages, and other things stated by Christ which WT claims is the sign of his presence. Christ didn’t say those were the sign though. Later he used the word sign when talking about signs in heaven and more specifically the sign of the Son of man.

          • Ricardo says:

            @Shibboleth,
            I have heard before that WT applies 2 Tim 3:1-5 to the witness congregations, but on further checking I have found this to be an urban myth, one of those stories which swirl around the congregations but which are fake, like the talking Smurf which got up and walked out of the kingdom hall.

            The last brother I asked about it said, “Check in the Insight book.” Which I did. Volume 2 page 207, second column says: …at that time the conditions described by the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures as marking “the last days” would be in evidence on a large scale among professed Christians.

            Thus, ‘professed Christians’ would mean Christendom’s churches, not ‘God’s people’ the witnesses. I have never seen in the publications witnesses being described as ‘professed Christians’.

            If you have proof to substantiate the statement that the org says 2 Tim 3:1-5 refers to the witness congregations, please share it with me as I have been searching for that statement.

          • Caroline says:

            Ricardo and messenger, I don’t care at all how the Watchtower interprets that the Bible says that at the end times that the love of the greater number would cool off.

            You would have to prove to me that there is a God that is directing the Organization before I would care at all and the Society freely admits that they are not directed by Jehovah. If they were actually directed by any God, then they would not make any mistakes. If they make mistakes and are being directed by any God, then they are clearly not listening to that God simply because they do make mistakes or that God makes mistakes and is not perfect. You can’t have it both ways.

            The Society wins one way or the other if the numbers dwindle. The rank and file will believe that people are stopping serving Jehovah because it’s predicted in the Bible that the love of the greater number would cool off. That is the way the Society will spin it. It doesn’t matter what they have said in the past. That is the way they will spin it.

            If conditions got really good (which is better than it was 100 years ago) then the Society wins by saying “when people are saying peace and security, then that is when the end comes” and to watch out.

            Witnesses are to keep “in expectation” of the day and hour because nobody knows the day or the hour. That is what they are told all the time and so most will grow old and die, waiting for the “end” to come or they will just leave and the rest of the hangers on will think that those who leave are going into the world because they have lost faith in God and only want to please themselves.

          • Shibboleth says:

            @Ricardo
            Thanks for the input.
            No wonder Mexico has such increase every year, the elders here are teaching those urban legends as gospel truth, and yes I actually heard an elder repeat that a smurf ran thru the assembly hall in front of everyone hahaha. I guess they need to embellish it some for the bros and sisters in Central America territory, for they also believe in the “chupa cabra” myth!

      • Meredith J says:

        Oh Sarah, Sarah. You will find out that they never change. I waited for a long time for their attitude to change. You could live till you are a hundred and you would still be waiting for them to change. They never will. They allow these dirty perverts to stay in their organisation and they will never get rid of them till God gets rid of the ones who allow them to exist. Some of the governing body members have been accused of pedophilia too but the rank and file are not supposed to be privy to that sort of information. That stuff has “already been handled”. Remember they have kept all of the information. It could probably read like a dirty book. It all went back to HQ. No, you will wait in vain for them to have a change of heart. It is impossible.

        • Meredith J says:

          I do have to clarify something here after what I wrote. And that is that the members of the governing body who were accused of pedophilia ARE NOT current governing body members. One has passed away and I am not sure about the other one but he was removed from office some time ago. I am not saying that current governing body members are pedophiles. I am sorry for that misunderstanding and will try and be much more specific next time rather than accuse people without evidence. But I believe Jesus Christ would not like me to misguide anyone here. He would probably prefer that I prayed for my enemies rather than vent my feelings at them all the time. Food for thought.

          • Ricardo says:

            @Meredith,
            Did Jesus expose his enemies, the Pharisees who twisted the scriptures and wanted his death? Or did he simply pray for them? See, at this site we are learning from one another. We are gaining knowledge that not only strengthens our resolve, but also gives us ammunition when we approach the CO’s and elders, the modern day Pharisees.

            Jesus and his apostles and disciples exposed wrongdoing in their organizations, Jesus doing so with the Pharisees and also in Revelation with the Christian congregations. Paul even did it with Peter.

            We do not want to follow the pattern of the typical witness who puts loyalty to the organization above loyalty to Jesus.

            Thus, feel free to expose these guys here where you are allowed to without being called negative or bitter. Do it for our benefit. There may be something very important which you say which may resonate with someone reading this.

            Obviously someone else has had a word to you, as noone here has made any comments on your post.

            As the elders say, we are imperfect. We make mistakes. We don’t claim to be inspired. We are fallible.

            So are you, Meredith. But we enjoy your answers, so please don’t hold back. I always find your opinions worth reading.

  14. Honza says:

    Yes, very good your job Covert!

  15. Sam says:

    REally?

  16. Sam says:

    Their statement about teaching your children to dress modestly is not about blaming teh victim, as I see it. Sure, we should all be able to dress as we would like and not be sexually assaulted for it. But it isn’t a perfect world and people are messed up. So messed up, in fact, that adults who are responsible for dressing their children, dress them as though they are little adults, sometimes drawing unwholesome attention to them.
    That said, I don’t think, they are blaming the victim by urging parents to teach them to dress modestly. I think they themselves have also forgotten that it isn’t a perfect world and no matter how we dress, people will try to try to sexually assault us if they have a mind to.
    Still, what harm does a bit of caution do? I wouldn’t go walking through a dark road at night in my short tight dress or lingerie thinking to myself, ‘hey, I have a right to do this without being sexually assaulted.’

    • Caroline says:

      Sam, only a moron would dress a child up in skin tight and very revealing clothes and let them walk down a dark street all alone in a bad neighborhood and not expect to get attacked and molested and maybe killed.

      It’s such useless information that it’s like giving a talk and saying that if you eat too much, you will get fat. Doesn’t everybody already know that?

      It’s what they don’t say, is what is important. You can go to any website on how to prevent child abuse and rape and you will see much better information.

      Why do Witnesses have to sit there for hours and hours to hear such tired, boring and useless information, year after year?

      When they have an opportunity to talk about a subject like that, why not expound on it? The only reason is that they want the Witnesses to feel that when they are molested and raped, that it was somehow their fault and not the fault of another Witness male.

      Do you realize that in Watchtower, if a woman is raped, that her husband can divorce her and she can get disfellowshipped for fornication if she lived to tell about it? She is supposed to die, rather than give up her body to a rapist. The Society even says that when a man rapes a woman, it’s because he can’t help himself because of his passion. You will never ever see where the Society puts the blame on the man. Come back here and tell us even one place in Watchtower literature, where rape and molestation was ever put on the male. I double dare you to do it.

      Watchtower is run by men and that is the reason why.

      You have to think outside the box to figure out why the Society is so vague on how to prevent child abuse and rape.

      • Caroline says:

        Sam I have to take it back about what I said about any articles where the Society puts any blame on men for rape and molestation. What the Society says and has always said is that watching porn, CAN LEAD TO SIN.

        In other words, looking at porn is not a sin. It’s what can happen IF you look at porn.

        You can look in any and all of the Society’s publications and you will not see that looking at porn is a sin. Does anybody think that people who molest and rape does not look at porn first? I don’t think not.

        The Society will talk about porn at almost every assembly and every time they will say that looking at porn CAN lead to sin and when the audience hears that, what they are hearing is it’s okay to look at porn.

        What does that tell the elders when a woman comes to the elders and tells them that she caught her husband looking at porn or a mother who goes to the elders because she knows her son is looking at porn? It tells the elders that the man is not perfect and her feelings are not being heard.

        The elders’ hands are tied because the Society gives a green light to men looking at porn (by not condemning it) and the wife or mother has to live with a person that she feels like she doesn’t even know who is leading a double life and there is nobody in the congregation who would understand what she is going through, except other wives or mothers who she can’t talk to about it since it all has to be kept private.

        These men will look at porn and the thrill gets cheap and they need more and more and the porn gets worse and worse and what once was a fantasy, now becomes real in their minds.

        These men may look at porn that involves children and it can look to those men that those children are enjoying what is happening to them and those men’s minds begin to think that children like being fondled etc. and it will embolden them to think that if they fondle a child, that the child will enjoy it as well. A man doesn’t just one day decide to become a molester. It happens gradually.

        I blame the Society for what has happened to those kids because I have looked at articles on porn going back at least 50 years and I can not find even one article condemning porn and I strongly believe that watching porn can lead to rape and molesting of kids or adults and when people are brought up in a religion that in effect is saying it’s okay with God if they look at it, that is what can happen.

        I am not saying that all people who look at porn are going to commit crimes. What I am saying is that there are certain people who will look at it, that will do it and when it’s drawn to the elder’s attention, they need to be aware of that and also to take into consideration how a wife or a mother feels when she feels that she’s reporting something like that to the elders but those men will never ever know what it feels like to be the wife or mother who has been or is in that situation, simply because they are men and they know the sexual urges that men have because they also have those urges and I would bet that most of those elders and Governing Body members would also look at porn if they knew they could get away with it and will not feel guilty about it because their God Jehovah “understands” and won’t judge them as sinners for doing it, which like I said before, the Society absolutely won’t do.

        • messenger says:

          Don’t know where you get your info from. Seem you’re stretching the meaning of WT statements. WT elders will reprove and I believe possibly DF a JW for viewing porn. The fact that an article states it leads to does not mean WT does not consider the viewing a sin.

          • Caroline says:

            Mi messenger. The Society has always said pornography is bad and an addiction can lead to crimes and has always counseled against it, but I can not find anywhere in their publications where you can be disfellowshiped for it unless the porn is involving more than just one woman and one man or sex between people who are the same sex. If you can find anything like that, I would like to see it.

            All I have ever seen when it comes to porn, is that an addiction can LEAD to sin which carries the thought that watching porn is not a sin.

            I am not condemning porn. I am only going by what the Society considers a sin.

            I believe that almost anybody will look at porn out of curiosity. It’s just human nature.

            What I am saying is that there are some people who will get more and more involved in it and it can get more and more perverse and some will act out on it and it all started with watching or buying pornographic magazines.

            The Society does warn against it but warning against it and disfellowshiping somebody who looks at porn is different. If they disfellowshiped everybody who looked at porn, there probably wouldn’t be anybody left and they know that. I feel that is the reason they won’t disfellowship anybody for doing it and also why make everybody who has ever looked at it like they have committed a gross sin, worthy of disfellowshipping and embarrass them for that when they know full well that almost everybody has looked at porn at one time or another in their life?

            My point is that in the audience, there will be certain ones who will take away from talks where the speaker will say that looking at porn MAY lead to sin, will take away the idea in their head that they have not committed a sin and will look at it with a clean conscience then, thinking that God is not judging them as sinning (since Watchtower doesn’t say it) and some few of them will get deeper into it and the porn will get more and more violent and perverse and those are the ones that will think that children will like getting raped and molested and will carry out those acts on real people.

            Molesters don’t just wake up one day and decide to molest a child or rape a girl or a woman or a young boy. but we have plenty of those people in the organization.

            This is a problem all over the world. The problem with the Society is that they give a green light to porn by implying that it isn’t a sin to look at it and then when somebody commits a crime by raping and molesting another person, they want to keep it quiet to make the rest of the world think that those kind of people aren’t in Jehovah’s “clean” organization and so those people are allowed to roam free in the congregation and in society.

            When I was growing up, there were many magazines and books that glorified raping, believe it or not. It was in women’s magazines and it was considered romantic if a woman was raped because she was just so beautiful and she was to be conquered and women just loved reading those magazines and books. If the man could conquer her over, she loved it. That was in the 50’s and 60’s.

            It has just been within the last 40 years, that society has said that no, it’s wrong to do that to a woman and has said that if the woman says “no” that it’s considered attempted rape, if the man continues and she has to fight him off and rape if he forces himself on her.

            The Society is living in the 40’s and 50’s. They have not woken up to the fact that it’s a crime when a woman or a man or a young girl or a young man says no and the person continues. To the Society, it’s still fornication, even if victim says no. They even think that a young child is supposed to be able to stop being molested by just saying no to their molester.

            The Society will never say that rape and molestation is a crime. They still say it’s a sin and that the person being sinned against can be disfellowshiped for fornication if they didn’t fight back, even if they are being threatened with a knife or a gun. They are to die before giving in to rape and molestation.

            If it’s a married woman, the husband can divorce his wife if she lives through a rape because the committee can say that since she lived through the rape, she “consented” to fornication.

            Where is it in any video or the article from the Society that that child knows enough to know that a crime has been committed against him or her when somebody even tries to touch him or her like that?

            You will never ever see that in any publication or cartoon from the Society.

            The Society is so backwards when it comes to rape and molestation, that it’s almost funny if it wasn’t so tragic.

          • Ricardo says:

            @Messenger,
            From the ‘Shepherd the Flock’ book I just downloaded, it says a reason for disfellowshipping is: An entrenched practice of viewing, perhaps over a considerable period of time, abhorrent forms of pornography that is
            sexually degrading.

            I don’t know if that helps any.

          • Caroline says:

            messenger, I would like to add to Ricardo’s comment, regarding what the Shepherd the Flock book says when it comes to pornography and what would be bad enough to make a person get disfellowshipped for it. This is a direct quote from the Flock book on page 64:

            “An entrenched practice of viewing perhaps for years, abhorrent forms of pornography that is extremely degrading. Such pornography may include sadistic torture, bondage, gang rape, the brutalizing of women, or child pornography. Brazen conduct would be involved if the offender was promoting such material, such as by inviting others to view it thus giving evidence of a brazen attitude. – W06/7/15 pg. 31”

            My words now: If there are only two people living in the home and say the wife has seen that her husband is watching that kind of porn either on tv or on the computer that could get him disfellowshipped and he denies it to the elders, there is nothing the elders will or can do about it.

            She has to have some kind of proof that it’s him looking at the porn and that she isn’t framing her out of spite or whatever so the wife has to either live with that person and put up with it or move out and she has nobody she can tell about why she moved out of the house.

            That is the situation it is like for a lot of women in the Society. There is no way out for her to leave a husband who not only likes to look at any kind of porn, but can’t prove that he likes to look at degrading porn because she can’t prove what she knows her husband is doing, unless he gets nuts enough where he actually molests somebody, maybe his own children who live in his house and what little child is going to come forward to the elders to tell them that “daddy touched me in my private parts” when they don’t even know what private parts are?

            It is only if he is stupid enough to “promote” what he is doing, is the only way he can get disfellowshipped for looking at porn and what idiot is going to be that stupid,

            The Society is an old “boys” club, plain and simple.

          • outandabout says:

            Hi Caroline, yes, I remember when magazines more or less promoted ‘being taken’ as romantic and proof of a woman’s irresistible beauty. I didn’t actually realise the message back then, so thanks for that.
            You’re also right that WT is a boy’s club but as long as they are trying to follow the bible, it will always remain that way because the bible insists that women and children be subservient to men. There’s no way they can deviate from that and that’s why they’re in trouble now. Society moves forward and tries to improve itself while WT remains firmly locked by the bible in an unworkable system that requires measures of hypocrisy and self deceit to make sense of.

          • messenger says:

            @ Caroline I take the position Jesus did towards the hypocrites in his day, when it comes to viewing my way out of any relationship or determining any of other action I decide to take. In other words the elders have nothing to do with it. Neither does WT. “There is no other way out” (for a wife whose husband views pornography) as you suggest is incorrect. The way out is for that woman to assert her own will. If anyone allows themselves to be controlled by another they will be. That’s not what I do. That’s not what Christ did. Christ and I submit to God because it is our choice.

            If a woman decides to submit to WT or the elders like that, it’s her choice. All people have some god, in the sense they follow something. If the elders or the WT is her god, that’s on her. She does not have to go that way. Might there be consequences? Yes. Did Christ and do I suffer consequences? Yes. That’s life. And according to scripture we are expected to suffer those if we choose to follow God-bear our cross or torture stake. Like I said in the past, “choose your own God.” If one chooses WT there will be consequences which are understood by those who choose it, consequences for following, and consequences for not following it (WT).

          • outandabout says:

            Blimey, messenger, you’re saying there MUST be a god somewhere and we must follow it. That’s like asking yourself “who shall I be a slave to?” What sort of childhood did you have? Where did all this guilt come from?

          • Ricardo says:

            @outandabout,
            What does childhood and guilt have to do with it? Messenger gave a very intuitive answer that we all follow some belief, even if that belief is the non-existence of a Creator. But the choices we make have consequences. A non-belief in a Creator will have consequences when that Creator appears to settle accounts and fix things up. Deciding to attend the Catholic church may send a person insane due to monotony and lack of depth of worship. The decision to live as a Christian and attend the Kingdom Hall has the consequence that a person must differentiate Christian teachings from witness teachings, and endure the brutal bullying of leadership who love getting involved in the minutae details of our lives.

            It’s got nothing to do with childhood or guilt. It’s that we all get to choose.

  17. Peter the Digger says:

    I see very young children (e.g. 5) dressed up to the nines, e.g. flouncing around in mini-ballgowns, even in supermarkets, with theor mothers, and think ‘somebody’s raising a spoiled brat’. I see younger teenagers (13-16) who make themselves up like 20 yr old hookers – hair dye, make up, skimpy shorts, the lot, and think, hassled parents, already have a spoiled brat, now the child likely gives so much gyp if she doesn’t get the money for/access to such things, they scream and scream and scream till they get it, parents just give in. AND, I see adults, women 18+, also dressed like hookers, even when married. I also see the otehr extreme of course amongst muslims, women covered up so you can’t see their eyes even. I see all of the1st three both inside and outside the JW cong. I hate both these extremes.

    My point is that it’s sensible advice not to let your young child get in the habit of dressing like a ‘spolied junior hooker’, or mini-ballerina, as by the time they are 14 they may be looking as if 18, sleeping around, getting drunk men into trouble for relations with a minor. That applies to JWs and non JWs, just commonsense.

    My issue with the JWs, as already raised, is what they DO NOT say. Like that the kiddy molesters aren’t just in the world, but within the cong too (as the Bible says, 2 Tim 1-5, men will have no love of goodness (and that must be within the cong as that was addressed to Christians), Like the JWs do not give any financial details, just, what a lovely neat new HQ we have, true, but not saying how much they sold Brooklyn for. (2 Tim also mentions greediness).

    Sadly, it’s much harder to deal with falsehood by omission than it is to refute positively spoken false words. So what the JWs say about not letting your child dress ‘provocatively’ is true, but there’s a darker side they MUST bring out, to protect those children within the cong.

    • Kelly Curlee-Horn says:

      You have an excellent point about what they leave out. As you say, any website or agency that is interested i protecting kids from predators would advise that the parents immediately report the incident/s to the authorities. Why? Because they are actually trained and educated to handle these cases. Joe Blow Elder and his two friends, Brother Mo and Brother Larry are NOT qualified to judge or to give advice. There are judges and therapists for that. Of course, JWs only judge those on the “inside”.

      You also made a point that it’s common sense not to dress a child up like a hooker and that of course is also valid. It IS common sense. In fact there is a thriving child sex slave trade going on that probably does just that. However, it’s also a valid point that the organisation’s focus on the victim and what he/she was wearing is just another way to blame a victim of sexual abuse, no matter what age. The problem is not with the parents or the children, but with the pedophiles and the tolerance for pedophiles in an organisation that teaches kids that Jehovah’s people are trustworthy. Because of this, JW kids tend to trust JW adults and not only trust them, but obey them, because they put a high emphasis on rank, and adults outrank children every time. (Oh unless the child is baptised and the adult is not. Then it’s a grey area.)

      A child can run around naked in front of me all day long and never is it going to enter my mind that I want to have sex with the kid. Children are not sexual beings. Only pedophiles think that way. Sexual contact is only OK when two (or more) adults willingly consent to it. Period.

  18. Hardy says:

    I just read an article online at Newsweek.com. Police are going to kingdom halls during the meetings in Russia, getting names, addresses and personal info from each individual including the kids. Reading it made me want to cry. Those poor kids. Putin is an idiot.

    • Meredith J says:

      When these people realise that they are not being backed up by the governing body, they will realise hopefully that their religion is not what they thought it was. I think they need our prayers. And all of those letters have only made things worse for them, making the government mad. Of course the governing body gave everybody the wrong advice again.

  19. Ocma says:

    The society always tries to put it on the children. Where are the articles addressing the adults, reminding them to keep their hands off children! Remind the adults that they are potentially ruining someone’s life. I truly hate the society.

  20. Jado says:

    A religion which controls humans through their genitals will never fall. It even attacks children easily:
    They say “some youths have engaged in oral or anal sex or mutual masturbation, rationalizing that these acts are not so bad because they think they are technically not “having sex.” Such youths forget—or may choose to ignore—that the Bible word for fornication includes all those practices, wrong conduct for which one might be disfellowshipped. Worse, though, they ignore the need for integrity.” (w08 12/15 p. 9 par. 10; https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/l/r1/lp-e?q=w08+12%2F15+p.+9+par.+10 ).

    They say “The sex drive is a most powerful force.” (w64 3/1 p. 141 par. 13)! If they have discovered how to harness that force, who will fight them and how?

    The Encyclopædia Judaica claims: “Ham’s descendant (Cush) is black skinned as a punishment for Ham’s having had sexual intercourse in the ark.” (g77 10/8 p. 29)!

  21. Jado says:

    Talk No. 23 says “The fatherless” can refer to a youth in a single-parent or in a religiously divided family It can also include youths whose Witness parents are struggling spiritually and those who study and attend the meetings without their parents (yb12 59-61; yb09 52-53)

    The day of vengeance has come. It started in 1914 and continues.

    *** re chap. 22 p. 148 par. 20 The First Woe—Locusts ***
    “They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is Abaddon [meaning “Destruction”], but in Greek he has the name Apollyon [meaning “Destroyer”].” (Revelation 9:11) As “angel of the abyss” and “Destroyer,” Jesus had truly released a plaguing woe on Christendom. But more is to follow!

  22. outandabout says:

    Well, Jado, you certainly do go on at times, but your insistence that sex is central to everything is actually somewhere near the truth. Sex is and needs to be a strong force because our continued existence depends on it. Take a look around and see if you can identify a single living thing on the planet who’s main focus is not to reproduce as much of it’s kind as possible and become dominant wherever possible. If that daddy long legs spider up in the corner there could come down and eat you, it would, and it would eat everything in it’s path if it could and so become dominant. All the spider is interested in is eating, reproducing and surviving for as long as possible. The same goes for every living thing and we’re included in that but we’re unwilling to see it and prefer self-deceit.

    • Jado says:

      I insist on that because the WTS know that very well and have learnt to harness that “libidinal energy” and use it unethically to control their followers genitals. They teach taht even Angels left their father (Jehovah) and visited our beautiful planet to have sex with beautiful women (Genesis 6:2-4; https://12t.co/en/img/homes1.jpg )!

  23. Whip It says:

    Test

  24. Doc Obvious says:

    Another disaster by Watchtower Babble and Tract Society.

  25. Hardy says:

    Hey Watchtower. We do not need any more advice on how not to get raped. We need the people who have been tasked with looking over us to do their job. The governing body act Narcissist as they act like they are never wrong. Maybe they will have to serve jail time before they will listen to the courts. Even then I worry they will be willing to go to jail and nothing will get fixed and everything will stay the way it is. It’s going to take something big to happen before anything will be done.The Large fines don’t seem to work. Losing Money isn’t helping them to find their common sense. Maybe if the Governing body serve jail time maybe that will work?. I hope it will work. I hope. Most of the victims were eight or nine years old. Clothes has nothing to do with it. Rape is rape.

  26. Jado says:

    Losing Money”? Who loses money? They are mocking us. We are the ones paying indirectly through “Donations”! Congolese will pay all the bills. Their God says: “The silver is mine, and the gold is mine.” (See https://wol.jw.org/rw/wol/dsync/r127/lp-yw/r1/lp-e/1102003060 )!

  27. Imgonaburn says:

    I remember an elder counselling me on my daughters mode of dress on a number of occasions. The first time she was aged about 9. She was wearing a long (lower calf/ankle) length slim skirt. To facilitate walking it had a split to the knee on the side. I admit that when she sat down at the kh if she fidgeted there was a chance that you might see a little bit of her leg above her knee. This elder was beside himself at this and told me (not my jw husband!!) that she shouldn’t wear this skirt again because ‘men might look at her (sexually) and it could distract brothers’. I told my husband and we decided that it was ridiculous! I mentioned it to some of my close sister friends and there was lots of eye-rolling and speculation about this elders own sexual proclivities!! Still, I obeyed and she never wore it again because I didn’t want to ‘grieve the Holy Spirit’.
    My daughter got older and blossomed into a beautiful devout modest jw. She was always praised for witnessing to others at school and for being a diligent bible student -an all round ‘good girl’. By the time she reached 14 she was a tall willowy pretty blonde. Reg Aux Pio. This same elder would approach me (not my husband) at regular intervals commenting upon how my daughter shouldn’t wear any fitted clothing, only flowing skirts/dresses no straight skirts or slim skirts. She complied. She wasn’t a spoiled brat. She didn’t dress like a hooker or plaster herself in makeup. She didn’t need to. She loved life! She loved Jehovah whole heartedly. She was always smiling and confidently happy! She attracted attention because she was fun to be around, kind and compassionate. It was impossible to hide that by dumbing down her style of clothing.
    She was NEVER sexually abused! It wasn’t because she dressed modestly. I’d say it was more to do with the fact that if anyone behaved sexually inappropriately towards her she’d have the balls to tell on them or tell them to clear off! God help them if she told me about it! I’d’ve knocked them the FO!
    Elders should be encouraging children to be confident and happy not telling them to hide their light under a bushel. Abusers (imo) would shy away from a confident child and be more attracted to the quieter withdrawn individual.
    They should be publishing articles aimed at adults with improper thoughts! Telling them not to look at children in a sexual way!! Encouraging them to seek professional help and warning them of the consequences against offenders. Namely, jail time, disfellowshipping, reproach upon Jehovah’s name and a damn good beating off their victims parents!! Why should parents and children have to squirm? Can you imagine the effect this sort of instruction has on the pedophiles? It’s telling them it’s not THEIR fault!! Its normalising their sick perverted behaviour by blaming the victim!! If it’s ok for the society to tell homosexuals that their consensual behaviour is a sexual deviance (rolling my eyes) and punishable by death at Armageddon why can’t they do the same to paedophiles and rapists where the sexual activity is non consensual and illegal??!
    Why aren’t the rank and file questioning the reasoning behind this like we did with the elder that had a problem with seeing my 9 year old daughters knees??
    My daughter remains a devout jw. She’s 27 now, married to a jw, new first baby/grandchild. She’s such a good jw she’s shunning me even though I’m not dfd. I haven’t been to a meeting in about 5 years and I’m ‘negative’ when being coerced/pressured into returning to jw religion. I had a Xmas tree last December and an ongoing habit of smoking the occasional cigarette. I’m such an evil force to contend with! Lol

    • Ruthlee says:

      Great points imgonaburn.. As I always say call it rape of a child not abuse or molestation that’s too vague for the dumb jdubs. You made a great point about counselling men in the cong not to look at children in a sexualised way. Call a spade a spade and stop putting the onus on the kid it is the grown man that is the pervert and he needs to be called out on this by using the correct language and not just rambling around the bush. If the society truly believed they represented Jehovah theywould have immediately remedied this sick condition. They know they do not represent god and don’t care for kids anyway so the wicked behaviour will continue until the governments stop them. It is bad and nasty. Cheers Ruthlee

    • sirius says:

      >>>she shouldn’t wear this skirt again because ‘men might look at her (sexually) and it could distract brothers

      Certainly a very sad commentary! Where is the start/start of brothers suddenly being distracted? Hair, exposed neck, make up, eyes, wrists, female form etc? Did this distraction happen initially by the NWT teachings or does the NWT not provide a solution. Shutter to think, the the female should be covered in a burka or the female separated in the KH to another prayer room with a separate entrance. I can not believe JW males (brothers) are so weaken from distraction. Shameful!

      dogstar

    • Doc Obvious says:

      @imgonaburn — I am negative as well. Watchtower calls people who tell the truth negative. These outlines illustrate how asinine the Watchtower leadership really is. This is coming from leadership who declares that tight pants comes from the LGBT community and anyone wearing tight pants should be banned from the ministry. The leadership at Watchtower needs to stop staring at men’s and women’s groin areas. This leadership is a disaster. I wonder when Watchtower will respect the boundaries and privacy’s of their people as a whole.

  28. Jaime says:

    Excellent!
    I would add a seventh picture to the not asking for it image:
    It would be the watchtower image, with the tag line “asking for it”.

  29. Whip It says:

    My previous post didnt work for some reason so will try again, when we raised out kids, daughter & son we were very carefull with them, as we were very well aware of the creeps out their, so have raised 2 normal kids, its not to hard to be aware with your children, & yes i have seen many deviant people in the Borg, i pity the victims, & pray for justice.

  30. Free Thinker says:

    This notion of “Don’t dress up a kid in a ‘sexual’ way to avoid sexual abuse” expands the notion of “if a woman got raped, she was asking for it” to kids. This is plain out wrong, perverted and sick reasoning. Even if a woman dressed up in the “hottest” manner, or lingerie, “hooker” style, or even if she walked around naked – nobody, NOBODY EVERRR has the right to just go ahead, grab her and have his way with her, bec. she is so “hot”. It’s an encroachment on the rights of this woman to fully exercise her freedom of choice as regards her appearance. NOTHING in the entire universe gives anybody the right to presume somebody’s mindset and “needs and wants” just by the outward appearance of this person (unless someone is a perfect mind reader, which no human being is).

    Now, for a grown woman to have sex – there is nothing outlandish about it – but not a kid. As my co-writers already observed, small kids are not sexually inclined, there is nothing sexual about them, and anybody assuming otherwise belongs locked up, never to be let loose again. Anybody mentally linking a small child in ANY way to sex is beyond being sick and perverted – it is pure evil and depravity.

    Hence, this newest JW.Org writing office “teaching” product, this twisted “governing Body” brainchild is highly controversial at best, but I rather deem it stupid, extremely dangerous, hazardous, perilous and horribly unsafe for kids. It completely twists the truth and shifts the responsibility from the (potential) perpetrator to the innocent party – the children. This is something that should be exposed, strongly condemned and opposed. It is as stupid as saying “if a woman got raped, she was asking for it”.

  31. Sharon Christensen says:

    Hmmm….How a child is dressed depends on whether molested or not…For me, a child of maybe three…I sit here and look at the pics to see if perhaps my fault????? Chilly weather, I have on a little knitted hat, a parka, mittens and a pair of woolen socks and mocassins ….The person at that time proceeded to molest me, despite my being fully clothed, did not stop him…infront of his younger brother, in the middle of the yard…his younger brother then numerous times thru out my life, into my early teens, molested me…despite me being fully clothed,modest cuz heaven forbid my Mother would allow my knees to be seen…that would be…asking for it forsure….I am thinking because of the way their Granfather and Uncles were…they were no dbt molested themselves and continued to do the same…When I had a daughter, she hated to have clothing on, loved to be naked…so I figured…Enjoy the freedom…and hey, she was never molested! Go figure! That is why now…to prove a point of absurbity and insanity of their reasonings..JW.orgy…I am seriously considering…protesting naked at one of their assembles…or even on the front porch of Wacky Hill! But me Dear Mother will say…Oh no, you can not do that!!!! NO!!!! That is cyber bullying! Duh!!!! Another thing I could not figure out….Was when My first Husband…Abusive as he was…The Dear Bros. would say…he is treating you badly cuz you no giving him sex..Look at fine Example of the Apostle Paul…when he was persecuted he did not retaliate …I say, Excuse me Bros…did he have sex with his persecutors? I do not think so…Hello? Stupid reasonings, I tell you! These are the men in charge of this stupid and insane orgy! The sooner it fallz the better for all! I best quit for now…do some goat yoga…oh yeah, one more thing…took a quizz to find out if reincarnate should I croak…what will I come back as…answer…Butterfly…no…bird…no…flower…no..Answer…surprize! DUNG BEETLE! Why I asked my crystal bawl? Cuz you are so used to putting up with a life time of…..SHE IT! Go figure. Gd day to all…If the ball bounces your way…do not be afraid to kick it like you never kicked it before! 😉

    • Sarah says:

      Thanks Sharon. So sorry you have been through all that. Your story illustrates the point of Covert’s article. WT needs to stop blaming the women and kids. Caroline is correct too when she ways that WT do not disfellowship for watching porn. You can even be an elder and watch porn, which is what my husband did. And it did lead to adultery. Was that my fault? According to WT, yes.

      Warped thinking is rife.

      Winston, are you still around? I’m a bit worried about your next step. Is it going to raise your family’s hopes on a basis which is not quite correct? Can you keep it going? You know your circs better of course. All the best to everyone

  32. Christian Freedom says:

    Please let me quickly respond… Based on the outline, unless this outline is not complete, but based on this outline, no mention will ever be made of child sexual abuse.

    Maybe it can be mentioned in one or two places, but this outline will simply be presented as it is, the brothers presenting this part of the talk will have no idea as to the problem of child sexual abuse in the organisation and how the talk should properly be delivered.

    If fact! If this talk is meant to help in the case of child sexual abuse currently perplexing the organisation, this outline and the talk does nothing about it.

    If fact it is a classical example of the organisation barking the wrong tree

    • Free Thinker says:

      Oh yeah – but the org is “spirit-directed”. My @ss. And 2 plus 2 equals 5.

    • Meredith J says:

      When people are brainwashed and taught not to think, except to obey, then you are right, much of the content of the information will go right over their heads. Those who are presenting it, well I don’t know about that, but let’s hope, that it backfires and causes many to wake up. If there are any spies on here, they might report back to HQ and change the outline. Let’s hope they don’t.

  33. Sharon Christensen says:

    A few months ago…a cuz of mine facbk messaged my daughter…he never knew or met her…he knew my 2nd husbands Father was dfed for supposed apostasy, he stuck his face in Wt line of sight over many issues inclding the shunning policy, charity status etc….fought his own unjust dfing in Court…Judge ruled…no use mking them reinstate him cuz he would just be Dfed again…going against their shunning policy etc….He like my own Father refused to shun a dfed person. anyways…he started to talk to my daughter…she did not want to, but I said…well he has gone thru a hard time..Be kind…In time he started to WT to her…easy Pioneer time…scrips etc…where the sunset come from and so…I said no worries, I have taught my daughter about…and so has her father and grnfather…I said I still was not going to be a Wt…Bones to pick with them about how they treat people etc…..The pedophile issue came up…right away, he says to me and I have found this is the response of many who are asked about it…YOU(ME) are no dbt guilty of such a thing, and that is why we are accusing the WT of such! Well, all hell broke loose them…I am sick of pussy fting around….I proceeded to give him more than an ear full! What did that get me…well he said that, he should have “done in “me and my younger brother, who himself has been speaking out about all of the disgusting things happening locally and world over as to JW. org…would have been worth it to have to spend time in jail..and would be doing The Family name a favour! Hmmmm…this comes from a relative…JW…devote , so Jw strong that for whatever reason …his own son committed suicide a few months prior…Yeah…happy family…learn how at…JW.orgy…! Funny. since he divorced his 1 wife…married a second one…who,herself had a few childern by…not sure…But gd pioneer sis…first wife, was very young when he married her, blamed her for having sex with her st bro…meanwhile my other brother who visited with them…said that our cuz was always after her for sex, obessed with…he felt sorry for her. But he is gd JW.ogre…Wife one dfed…yep…. Truth and justice…not in Jw.orgy….His son had to shun his own mother! Would that mess with a childs brain?

  34. Doc Obvious says:

    Watchtower’s negative outlook on life is a burden on the publishers. The practice of shunning is extremely negative and causes physical and mental harm to the individual who is victimized by this practice. It causes family breakups, emotional trauma, and psychological and sociological issues. Armageddon where millions of people will be destroyed is another teaching by Watchtower that is entirely negative. People being killed in a pandemic apocalypse is not good news, but bad news. Another instance of negative thinking on Watchtower’s part is their use of religious cult practices that demean people. Calling people on the outside, “worldly people” is a negative connotation and something that Jesus Christ never did while on earth.

    • outandabout says:

      More sense from Doc Obvious.

    • Ricardo says:

      @Doc Obvious,
      Tut, tut, tut. What a bitter person you are.

      (This word ‘bitter’ is especially reserved for those who not only tell the truth but who also then paint the org in a negative way, not focussing on the goodness and positive points of the org. Funny how the org only focusses on the negative points of other religions.)

      Stop telling the truth, Doc. Stop seeing the negative. Return to LaLa land where everything is wonderful. You have obviously been influenced by the apostates, and these ones are always negative. They just want to tear the org down. Not like the lovely elders who are shining lights of righteousness. Who by being so positive have stuffed their heads so far into the sand they won’t understand what has happened when the org falls. But at least they will be left with pleasant thoughts of the rank they reached and the publishers they have bullied.

    • Imgonaburn says:

      Love a bit of ‘negativity’ It’s positively reassuring that leaving the religion was the right thing for me to do.
      How can any jw look forward with joy in their hearts to the mass destruction of the human race??
      As I’ve mentioned previously, I’m being shunned but I’m aware that it doesn’t give me exclusive rights to call myself ‘victim’. My jw family who have chosen to shun me (I’m not dfd) are victims too! I know my son and daughter love me dearly but I consider them to be the greater victims in this whole sorry mess. They are enslaved by the men that make their silly rules! At least, whilst being shunned, I am free!

      • Caroline says:

        Imgonaburn, I agree with you. I feel sorry for myself for being shunned for not being a Witness anymore by my son and most those in my old congregation but the ones I feel the most sorry for are those still being made fools of by the Society.

  35. OntarioNB says:

    An emphasis on children dressing improperly for meetings indicates that there are predators or wannabees in the congregation.I guess it must be that the society attracts bad people who don’t require much temptation to act

    • Ricardo says:

      @OntarioNB,
      It’s not the organization that attracts people, it’s Jehovah who draws people to the org, remember? If we accept that narcassistic reasoning, then it is Jehovah who is attracting people who don’t require much temptation to act. Why does Jehovah want these sort of people in his organization? It must be to test us, the same reason that is given for him allowing the bad elders. So blame God. (Please take all of this as an example of bringing out the ridiculous, not as my serious thoughts.)

  36. Winston says:

    Guys thank you for your suggestions.

  37. messenger says:

    @ Big B

    Hope you’re in good health brother.

    messenger

  38. Jado says:

    Modern-Day “Moab” Perishes
    13 Today there is a worldwide organization similar to ancient Moab. It is Christendom, the principal part of “Babylon the Great.” (ip-1 chap. 15 p. 194)!

    The day of vengeance started in 1914.

  39. HolyConnoli says:

    @jado? Is it the overlapping 1914 or the literal 1914?
    WT is subject to change at any time and any moment whenever they have “New Light”
    revealed to them by whoever they claim is revealing it.If we had to depend on the WT for any accuracy on anything we would be in BIG TROUBLE. I guess that is why the WT is in BIG trouble.

Leave a Reply