WT Policy- What needs to change?

by silentlambs 12 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  freeman

  I agree with #1, #2 and #3 are changes that should be made. I’m not sure what changes will be made in the future but I’m absolutely convinced Watch Tower policy will be changed. And in no small measure it will have changed because of you Bill. We know you are not alone in these efforts, there are others working for this change, but you are the front man Bill, and I’m sure you never expected to be, did you? Life is full of surprises.

  Not to get off subject but, isn’t it true that some people are placed in circumstances where they can make a difference, but they never do? And then there are other people that have a willing spirit, but are never afforded the opportunity. And then every once in a while, there is someone like Bill. Bill was given the opportunity to make a difference and he had a willing sprit to do so. I know he will say that the silent lambs themselves deserve the praise and that is true, but they are not the only ones; his sacrifices have not gone unnoticed. I know you didn’t start this thread to get a pat on the back Bill, but I’m giving you one anyway. Keep up the good work.

  Freeman
• 

  Pork Chop

  I'll agree with 2 and 3. I think 1 is taking very general statements and applying them to a very specific situation and there's a certain amount of distortion in that.

  The idea that someone can be charged with slander for going to the police is simply false, I find nothing in the publications that suggests that and in many years as an elder I never heard anything verbally that indicated that was the case. I also never heard of anything like that happening and I've yet to see anyone produce any evidence that it has happened. I accept that individuals may have made such a threat but it is not policy. I don't accept that you have to be 'given' the right to approach the police and I can't find one statement that says you shouldn't approach the police. We know now that Elders have been specifically instructed not to interfere in any way with people going to the police at least as of this year's instructions. So that's clearer for those that it wasn't clear for before. I never have known an Elder that didn't think these matters should go to the police.

  One qualification on the "two witnesses" thing. That doesn't mean two witnesses to the same event, it can mean separate witnesses to separate events. Certainly something that wouldn't work for civil authorities in dealing with criminal acts but it is a Biblical principle and I think it works for discipline within a religion. I think it would be unacceptable to take the word of one individual against another and make the assumption that the accuser is always right. I have personally been involved in cases where there was one accuser and the civil authorities determined that they were lying, and later the individuals admitted they were lying. Two witnesses or one, in every case these matters should go to the civil authorities.

  Given the climate here I'll probably be accused of supporting and defending molesters. That is not the case. I despise such people and would be quite happy to personally execute any of them that I meet.
• 

  Pathofthorns

  I agree with Marvin Shilmer on this one. To make a blanket statement that ALL accusations MUST be reported to the police by elders seems insensitive to the rights of the victim. A victim should be allowed to make that decision for themselves without any reprecussions or discouragement.

  I suspect CONVICTED pedophiles are generally not holding positions of responsibility in the congregation. There is a big difference between CONVICTED and ACCUSED, and it is extremely unlikely at the present time the Society would KNOWINGLY approve any person to a position of responsibility at the present time who is a CONVICTED pedophile.

  If anyone actually KNOWS someone who is a CONVICTED pedophile who PRESENTLY holds a position of responsibility in the organization, then we can easily make a big enough scene to force the Society to revoke those priveleges. What sort of evidence do we have regarding CONVICTED pedophiles PRESENTLY holding positions of oversight?

  I think the only real issue is the third one, where CONVICTED pedophiles should not be allowed to go door to door.

  All persons ACCUSED of criminal charges of this nature, who are under investigation by the police or awaiting trial should have any priveleges TEMPORARILY suspended until they are proven innocent. If they are found guilty, then there should be severe restrictions PERMANENTLY in any environment where there are children.

  The bottom line appears to be that the Society was negligent in the past, but negligent along with the rest of the world when it came to properly dealing with allegations of abuse.

  There still remains room for improvement, and these changes should be made. At the same time, if the WT makes these changes, likely the benefits to victims, or in preventing victims will be minimal.

  As long as these crimes are committed, I think that due to the nature of the crime, society will continue to struggle with how to effectively deal with it.

  I wonder how much of this whole matter is really being used to trash the WT, at the expense of victims of molestation and abuse. It seems the focus is always on the WT with regard to this issue and not enough on helping the victim.

  Path