This is a long thread, however, it shows some of the thinking of the JW's on the Pandelo's and Bill Bowen. I found this on Just Jw's. I have been on vacation and had no news coverage (on a cruise ship in Alaska). I have been catching up all morning.
The poster below named the_Crime_Doctor is a staunch JW supporter.
General : Witnesses on TV
Prev Discussion Next Discussion Send Me E-mail
Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 1 of 12 in Discussion
From: lucie (Original Message) Sent: 13/05/2002 01:08
I live on the east coast and tonight on Channel 9 news there was a story of a family who had been disfellowshipped because of a child abuse case. I am not sure what it was all about but they showed a Kingdom Hall and the family was interviewed.
Did anyone else see this. Does anyone know what they are talking about?
First Previous 2-12 of 12 Next Last
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 2 of 12 in Discussion
From: Robert Sent: 13/05/2002 18:08
Hi lucie ;
I just came across this and I think its what your looking for.-Robert
Jehovah's Witnesses Kick Out Couple
Saturday May 11, 2002 4:50 AM
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) - A woman said Friday she and her husband have been excommunicated from the Jehovah's Witnesses after speaking out against the church's handling of their daughter's allegations of sex abuse by another member.
Barbara and Carl Pandelo, of Belmar, N.J., had been awaiting a decision since Monday, when a judicial committee of the church met in New Jersey to consider ousting them, a practice which the denomination terms disfellowshipping.
``They've just made it official now,'' she said Friday night in a telephone interview.
They are among four Jehovah's Witnesses who were threatened with disfellowship for sowing discord in the faith by speaking out against the church.
One of them, William Bowen, a 44-year-old former church elder from Draffenville, Ky., has complained that child-sex allegations are generally not reported to secular authorities by the Jehovah's Witnesses because of the church's closed nature and insistence on handling problems internally.
Anthony Valenti, an elder in the Pandelos' church, did not immediately return phone calls Friday night.
But J.R. Brown, a spokesman for the denomination, said earlier this week that parents are not punished by the church for going to the police first in cases of child molestation. He said anyone found guilty of molestation by a church judicial committee is removed from all positions of responsibility.
The Pandelos' dispute with the denomination dates to 1988, when their 12-year-old daughter said she was molested by her paternal grandfather, also a member of the faith. The grandfather has returned to the denomination.
Carl and Barbara Pandelo have not been active in the church for some time, she said, but she regrets losing the friends they made.
``To take someone and shun and abandon them is the most psychologically damaging thing you can do,'' Pandelo said.
Barbara Anderson of Normandy, Tenn., has also been summoned to appear before a committee. Anderson has said she learned about the church's handling of abuse cases while working at its headquarters in New York City.
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 3 of 12 in Discussion
From: Ben Sent: 18/05/2002 06:56
There have been several articles all over the country and now abroad as well. There was an AP story in our local paper a few days ago about it. I've even heard that Dateline is doing a piece on this which is tentatively set to air May 28 of this year.
These brothers and sisters have a problem with the way the Society handles cases of alleged child abuse. They want the policy to change.
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 4 of 12 in Discussion
From: the_Crime_Doctor Sent: 18/05/2002 12:15
I'm sure the apostates and opposers are all over this. It is unfortunate that this sort of thing happens in any denomination. But the Witnesses already have a way of dealing with persons who do not belong in the congregation, something the apostates and opposers criticize them for as well. The following link is the soceity's stance on this situation:
http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/2122827332/7163532856.htm
The fact of the matter is, there will always be persons who seek to harm/take advantage of those who are weaker than themsleves.
I do not know if the term "brothers and sisters" applies to all these people (two of them who have been inactive for some time), and they seem to be overly critical of the organization, and thus critical of their "brothers and sisters". Now I am in no way condoning this, but personally I do not see how going on a smear campaign through the media is the best way to handle this situation.
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 5 of 12 in Discussion
From: Ben Sent: 18/05/2002 17:57
** I'm sure the apostates and opposers are all over this.**
I don’t think we should be surprised at that. After all look how we jumped on the Catholic church when they first encountered that problem. We gave them no quarter and I don’t think we have a right to ask quarter of them.
** I do not know if the term "brothers and sisters" applies to all these people (two of them who have been inactive for some time), **
I’m sure they would greatly appreciate your giving them the benefit of the doubt and not judging them. Of course, we could just go ahead and disfellowship the other two and call them all apostates and not have to deal with the problem at all. (smile)
** and they seem to be overly critical of the organization, and thus critical of their "brothers and sisters".**
"Brothers and sisters" have been known to do some terrible things. Simply saying nothing about it does not make it right. Sometimes the only way to get something done is to air it out. I’m sure the Society will vindicate itself in this matter. The truth has nothing to fear from scrutiny.
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 6 of 12 in Discussion
From: Robert Sent: 18/05/2002 20:53
Hi Ben:
What does "no quarter" mean?
Christian Love-Robert
I used to listen to a Led Zeppelin song called" No Quarter", I've never heard that expression used anywhere but that song. And even then I didn"t know what it meant.
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 7 of 12 in Discussion
From: the_Crime_Doctor Sent: 18/05/2002 21:25
"Sometimes the only way to get something done is to air it out"
I agree, but that is only a last resort. This can be done without criticizing their brothers and sisters. Something these people did not do. 1 Cor. 5:12 says we are to judge in the congregation(s) it does not say to critisize as well. I think their comments were unjustified. Furthermore, I do not recall suggesting that we label them apostates, I merely stated "I'm sure the apostates and opposers are all over this". "Judging" some of your comments you have posted in the last while, I assume you know what kind of things these people post/preach/teach/tell others. By the way I am not suggesting you are an apostate. (smile)
``To take someone and shun and abandon them is the most psychologically damaging thing you can do,'' Pandelo said.
This sounds like criticism to me. Not only that but it was an ignorant and selfish comment to make. I would think getting abused by a family member would top this. Obviously these comments were made out of spite. Spite directed to all those who choose to serve Jehovah in the way they do. Disfellow-shipping is done in the best interest of the congregation. If the other two are also causing dissention, and being critical of others, I think DF'ing is the obvious choice to make. Why should the Witnesses be any different than others? Even in the workplace I can not see how taking shots at others via the media would make for a good working environment.
I am well aware of the imperfection of others, including myself. I do not remember suggesting that the matter should be ignored. I merely stated "I do not see how going on a smear campaign through the media is the best way to handle this situation". Comments I still stand by.
Respectfully,
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 8 of 12 in Discussion
From: Ben Sent: 19/05/2002 07:32
** I agree, but that is only a last resort. This can be done without criticizing their brothers and sisters.**
Maybe this is their last resort and if pointing out wrongs and injustices is criticism then so be it. I don’t believe either Jesus or Jehovah would sacrifice right and wrong for the sake of maintaining someone’s reputation.
** By the way I am not suggesting you are an apostate. (smile)**
Well, thanks for small favors. (smile)
** ``To take someone and shun and abandon them is the most psychologically damaging thing you can do,'' Pandelo said. **
That is a true statement, in my opinion. You say it’s criticism and in a way it is. But that does not change the truth of the matter.
** Not only that but it was an ignorant and selfish comment to make. I would think getting abused by a family member would top this. Obviously these comments were made out of spite. Spite directed to all those who choose to serve Jehovah in the way they do.**
You are judging where you have no authority or even sufficient information to do so.
** Why should the Witnesses be any different than others? Even in the workplace I can not see how taking shots at others via the media would make for a good working environment.**
Witnesses ARE different from others in many ways but what, specifically are you talking about? We, as witnesses, take shots at people all the time. Have never read "Watching the Word" in the Awake! ? Articles from the media are reproduced there all the time which are derogatory toward other religions. Now what I am saying is this…one should not condemn another for doing what he, himself, is also doing. Do you see it differently?
** I do not remember suggesting that the matter should be ignored**
How would you suggest it be handled?
** I do not see how going on a smear campaign through the media is the best way to handle this situation**
Please answer me this: Our own criticisms of the Catholic Church, published in our journals and distributed by us door to door about their policy, was that a smear campaign? What about honest hearted Catholics that stood up and protested until they were heard and action was taken? Was that a smear campaign?
If what these people are saying is not true, then that truth will come out. If they are out just to hurt others it will become manifest. But if there is but a tiny grain of truth in what they say and we ignore it…do we not share in the sin? Do you not think it was difficult for Samuel to approach Jehovah’s anointed one and point out his sin? If these people (and I don’t know them at all) are witnesses I know how difficult it is for them to do this.
As an elder I many times had to listen to allegations of wrongdoing against my brothers and sisters. And many was the time when I knew these allegations were not justified. But I felt an obligation for both the accuser and the accused to delve into the matter and find out exactly what happened. Guess what, there were times when I was wrong and there was just cause! I had misjudged the situation AND the person. Justice was served in the end because I saw it through.
It’s not wise to shoot the watchman until AFTER you have established that he has lied! (smile)
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 9 of 12 in Discussion
From: Ben Sent: 19/05/2002 07:46
Hello, Robert:
**What does "no quarter" mean?**
I don’t listen to Led. (smile) But this is an old term that was used on the field of battle mainly. To give quarter meant to extend clemency or mercy to the enemy when he became very vulnerable. To give no quarter is take advantage of the vulnerable state of the enemy and inflict further damage. It was considered proper battlefield etiquette for a knight to give quarter when asked of his opponent on the field of honor. It’s just another one of those delightful terms so rich in tradition and meaning that has slipped back into obscurity.
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 10 of 12 in Discussion
From: the_Crime_Doctor Sent: 19/05/2002 22:49
"That is a true statement, in my opinion. You say it’s criticism and in a way it is.But that does not change the truth of the matter"
It may be damaging psychologically to "shun" someone, but it is FAR less damaging then the abuse their daughter suffered. You seem to forget this "shunning" is Bible based. I did not say the truth of the the matter should be ignored, but these people have been inactive for quite some time, and it is obvious by her words that she harbours some resentment. Resentment towards those who wronged her is justified. But her shots were directed at everyone who would rather have a good relationship with God than the person who was DF'ed. The fact you seem to be defending this puzzles me.
"You are judging where you have no authority or even sufficient information to do so. "
Did you not read the article? It is not difficult to see her intent. She took shots at the witnesses, which includes me. So yes sir, I do have the right to be offended. The fact that I read her comment gives me enough information. This whole topic got rolling when you came to the defense of the "apostates". Printing an article about what happened is a far cry from blowing it all out of proportion, something the apostates and opposers do all the time.
Now I do not know the full story of what happened (although I am sure that you would like to tell me), but I am not dismissing what might have happened. I am taking objection with this woman's comments. This woman took a shot at how the society deals with people who do not belong in the congregation. The society has scriptural foundation. Therefore she is criticizing God's word.
I have not read anything concerning the Catholic Church, so I am not sure how the witnesses reported the situation.
"But if there is but a tiny grain of truth in what they say and we ignore it…do we not share in the sin? "
Once again, I did not suggest that we ignore what happened. Why must you make me repeat myself continually?
Your example of Samuel and how it relates to David is interesting. Are you suggesting that Samuel criticized things David was SUPPOSED to do, just so he could bring David's sin to light? The scriptures tell us "...not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person..." In fact the scripture goes on to mention persons in particular. One of these being a reviler. This woman made a comment that could be construed as REVILING. Which means?
Guess what? I believe you when you say you were wrong.(smile) I apologize, but based on your prior posts I sincerely doubt you are an elder. At least not with the organization in question. But even I can be wrong...Just not right now.
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 11 of 12 in Discussion
From: Ben Sent: 20/05/2002 20:31
Hey, Doc.
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 12 of 12 in Discussion
From: the_Crime_Doctor Sent: 21/05/2002 02:16
Hello again Ben,
I apologize for the bad grammar. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.
You claim you forget little of anything, but I will show how you could not have picked a more improper time for your arrogance.
"That is her issue as I see it"
Funny how later in your novel (smile) you claim:
"I don’t think that article has sufficient information for me to accuse anyone at this point, let alone their intent"
This seems like a contradiction now does it not? But let us continue...
"In what way have I defended apostates? ...Why bring up something and then get upset when someone makes a comment about it?"
If you scroll up to your second post on this topic you will see. Because you seem as though you would like to feign ignorance on the tactics of the apostates, I will tell you what they will do. One site has an abuse guestbook where you can tell your story. Having dealt with apostates before I can tell you their first priority is not always telling the truth. I am sure some add to the guestbook to give the impression that abuse is widespread and could be construed as a ritual in the congregations. Other sites seem to portray a similar theme. Message Boards and chat lines (yes I am aware of the counsel on them) frequently quote from such material with the hope you will condemn the organization on the crimes/sins of a few. In fact one site in particular dedicates themselves to this. They are nice enough to help you for a price by the way. Sadly, more than a few of these stories are possible. The Jehovah's Witnesses are a family oriented organization, and are not immune to having predators in their midst. The opposers who can not prove their viewpoints with scripture constantly recite these situations in the hope you will forget the theology aspect of your discussion.
However, I am getting away from the issue here. Let us continue with your amazing memory. (smile)
"You are in error here. She is taking a shot at how the society dealt with dedicated, baptized witnesses who were, at least at the time, very much in the congregation. "
Perhaps you forgot the article mentioned two things in particular...
One being:
``They've just made it official now,'' she said Friday night in a telephone interview"
And the other:
"Carl and Barbara Pandelo have not been active in the church for some time"
So they were not very much in the congregation my forgetful friend.
Now it appears you are as stubborn as I, and you will let your pride force you to continue this pointless discussion. As much as I like having the last word...This will be my last "few" words with this topic.
Someone in her congregation(her paternal grandfather) harmed her daughter. It was not dealt with properly. She let this get the better of her, became inactive, and was later disfellowshipped for "sowing discord in the faith by speaking out against the church". Now people may want to follow along with what happens next, thank you for showing restraint in limiting other newsgroups to just Dateline by the way, but I personally do not want to hear about matters such as these. Inasmuch as I hope that something like this never happens again it unfortunately most likely will.
The fact of the matter is, this is Satan's system. A local paper has printed several uncomplimentary remarks(about various other unrelated topics) concerning the Jehovah's Witnesses. Living in such a lazy society people are more likely to base their opinions on brief, and possibly slanted articles which may contain some shock value. Correct me if I am wrong (you will no doubt), but apologies by the editor do not make the front page.
I see a common underlying arrogance in your posts and I am sure it is not easy dealing with the likes of us at times. But I would like to thank you for gracing us with your presence nonetheless.(smile)
Respectfully,
