Does the Policy of the Watchtower Create a Safe Haven for Child Molesters?

by listen 149 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  keo15929

  Thanks Gary1914,

  Thing is I know what it's like to be demonized by people who think, no matter what I say, they know my true motives. Have you ever done anything or made statements with a completely innocent motive that others misconstrued and then gossiped about you in public? That's happened to me a number of times and that's why I'm very slow to speak against an individual or an organization when I don't know all of the facts. When I hear stories from people who feel they've been abused in one way or another all I'm hearing is their side. I don't know the other side of the story and I can't find that out, therefore I remain neutral. If you or any other person ever gets implicated in some situation where others feel you have treated them cruely and goes on to blast you in public you will really appreciate people like myself who don't attach too much weight to stories that they personally cannot substantiate.

  Personally I could get on this site and blast my father. There is plenty of reason to. But, no matter what he's done in the past I just don't allow myself to be angry all the time about it. Being angry all the time puts a lot of stress on the body. And, even though he's done some really nasty things I can't deny that he does have some good qualities. I can see a lot of his ways in me but he and I completely disagree on a lot of things and have completely different philosophies on life. Situations in life I have found are hardly ever black and white. Looking at the same exact incident 2 people can have completely different ways of interpreting that incident.

  For example, let's say you take a belt and beat your kids. Some people would think that you are just discusting and evil, others would say you're a good parent trying to teach your child right from wrong. I think both sides could present a pretty good argument. On the other hand, if you put your kid in an oven and bake them for a while there would be a general consensus that you are pretty evil. Maybe that's the extremety that some would compare to how they were treated by the WTS but I don't know enough about the situation to say whether that is true or not.

  You here a person speaking against the WTS and they may say "I was sexually abused by an elder and I brought it to the body of elders at my congregation. The one who abused me denied the allegations and the elders in that congregation did nothing about it. They are just discusting"

  The elders might say "She brought it to our attention that she was sexually abused by a fellow elder but he denied it and since there is no way for us to know whether or not this is true other than to take her word over his, which we believe is against Bible principles, then we could not take any action. If she has humility she will accept this and be patient and wait on Jehovah to straighten things out knowing that if it is true Jehovah will not leave the abuser unpunished."

  See what I'm saying. It is the same incident looked at from 2 very different viewpoints. Because both parties have good reasons to feel the way they do I would not cast judgement at either one.

  Personally I think that if Jehovah were actually leading the congregation he wouldn't allow any abuse in the frist place. If he actually existed I don't think he would allow any people to suffer at all. But, then again, perhaps he does exist and has his reasons but I just don't know them or understand them.

  I just hope people who feel they have been victimized can find some inner peace and not have to live a life suffering because of what others have done to them over which they had no control.

  I don't mind having a good debate but I don't like it when people attack the person instead of the issue.

  If I asked, give me some proof that my dog came to your house and ate your chickens and the other person responds with "Your an idiot. Your too stupid and discusting to admit your dog ate my chickens" then my request for proof has been evaded and I'm not helped at all. Really, out of decency, don't you think it should be our motive to help others see the truth of the matter and not to just want them to die. The only way you can reach someone is by attacking the issue and not the person. Even if I get blasted on this site I think you'll notice that I won't tell that person how evil and discusting they are, I'll just try to help them understand my point of view better. I think everyone on this site has good qualities and good reasons to feel the way they do.
• 

  Odrade

  Keo, your desire to be "fair" is blinding you to the fact that corruption and evil is being tolerated regarding this policy. If your dog had chicken feathers hanging out of his mouth when the neighbor confronted you, would you require that then neighbor produce two individuals that you felt were trustworthy to be eyewitnesses to the actual act of eating his chickens committed by your dog?
• 

  thirdwitness

  Keo makes very good points. If for example you took the word of Vicki Boer before it went to court you would believe that the elders told her she could not go to the police and could not get professional help. The court case showed that this never happened and the judge said that she was wrong.

  Presiding Judge Anne Molloy ruled that the WTS and elders were not at fault and did not contribute to or promote in any way the child abuse that took place. The court said, "There is no foundation on the facts to support an award for punitive damages. Most of the allegations against the defendants have not been established on the facts. The defendants who interacted with the plaintiff did not bear ill will toward her. They accepted the veracity of her account, were sympathetic to her situation and meant her no harm. The claim for punitive damages is dismissed."
  
  As respects her findings as to whether the elders advised Boer not to tell the authorities and not to seek professional help the judge stated very clearly her findings:
  
  The defendants did not instruct the plaintiff not to get medical help. She chose not to seek professional help herself against the advice of the elders and Mr. Mott-Trille. The defendants did not instruct the plaintiff that her father’s abuse should not be reported. On the contrary, the defendants directed Mr. Palmer (the abuser) to report himself to the C.A.S. and then followed up directly to ensure he had done so.
• 

  thirdwitness

  As for the lies of the SilentLambs organization they are documented.

  Silent Lambs or Noisy Goats?Would you like to see more outright lies by the Silent lambs people and their associates? Here are some of their statements. (Lies in italics)
  
  In a letter from the Silentlambs dated August 8, 2001: The organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is a closed society that requires its members to turn inward to the organization with any problems, rather than seek outside help. This practice conflicts with laws requiring the reporting of suspected child abuse.
  
  Outright lie. Anyone associated with JWs knows that help of outside professionals is up to each individual and is not condemned by the WTS and JWs. In fact, in Sara Poisson's own testimony at the trial she admits that she did obtain such outside help for her daughter from professional counselors while still one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
  
  The letter continues: According to church policy, the proof can include two eyewitnesses to each act of abuse. Failure to present such proof can result in the victim being ostracized and shunned by elders and the congregation for false accusations against a member.
  
  Outright lie. Two witnesses to 'each act of abuse' is not a requirement. Two witnesses to the same type of abuse is acceptable. Failure to present such proof does not result in ostracizing or shunning by the congregation for false accusations. Any victim is free to report child abuse to the authorities as they wish regardless of how many witnesses there are to the abuse.
  
  The same letter states: The first lawsuit will be filed in Nashua, N. H., where Jehovah's Witness church member, Paul Berry is alleged to have repeatedly sexually molested his stepdaughter and his daughter, starting when they were three years old. When the girls' mother went to the church elders with her suspicions of abuse, the elders told her she should be a better wife, and to pray more about the situation, ignoring New Hampshire's mandatory child abuse reporting statute. The abuse continued and Berry was ultimately criminally convicted for the abuse of his stepdaughter and was sentenced to 56 years in prison.
  
  Outright and misleading lie. Sara Poisson could not have told the elders about any sexual abuse because in her testimony before the court she tells that she was not aware of sexual abuse until years later.
  
  Leader of Silent Lambs Bill Bowen states, "I felt compelled to resign as pastor of my local congregation in protest of internal policies that shield sex offenders and hurt children. When the church promotes child molesters to positions of leadership and requires them to call at the homes of the unknowing public that is bad policy."
  
  Another outright lie. The policy of JWs is to not allow former child molesters to positions of leadership for the rest of their life. Furthermore former child molesters are not 'required' to call at homes of the unknowing public. But if they choose to do so they must do so in the company of another adult.
  
  SilentLambs attorney Jeff Anderson states: "Child sexual abuse is not tolerated anywhere else. With the onset of the laws protecting children such as neighborhood notification laws and mandatory reporting statutes, the days when child molesters enjoyed a cloak of silence are past, except within the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. This church seems to think they are above the law the rules do not apply to them. This case is simply about making Jehovah's Witnesses understand they have the same rules as everyone else when it comes to protecting our children."
  
  Outright lie. The policy of JWs is that elders should report child abuse in accord with the laws of the land and that 'all' members of the congregation have a responsibility to report child abuse if they are aware of it or if they reasonably believe a child is in danger.
  
  Here is another common apostate, SilentLambs, Robert King lie: The WT lawyers argued in court that neither the WTS nor the elders have a responsibility to protect the children.
  That is not what the WT lawyers argued at all. The truth is this: They argued that the WTS and the elders do not have a 'legal' responsibility to protect the children. They were arguing that they should not be held responsible for children legally speaking. They were not the legal guardians of the children. They were not appointed as trustees over the children. They did not have a common law or fiduciary (trusteeship) responsibility toward the children. The parents have the legal responsibility over their own children, not the WTS or the elders.
  
  And this is only logical and correct. It is common sense. They never argued that they had no responsibility to protect the children at all. In fact, that is not what the case was about. It was about their legal responsibility toward the children. The suit was dismissed by the court because the WTS was correct in their argument.
  
  Can you imagine how apostates would respond if the WTS said that they had a legal trusteeship to the children of Jehovah's Witnesses? Can't you just here them saying, "Now they're trying to control our children. Is it not enough to control the adult members?"
• 

  Gary1914

  JWs do not transfer known child molesters to different parts of the country to continue to serve as elders.

  
  

  
  Okay, now you have just lost me. Are you really so naive as that?

  Let's take just the case of Bethel Elder, Brother Jesus Cano, one of the most respected elders at the Bethel Farm. He is the "fine spiritual man" who was recently arrested after a raid at the Bethel Farm. Although it is not now widely known he is one of the brothers who "many years ago" was a known sexual deviant in his congregation. But because he had convinced the Governing Body that he was repentant, he was allowed to serve in the congregation in a prominent position until he finally became a member of the Bethel Family. He probably wanted to go there because it is primarily a male environment and he could be closest to those who gender he was attracted to.

  So, okay, the Watchtower, has the aboslute, the finest, the best, the first, the number one child molestation policy of any church or organization or temple or synagogue on earth today. SO WHAT? It is only so that they can point to it when critisized and say: Look here. Here is our fine policy. We are not a pedophile paradise.

  But nothing could be farther from the Truth. Because what they say and what they actually do are are miles apart.

  I really feel sorry for you Third, because you really seem to believe that the Watchtower has the best interests of its members at heart.

  Your stance reminds me of Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. It is a myth to this day that Abe freed the slaves because of altruism. When in fact, Abe said himself that he didn't really care anything about the slaves or their freedom. He only did what he did because he felt that it was in the best interests of his administration.

  Abraham Lincoln meet the Governing Body.
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  The same letter states: The first lawsuit will be filed in Nashua, N. H., where Jehovah's Witness church member, Paul Berry is alleged to have repeatedly sexually molested his stepdaughter and his daughter, starting when they were three years old. When the girls' mother went to the church elders with her suspicions of abuse, the elders told her she should be a better wife, and to pray more about the situation, ignoring New Hampshire's mandatory child abuse reporting statute. The abuse continued and Berry was ultimately criminally convicted for the abuse of his stepdaughter and was sentenced to 56 years in prison.
  
  
  Outright and misleading lie. Sara Poisson could not have told the elders about any sexual abuse because in her testimony before the court she tells that she was not aware of sexual abuse until years later.

  Actually 3w, that's not quite right. I have seen the Panorama programme, and in it it is stated that Sarah Poisson was NOT aware of Paul Berry abusing Holly Brewer until some years after he did it. She, the programme goes on to say, suspected that he was abusing Heather Berry, and went to the elders to complain about that. If you don't believe me, why don't you watch the programme yourself? It's still available for viewing on silentlambs.

  You challenged us to read the blog, now I challenge you to watch the Panorama programme. I doubt you'll do it, which would be a pity. You might learn something.
• 

  free2beme

  I have noticed that among former Witnesses, this has been the one topic they seem to gravitate too. Meaning, they seem to place a lot of importance on this issue and seem to think it will one day take down the Watchtower Society. Yet, it seems to be something that only a few Witnesses would know about and in most cases they would not care unless they had a issue that directly related to them. Plus, and this is the most important part, the Society has a response this issue that is typical Watchtower spin doctor format, that any good members would swallow hook line and sinker. This issue has been front and center among apostates for about 7 years now, and for the most part, they are the only ones carrying on the flame. The Witnesses are all but ignoring it now, thinking it is longs since resolved and handled.
• 

  Big Tex

  Your stance reminds me of Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. It is a myth to this day that Abe freed the slaves because of altruism. When in fact, Abe said himself that he didn't really care anything about the slaves or their freedom. He only did what he did because he felt that it was in the best interests of his administration.

  Not to digress, but I'm a huge history buff and I can't help myself.

  Lincoln had wanted to make the Emancipation Proclamation for some time but needed a Union victory to give him the platform to do so. A big reason for his desire to make the Proclamation was to take the War Between the States and transform it from a war over states rights to a war over slavery. He tried, and succeeded in taking the moral high ground.

  The real impact of this was with England and France, who were seriously considering recognizing the Confederate States of America as a legitimate nation. They were interested in doing so for their own national interests. However, Lincoln's Proclamation made the war about slavery, which then made it politically unwise for the two European powers to intervene. They could not do so on the side of a pro-slavery nation, which was considered repugnant by the people and press of both nations.

  The Emancipation Proclation, arguably, was the turning point of the war and may very well have gone a long way to winning the war by keeping England and France out of it.
• 

  Gary1914

  Hi Big Rex. I too love history. I really wish I could have gone to college and studied it. I have many history books, but because of limited time they serve as decorative pieces.

  I enjoyed your post. It was really interesting.
• 

  keo15929

  Odrade,

  I like your comment about the feathers in the mouth. That was funny.

  A witness would say this to you in reply (keep in mind, I'm not saying it) "your desire to find something with which to acuse the WTS is blinding you to the reality that the brothers are handling matters biblically to the best of their ability"

  I will say this, the dog with the feather in his mouth would be equivalent to DNA evidence against a molester. If there is the word of the victom and DNA evidence then their would be a gross injustice on the part of the Elders if they then took no action. But I haven't heard of a case like that.

  Now I'm a nuetral person, so if I here a comment as described above by a witness and then I hear yours, what am I to conclude except that this is a typical case of the same incident viewed from totally different perspectives? It's like this, if you here two people arguing, who's side do you take if both seem to make equally valid points? It's more than just a desire to be fair, I can't help that my sense of reasoning keeps leading me to the same conclusion. To tell you I felt differently would be to lie to you and to myself. That's one of the reasons I got away from the JW's, to quit having to lie to myself.