Is there a Child Molester on the Governing Body?

by TTATTelder 29 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • TTATTelder

    Great report by ABC on the abuses in jw-dot-org land.... I hope it opens a "floodgate" of future news reports and exposés.

    If you ask yourself, "Why hasn't the watchtower leadership changed their policy on the 2 witness rule?", here is the simplest explanation in my opinion: There are molesters in the leadership of the organization, namely the GB. If one or more persons on the GB has victims out there that can't come forward because of the 2 witness rule, then that would explain the permanent road block to policy change that is obviously in place.

    Given the pompous, delusional, power-tripped state of mind of a governing body member, it isn't a huge leap to think they would take liberties with an underage boy or girl and feel they are entitled.

    Any normal, rational, caring person wants to protect the children of their group and would craft rules and regulations for that protection.

    I don't even buy their whole "we would get sued by the pedophile" excuse. It's all about covering up for self-serving reasons. Yes it protects the PR image of the organization, but I think the cover-up goes much deeper than that.

    It's just an opinion and I know I'm not the first to postulate it, but it deserves mentioning.

    Often the simplest explanation is the right one.

    What do you think?


  • campaign of hate
    campaign of hate

    I think you might be spot on.

    Can you imagine the fallout if it got uncovered?!

  • OneEyedJoe

    Personally, I think it's probably something not worth speculating on unless there's some evidence. This is almost like accusing the pope of child abuse because of the issues with the CC. Not sure if it gets anyone anywhere.

    Authoritarian organizations seem to frequently have problems with child abuse scandal, but I think it might be pushing it to say it always comes from the top. Suggesting that the GB has one or more molesters on it is a bit sensationalist for me, and without evidence beyond the cult's myopic strategy to protect itself, I fear that a bunch of speculation does nothing for us, and could potentially turn away people who are looking for answers to their doubts about the cult.

    Sorry. I don't mean to rant. I'm having a weird day.

  • Simon

    This is simply sensationalist nonsense and you risk exposing yourself to libel claims by making it. Yes - YOU are legally responsible for what you post online.

    Many organizations took time to properly implement better practices to protect children whether that is the Catholic Church, Scouts, the BBC, Schools or whoever.

    The JWs have their own particular quirks and beliefs that contribute to making their handling of incidents very poor but it doesn't follow that any organization that has some incident of members who are abusive means it goes all the way to the top. That's just simplistic beyond belief.

    This sort of "mud slinging" attempt to make a group look bad simply undermines the work people do. There are enough genuine facts to focus on that we don't need to make crap up.

  • Oubliette

    Interesting thought ...

  • undercover

    Google Ewart Chitty and Leo Greenlees

    The rumors about those two can't be substantiated, but if true you can rest assured that if there was ever another current member to be accused or found out to be an abuser, the public, and especially the JW followers, would never, ever hear of it.

  • TTATTelder


    I see your point and it's a good one.

    The two witness rule for child molestation just seems like a "hide-behind-scripture" rule to protect pedophiles. So it invites speculation as to why anybody would protect pedophiles ever...

    Hope your day gets better...


  • OneEyedJoe

    The two witness rule for child molestation just seems like a "hide-behind-scripture" rule to protect pedophiles. So it invites speculation as to why anybody would protect pedophiles ever...

    I'll continue my skepticism - looking at JW doctrine and judicial procedures, I think it's impossible in most cases to work out which ones came from misapplication of scripture and which ones came out of someone's ass and they then proceeded to misapply scripture to support it.

    They're making stuff up as they go along, and it's difficult to tell if they get stuff wrong because it suits them, or if they're just getting stuff wrong because they're stupid. Sometimes it's obvious when they're shaping doctrine to suit their selfish goals, but in this case I don't think we have enough information. Furthermore, the policies that endanger children today were instituted before any of the current GB members were in power, so if this all came about because of a molester, they're dead now. It seems most likely to me that the current GB just doesn't want to be seen as capitulating to their critics.

    Thanks for your well-wishes.

  • JWdaughter
    I think that these guys are in love with their power. They don't need to be abusers (physically) to put the borg ahead of human beings, especially children. They are serving self interests that rest with all the elite in the organization. They have a sugar daddy for the rest of their lives that is taking care of all their needs and giving them a beautiful place to live and travel, besides. They aren't going to mess with that!
  • _Morpheus

    is it "possible"? of course its possible. wirhlut being overly sarcastic there are a great many things that are possible, but not likely.

    you referanced an occam's razor, the simplest answer being the most likely. the simplest answer is that the gb are old men with power, beholden to the idea that they represent the one true god and the standard set is the right one. they also may fear changing policy now would would be to admitt they were wrong before and thus expose them to liablity. those seem to be the most basic, logical reasons rather some secret fear of being exposed via a rule change they can prevent.

    that is not to say i think its impossible one of them could be a pedophile. they are human and its certainly possible. it just dosent seem the most likely explanation for their reluctance to modify church policy.

Share this