Is there a Child Molester on the Governing Body?

by TTATTelder 29 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  flipper

  Well, we just don't know for sure- do we ? There was a lot of information that got out about Greenlees , Chitty, and Jaracz while they were alive. That allegedly they had committed child abuse. I've talked to some ex- Bethelites who knew some of the principals involved who informed them of truth regarding some of these accusations. That being said- these GB members are all dead now.

  Although most probably the GB members now have not committed child abuse - that doesn't mean that other higher ups in the JW organization have NOT committed child abuse. WT Society is hiding this Database file for reasons they will not open up about. And if it has 24,000 names on it of pedophiles or people with child abuse crime history- there may be a good chance WT higher ups are on that list. Since the WT Society is remaining arrogant and refusing to hand over court requested child abuse documentation and refusing to even let a current GB member testify - it certainly leads one to believe they are hiding something that would REALLY incriminate them big time. I guess we won't really know until some power higher and more authoritative than the WT Society forces them to cough up this information. Meanwhile, we all wait with baited breath
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  I guess we can speculate all we want on that question and come up with all sorts of biased reasoning. I would think that there is the possibility, these guys say that they abhor it in an official statement to the public but have absolutely no pity for the children harmed by their keeping things hush hush about a person guilty of it. They also believe that they are in charge of God's organization and will do almost any deceptive thing to keep God's organization from getting a black eye.

  Could a person who is a child molester make it all the way to the top of the corporation and become a Governing Body member? Yes I think that's what Greenlees was so I would say the possibility very real. But I'm sure if anyone of these guys ever was for sure he kept it hidden from this Governing Body.

  I guess that's all I can speculate on for what ever good it does?
• 

  baltar447

  It's all very simple. Read this book and you'll understand why. http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909
• 

  Mad Irishman

  Threads that are conjecture or pure wild speculation don’t really move any issues along do they? Maybe a governing body member is really a space alien too? Or a cross-dresser. Or part of Al-Qaeda. I think it would be more healthy to have a discussion about what we know for certain instead of throwing mud against the wall.
• 

  Mad Irishman

  If you put your emotions aside you can see from a legal standpoint what a Pandora's box releasing files about every molestation case that has ever happened in a religion would be. It would open up the religion to even more lawsuits by those who were named--whether the accusation were true or not. Also, in the Conti case her lawyer was on a fishing expedition asking for that list. It wasn't really relative to her case from a legal standpoint. What was relative was what did her local elders do or not do. This wasn't a class action lawsuit.

  Taking the emotion out of it no legal council would tell a company / religion / corporation to release a list of every judicial committee they've ever had in their history. That would cause chaos in that realm and you could never have judicial committees after that at all. So that isn't so unbelievable.

  I think what often gets missed in all of these cases is the tragedy they all are. A person's life was ruined. What really isn't happening is that the perpetrator isn't really paying the cost they should. This is really a legal problem, because just like the two-witness rule the standard of proof in a court of law is very high and you usually need two people who were abused to get a conviction. This happens a lot in rape cases as well when a rape kit isn't taken right away. It's he said against she said and a lot of times the guilty person goes scot free.

  All too often people comment on these issues with a bias eye--which is their right to do. But you have to look at things from all angles to come to a relative, well-balanced truth of things.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  you could never have judicial committees after that at all.

  Yay!

  The WTS use judicial committees as a kangaroo court. They think they are above the law by practicing their own form of twisted judicial proceedings based upon their own twisted way of making 'law'.

  In their judicial hearings, they do not follow standard legal procedures.

  The WTS view their form of 'law' as being legal. It isn't.
• 

  SonoftheTrinity

  They seem to be mostly about protecting their image and the respect due to the Governing Body in the minds of their followers. Why else would Gerrit Lösch refuse to appear in court even if it cost the Organization millions of dollars? The dignity of the office of the Governing Body is priceless to the Organization. Once you have a GB member being chewed out in a court of law by a secular judge on World News, the rank and file will start ignoring the GB and all hell will break loose.
• 

  Mary

  "...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..."
  
  In all honesty, I've never read or heard anything to suggest such a thing. I think a far more likely explanation as to why they don't want to change their Neanderthal policy is because they've always had a very 1950s mentality towards child abuse: don't ask and don't tell, plus they've always been drunk on their own power and no one--especially ex-Witnesses and the media (which of course is being run by Satan) is going to dictate how they run their business religion.
  
  I don't believe that they purposely want children to be molested, but when they had to choose between the welfare of the children and the Organization's reputation, they chose the latter which was of course, a huge mistake and certainly not the moral thing to do.
  
  The quandary they now find themselves is this: If they change the policy due to (worldly) public pressure, then that would certainly give the impression that 'Christ's Brothers' were in the wrong and that is something they will never admit to, no matter what the evidence shows.
  
  It would also put them on the same level as the Catholic Church---that 'false religion' that the WTS has pointed the finger at for decades for doing the exact same thing: protecting pedophiles, and again, that is something they will never concede to. At least the Catholic Church has publically apologized and is trying to make amends. The WTS has simply dug their heals in deeper and are now saying that all these court cases against them are nothing more than "apostate lies".
  
  These guys live in an ivory tower and don't seem to understand that the decades of sweeping scandals under the carpet is over for them. With the advent of the internet, "there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed." If they were smart, they'd do a complete overhaul of this policy, do a public apology and compensate the victims. Their behaviour so far means that I wouldn't want to hang from the end of a rope waiting for this to happen.
  
  
  
• 

  Vidiot

  In Watchtowistan, policies are doctrines, and doctrines are policies.

  Changing one means changing the other, which is unthinkable.

  x

  BTW; historically, those who have previously advocated leniency for certain crimes have often been found guilty of those very crimes.
• 

  konceptual99

  At the risk of being flamed to death, the two witnesses rule is not, in itself, some method for deliberately hiding the existence of paedophiles.

  It's a rule based on the a principle of justice that means an accusation from one person is not sufficient to prove guilt in itself. Even secular authorities end up in one person's word against another in criminal and civil cases. Even in the case of child abuse, the accusation of a child is not usually sufficient to secure a conviction without some kind of "second witness", be that forensic evidence, other witnesses/victims, a confession etc.

  As far as the elders are concerned they are only responsible for whatever spiritual reproof may be needed and for ensuring congregation members are not placed at unnecessary risk.

  So what does the two witness rule really mean?

  The two witness rule does not prevent the reporting of a alleged crime to the police. The WTS claim no one is prevented from doing so. The reality is that the implementation of this is down to the individual case and no one can guarantee that a victim or their family may not know they can do this, get any encouragement to do so, be supporting in the process or feel some social pressure to keep the congregation out of it.

  Mandatory reporting of any accusation would stop this.

  The two witness rule does allow for a clever paedophile to play the system assuming no report to the secular authorities is made.

  Mandatory reporting of any accusation would stop this.

  The two witnesses rule does little to encourage the elders to take proactive action to protect the congregation.Mandatory reporting would (a) allow the authorities to investigate, potentially forming a second witness through forensic evidence and (b) send a clear message to the congregation that caution is required.
  The two witnesses rule does still prevent an individual from being judged by the congregation without sufficient evidence.Mandatory reporting does nothing but reduce the risk for the elders and the WTS. It opens up the opportunity to obtain evidence that forms that all important second witness. It can serve to help protect the congregation without elders having to drop hints to people.
  The issue here is not really the two witness rule. It's the reluctance of the WTS to implement a clear policy of reporting all accusations of abuse to the police that allows some potential for a playing of the internal justice system of the congregation by a smart abuser. It allows elders to be placed at risk of making a mistake that could cost one or more victims their childhood.
  Just implement mandatory reporting and much of this risk goes away.