Anyone heard of Watchtower policy change concerning pedophiles

by Robert_V_Frazier 203 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    The '2 witness rule' is definitely contained in the Bible...

    Deuteronomy 19 (The Message)

    15 You cannot convict anyone of a crime or sin on the word of one witness. You need two or three witnesses to make a case.

    Leaving aside that this scripture does not specifically mention child abuse, please help me understand your thoughts.

    How do you reconcile this scripture as applying to child abuse when with the provision of an adult woman raped in a field does not have to provide 2 or 3 witnesses? Why would Jehovah God make such a specific provision for an adult woman and not for a child?

    How do you reconcile this scripture as applying to child abuse with the provison of the cities of refuge? One could accidently murder another and then flee to the city of refuge. No word is mentioned of eyewitnesses. Why would Jehovah make such a specific provision and not for a child?

    1 Timothy 5:19 (The Message)

    19 Don't listen to a complaint against a leader that isn't backed up by two or three responsible witnesses.

    John 8:17 (Amplified Bible)

    17 In your [own] Law it is written that the testimony (evidence) of two persons is reliable and valid.

    Again, the scriptures you quote do not mention child abuse. Forgive me, I am looking for a specific scripture that says two witnesses are required for a child to prove they were raped. There is a reason I say this, as Jehovah's Witnesses do not apply the two witness rule evenly. I'm curious why Jehovah's Witnesses apply this rule to child abuse as opposed to say, murder? If someone stepped forward to accuse Brother X of murder, would the elders not report the accusation to the police? Would they demand the accuser, the one who saw the murder, present 2 eyewitnesses to prove it?

    Logistically speaking, how exactly would a child present 2 or 3 witnesses to make their case? We know now that the vast majority of child abuse takes place by someone the child knows, usually a family member. How is it possible for there to be any witnesses, much less eyewitnesses? I mean no disrespect, but rapes do not happen in a stadium with 70,000 cheering people.

    Elders, often are not equipped, to fully deal with this insidious crime that is degrading the fabric of humanity.

    I'm comfortable with our imperfect 2 witness policy for now. I'm am not comfortable with how some Elders Gone Wild hide behind this policy,so as not to get their hands dirty in the messy business of protecting the flock from wolves in sheeps clothing. Some Elders, who I personally know handle the 2 witness rule wonderfully. Others do not.

    All the more reason, if Jehovah's Witnesses were truly sincere, then immediately announce a change and instruct elders any accusation of child abuse should be reported to the police immediately irregardless of whether they were legally required to do so.

    It is difficult for me to believe Jesus, or John, or Paul or any other apostle would look a child in the face and turn a blind eye and refuse to help simply because they were not legally required to do so.

    (So victims, go to the police 1st. Get a conviction from Caesar. Then bring that to the Elders as your "strong circumstantial evidence". If that doesn't get them df'd then at least they will be tagged and bagged for the entire congregation to see.)

    Outstanding advice and thank you for saying so. I am forced to ask, however, if Jehovah's Witnesses were sincere, why not instruct elders everywhere to do just that? Wouldn't it be less hassle, less painful, for the elders to step back, wait on Ceasar to render its verdict and then if they feel it necessary to protect the congregation, decide after the conviction (if it happens that way) to disfellowship the offender? Wouldn't that make much more sense than the current arrangement?

    Wouldn't it also be more logical for Jehovah's Witnesses to mandate elders to do what they are, supposedly, equipped to do and that is to address very real spiritual damage that sexual abuse causes? When a child first learns the concept of god, they picture their daddy floating in the sky (or something similar). When a child first learns the concept of prayer, many times they think of it like making a wish to a genie and ask for a toy or candy. When god does not answer that prayer, it is a learning tool for the child. When a child of abuse makes that same prayer, there is only one thing they ask for. And when god ignores that prayer and the rapes continue -- the child experiences a cold, uncaring side of god.

    Isn't this the proper function of elders in sexual abuse? Isn't addressing spiritual needs such as this the very thing elders could actually make a positive contribution? Instead of acting like ignorant, ill-equipped, hostile policemen, why not use the Bible to help, instead of to hurt? And why don't Jehovah's Witnesses mandate this instead of coming out with illogical rules that are not based in any way shape or form on a message from a loving god?

    20 years ago a circuit overseer sat in my living room and told me he would see to it personally that I was disfellowshipped unless I "shut up". I know of a situation just 6 or 7 years ago where a preschool child was molested, the parents did what you suggested, the offender was convicted and spent a whole year in jail. When he came back the elders assigned this convicted offender to the same book study as his victim.

    This happens over and over and over and over. It's not just "imperfect men". It is a systemic problem. Using the Bible as a shield does not address a very real, very dangerous problem.

    The Elder guide book also states that 2 separate witnesses of the same kind of wrong doing on separate occasions could stand together and accuse their perpetrator. (I personally know of a case where this worked perfectly to get a lying no good pedophile disfellowshipped.)

    I'm glad to know this worked out for someone. Thank you for giving that experience.

    The elders in my congregation refused to listen to my worldly grandmother and my worldly aunt. Why? Because "you know how worldly people lie and want to bring down Jehovah's organization."

    I don't know, maybe things have changed in that respect. I hope so.

    The JW elder guide book also states this on page 93: "Victims of sexual abuse need to be treated with extreme thoughtfulness and kindness. Elders should always do what they reasonably can to protect children from further abuse"

    Forgive me, but what happens when they are not? What happens when just the opposite happens? What is the procedure in place to prevent cruel treatment by bodies of elders?

    Since many, (not all) cases of child molestation in the JW world involve family members or close friends, parents often fail to report to the police out of embarasment. I will not judge them, but in my heart I feel they continue the cycle of abuse

    You seem like a decent person, so I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. I must say, however, your statement is, at best, naive, and at worst extraordinarily cruel.

    I've been on this board for over 7 years. I know of many cases where the child or the child's family were threatened with being disfellowshipped. To an outsider this means nothing. But you, I'm assuming you are a long time Witness, understand the impact that threat has. Not only does it mean being shunned by every friend and family member you have, it also means you are dead before Jehovah. I remember how hard it was for me to face those 9 elders and to stand up to that CO. It was even harder facing up to the idea that if I were disfellowshipped, Jehovah would hate me.

    And all fordoingnothingwrong.

    You reference incest, this is what I endured. My father is still a ministerial servant in good standing. I was left out of my mother's funeral talk and banned from attending her funeral at the Kingdom Hall. I'm told there were even brothers standing guard outside.

    If, god forbid, this happened to my child, of course I would report to the police. But you are asking a great deal out of parents that very likely have incest in their past, additionally facing retribution from the elders and shunning from the congregation and ultimately facing death from Jehovah.

    Again I must ask, what are Jehovah's Witnesses doing to help those people, rather than making it more difficult? To be candid, I see very little.

    It is important for you to understand the two witness rule is not just a black-and-white rule. Its effects are profound and spread out impacting and damaging people who have already endured hideous abuse. This is about real people, not arbitrary rules written by barely literate goat herders 2,000 years ago about subjects that have nothing to do with child abuse.

    Chris

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    The "Pay Attention " book on P93, under the heading Sexual misconduct, including adultery, fornication and other forms of Pornea states this,

    "also included are sexual abuse of children, including practices involving a catamite (a boy kept for purposes of sexual perversion). (Deut. 23:17,18 ref b., ftns). Victims of sexual abuse need to be treated with extreme thoughtfulness and kindness. Elders should always do what they reasonably can to protect children from further abuse; follow the society's directives on such matters (g85 1/22 p.8)

    In addition there is the hand written notes from the Elders school from a couple of years back which says

    "If so immediately contact the legal desk at the Branch Office. Refer to the permanent file and do not ask probing or intimate questions (Letter TABOE Dec 1 2000).

    Out of interest this letter says that victims and anyone who has knowledge of the event can contact the secular authorities if they want.

  • ISP
    ISP

    Misconception: Children fantasize or lie about sexual abuse.

    Under normal circumstances children lack the experience or sophistication in sexual matters to invent explicit claims of abuse, although some small children may become confused about details. Even the most skeptical of researchers agree that most claims of abuse are valid. Consider the book Sex Abuse Hysteria—Salem Witch Trials Revisited, which focuses on false claims of abuse.* This book admits: "Genuine sex abuse of children is widespread and the vast majority of sex abuse allegations of children . . . are likely to be justified (perhaps 95% or more)." Children find it enormously difficult to report abuse. When they do lie about abuse, it is most often to deny that it happened even though it actually did.

    ...........Shame the WTS dont believe children........or read their own stuff (above is from Awake October 8th 1993)

    ISP

  • VoidEater
    VoidEater

    "I'm comfortable with our imperfect 2 witness policy for now."

    Yay for you. Your imperfect policy has the consequence of shielding offenders. Hope you're comfrotable with that, too.

    The truly insidious part of this doctrine is that it is explicitly drilled into the very children being abused. I felt like I was dying inside when I spoke up about what was happening to me, I "knew" it was wrong to accuse my rapist because I didn't have a second witness to the event. That's why I was quiet so long, and refused to repeat what I once spoke out loud (no one believed it the first time, anyway).

  • george11
    george11

    The two witness requirement only comes into play in deciding how the congregation will handle the matter. It has nothing to do with whether the police are informed. The authorities are informed if the law requires it, or if the victim, parents or anyone else wishes to make a report. I hardly think that's unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. Other churches, professional bodies and even child protection agencies have similar policies.

    The two-witness requirement is based on the Bible; that is how it says accusations should be handled. It is well known that in most other churches, they won't disfellowship you whether you have two, three or twenty witnesses. So it's a bit inconsistent to single out Jehovah's Witnesses for criticism because of the requirement for two witnesses for congregational action.

    You can criticize the two-witness requirement, but the alternative would be to disfellowship everyone accused of child molestation, even when there is only one witness. When it's one person's word against another, elders have no way of knowing who is telling the truth. That's not their fault; it's just a fact of life.

    It's nothing to do with telling the victim that you don't believe them. It's not what the elders believe that counts, it's what can be proved. It's just the way that cases have to be handled. The elders may well feel that the victim is telling the truth. But just as a judge can't convict based on a feeling or a hunch, elders can't disfellowship someone without satisfactory evidence. And according to the Bible, that means two witnesses. The Bible says: "One witness may not testify against a soul for him to die." (Numbers 35:30)

    Naturally, the two witnesses don't have to be eyewitnesses of the same event. Two complaints by separate victims are sufficient for a judicial committee to be set up. And since a report of all allegations goes to Bethel, these could even be in different congregations and at different times.

    Elders will report the abuse allegations even if there is only one witness, if that is what the law requires. And you aren't disfellowshipped for reporting an abuser to the police. A 2002 letter to the elders made it quite clear:

    "Child abuse is a crime. Never suggest to anyone that they should not report an allegation of child abuse to the police or other authorities. If you are asked, make it clear that whether to report the matter to the authorities or not is a personal decision for each individual to make and that there are no congregation sanctions for either decision. That is, no elder will criticize anyone who reports such an allegation to the authorities."

    No-one has been disfellowshipped for reporting child abuse to the police. Even the Silentlambs site doesn't mention a single case. That is just a fiction invented by opposers. In fact, a previous poster has proved it to be false, acknowledging that the parents of a molested child went to the police and as a result the abuser went to jail. Clearly, they weren't disfellowshipped for what they did; a year later they were still attending the book study.

  • daniel-p
    daniel-p

    "I'm comfortable with our imperfect 2 witness policy for now."

    Somethin tells me you've never been molested.

  • villabolo
    villabolo

    Reniaa says: forensic evidence that leads to a conviction is allowed as the second witness from what I know."

    Forensic evidence should be good enough in itself without any additional witness required.

    villabolo

  • jamiebowers
    jamiebowers

    The two witness requirement only comes into play in deciding how the congregation will handle the matter. It has nothing to do with whether the police are informed. The authorities are informed if the law requires it, or if the victim, parents or anyone else wishes to make a report. I hardly think that's unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. Other churches, professional bodies and even child protection agencies have similar policies
    .

    george11, you're absolutely wrong about this. There have been several cases in the news about people being df'd for coming forward about child molestation. And, why oh why, does it have to be required by law for an elder to report it? This problem is unique yto jws, because of the df'ing issue, and professional bodies are obligated to report even SUSPECTED abuse.

    You can criticize the two-witness requirement, but the alternative would be to disfellowship everyone accused of child molestation, even when there is only one witness. When it's one person's word against another, elders have no way of knowing who is telling the truth. That's not their fault; it's just a fact of life.

    No, how about reporting child molestation to the police for the crime that it is? With your twisted line of reasoning, no one would ever be df'd for child molestation, because most perverts don't take the time to draw a crowd before raping a child.

    Elders will report the abuse allegations even if there is only one witness, if that is what the law requires. And you aren't disfellowshipped for reporting an abuser to the police. A 2002 letter to the elders made it quite clear:
    "Child abuse is a crime. Never suggest to anyone that they should not report an allegation of child abuse to the police or other authorities. If you are asked, make it clear that whether to report the matter to the authorities or not is a personal decision for each individual to make and that there are no congregation sanctions for either decision. That is, no elder will criticize anyone who reports such an allegation to the authorities."

    I suppose that's the reason that court documents found at watchtowerdocuments.com proves that Merton Campbell covered up for the infamous child molester James Henderson over and over again.

    No-one has been disfellowshipped for reporting child abuse to the police. Even the Silentlambs site doesn't mention a single case. That is just a fiction invented by opposers. In fact, a previous poster has proved it to be false, acknowledging that the parents of a molested child went to the police and as a result the abuser went to jail. Clearly, they weren't disfellowshipped for what they did; a year later they were still attending the book study.

    Wrong again, george11. Take a look at the press section at silentlambs.org and watch the news accounts of people being df'd for going to the police.

  • besty
    besty

    welcome to JWN george11 - I hope you stick around and keep posting - you seem like an intelligent person who can communicate well.

    The two witness requirement only comes into play in deciding how the congregation will handle the matter.

    Why is the congregation 'handling' criminal allegations? If the congregation insists on 'handling' matters, why not in public as the Bible demands?

    Thanks in advance for your specific answers.

    Paul M

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex
    The two witness requirement only comes into play in deciding how the congregation will handle the matter. It has nothing to do with whether the police are informed.

    True. I've never argued this point.

    Of course if one is a faithful Jehovah's Witness, one has only other Witnesses for friends. In that insular world, knowing the person who raped you escaped the justice of The Truth, seeing such a person smile at you knowingly, mockingly and then being shunned, being "Marked" because you are now Bad Association simply for reporting a crime -- well my friend, it's a helluva thing to live through.

    Your entire world gets turned upside down. What was right seems wrong. And what was wrong seems right. Try it sometime.

    The authorities are informed if the law requires it, or if the victim, parents or anyone else wishes to make a report. I hardly think that's unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. Other churches, professional bodies and even child protection age ncies have similar policies.

    I notice the conditional word "if" when you speak about reporting the crime to the police. Why? Why "IF"?

    If the apostle Paul knew of a child being raped, would he keep silent unless he were required to? Would the apostle Peter? John? What about Jesus Christ himself? He said anyone harming a child would be better off having a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the ocean. Does that indicate he would keep silent unless required to?

    So in other words, are you saying Jehovah has no problem if Elder X hears a mother tell him her child had been raped by a brother in the congregation and since that particular state does not require Elder X to report the crime, encourage the mother to go to the police or do anything whatsoever, and Elder X behaves exactly this way, that's okay with Jehovah?

    Jehovah's Witnesses claim to have standards above that of Babylon the Great. Why do you brag that they are only equal to religions that are offensive to Jehovah?

    BTW are you certain of your claim that other religions have the same standards that Jehovah's Witnesses do?

    A 10 second Google search found this:

    In June 2002, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) unanimously approved a Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People that pledged the Catholic Church in the U.S. to providing a "safe environment" for all children in Church-sponsored activities The thrust of the charter was the adoption of a "zero tolerance" policy for sexual abuse. [16] [17] The USCCB instituted reforms to prevent future abuse by requiring background checks for Church employees. [18] They now require dioceses faced with an allegation to alert the authorities, conduct an investigation and remove the accused from duty. [18] [19]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Response_of_the_Church

    Now are you sure you know all about what other religions do about child abuse? Or are you blowing hot air to make yourself feel better about a problem you know nothing about?

    The two-witness requirement is based on the Bible; that is how it says accusations should be handled.

    Nonsense. Nowhere in the Bible does Jehovah God demand a child present 2 or 3 or 100 eyewitness to prove they were raped. Show me one scripture that says so.

    You people twist something that meant to work out a disagreement and apply it to something you have no comprehension about.

    Why doesn't the two witness rule apply to reports of burgulary? Extortion? Tax evasion? Murder? I've heard stories about each over the years ( well except about murder) and no 2 eyewitnesses were required. Why is that? Why only child abuse?

    Not even when an adult woman is raped does any discussion occur about 2 eyewitnesses. No, in that case the only the the elders worry about is (1) what sort of underwear was she wearing; and (2) did she scream.

    Why is that? Why does the 2 witness rule apply only to child abuse?

    It is well known that in most other churches, they won't disfellowship you whether you have two, three or twenty witnesses. So it's a bit inconsistent to single out Jehovah's Witnesses for criticism because of the requirement for two witnesses for congregational action.

    "It's well known"? Oh well, please tell me more about "other churches"! You seem to be a a real source of information.

    Let's take a famous example -- the Catholic Church. Yeah, okay I'll agree with you. No they did not threaten or actually excommunicate (you do understand Catholics do not use the word "disfellowship"?) victims or their families. They simply transferred the offender to new territory.

    Inconsistent? Not at all. At least the Catholics did not look at that child who had been brutalized and tell them that if (there's that "if" word again) they spoke about the abuse they would be cast out of The One True Religion, lose every friend, every family member they have and, finally, have God himself look at them as worse than a murderer, worse even than the rapist who fucked them.

    That is what being disfellowshipped means does it not? A kind way is saying a "disapproved state"? Dead in Jehovah's eyes.

    Aren't publishers told how elders are appointed by holy spirit? Aren't publishers told that the standards in Jehovah's organizations are higher than the world's standards? Aren't publishers told they are in a spiritual paradise? Aren't publishers told to avoid association with the world because the world is not trustworthy, will hurt them and are dangerous?

    Yet at the same time you have the gall to criticize someone who actually buys into that nonsense. Case in point -- I know an elder who, 29 years ago found out his child was being abused. He was very concerned about bringing reproach on Jehovah's name. So he brought the matter up at the next elder's meeting. The elders ordered him to keep quiet. He did.

    The child grew up angry, betrayed and not only left that little sect, has struggled big time in real life with issues that were not their fault. But hey, it's all that father's fault right? No blame can belong to Jehvah's organization, right? Never mind the creep who skips away scot free. No 2 witnesses, so no crime occurred at all, right?

    You can criticize the two-witness requirement, but the alternative would be to disfellowship everyone accused of child molestation, even when there is only one witness. When it's one person's word against another, elders have no way of knowing who is telling the truth. That's not their fault; it's just a fact of life.

    This might be the single stupidest thing I have read on this board in 7+ years.

    You've got to be kidding. The alternative would be to disfellowship everyone accused? Why?

    Why not sit back and let the secular authorites, those people who are actually trained to do what you people cannot or will not, do their job? Let the courts of law determine guilt or innocence. You yourself pontificated about this being only congregational action.

    Why not let the elders wait, let the police and the courts make the determination? Meanwhile, why don't the elders actually do something they are supposed to be trained for -- providing spiritual comfort? This poor kid has just been through hell itself and is scared, ashamed and angry.

    You think maybe that kid needs some spirtual encouragement? Maybe, just maybe, they've got some pretty tough questions about God that need to be addressed? So where are the elders in all this? They're playing police.

    And as for who's telling the truth, tell me how many 5 year olds can describe oral sex, the taste of semen and some pretty graphic sex acts?

    No doubt they've just been surfing the evil Internet and watching porn.

    It's nothing to do with telling the victim that you don't believe them. It's not what the elders believe that counts, it's what can be proved. It's just the way that cases have to be handled. The elders may well feel that the victim is telling the truth. But just as a judge can't convict based on a feeling or a hunch, elders can't disfellowship someone without satisfactory evidence. And according to the Bible, that means two witnesses. The Bible says: "One witness may not testify against a soul for him to die." (Numbers 35:30)

    Indeed. If the elders really feel this way, why have so many elders threatened the victims? Why have so many children and their families been treated so badly? At some point it is not a simple case of "imperfect humans", it becomes systemic. It becomes a sign of reality, not platitudes.

    To paraphrase Walt Whitman: what you people do speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say.

    Naturally, the two witnesses don't have to be eyewitnesses of the same event. Two complaints by separate victims are sufficient for a judicial committee to be set up. And since a report of all allegations goes to Bethel, these could even be in different congregations and at different times.

    This must be New Light. I was told something entirely different by not one, not two but three different circuit overseers.

    I was told a child must have 2 eyewitnesses, people who stand and watch the rape happening (now they cannot interefere because then there would be no rape). I was told these 2 eyewitnesses must be baptized Jehovah's Witnesses, preferably in good standing.

    I have never heard, even once, that two complaints by separate victims are sufficient for a judicial committee. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I've heard of several dozen incidents since I've been here and not once has any victim told me what you claim to be true.

    As for different congregations at different times? Yeah, pull the other one.

    In fact, a previous poster has proved it to be false, acknowledging that the parents of a molested child went to the police and as a result the abuser went to jail. Clearly, they weren't disfellowshipped for what they did; a year later they were still attending the book study.

    You're unbelievable you are. I was that previous poster. I was talking about REAL FUCKING PEOPLE! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

    And you oh-so-conveniently ignore the fact that those bastards put that creep in the same book study as his victim. Do you think that was just an accident? WHY would they do that?

    No those people were not disfellowshipped for reporting the crime. You know what happened to them? They were shunned. Complete total 100% shunning. They did nothing wrong. They protected their child, reported the crime and Jehovah's loving people treated them like shit. No one would talk to them. No one associated with them, went out with them, went over to their house. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Bupkus. They finally gave up and left that congregation. No idea what happened to them afterward.

    Interestingly, that offender, who was found guilty in court? No judicial action was ever taken against him. No public reproof. No private reproof. As far as I heard, no elder ever said a word to him. But then I guess a felony conviction isn't quite the same as accusations from 2 different congregations.

    As a side note, I flipped out when I heard my then-Witness wife tell me this convicted felon was hanging out at roller skating parties for children. My children happened to attend one of them. My kids at the same skating party, for children only, that this convicted pedophile was allowed to attend.

    And this from the same organization that supposedly has standards far above those of evil Babylon the Great. And you, you clueless moron, have no clue what you're talking about.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit