Secret Watchtower Letter: PARENTS HAVE MAIN RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHILD'S SAFETY

by steve2 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  steve2

  In a separate thread, Cedar's response to the Watchtower's hot-off-the-secret-press-to-elders letter on child abuse is featured. Cedar's article is a powerful, well-composed overview of that letter.

  Tellingly, in the Watchtower letter you will not find any direct exhortation requiring parents to first go to the elders when their child discloses sex abuse. No, the Watchtower is much too clever to directly state what parents should or should not do.

  Yet, the letter painstakingly instructs elders on what steps they are to take when disclosures of child abuse are made. Parents are portrayed as passive players in this disgusting game of ensuring the Watchtower takes the main responsibility for deciding what parents should or should not do.

  Suffice to say, much of the advice in the letter could be summed up in one phrase:

  "Step One: Elders must call the Watchtower's legal department for direction".

  Embedded in the long-winded letter is an audaciously startling statement declaring it is parents who have the main responsibility for their child's safety. Really? No kidding! Within the JW organization, however, it is crystal clear that such a phrase as "the main responsibility" is never meant in a literal take-action sense.

  And yet....the letter now provides the basis for JW parents taking the main responsibility to ensure their child is safe. Therefore, JW parents whose child discloses abuse by a JW need to take the main responsibility by first informing the relevant secular authorities. Elders will need to be informed - but not as an immediate priority because those elders rob the JW parents of the main responsibility of ensuring their child's safety.

  JW parents the world over: Should your child disclose abuse by another JW, take responsibility for your child's safety by not first going to the elders. You've been warned!
• 

  JW GoneBad

  Worth repeating:

  ‘Suffice to say, much of the advice in the letter could be summed up in one phrase:

  "Step One: Elders must call the Watchtower's legal department for direction".’
• 

  ronwashington

  Geez. This letter is insane.

  15. Who is considered a known child molester? The January 1, 1997, Watchtower article “Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked” mentions on page 29 that a man “known to have been a child molester” does not qualify for privileges in the congregation. The expression “known to have been a child molester” has reference to how such a man is considered in the community and in the Christian congregation. In the eyes of the congregation, an adult “known” to be a former child molester is not “free from accusation” or “irreprehensible,” nor does he have “a fine testimony from people on the outside.” (1 Tim. 3:1-7, 10; 5:22; Titus 1:7) In view of his past, those in the community would not respect him and congregation members might be stumbled over his appointment. Keep in mind that the branch office, not the local body of elders, determines whether one who has sexually abused a child is considered a known child molester.

  Ok so this paragraph restates the 1/1/97 W which says that a molestor DOES NOT qualify for privileges. It doesn't say 'for a long time' which is the case in some offenses. For example, marrying a non-JW would prevent someone from having privileges for a few years.

  Then check out paragraph 22

  22. It cannot be said in every case that one who has sexually abused a child could never qualify for privileges of service in the congregation. However, the elders will certainly want to be very cautious, especially when dealing with one who had repeatedly engaged in this kind of wrongdoing or who had been disfellowshipped for such an offense.

  WHAT??? WHAT??? So IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A CHILD MOLESTOR TO HAVE PRIVILEGES (after they call the branch and they OK it). That is absolutely insane. The secret nature of this letter means no one will EVER KNOW THIS. The public and the rank and file will only know of what is said in that WT.

  I really want to print this letter off and post it on the information board at the local hall after I highlight, bold, and italicize that paragraph.

  Also, and this is really the big sticking point for me in this whole letter, is WHAT ARE THE BRANCH POLICIES ON HANDLING SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS. Literally every paragraph says "CALL LEGAL" but nowhere does it say, nor have I seen anything, regarding just what their policies are.
• 

  steve2

  Also, and this is really the big sticking point for me in this whole letter, is WHAT ARE THE BRANCH POLICIES ON HANDLING SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS. Literally every paragraph says "CALL LEGAL" but nowhere does it say, nor have I seen anything, regarding just what their policies are.

  Another excellent point, ron. You'd think that such a long letter would be strong on informative substance. But it is pitifully lacking in relevant details about how to respond to the actual parents and child standing right in front of them.

  The letter's got lots of directions on who the elders should contact for legal direction - but little of substance on what to do for the disclosing parties. These ignorant bodies of elders are responsible for handling extremely sensitive issues - but are not professionally trained according to accredited and best-evidence practice.

  In my opinion, the worst aspect of the letter is the way they pay lip-service to parents bearing the main responsibility for ensuring their child's safety but then in the next breath, strip parents of that responsibility.
• 

  jamiebowers

  What really galls me about this letter is that the Watchtower says that it is the responsibility of parents for a child's safety all the while refusing to warn parents of the predators in their midst.
• 

  Refriedtruth

  THAT'S IT

  What really galls me about this letter is that the Watchtower says that it is the responsibility of parents for a child's safety all the while refusing to warn parents of the predators in their midst
• 

  Violia

  I see this as a way to shift legally all responsibility to the parents. If they call the police then they may be questioned not only by the police but also he elders . They could blame them and say they did not protect their children properly or neglect. So if a sister let her 10 yr old girl work with a brother they know from the kh, they could then say the parent is responsible as they should not have allowed the child to work with anyone but the parents.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Don't worry, I am on the case!!!!!
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Don't worry, I am on the case!!!!!
• 

  Lady Lee

  The problem with placing the responsibility on the parents is confusing.

  1. Nowhere does it state that parents should go to the police or social services first. They will still go to the elders first.
  2. Rules about taking your brother to court are still in effect. Therefore parents are inhibited from going to the police or social services.
  3. Rules about how to deal with problems with your brothers remain in tact. Therefore if a JW abused your child you would go to the elders before going outside the congregation.
  4. Rules about slander, gossip and causing divisions within the cong are still in effect therefore the victim and family are gagged into silence or risk reproof.
  5. Rules about warning parents about abusers is very sketchy. (see below)

     Paragraph 10 says:

     Elders should help the parents of the children involved to understand that they have the primary responsibility for protecting their children.

     Note that it refers to only the family involved. Not others in the congregation.

  6. Warning who? of what?

  Paragraph 13 says:

  If the branch office determines that an individual will be considered a "predator," parents with minor children will need to be warned of the danger that exists so that they can protect their children. In such a case, and

  only after receiving direction and instructions from the Service Department, two elders should be assigned to meet with the parents of minor children in order to provide a warning.

  So basicly nothing has changed. If the Service dept says tell "no one" then no warning will ever be given

  7. By placing the responsibility on the parents they are trying to shift the blame as well.