23,720 JW child molesters

by silentlambs 62 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Xenu

    I doubt the phrase "inside sources" would be hold much weight in a court of law.

  • plmkrzy

    I just want to "" the point Path and Xenu are expressing. My questions are only concern. I'm looking at posts such as these through a victims eyes not as a critic.

    No matter how thin you slice it there are always two sides
  • silentlambs

    As mentioned in the first post on this thread further information is given at the sl website. Most of the questions posed are answered in the explanation. For those of you to lazy to click a link you will just have to stay in suspense.

    I will add to what has already been written, further material indicates the "specalized shepherding arrangement" is a product of the last five years. The 23,720 come from USA, Canada, and english speaking Europe. That is easily less than half the organization. That translates to 1 out 130 Jw's are child molesters figuring at a very conservative 3,000,000 count.

  • plmkrzy

    I'll do it myself don't bother yourself. Thanks anyway Bill.


  • flower

    thats ridiculous.

  • Pathofthorns

    I don't think it is fair to say any of us were too lazy to check out your link Bill. It doesn't exactly answer the nature of who make up this 23 720 figure. The language used on your site expresses your own uncertainty over what the figure actually means.

    Are they convicted, or merely accused? Are they specifically accused/convicted of molesting children or does it include other criminal offenses? Does this number include those who have been disfellowshipped and who no longer are Witnesses? What exactly is this number comprised of? Alot of things could theoretically fall under the category of the "Specialized Sheparding Arrangement".

    As you attempt to interpret the ramifications of a number we don't even fully know what it means yet, you come up with figures that seem hugely exaggerated or at the very least highly speculative. This seems to be jumping the gun a bit (or alot).

    Many of us still have relatives in the WT serving as elders and are familiar with many active JWs. While they are misguided and many times act rudely, I do know that these men would not cover for a known molestor and certainly do not condone this behavior. A more likely scenario is family members such as a wife covering for a molester. I don't think the way you have painted the picture is an entirely fair and balanced picture of how Witnesses or the WT views molesters and seems to sensationalize the situation.

    You frequently refer to "molesters", but I suspect there are very few persons who have actually been CONVICTED of molesting children who are serving as active Witnesses and I would like to know actual figures of convicted molesters who are serving as elders. People who have not been convicted are innocent in the eyes of the law unless they are proven guilty and thus should be considered innocent in the eyes of the congregation. Such ones cannot be considered to be "molesters" and they can't be "warned" about. These are the limitations of the law, but what make our systems of law so highly regarded despite their flaws. The congregation is also limited in what they can do when EVIDENCE is lacking.

    I also wonder why more than half of the States have not felt it necessary to make reporting these incidents to the authorities by a third party mandatory. Perhaps there are reasons why they have left this right to the victim to decide how they will proceed with matters?

    I think the work you have done in bringing the matter the attention it deserves has been outstanding. At the same time, at least for me personally, I find the Society's present policy not as objectionable and unreasonable as you make it appear.

    In the end, I think we're all really on the same side and want to achieve basically the same thing. I know it looks like I'm trying to dog you on this subject, but you constantly avoid a complete answer to the questions I raise. This is your right I guess, but if someone in your position fails to constantly critically analyze and justify their present position, it could create awkward situations down the road.


  • amccullough

    I am glad the Path and plmkrzy have showed some sense in this thread.

    This thread is ridiculous!!!!

    This number is complete hearsay. Just because something is possible does not make it true. Suppose I tell you all how I have 10 inside sources that have actually confirmed that half of all JWs are child molesters, and the info cam straight from the WT database! It wouldn't mean jack!!!!

    And Amazing, I appreciate many of your posts, but you must see the problems in the poll that you conducted and attempted to use to substantiate this claim...you had 21 responses that knew 433 victims?!?!?! They knew of these victims firsthand???? I seriously doubt that.

    It is obvious that some have a complete agenda against the WT when they will take a completely unfounded number and agree with it and verbally masturbate the whole topic. It reminds me of the old sisters in my hall that nod exaggeratingly at every stupid thing that comes out of the speakers mouth, just so every one else can see they are in agreement.

  • Moxy

    thanks path. youve expressed it rationally and with more restraint than i couldve done.

  • alamb

    Just for some of you who may not put your faith in numbers. I completely agree numbers are subject to many factors. But to enforce any kind of action, someone has to start somewhere. If the numbers are wrong, let the people who know prove it. The Catholic church is coming forward to some extent with their numbers and proposed solutions. No one in the ORG. has even stepped out of denial.

    For the record:
    I was molested by 2 elders. One admitted to his actions in court. The other has more than 2 witnesses against him at any given time. Neither are on the list in the file mentioned. Both fully deserve this honor.
    I have also personally known 2 other molesters who have been dealt with legally who do not exist in this file either. The file's accuracy is not the point. The numbers are a beginning point.

    For those who prefer denial due to nothing set in stone, that seems to be resorting to the 'head in the sand' complex we used to facilitate when needed to deal with problems as JW's.

    Lighten up. Bill has been honorable in all his intentions and dealings, has the WT?

    WT legal: Let's hear it! How far off are the numbers?

  • Pathofthorns

    A lamb:

    I am sorry for what happened to you and no one here is saying such things should happen.

    You wrote the following:

    I was molested by 2 elders. One admitted to his actions in court. The other has more than 2 witnesses against him at any given time.
    Could I ask if either of the two elders were convicted in a court of law? If so, was the person removed from being an elder and subject to restrictions in the congregation?

    If the elders have not been convicted in a court of law, then you can appreciate the difficulty the congregation would have to punish them for crimes they were not convicted for.

    If you have not gone to the police or others who have been molested by these men have not gone to the authorities, you are hopefully aware that this is your right to do so and you would not discouraged from doing such.

    Bill has been honorable in all his intentions and dealings, has the WT
    I will tell you for sure, I am not honorable in any of my intentions and dealings with the WT But for the sake of being a fair person I can't jump on every anti-WT issue because I don't agree with them. It might not be fair to the victims of abuse either.


Share this