Response to Pathofthorns

by silentlambs 50 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  dungbeetle writes:
  

  1) Regarding the claim that Watchtower has made a postive change in handling of pedophiles: what is this new information and where can it be found?

  2) If there is no new info, and it cannot be found, why then make the assertion over a period of months that it exists?

  These are direct questions asked of Pathofthorns, and I 've noticed that not only POT but also his supporters cannot answer them either.

  For the challenged reader:

  As written above, here's the direct answer:

  The change in WTS policy is that what was a covert directive is now overt, which makes it far less likely to be applied unevenly or sporadically.

  Also as written above, here are additional supporting comments:

  Frankly, though Bill has argued that WTS policy has always been to allow victims to report without sanctions (and I would mostly agree with this), getting the WTS to instruct elders on this issue was precarious because men working the different service desks at Patterson were just that, different men, which meant one would be more thorough than another. Also, if Bill is honest here he will also admit that in the past when he would call the service department as an elder (on reported child abuse) the desk man would follow a script of from five to seven statements (depending on which year he called during the past 10) and not one of these scripted statements included instructions that elders should not sanction publishers congregationally who reported allegations of child abuse to authorities (substantiated or not). That all changed at the recent KM schools and that February 2002 letter.

  I am a supporter of truth, regardless of who else does likewise. What about you?

  If you prefer to let this thread die, dungbeetle, then I suggest you stop reviving it. Otherwise you can expect rebuttals by those who care for truth.
• 

  Reborn2002

  I finally sat and read this entire thread.

  It has been often said on this board that WT officials "monitor" this website.

  I personally believe that fact because so many people who have websites which expose corruption and contradictions within the WTS gather here to communicate via the Internet. Not to mention, with the domain name www.jehovahs-witness.com it is uncertain how many "worldly" people with no knowledge at all come to visit this site to learn about Jehovah's Witnesses, and thankfully are quickly turned away by seeing some of the threads which expose the shunning, pedophilia, literature contradictions, false prophecy, etc.

  I would wager the WTS is seething at the fact Simon owns this domain name. I mean honestly, how many "worldly" people would type in www.jehovahs-witness.com before they would www.watchtower.org ? Most dont even know of the Watchtower Society as an official name. They just know "the Jehovah's"

  That aside, since it is most likely that the WTS does read this site, I think some of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

  While I of all people completely understand and agree with being passionate about a cause... to sit here and sling insults with someone (Im just as guilty of being in flame wars and arguing with "trolls") discredits someone to an extent. The only difference is Bill I highly admire your work, and to those who resort to name-calling.. if you have an active cause such as the silentlambs effort, it makes you appear vindictive and spiteful rather than justified.

  Please cease and desist with the arguing and assumptions people. If you cannot get along or you feel someone else has an obvious "agenda".. then ignore that person and move on with your efforts in the cause you are really fighting.

  I know how it can be to be blinded by anger momentarily. We have to remind ourselves sometimes it is just not worth it.

  It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
  WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
• 

  ARoarer

  I would like to say that as the parent of a victim of sexual abuse, I truly believe that children must be protected by the adults in thier family, religous, school, and neighborhood communities. It is the responsiblity of the adults to take the initiative in reporting this horrendous crime. I understand the concerns about disclosure and how it may affect the victim. But in my experience with knowing the many victims I have come into contact with who were afraid to disclose that they were molested by my father-in-law, they later on suffered many many years into adulthood in many aspects of thier lives. My father in law had 3 generations of victims in the congregations in our circuit. He also had victims in the neighborhood who were not Witnesses. His sexual predatoring included children in his family when he himself was in his early 20's. He is now in his 70's. He molested children for all those years, and the ones in his family and the congregation were all timidly afraid to disclose because of thier fears of punishment by him, the elders, thier families, and also because of the threat that HE HIMSELF threatened him with. He would hurt thier parents. My daughter was the first one of all his gerations of victims to disclose. When she was 12 she had to face the corridors of the sexual abuse crimes unit and be questioned with humiliating questions. But she was treated with the utmost kindness and understanding and offered help from the victims witness advocate program. As I look back on those years that led up to the civil trial 2 years ago, I realize that the treatment she received from those in the congregation was apathy, judgmentalness, over righteousness with the attitude of "just put it behind you", sleep with your bible under your pillow if you have nightmares. I belived this lack of kindness and compassionate attitude was far more psychologically harmful than anything she might have faced in the legal system as a result of disclosure. Instead she recieved compassion, validation, therapy and justice of seeing her perpetrator have to deal with the legal consequenses of his actions. Instead, the Watchtower even though they have lip service in thier policies, did everything to discourage our family in taking legal action. My husband was told he would be removed as a ministeral servant if he did not do what they told him to do. We are "besmearching Jehovah's name". The battles all those years in the library of the kingdom hall from 1988 until 1998 was so very stressful on all of us. And yet the kindness and comapassion came from non witnesses. If I had it all to do over I would again encourage disclosure. The ones who did not never have recovered emtotionally from hiding their secret. It affects thier ability to live in a way of having trust, self worth, fear and many other problems. As for the victims who were adults who testified at our daughter's trial, were able to tell their story. The years of silence did not help them. Disclosure is painful but is always in the best interest of the child.
• 

  dungbeetle

  That's what makes me angry when persons point to the Watchtower and say--seee--it's okay to go to the authorities.

  That's not the point. Present and past victims are only one small part of the picture. It is future potential victims that deserve a good share of our resources, and there seems to be a good deal of resistance toward warning POTENTIAL victims; resistance from JW's and also from supposed ex-jw's. It's disturbing to me.

  People in the congregation need to be warned about a pedophile in their midst, and I don't care whether heshe is convicted or not. I don't see any reason to let children be endangered to protect the organization's good name.

  I won't stop and others won't stop untill potential victims have some kind of safety net in place for them.
• 

  waiting

  Thank you, ARoarer,

  When she was 12 she had to face the corridors of the sexual abuse crimes unit and be questioned with humiliating questions. But she was treated with the utmost kindness and understanding and offered help from the victims witness advocate program.

  As I look back on those years that led up to the civil trial 2 years ago, I realize that the treatment she received from those in the congregation was apathy, judgmentalness, over righteousness with the attitude of "just put it behind you", sleep with your bible under your pillow if you have nightmares.

  I belived this lack of kindness and compassionate attitude was far more psychologically harmful than anything she might have faced in the legal system as a result of disclosure.

  Those sentences say so much.

  waiting
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hi, ARoarer

  Your experience is good to inject into this discussion. Assuming you refer to law enforcement officials, the only thing I would add is that your opinion that "disclosure is painful but is always in the best interest of the child" is not accepted as a universal recommendation by quite a few caring and considerate professionals and other persons, including victims themselves. This is one reason laws vary on mandatory reporting. In the case of clerics, another reason these laws vary is because some caring people feel as though victims should have at least one authority figure they can go to without fear of automatic reporting, if that is an issue for them.

  We all know child abuse is a horrendous crime, and that victims need every help possible, and this is the goal of everyone in this discussion. But the details of exactly the best remedy for each case, and whether uniform mandatory reporting should be required for any and all authority figures, is still being debated by caring professionals. Whereas you feel that disclosure to law enforcement authorities is always in the best interest of the child, others feel that most of the time disclosure is in the best interest of the child. The latter don't want to close the door on other options at the discretion of victims. That is the debate. The good side of discussions like we have here is precisely because the act of continuing dialogue is part of the process of improvement.

  Regardless, the debate of mandatory disclosure by clerics should not hinder anyone from a uniform policy of always encouraging that victims (or their guardians) report allegations of child abuse to law enforcement authorities. A policy lacking this essential element is suspicious, at least!
• 

  dungbeetle

  This thread is never going to die. So be it.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I want to add a piece of information a local physician gave me about mandatory reporting and allegations of child abuse. She says when a patient needs to deal with psychological damage from child abuse but is concerned about mandatory reporting, she stops them in their tracks and gives them relief by saying, "That's no problem. I can't report what I don't know. So if you don't want me to report the person who damaged you then don't tell me the name. Just call him "whatever" and let's concentrate on how you feel and get to work making you better." She says quite a few take up her offer and quite a few of those heal enough in a relatively short period of time to see the value of reporting the criminal and build enough stamina to go through whatever the process requires.

  So, as it turns out, mandatory reporting laws can be sidestepped by professionals easy enough if they understand the law correctly and see that reporting might not at the time be in the best interest of a victim.
• 

  amccullough

  Dungbeetle -
  [quote]People in the congregation need to be warned about a pedophile in their midst, and I don't care whether heshe is convicted or not. I don't see any reason to let children be endangered to protect the organization's good name. [quote]

  Please tell me if I understand this correctly. You think that an accused pedophile should be identified to the whole congregation, even if he is not convicted, no matter if he was not convicted because a court of law did not find him guilty?

  If so, I don't think that is possible without huge slander and defamation of character lawsuits.
• 

  ARoarer

  In my case the elders convinced us to do a plea bargain with the prosecutors office and not take it to a criminal trial. Instead he got 5 years probation with 5 years of therapy that only lasted about 2 years. When he got re-instated we and the other victims were warned not to say anything to unknowing members of the congregation or face judicial action. Those who did not know the story bought the lies of his family members protecting him when they would tell people "if he realy did anything he would have been put in jail". The elders let them get away with these comments so that people would look at the victims as making a big thing out of nothing. The elders and WT allowed these lies to continue so that no one would know a pedophile was in thier midst. I told people anyway because they were encouraging congregation families to talk to him and "forgive" him for his sin, not telling them the nature of what he had done to children.

  Marvin, I still believe disclosure is always in the best interest of the child. It is a protection for other children. If someone came into your home in the middle of the night and tried to kill your child and physically injured that child would you worry about disclosing this to the authorities. A crime to a child should always be reported. No, I do respect what you feel but I disagree with you Marvin.