Bill is correct wrt to who wrote the policy but ....
.... ummm ..... now I read he has told many people that he supports the WTS position on child abuse ...... wow!!! .... I didn't know that !
.... how can I guy who figured out the blood policy and Malawi actually be so blind??? I just don't get it.
Do you have anything in writing to indicate that he actually supports the WTS on the child abuse issue?
Personally I don't mind if he does NOT support silentlambs, the victims or stays silent as we all have a right to do what we want to ... but .... he actually admitted that he supports the WTS child abuse policy such as the confrontation process of little girls meeting their rapists with janitors as judges ???? Come on - no one who is thinking properly can be that stupid.
One thing is for sure - this is going to create a firestorm!!!
he has more than once told many people that he sees no problem with WT policy on abuse.
Bill, has he ever told you this or is that hearsay? Perhaps Ray hasn't stood up for abused victims, which would lead me to ask if you have ever spoken directly to him about what you are doing? I'm curious because you can't say by default that since he hasn't stood up for the victims of this particular JW wrongdoing that he doesn't support the effort. I suppose by default because you may not be actively involved in AJWRB you do not support them. Not exactly a fair leap of logic huh? Or for instance because you would be happy to still be a witness if the child abuse issue was fixed, that you would pander to all the other false doctrine and bullshit that the WTBTS actively pursues as gospel. It would seem to me that Ray has no control over what the JWs do w/his writings and yeah I find it ironic that particular rule he helped concoct, but you certainly cannot say that he hasn't made an ethical/moral stance in the face of the Society. I bet Ray isn't living half as comfortably as you are, seeing as he spent so many years going where the need is great, getting diseases, neglecting a family life, living at Bethel slaving away for those assholes, and then being dropped like a hot rock, with no retirement or pension, or real means of support.. Perhaps you can go back and read Luke 9:49-50 and see it from that perspective. I think he's done his part, just like you are doing yours.
Are you now going to write to Ray Franz and call him names for not supporting your cause in the way that you think he should support it? Your opening statement said more about you than it did about Ray Franz. You sounded small minded, it's too bad you have chosen to go down that road.
Your last statement was also very revealing:
but his silence regarding abuse causes me to question his ability to stand for what is morally and ethically right.
You sound like a GB member, now you decide the standard by which a person is deemed "morally and ethically right".
One of the problems here is the scope of the 2 witness rule. I really don't think it was ever designed to be used in cases like child abuse and since child abuse is a relatively new issue, timewise, the dubbies never had impetus to change it in regards molestation issues. everyone knows that the two witness rule has been taken out of context and it might be better to examine what Ray might have said about this rule IN CONTEXT. After all, there is a biblical reference, and Ray being a bible scholar may indeed approve of this rule used as it was intended to be....but surely not to hide the kind of wickedness child molestation entails...
I don't think his being 'silent' on the issue is any reason to claim that he does or does not support it.
As far as I can tell, he is pretty quiet about most issues as he is an old guy.
I think attacking Ray Franz is a big mistake that will just make people look a bit 'nasty'
Even if he did pen the actual policy, it is still something that was approved and carried out by them and all the time since then. Trying to blame Ray for it will just backfire big time 'cause if I was the WTS then I would say "hey, you know what ... you guys are right - it was Ray, not us ... bye! (schmucks)"
Surely, by the same reasoning that Ray Franz is guilty, then every elder who has ever made a wrong decision (even if they thought it was right based on what they knew at the time) would also be just as guilty?