Hi COJ: Thanks for posting. You noted,
The signature "gsark" states that it was he/she, not Bill Bowen, that attacked Ray Franz in the post dated October 9, 2002 at 7:26. If this is correct, I owe Bill an excuse, of course.
The poster named "Gsark" often posts on behalf of a former member of this forum by the screen handle "Dungbeetle" or now, "QueenBeetle" on another forum. While Bill was not the first to level the allegations against Ray Franz, he did write a post where he spoke for himself, and alleged that Ray Franz supported Watchtower policy based in part on hearsay and based in part on having spoken with Ray Franz. Bill then continued to smear Ray's moral and ethical ability to take a proper stand on the issue of child molestation.
The problem with this is not who said what first, but the fact that Bill in a high profile media position choose to attack the character of Ray Franz and claim the basis for such attack on discussion with Ray Franz. Once this took place, it became separate and distinct from anything that others posted prior to Bill.
Because Bill Bowen is a friend and I have talk with him many times on the phone and have been working on this issue prior to his arrival to the ex-JW world, then when he leveled the allegations I was shocked, because I wondered just how Ray Franz, also a friend and some whom I very much appreciate for his work, could make such statements to Bill Bowen, knowing how this could reach the ex-JWs net or even the public media.
Given that, I called Ray Franz to confirm if he really stated to Bill Bowen that things that Bill claims, and if so, why; and if not, then would he be willing to make a statement that I could post on JWD to clarify the matter. Ray Franz readily responded that he made no such statements to Bill Bowen, and granted permission to quote him. That can be found in the post several days back called, "Comments from Ray Franz Re: Bill Bowen."
Some posters called me, emailed me, and commented to the forum that Ray should explain more, and were disattisfied with Ray's response through me. So, once again, I called Ray Franz and asked a couple more questions. Again, Ray readily responded and granted permission to quote him. That post is found under the title: "Follow-up Comments from Ray Franz" [I will find them and edit this post to add the links for you.] Though Bill went back and deleted his comments, they are preserved in hardcopy print, and in quotes in various comments, including mine.
Still, more phone calls and private email came in, some even suggesting that Ray Franz was lying to me. Some posters objected to the method of delivery in having me talk to Ray and then post a quote or a summary of his comments. When Ray Franz received the comments from the first two posts, he choose on his own to make a more detailed response, and surprised me by mailing back his detailed comments and a request to post them. I went ahead and posted them as requested. I believe that Ray did a very good job in dealing with the issue from his involvement over 30 years ago.
At first, Bill Bowen gave a 'sort-of' or 'kind-of' apology, but it seems that the undertone suggest to most posters that Bill still believes that Ray's sides with the Watchtower. Afterwards Bill has remained mostly silent on the issue, even in light of many demanding a more direct apology. Then, Bill posted his response to Ray Franz post yesterday alleging that Ray and I sat around cooking up an attack on him ... when there is no truth to such speculation. Ray's posts is not about attacking Bill Bowen, but about responding to false charges leveled againt Ray.
I am honestly trying hard to stay open-minded and hear both views, but as it stands, Ray Franz has done a good job putting the issue to rest, with or without an apology from Bill Bowen. This whole saga is not about beating dead horses, or about personality contests, or about taking sides. It is about a well known person putting in writing on a public forum read by the Watchtower Society and the Media libelous statements against another well know person. It needs resolution in one of two ways: 1. Either Bill acknowledge what he did was wrong, apologizes publicly because he libeled Ray in public; or 2. Bill provide some evidence, some substance even if not absolute proof that he was telling the truth, and that Ray Franz is is error.
The problem is, if Bill had such evidence, such substance he would have already provided it and placed Ray Franz in question. Tat fact that he dances around with allegation that a defense from Ray is an attack on him, is telling me that he has no such evidence, and if that is the case, then his credibility as a leader of an otherwise good and important movement is over, and he needs to step away and ask others to take the lead.
The problem with that is that Bill emerged as a Presiding Overseer who resigned and immediately went to the media ... and this has caught the media's attention ... there is no one I know of right now that can command the same leve of attention. However, the ball is rolling with enough momentum with lawyers, lawsuits, and focus on victims that maybe Bill could begin a transition out of the lead role.
We have another equally distressing issue with this type of issue. Many read different things into the written word and this creates all kinds of reactions. Some are better at comprehending than others, and this is partly why the "Two Witness" rule is so poorly understood by some. Others who normally comprehend well, are so blinded by their passion that they read what they want to read and cannot be objective.
Added to this are the placators who see every debate as 'beating dead horses' or failing to compromise, or failing to just get along, or whatever denial mechanism they can think of ... when in fact, everything is NOT okay, and it demands resoluton so that Ray FRanz can live in peace and Bill Bowen can possibly continue what he has been doing, and most important of all the needed attention of the victims can be expressed.
Finally, some believe that when anyone says that the problem of abuse in the JW religion is no worse than in other religions, that it automatically means the person making the statement is siding with the Watchtower since JR Brown made a similar statement. The fact is, the state can be taken two ways. A JW might use it to play down the seriousness of the issue, and an ex-JW might use such a statement to suggests that the problem in the so-called spiritual paradise is no better, but just as bad as the rest of the world. Same statement, two different meanings ... but some cannot get the clue to try and understand different uses of the same expression. Voice inflections and tone are the controlling mechanisms in making such statements ... qualities that cannot be translated well in written form.
In June-July 2001 I conducted a Poll or two on JWD and did an extrapolation as to how many molesters and victims might exist in the JW religion in the USA. At the time some who now admantly support SilentLambs belittled my math as being to wild and unrealistric and that the problem could not be that bad. Then, Bill uncovered the list of over 23,700 names of Paedophiles held by the Watchtower. Suddenly many realized the problem is serious ... but forgot the fact that it was projected, along with the potential of hundreds of thousands of victims ... in all this, the percentages of JW paedophile and JW victims is about the same as the rest of society, maybe a little worse.
The problem is not whether there is more or less paedophiles or victims, but the fact that unlike many religions, the JWs shield the molesters and do not help the victims ... and this is the crime, this is the untreated problem, and not some few words Ray Franz quoted 30 years ago to try and assure justice and avoid needless Disfellowshipping ... an issue that is also hot among former JWs ... an issue that has placed Ray Franz in a 'damned if you do' and 'damned if you don't' situation.
The solution to all this is simple, and I hope that it will come about soon before too much more damage is done. Thanks again for posting, and helping to bring in a good perspective in a calm manner. - Jim Whitney.
