I cryed today...

by silentlambs 114 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • stephenw20

    i am sorry you had to say that to nail him... I understand the handle now......

    Your an inspiration!

  • riz

    Hey TR-

    This Wayne guy is begging for the honor of the pic. that is usually reserved for fredhall.


  • Wayne

    Hi AlenF. You offer a wide range of challenges. One at a time.

    You write:

    Sorry, bro, but as my teenage daughter would say, "you have issues". It seems to me that your smoking problem has caused you to defend the JW organization -- even though you claim that not to be so -- much as any abuse victim often defends the abuser. Your defending posture is proved by the mistakes in logic that you've made, that a more objective person would not make.

    I reply:

    YOU do not know ME. And you're being objective. But, this is a good way to disquallify my statements as having another agenda. Is that what you intent is. As I do not know YOU I am not sure.

    You Write:

    What difference does it make whether enough information was posted to allow you to evaluate the validity of the child's complaint? Either you accept it or you don't. Either you think the child is lying, or the poster is making all up, or you don't. All information eventually becomes "third hand". Do you discount newspaper accounts of a murderer's conviction because the information reaches you "third hand"?

    I reply:
    You miss the point. What one person calls sexual molestation another might call a peck on the cheek accompanied by an out of place comment.
    See studies by Janet Wakefield PhD: forensic psychology

    You state:

    Your assertion that the incidence of child molestation among JWs shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. No one has done a definitive study -- indeed, such a study could not be made because everyone knows that a lot of people, including victims, who know about such molestation would cover it up even if they knew that they would not suffer personal consequences for revealing it.

    I reply:

    Most cases of child molestation are discovered by teachers, medical practitioners, as reported to authorities by the parents of a molested child's peers. This does not yield definitive results. So you are correct in this regard. My apologies.

    YOu State:

    Having been "out" for some time pretty well disqualifies you from making any judgments on this matter, wouldn't you say?

    I reply:

    No more than anyone else herein. I can read. :)

    You state:

    The Watchtower most certainly is responsible for how elders handle cases of abuse, unless the elders fail to implement the Society's policies. Those policies include what is written in publicly available literature, the semi-secret Flock book, letters to bodies of elders, oral statements given to elders by COs and DOs and other Watchtower officials, and last but not least, the overall attitude towards dealing with anything that could "bring reproach on Jehovah's name" engendered by Watchtower practice over the last fifty years. All of those things figure in what elders do in specific cases. If you don't know what the real story is in each area, then you just don't know what you're talking about.

    I reply. I do not ignore these facts; but, aside from providing a template for proceedure, they have no real bearing on each individual case before each individual body of elders.

    You write:

    The Watchtower is responsible because it itself appoints the elders who do its bidding. It is responsible for training elders to act on its behalf, so if the training is so bad that elders often don't uphold actual WTS policy, or if the WTS appoints elders who are unwilling or incapable of implementing its policies, then they are still responsible. The only way to avoid responsibility is simple: institute a blanket policy of reporting all abuse cases to secular authorities.

    I reply:

    This is simply not true. Each congrgation makes recommendations as to who should be appointed to fill which post of resposibility. The society only ok's the appointment or not. Usually it is ok'ed if no contrary information exists in the publisher's file.

    You write:

    Your words about establishing proof for allegations of abuse are at the heart of one of the biggest complaints lately voiced against the Society: its standards of proof are nearly impossible, in practice, to meet -- unless the abuser confesses. Absent a confession, the basic standard of proof for a judicial committee is straightforward: two or more witnesses for a given incident. For certain kinds of wrongdoing, the Society explicitly spells out that two witnesses to different incidents are acceptable, but these are with respect to wrongdoing that obviously pushes the buttons of Watchtower leaders much harder than child abuse does. Actual "case precedent" shows just what these hot buttons are: smoking and fornication.

    I reply: The burden of proof in our society has always rested on the plaintiff. Why should it be different in handling judicial matters herein when our legal system's burden of proof laws are based on Judeo-Christian systems?

    You Write:

    Your discussion of who is a pedophile or molester is insane. Yes, the precise legal definition of "pedophile" as opposed to "predator upon minors" depends upon the particulars of local law. The age cutoff varies according to local law, but so what? In everyday speech, a pedophile is someone who sexually preys on children. Are you claiming that a 15-year-old is not a child? Perhaps according to some local laws, but not according to others. Are you claiming that a sixty-year-old man who uses guile and/or threats to have sex with his 15-year-old grandaughter is not a pedophile? What kind of idiot are you?

    I reply.

    No reply. This is an insulting flame. However, no, a sixty-year-old man who uses guile and/or threats to have sex with his 15-year-old grandaughter is not a pedophile. He is a hetrosexual predator.

    You write:

    Your excuses are exactly those that a practicing pedophile often makes to excuse his perversion to himself. "It's not really so bad. Besides, she likes it or she wouldn't let me do it."

    I reply:

    No reply, this is another uncalled for and shallow flame.

    You write:

    As for your 'finding' "Jehovah's Witnesses to be an unusually well adjusted group", that proves that you've not carefully examined them, or you're just fooling yourself. JWs as a whole are somewhat worse adjusted than society as a whole, at least, in the well-developed areas of the world. I've spoken to a number of psychologists about this and they concur. Some psychologists make a very good living treating exclusively JW patients. Of course, because going to a psychologist has traditionally been condemned by the Society, not many JWs will admit to it. You're simply naive if you believe what the Society tells you. JWs have unusually high rates of those ill-defined and hard-to-diagnose problems related to depression, such as chronic fatigue syndrome. Not surprisingly, these things often go away when a person quits the JW religion and starts living a normal life, free of the pressure to "do more" and to conform to strict, pharisaic rules.

    I reply:

    I have associated with Jehovah's Witnesses on and off for 29 years. I stand by my comment. Not all children enjoy having the rights that their peers enjoy taken from them. But in the caring famililies I know other fulfilling activities replace the more harmful ones of the world. Perhaps your own hatred for the organization has blinded you to the success stories.

  • Wayne

    Cool flame daelus.

    I may stay. You're better than comedy central.

    Dim bulb, huh. Soooo original.

    Flame off soon. ok.

  • Wayne

    I am sorry.

    Actually, I dumbstruck--so I will quit on this one.
    I hope all are safe.

  • Wayne

    Such a welcome. Bring it on so I can cherish the vat [I mean vast]amout of lard, [I mean love] that I have stumbled into.

    Do I seem insecure? God help us all!

  • MacHislopp

    Hello everyone,

    just this to express my point, in this
    very important subject.

    Many well documented cases have shown beyond any reasonable
    doubt, that a great % of elders are not prepared, not trained,
    not competent for handling "child abuse cases". Actually
    many times they have inflicted more harm than good.

    It is my deep believe, that ALL such cases should be dealt with
    the "professional bodies of experts " i.e. doctors, psycologysts,
    and all the others involved in the care and protection -first of
    all - of the INNOCENT VICTIMS, and also taking all the necessary
    legal measures against the "OFFENDERS"

    Agape to you all, J.C.MacHislopp

    PS Take courage ,silentlamb..."you will
    never walk alone"!

  • larc


    Thank you for bringing this up. I made the same point earlier, but Wayne chose to blythly ignore it. I didn't flame him and you didn't either, so I wonder if he will respond to our opinions.

  • Wayne

    Hi larc
    He McHislopp

    Actually larc I did reply briefly to your comment.
    Please see page 2: "Well put larc--and largely this was my point. However, the elders do have a scriptural responsibility to protect the congregation when a charge of immoral activity of any kind can be substantiated.
    Wow! Did I hit a nerve on this one. Am I disfellowshipped yet? "

    And I still agree--as does the society. The elders are not professionally trained to give any counsel whatsoever that is not Bible based counsel.

    Believe me, while I am not sorry that I replied to the original post with what I thought was a balancing viewpoint, I do wish I had not inserted that part about my background in psychology. In debate we are all one on one--even ground.

  • larc


    I don't think the elders are qualified to handle any issues that involve child abuse. Furthermore, they damage adults have done things that they consider to be immoral - see the thread "Thongs versus panties" for an example of this. As nonqualified men they are not equiped to handle legal issues nor are they equiped to act as therapists. People on the outside who behaved as they do would be sued for malpractice.

    Wayne, if you haven't already, please read my response to you under the thread of "Why, page 2."

Share this