Link to pdf:
Reading it now...no comment yet
Link to pdf:
Reading it now...no comment yet
Have skimmed over it. Lots to read. I strongly suggest that everyone print off their own copy.
Having skimmed over it so far there does not appear to be any mention of the many phone calls and emails sent to the commission by people (many; according to officers of the commission) correcting the 'evidence' given by wt elders.
There is a statement by wt that all elders etc are required to have 'working with children checks'; I doubt this; after the Traralgon congregation member took the wt to court it was finally dragged out of the wt branch office in Sydney that elders etc could have WWCC if they wished to. But perhaps the wt may have decided that WWCC is the way to go.
again I strongly suggest that everyone print off their own copy.
Two phrases that appear repeatedly throughout the document:
"We do not accept...." - in reference to the Royal Commission not accepting whatever excuse the WT offered
And "The Royal Commission is of the view that ..... is wrong" - in reference to numerous things such as organizational behavior of the elders, etc
My favorite comment, though, comes right after the excuses that the WT had submitted about the historical data:
" We do not find it necessary to comment on these submissions. The numbers tell their own story."
When asked if the Governing Body members saw themselves as ‘Jehovah God’s spokespeople on earth’, Mr Geoffrey Jackson answered that it ‘would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using’.
Glad the above little "gem" made it in to the official report.
Thanks for the advice zeb! I downloaded it.
I was just skimming it . I am happy to say that Watchtower's little helper Ms Applegate's report was completed put aside (page 77). The woman made a complete ass of herself and certainly didin't help the watchtowers' cause.
The number of times that the ARC told the WT that they were wrong:
The Royal Commission is of the view that application of the two-witness rule in cases involving child sexual abuse is wrong.
...it was wrong of the elders to require BCG to make her allegations of child sexual abuse against BCH while BCH was present.
We are also of the view that the decision of Mr Ali, Mr Bowditch and Mr De Rooy to disfellowship BCH on grounds that related only to his infidelity was wrong because it took no account of the evidence presented to the judicial committee of BCH having abused his daughters BCG and BCK.
...it was wrong of the elders on the appeal committee to require BCG to give details of her abuse by BCH in front of a group of men, including BCH.
We consider it unreasonable and wrong that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation failed to take precautionary steps to protect other children in the congregation from the risk of sexual abuse by BCH on the basis that he was disfellowshipped for having only sexually abused a child of his own.
...it was wrong of the elders to require BCB to make her allegations of child sexual abuse against Bill Neill when Bill Neill was present.
The rigidity of reliance upon biblical text in the face of obvious danger to children was wrong.
The process by which her allegations were received and investigated and the response of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation were wrong.
In the case of a complainant who is still a minor, the organisation’s justification that it is a survivor’s ‘absolute right’ to make the report themselves is wrong and does nothing to protect that child and other children from sexual abuse.
Regardless of the biblical origins of the two-witness rule, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s retention of and continued application of the rule to a complaint of child sexual abuse is wrong.
A complainant of child sexual abuse whose allegation has not been corroborated by confession by their abuser or a second ‘credible’ eyewitness is necessarily disempowered and subjected to ongoing traumatisation. To place a victim of child sexual abuse in such a position is today, and was 30 years ago, unacceptable and wrong.
Eleven wrongs do not make truth.
And the things that the ARC will "not accept"...the things that are unacceptable:
In any event, as set out above, we do not accept that Mr Ali, Mr Bowditch and Mr De Rooy did not have enough evidence before them that BCH had sexually abused BCG and BCK.
In the light of Mr Spinks’ acknowledgement above, we do not accept that the reference to ‘members’ in relation to the 1,006 figure is incorrect. The debate has no merit.
We do not accept that an elder of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation will never be obliged to report his knowledge or belief that child sexual abuse has been committed.
In these circumstances, we do not accept the opinions that Dr Applewhite expressed in paragraphs 36, 45 and 46 of her report.
We do not accept that the child sexual abuse revealed in this case study has no connection with the activities of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation.
The wrongs and the unacceptable
The "Truth" is wrong
has been added to my archive.
Browse (without having to download) All the Documents Here:
I have shared the link on Facebook under my real name with a brief and stoic post clarifying that it is public information from a government commission after an investigation, not biased lies.
Already got blocked by a dear friend of many years. *sigh*
I am tired of the fear and the "freeness of speech".
Schnell, you might like to put this quote from the Watchtower just before the link.
In reading this report the Organization should heed it's own advice.
From the 2017 March Watchtower under the subject of "Give Honor to Whom it is Due"
Government oﬃcials are expected to maintain law and order and to care for the needs of their citizens. This brings beneﬁts to all. Accordingly, the apostle Paul advised Christians to view such human governmental authorities as“superior authorities” to whom Christians should be in subjection. ... our showing government oﬃcials due respect and honor can at times have positive, even unexpected,results.
Listener, well, that got a like. I have non-JW friends as well, and I can't believe how JWs have responded to it in their view.
One called it 110 pages of BS and asked if I was molested myself. So that's nice.
A few of them defended the two witness rule, to which I opined that it would be easier if the elders just excused themselves from all criminal allegations and turned them over to authorities.
They seem to care more about reputation, and I said I reject the notion that accused offenders should be given the benefit of a doubt over their accusers, because that allows legitimate offenders to be hidden.
Most of them parroted responses about finding fault and sticking with Jehovah.
Only one has acknowledged that it isn't about blind faith, that at best, the organization does have room to change and perhaps should.
I have not once argued in the thread that people should renounce their faith.
And my wife is pissed at me now. Like I said, I'm just tired of it. People can take it or leave it.