Barb Anderson's Court Hearing Update

by AndersonsInfo 68 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Farkel

  Barb,

  It's so nice to get a progress report on your case. I'm glad it is still active and hope this one will at last force the WTS to act like the rest of the civilized world. I tried to catch up with what was happenening recently, but when I called, I was told you and Joe were in Mexico. I'll try to touch bases with you again.

  : Gerard, you obviously are not aware of all that Barb and Joe have done.

  For those who don't know, Barb was the society's lead researcher on the Proclaimers book, but many of the REAL facts she dug up during her research was scuttled by her superiors in order to keep the lid on the truth. She was inside Bethel deep enough to know how it really operates. She is the Barbara Grizutti Harrison of our day, and every bit Harrison's equal as a writer.

  Farkel
• 

  Mulan

  How do you feel about Bill Bowen using his position as the spokesman of Silentlambs, an organisation for child abuse victims, to crush the WatchTower by talking about other issues that has nothing to do with child abuse? (example anti-cult seminars, Vh1 Special...)

  I was thinking about this too, and his even being there troubled me.

  Having said that, we are looking forward to seeing all you guys next month (or is it June?) Anyway, we will have fun.
• 

  AlanF

  Joker10 said:

  : I am glad positive things have come out of this.

  So am I. I hope that your idea of "positive things" coincides with mine and with Barbara Anderson's.

  : How do you feel about Bill Bowen using his position as the spokesman of Silentlambs, an organisation for child abuse victims, to crush the WatchTower by talking about other issues that has nothing to do with child abuse? (example anti-cult seminars, Vh1 Special...)

  This is not a particularly astute question. I personally have an online reputation for "crushing" the Watchtower Society on issues of science and "Bible chronology" and a few other things. Does that somehow preclude me from having a valid opinion, or expressing a valid opinion, on anything else related to the Watchtower Society? In particular, on the child molestation problem? Obviously not. So if Bill Bowen, the founder and spokesman for Silentlambs, expresses opinions (whether valid or not is entirely open to debate) on things unrelated to child molestation issues, does this have anything whatsoever to do with the child molestation issue? Clearly not. The point is that opinions expressed about one thing, and their validity, do not necessarily have anything to do with opinions and their validity about anything else.

  Now, Joker10, I have observed over a period of time that you are a general critic of general critics of the Watchtower Society. Unfortunately, I have seen that your general criticisms tend to lack focus and substance, and therefore have little substance themselves. Your implications in this post in particular are of a similar nature -- sort of along the lines of "if Bill Bowen is an expert on child molestation issues in the Watchtower Society, how come he presumes to criticize the Society on other issues?" -- and are clearly discerned by your average cult-minded JW and your typical astute ex-JW as somehow critical of critics of the Watchtower, but go over the head of most other people.

  Let me put this in a simple and hypothetical form, so that all may see clearly what issues you are raising.

  (1) Bill Bowen asserts that "the Watchtower Society protects child molestors by its policies".

  (2) Bill Bowen presumably asserts "the Jehovah's Witnesses are a destructive cult".

  Does (1) have anything to do with (2)? Maybe and maybe not. The point needs to be discussed and established by documented proof.

  What you have done, Joker10, in effect and by implication, is that because the content of (1) has been asserted, then an assertion of (2) implies that Bill Bowen has no credibility.

  Obviously, when the twisted "logic" needed to connect your statements is broken down into its subcomponents, its ludicrousness is evident.

  : Again, hope all things go well for you and your family.

  One wonders if this is sincere or a mere artifact of wanting to appear sincere. I have occasionally wondered if you're really a Watchtower lawyer. The deviousness is evident.

  AlanF
• 

  zulukai

  Barb Anderson, you go girl!!! Its because of the article in an Albuquerque newspaper last year sometime that I became aware of Silentlambs. I have been out of the org. for 30 years and had absolutely no one to talk to about what I saw going on before I left.I had no idea there was so much support out there, or so many people with the same shocking stories . Back then there just wasnt any group of ex-witnesses one could contact. So when I visited the Silentlambs web site and saw the extent of the community of ex-dubs I just let out a yell. At last the filthy little secrets are coming out, at last we can get together online and support one another. Ever since the 1975 garbage happened a great shaking has taken place. I left in Sept. of 1975 fully confident that I was doing the right thing. This child abuse thing and the wrongful disfellowshipping has got to be addressed. These people are beyond ridiculous, what they do with their cretinous rules and manmade regulations is just obscene. Thank you for having the character and the integrity to stand up to those modern day Pharasees!!! The jdubs blit and blather on and on about TRUTH without the slightest interest in the truth about anything. An ex-elder I knew once told me that the Witnesses are the new Catholic Church, and you know what...hes absoluely right!! Regards and hugs.
• 

  blondie

  Welcome, zulukai. I'm happy that you found you are not alone. The internet is a powerful tool. Yes, I am happy for all those who have worked hard to keep this issue in the public eye. It has come with a personal sacrifice.

  Blondie
• 

  AndersonsInfo

  Really, Joker 10, we never once gave thought to any such idea that Bill Bowen was using his position as the spokesman of Silentlambs, an organization for child abuse victims, to CRUSH WatchTower by talking about other issues -- anti-cult seminars, Vh1 Special -- that have nothing to do with child abuse, until you brought it up here. You are making a very strong assertion. We saw Bill on the Vh1 special discussing Michael Jackson, but we are not at all familiar with his efforts with anti-cult seminars. However, what does it matter what we think about his activities anyway? Who are we to pass judgment on Bill because he elects to speak about issues which he believes are important and need addressing? And we are beyond trying to read into the minds of others from what we observe when our standards are just that -- ours.
  
  We would never think of infringing on his right to speak about whatever issues are dear to him. From our dealings with Bill, we found him to be a very caring person, a good man, just as we are caring and good people. How else can we explain spending the majority of our lives trying to help others learn about God, such as you are no doubt doing. For good people it is very uncomfortable to be in the presence of or to know of someone in pain and not be able to do anything about it. It is the benevolence or concern for those we worked side by side preaching with and their children, which propels Bill and ourselves, not the crushing of an organization.
  
  If you believe that Bill Bowen has as his motive to crush WatchTower, that is your opinion. If you really want to know what the aims of Bill Bowen are, ask him. We believe in freedom of expression. And we are people who speak from knowledge and also from the heart.
  
  Thank you for your kind wishes that things go well for us and our family.
  
  Barbara and Joe
• 

  Will Power

  And we are people who speak from knowledge and also from the heart.

  and that is why this exposure and rally for change will not fail. From the bottom of my heart - thank you.

  Joker & Allan

  does this have anything whatsoever to do with the child molestation issue? Clearly not. The point is that opinions expressed about one thing, and their validity, do not necessarily have anything to do with opinions and their validity about anything else.

  I think that the cult aspect of the org has much to do with the molestation issue. It is the org - their policies and CONTROL that has been instrumental in the cover ups and attitudes that created this "issue". Bad people are found everywhere. If, from the top down emphasis was on the children, real people, human beings instead of the protection of an image of a "group" that has to CONTROL to survive, then the "do unto others" would mean something.

  I also think that the mental stresses put on members to be perfect, pure not to mention the loss of control in their own lives - taken over by a periodical.....this need to take control back - could contribute & be the difference between someone who might have tendencies and someone who actually commits this despicable crime.

  Without the carefully contrived manipulation that is practiced, threats of Df'g etc., victims and parents of victims would have the REAL freedom to get REAL help.

  Quiet court cases here and there hopefully at least get the rules changed on paper, but I do believe that Education of the WHOLE problem is the key to gain a voice with the moral majority, where real change & attitudes can occur.

  Barbara and family, thank you. I wish I could do something to help.
• 

  Gerard

  Gerard, please review the history of Barb and Joe Anderson; the amount of help they have rendered at great personal cost is more than anyone can ask of a person.

  Certainly, she paid a high price when doing the right thing.

  Barbara,& Joe, you have all my admiration. The insider's view and information gathered are in good hands.
• 

  OldSoul

  The time is long past for Ecclesiastical Privilege to be invoked as cause for silence regarding criminal activities. Ecclesiatics can grant absolution all they want, removing the responsiblility before God does not remove the "sinner's" responsibility to society.

  Jesus forgave the thief beside him, but did not try to spare the man from experiencing the legal consequences of his actions and life course.

  Perhaps those who believe that Ecclesiastics should not be exempt from possible prosecution as accessories after the fact should make their views known by writing a letter to their various representatives in the legislature.

  Either way, it strikes me as very peculiar that the elders shun the label "Ecclesiastic" only when convenient. The term "Ecclesiastic" is directly tied to the concept of a clergy/laity class where the clergy acts in an intercessory way on behalf of the laity.

  *** it-1 p. 500 Congregation ***Comparably, no clergy-laity or similar division existed within the early Christian congregation.
  
  *** jv chap. 4 pp. 36-37 The Great Apostasy Develops ***As bishops and presbyters ascended the hierarchical ladder, they left below it the rest of the believers in the congregation. This resulted in a separation between clergy (those taking the lead) and laity (the passive body of believers). Explains McClintock and Strong?s Cyclopedia: "From the time of Cyprian [who died about 258 C.E.], the father of the hierarchical system, the distinction of clergy and laity became prominent, and very soon was universally admitted. Indeed, from the third century onward, the term clerus . . . was almost exclusively applied to the ministry to distinguish it from the laity. As the Roman hierarchy was developed, the clergy came to be not merely a distinct order . . . but also to be recognised as the only priesthood."
  
  Thus, within 150 years or so of the death of the last of the apostles, two significant organizational changes found their way into the congregation: first, the separation between the bishop and the presbyters, with the bishop occupying the top rung of the hierarchical ladder; second, the separation between the clergy and the laity. Instead of all spirit-begotten believers forming "a royal priesthood," the clergy were now "recognised as the only priesthood."?1 Pet. 2:9.
  
  Such changes marked a defection from the Scriptural method of governing the congregations in apostolic days. Organizational changes, though, were not the only consequences of the apostasy.

  Why do they adopt the legal protections afforded only to a relationship they claim to reject as a departure from Scriptural method; namely, the relationship between the clergy (those taking the lead) and the laity (the passive body of believers)?

  And I am looked at oddly when I suggest that this organization is apostatized from both the Bible and its own teachings.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello Barbara,

  How nice to see you posting here.

  My apologies for missing this important thread. I have been off-board for the past few days planting rhodendron bushes and making a pretence of industry in many other ways.

  It is always puzzling to me how easily the WTS hides behind and benefits from its scriptural 'precedent' of 'defending and legally establishing of the good news". From this vantage it launches forth every manner of scurrilous deceit and uses every cunning trick it can muster to protect its status quo. I well remember Glen How boasting on a documentary a few years ago how a member of his legal team in the Duplessis era had pretended to be someone else, telephoned the opposition and garnered information from them under false pretenses.

  It is always enlightening just how much the WTS is prepared to use Satans empire to further its tenuous causes. It is hardly a suprise that our Legal friend in San Diego suggested to his son that he make a life for himself outside of Brooklyn. Many insiders can see some sort of writing on the wall and are playing the game of wait.

  But the First Amendment is where we always end up in these cases and it is a formidable wall to undermine, especially with an organization with the guile of the WTS. The strengthening of religious and theological input in the US government the past few years certainly has not helped a Supreme Court that quivers at the thought of tampering with ecclesiatical privilege in all its disguises, from making decisions of courage.

  Your case is exciting as it approaches these issues and challenges them from a fresh perspective. Perhaps this in itself will cause the courts to think a little more carefully about allowing religions to abuse their power to the detriment of the citizens that the courts have themselves sworn to protect.

  What can side-step the painfully slow process at which the legal system bumbles along is 'people power' - public opinion. So when and if this case begins to draw blood, perhaps we can all muster our efforts in this regard.; I am certainly prepared to do this.

  Take care Barbara and our kindest regards to Joe from both of us - HS