Posts by AlanF

20

Electromagnetic Pulse Weaponry

by You Know in

jw
friends

just a friendly reminder, that on any given day, merely one large mega-ton nuclear device exploded high in the atmosphere over the united states, could fry virtually every "unhardened" electrical device in the entire nation.

numerous prophecies speak about the fall of the oddly yoked anglo-american dyad.

the only thing at this point that remains unclear is exactly when the downfall will occur and how it will come about.

AlanF

Hi Bobby!

I was wondering when you were going to ooze back out.

AlanF

21

All us on the board need to pitch in to help JanH

by jelly in

jw
friends

janh,.

i have noticed several times when you refer to americans you use the phrase 'merkins'.

now as far as slurs go that one is pretty lame, really i have lived here all my life (32 years) and i have never heard any american talk like that.

AlanF

TR, you shouldn't have admitted to being a Swede. They're worse than 'merkins. I should know; I'm part both. But the Vikings tolerate me for some reason.

AlanF

9

uhm, uhm...EXCUSE ME...uh...

by SixofNine in

jw
friends

....uh, uh.... {to the group} can i go to the bathroom?.

ask this and other important questions here: http://www.greatcrowd.com/159ubb/forum1/html/000233.html.

ps.

AlanF

The interesting thing about these boards is how they demonstrate the complete stranglehold that the Society has on the minds of JWs. As SixofNine alluded, they can't take a piss without first checking with Mommy.

I noted that one Lady J said: "I've always had questions about Secretaries Day and what we should or shouldn't do." Then she "appreciated input from" the forum, showing that even on such a simple topic she was quite unable to think for herself. The irony was in her closing line: "You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity." Right. Just ask the Society. So simple.

AlanF

1

Alan do you sign your RF chips?

by one in

jw
friends

if you do, by chance is it a logo of a tower with an antenna on top.

radiating rf truth?.

or is it a light concentrating fiber carrying high energy of "truth about the truth" ?.

AlanF

No, I've never signed any chip I've been involved in making. The companies I've worked for haven't permitted it.

I kind of like that image of a tower with an antenna.

AlanF

6

Baptism Into the Organization

by AlanF in

jw
friends

today's remarks about the wts's 1985 baptismal vows reminded me of.

an incident an elder recently told me about.

seems a man was still.

AlanF

Today's remarks about the WTS's 1985 baptismal vows reminded me of
an incident an elder recently told me about. Seems a man was still
married to his first wife when he married a second wife, making him
a bigamist. Then they both got baptized. Eventually the congregation
learned about the bigamy, so the man was brought before a judicial
committee. Eventually the Society was called in, which decided that
the man's and the woman's baptisms should be annulled, since they
were not "clean in Jehovah's eyes" when they were baptized. So the
baptisms were annulled, but the man couldn't be disfellowshipped
since, no longer being baptized, he was not a member of the
congregation.

Now think about that a bit. If baptism is a symbol of one's dedication
to God, then nothing that any human being might decide has any
bearing on either the dedication or the baptism. Therefore the
Society's action in annulling the baptisms was outrageously
unchristian. On the other hand, if the ceremony of baptism in
JW-land is not a dedication to God, but a rite of joining the JW
organization, then the Society can certainly annul it, since it
makes the rules for JW membership.

Given these facts, it becomes obvious that the Watchtower Society
does not view baptism as a dedication to God, but as a ceremony
where a proselyte joins himself to the Watchtower organization.
In other words, in JW-land, dedication and baptism have nothing to
do with God, but are entirely focused on the Watchtower Society.

Anyone who retains any notion that Jehovah's Witnesses have anything
to do with "Jehovah" is fooling himself.

AlanF

7

IS IT ALL BAD?

by hannibal in

jw
friends

after being on this site for about a month now,i have read many if not all "bashing" j/ws for obvious reasons.i am starting to come to the conclusion that this religion i was raised in is just another religion.but to bring a "thread" of objectivity,i was wonder what you all thought of of the religous freedom j/ws have fought for.i'm reading a book now called 'judging jehovahs witnesses'.some quotes:.

"i think the jehovahs witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legel problems of civil liberties"--harlan fiske stone,u.s.

supreme court.

AlanF

Jehovah's Witness leaders are no more interested in freedom of religion than the Afghani Taliban is. They're interested only in using resources and ideas and laws to allow them to freely practice their religion -- which includes completely restricting the religious freedom of their followers.

AlanF

20

what brought you out?

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

i was intersted in what brought "you" out.. with me it was the 607 bce thing.

i always followed the org and would have died for it but when i saw the fallacy of the 607 date that blew it for me.

i am now on a quest to try and find something to feel comfortable with.

AlanF

For me it was discovering the Society's dishonesty in science-related things. It wasn't merely disagreeing with their interpretation of scientific observations, but finding that they so often misrepresented what scientists said. If they can't be honest in simple matters of quoting, which are easy to verify, then their interpretation might be out to lunch too. After doing lots of research on science topics, I found that their interpretations were ridiculous in many areas, even more so than their quoting practices.

As some readers know, I've written a detailed expose of the dishonest quoting and interpretation practices of the Society in regards to their 1985 Creation book. In the summer of 1997 I happened to be in New York, and so I took some time and went to Brooklyn Bethel to try to speak to the author of the book, one Harry Peloyan. Peloyan has been in the Writing Department for some 40 years, and happens also to be the chief editor of Awake! magazine. He came down to the lobby of the 25 Columbia Heights building (this is the one in which the Governing Body holds its official sessions every Wednesday) and we talked uneasily for about 45 minutes. He wasn't too happy about being confronted with my accusations of dishonest quoting practices, and mostly refused to discuss anything about it. But later in our discussion he allowed that perhaps one or two quotations might have been a bit off. As for the rest, he said, "Are the words quoted correct? Then that's all we need to worry about." I said, "That's not so. You have to make sure that you don't violate the author's intent. Otherwise you've misrepresented him." He didn't agree, so I said, "Ok, think of it this way: Suppose The Watchtower quoted an evolutionist who said, 'Evolution is true', and then I turned around and started telling people that the Society now says that 'evolution is true'. Would I be quoting The Watchtower fairly, even though the words I quoted were exactly correct?" He refused to answer. So I know that Peloyan and other WTS writers often know when they're being dishonest, or twisting statements to make them say different from the author's intent.

Once you discover that a religious authority is dishonest in relatively straightforward matters like science, you wonder about its honesty in religious matters such as interpreting the Bible, which are much more difficult to verify. Upon doing research in relatively straightforward matters such as the 607 question, and whether earthquakes and other disasters are far more common in the 20th century as the Society claims, I found exactly the same dishonesty as with science matters -- flat out misrepresentations of sources, marginal interpretations (excuses, really) of much material, generally poor argumentation, appeals to their own authority rather than to the facts, and so on.

When you discover that a religious authority you thought spoke for God is really a sham, you quit. At least, I would think that honest people would quit.

The 607 business is a classic example of the Society's using its own claimed spiritual authority to keep a teaching in place. JWs accept the WTS's version of "Bible chronology" because and only because the Society teaches it. If Brooklyn changed its mind today and acknowledged standard secular chronology, by next week the entire JW world would accept it too. Why? Because any JW who didn't would be disfellowshipped. So much for the intellectual honesty of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The problem is that the Society's leaders have really usurped the places of God and Jesus in the hearts of most JWs. By becoming the source of biblical interpretation, they have really become, in practice, God. Why? Because JWs in practice get all their information about God, and from 'God', from the Watchtower Society. This is because JWs who say that they accept their own interpretation of the Bible over the Society's are soon disfellowshipped for apostasy.

What all this results in is a form of the very nationalism that the Watchtower condemns: "my religion; may it always be in the right; but right or wrong, my religion". This is what I call The Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses -- the emotionally based belief that Watchtower leaders directly speak for God, and no matter what facts get in the way, must be treated as God's special prophets.

AlanF

114

I cryed today...

by silentlambs in

i recieved this note from a young person i know personally.

it brought tears to my eyes for someone so young to see things so clearly.

why can't six million others see this simple reality and the need for change?.

AlanF

To Kismet:

: AF are you inferring he is a pedophile simply on the basis of a thread on the internet?

Not at all. What I said in my 2nd post was in the context of what I said in my 1st post, which was:

Your statement that "not all pedophiles are child molesters any more than all heterosexuals are sexual predators" is completely ridiculous. You're comparing apples to oranges. Heterosexuality is the norm among human beings. That's why men and women are attracted to one another. Pedophilia is defined as the abnormal attraction of adults for children; therefore a pedophile is by definition a child molestor.
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."

Point being: if you're not a pedophile, then don't make the same excuses for them that they make for themselves.

: This despite his quoting a reference supporting his position...

Wayne: 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

AF: Really, man, your words are precisely those of a molester who wants to justify his perversion as being "not so bad".

: (If I mis-understood your comment above I apologize but the bold type certainly adds weight to my interpretation)

See above. The excuses that Wayne has posted certainly are precisely those often given by pedophiles to justify their perversion. If you disagree, then explain why.

I suspect you didn't read my words carefully enough, since you left out the main point in your partial quotation above. Here again is what I said, with the main point bolded:

: 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
If I missed the point, it's because you didn't explain it clearly. Participants on this forum are not mind readers.
As for your 'clarification', it should obvious that the complainer was not talking about a mere "peck on the cheek".
Really, man, your words are precisely those of a molester who wants to justify his perversion as being "not so bad". If you don't understand that, it's no wonder you're posting nonsense.

If Wayne had something more in mind than what one can glean from what he posted, he should have posted it.

: PS - and NO I am not trying to moderate this board. I just find it interesting that Waiting, a victim (rather a SURVIVOR) herself has been cordial to Wayne despite his differing view. But others (not referring to AF) do little but hurl insults.

Obviously I missed whatever you posted before you edited it away. However, waiting is a very nice person who tends to avoid telling fools off. I tolerate fools rather badly, and especially fools who defend those who are soft on pedophiles, liars and other perverts.

As for insults, I certainly hurl them when appropriate, but mostly they're accompanied by a clear indication of why they're there, and I never substitute insults for an argument.

AlanF

114

I cryed today...

by silentlambs in

i recieved this note from a young person i know personally.

it brought tears to my eyes for someone so young to see things so clearly.

why can't six million others see this simple reality and the need for change?.

AlanF

To Wayne:

:: 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.

: YOU do not know ME.

I don't need to. Your words are sufficient to characterize you for purposes of these posts.

: And you're being objective.

Correct.

: 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.

This is not a disqualification of your statements -- it is a way of characterizing your motives. Your motives are easily discernable through your words. Indeed, many of your statements have been disqualified on their lack of merit.

:: 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"?

: 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

If I missed the point, it's because you didn't explain it clearly. Participants on this forum are not mind readers.

As for your 'clarification', it should obvious that the complainer was not talking about a mere "peck on the cheek".

Really, man, your words are precisely those of a molester who wants to justify his perversion as being "not so bad". If you don't understand that, it's no wonder you're posting nonsense.

:: 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.

: 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.

Good.

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

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

Reading tells you little. Talking to people who have had actual experience, either as victims or as elders who have dealt with such cases or with the aftermath of previous elders screwing up tells you a lot. Guess which I have experience with.

Your notion of how the Watchtower operates is obviously based on nostalgic wishful thinking of the good times you had as a JW. We all had plenty of good times, but unlike you a lot of ex-JWs haven't forgotten the bad times. Clearly, you may be out of the Tower but the Tower isn't out of you. That guilt is what is pushing you to such silly heights of apologetics, in trying to defend something you have no direct knowledge of.

:: 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;

Prove it.

: but, aside from providing a template for proceedure, they have no real bearing on each individual case before each individual body of elders.

Of course they do. What do you think a template is for?

Again, you have no knowledge of this topic. Have you served as an elder? Have you served on a judicial committee? Are you familiar with the contents of the Flock book? Have you read the letters to bodies of elders that bear on child molestation? If not, then educate yourself or clam up.

:: 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.

: This is simply not true.

This is simply true.

See how easy it is to say things without giving good justification?

: 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.

That's right, and that's exactly where the Society is screwing up when it comes to child abuse. These elders are laymen. They have no more business dealing with issues of establishing guilt in child abuse cases than you do, or than any layman has in determining guilt in murder cases or as respects any other major crime.

The Society completely ignores this fact and tells elders and publishers alike that elders reach their decisions through divine guidance. That makes elders cocky and publishers afraid to challenge stupid rulings. Who is it that creates this idiotic situation? The Society. Therefore it is responsible for the actions of those it appoints, just as any corporation is legally responsible for the actions performed by its legally appointed representatives when they are on duty.

:: 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're not listening. No one is saying that the burden of proof of wrongdoing shouldn't be upon the accusers (although one would think that good Christians would be somewhat less technical than "Caesars'" lawyers). What we're talking about are the standards of proof.

It's obvious that "Caesar" accepts standards of proof that the Society does not in the case of child abuse, namely, various kinds of circumstantial evidence, and the testimony of several witnesses to separate events of abuse. While certain bodies of elders will sometimes accept such testimony, the exact standards of proof are carefully not spelled out in any WTS literature. That is criminal, since it puts the burden of proof -- a proof that is impossible most of the time -- on children, who are quite incapable of pursuing justice for themselves without the help of a competent, concerned adult. It is people like you who perpetuate this abomination within not just the Watchtower organization, but many other religions.

:: 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?

: No reply.

I thought not. A typical fundamentalist sidestep.

: This is an insulting flame.

It's insulting, but not a flame. It's a simple statement of fact based on your own words.

: 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.

From Webster's: "pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object".

Which part of that don't you understand? Are you claiming that such a heterosexual predator does not have a 15-year-old as his preferred sexual object? Are you claiming that a 15-year-old is not a child? Are you saying that the cutoff age is 12? Or 13? Or 14? Or what? And based on the laws of what jurisdiction?

Obviously I only gave one example. I could have chosen others. How about a sixy-year-old man who sodomizes his 15-year-old grandson? How a 12-year-old? How about the same man "digitally raping" his 3-year-old grandaughter?

Where do you draw the age line between the "soft" crime of raping a teenager and the "hard" crime of raping a child closer to an infant?

:: 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."

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

No, it is a very deep and studied insult designed to bring you to your senses. The fact is, your excuses are exactly the same as pedophiles use. You don't think so? Do a Web search for websites dealing with sexual abuse and see what they have to say. Then come back with your tail between your legs.

: 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 have associated with Jehovah's Witnesses on and off for 29 years. I stand by my comment.

I have associated with Jehovah's Witnesses on and off for 49 years. I stand by my comment.

Proves a lot, doesn't it.

All you have to do to see the truth of what I've said is to read the experiences of hundreds of people who left the JW organization. They all tell essentially the same story of spiritual and emotional abuse. You can find these on any of dozens of websites.

Besides, if you're so weak in the JW faith as to not be able to rely on "Jehovah's spirit" to help you stop smoking, it's obvious that you haven't "got the sense" of the JW religion. Why then, do you think you're qualified to claim different from what I and hundreds of others who had the clarity of vision to leave the Watchtower organization do? As an admitted moral weakling, what do you think you have that we don't? We all had the morality and strength of character to leave a burning ship, even though most of our former peers can not, and most important, will not, see the smoke.

: 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.

Out of the mouth of a babe. Let me tell you something: I have two stepsons who were exposed to the Witnesses up until about age 11. They are extremely happy that they are not JWs today, because they know from looking at some of their JW relatives how messed up JWs can be. They don't want any part of it because they can see for themselves the "fruitage" that JWism often produces. My own daughter, at age 14, decided entirely on her own to leave her JW mother and live with me. Do you know why? Because even at that tender age she could see the many bogus teachings and outright hypocrisy among the JWs with whom she associated. Today she lives a very normal life, free from JW-induced stress, and about as happy as any young girl is these days. Her life as a JW was far from fulfilling -- it was deadly dull and, in the end, something she hated. Today she has all kinds of opportunities open to her, ones that would be denied if she were still a JW.

: Perhaps your own hatred for the organization has blinded you to the success stories.

I don't hate the JW organization or JWs. I hate what the organization does and what it stands for and how it treats people. I hate its practices and the attitudes it engenders in otherwise intelligent people. You yourself are a fine example of the kind of deadness of soul that it produces -- someone who stands up to defend the disgusting coverup of child molestation -- even after being abused by their pharisaic 'law' against smoking. I feel very sorry for you.

AlanF

114

I cryed today...

by silentlambs in

i recieved this note from a young person i know personally.

it brought tears to my eyes for someone so young to see things so clearly.

why can't six million others see this simple reality and the need for change?.

AlanF

To Wayne:

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.

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"?

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. JWs have been trained to "avoid bringing reproach on Jehovah's name". That's why the cover-up of abuse among JWs is common. On the other hand, plenty of ex-elders have revealed that abuse is common enough among JWs that they've had to deal with a number of cases. All in all, it doesn't appear that the frequency of abuse among JWs is much different from that in society generally.

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

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.

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.

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. Child abuse is not covered in any written examples showing how two witnesses to separate incidents might be handled. And actual practice shows that both the Society and local elders will often not convict a man of child abuse even when two or more witnesses to separate incidents of abuse come forward. Since actual practice brings mixed results, it shows that the basic policies are flawed. Actual practice is what defines actual policy, is it not?

As for abuse victims not being discouraged from reporting to authorities, that happens to be largely a paper policy. Only within the last few years has publicly available WTS literature allowed that it is ok for abuse to be reported to secular authorities rather than being handled in-house. The Society's tradition has been strongly to avoid reporting anything like that to secular authorities, and this tradition is alive and well in the JW community. The Society knows this perfectly well, and has taken no clear steps to get rid of the tradition, so the result is that sometimes a victim may be encouraged to report, but other victims are discouraged. Actual cases show that the discouragement may range from mild suggestions like, "are you really sure you want to report this and possibly bring reproach on the congregation?" to outright threats of disfellowshipping.

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?

Your statement that "not all pedophiles are child molesters any more than all heterosexuals are sexual predators" is completely ridiculous. You're comparing apples to oranges. Heterosexuality is the norm among human beings. That's why men and women are attracted to one another. Pedophilia is defined as the abnormal attraction of adults for children; therefore a pedophile is by definition a child molestor.

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."

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.

AlanF