Lett briefly addresses the child abuse issues in new JW.org video

by Richard_I 50 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Richard_I

  I just read about this on the ex-JW subreddit. Link to the video (10m06s).
  

  Skip to 7:35 where he says: "Another way we can contribute to the oneness - rejecting false stories that are designed to separate us from Jehovah's organization. As an example, think about the apostate-driven lies and 'dishonesties' that Jehovah's organization is permissive toward pedophiles. I mean, that is ridiculous, isn't it? If anybody takes action against someone who would threaten our young ones and takes action to protect our young ones, it's Jehovah's organization. We reject outright such lies."
• 

  Pistoff

  Bethel lurkers, send this on to Mr. Lett:

  You are no better than a pedophile yourself; your policies PROTECTED the pedophiles that resulted in the payouts, and you won't change them.
  

  YOU are the reason that Watchtower is permissive toward pedophiles; YOUR policy, as outlines in the October 2012 letter to the body of elders, states:

  "It cannot be said in every case that one who has sexually abused a child could never qualify for privileges of service in the congregation."

  That is not an apostate statement, that is not policy of the Catholic Church, that is YOUR policy, right there in black and white for the whole world to see.

  But it is worse; the previous paragraphs outline this:

  "Who is considered a known child molester? The January 1, 1997, Watchtower article “Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked” mentions on page 29 that a man “known to have been a child molester” does not qualify for privileges in the congregation. The expression “known to have been a child molester” has reference to how such a man is considered in the community and in the Christian congregation."

  SO the only way a known child molester could be used is if the congregation DOES NOT KNOW that he is one, but the WT knows.

  That is the walking, talking definition of protecting child abusers!
  

  How can you sleep at night?
  
• 

  steve2

  If anybody takes action against someone who would threaten our young ones and takes action to protect our young ones, it's Jehovah's organization. We reject outright such lies."

  The first sentence is kind of bizarre and doesn't make logical sense. I'm left thinking, "
  Huh?!"

  The second sentence is puzzling. Is it refering to the immediately preceding sentence?
• 

  sparrowdown

  Typical defense strategy of the borg.

  Discredit the victims, discredit the witnesses, deny, deny, deny.
• 

  wannabefree

  It's great that they are talking about it. I would think that the average JW that is actually watching their broadcast is the kind that would avoid anything negative in the first place. Now that a GB member brings the subject up, it has been introduced into the indoctrinated mind that probably knew nothing about the problem in the first place.
  
• 

  Oubliette

  WBF: It's great that they are talking about it ... Now that a GB member brings the subject up, it has been introduced into the indoctrinated mind that probably knew nothing about the problem in the first place.

  Exactly!

  Now we can ask other JWs, "Did you see the latest video on jw.org? Why do you think the GB is talking so much about pedophiles? Do we have a problem I don't know about?

  "Something's not right here ..."
• 

  Richard_I

  @Steve2: It took me a bit to understand what he was saying too, he repeats "takes action" twice which screws up his sentence structure. What I got from it was he's just saying "we protect kids and take action when kids are threatened".

  @wannabefree: Maybe, but as some said on the ex-JW subreddit, this may be enough for JWs to just go "well that's all I need to hear, all these child abuse stories are just apostates lying" or some bullshit like that. But yes hopefully some really do start to think about why he would even mention something about child abuse.

  
  Also, while Lett says "God's organization" protects kids from pedos, Richard Ashe said the opposite. "Within the congregation, ours is a spiritual protection, and we're talking about physical protection, and that's up to the secular authorities to provide." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1-kuAnYMTU
  
• 

  sloppyjoe2

  This video is why I said on a thread a few months ago that the organization is not going to get hurt or fall a part. Most JWs are clueless to the lawsuits. Lett saying this will not make them go search for what he is talking about. All it will do is when they do actually hear about it, remember what Lett said and dismiss it as apostate lies. They know what they're doing and it will work.
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  If the WTS abhors this egregious behavior against children, why has the organization for the longest time been intensionally hiding these occurrences from outside authorities ?

  Could it be that the WTS wants to protect the assuming image of the organization and of its adherent members ?
  
• 

  suavojr

  Classic example of the double bind method explained by Steven Hassan's in chapter 3 of CCMC. The cult leader might cause people to doubt him, but he has covered both scenarios and allows people to think he is not hiding anything.

  Cult leadership skill 101