How I handled Child Abuse cases when I was an Elder (1996-2006)

by slmdf 89 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  slmdf

  Hey ya'll. I know there is a lot of buzz due to the NBC story. I thought I'd share my experience as an elder dealing with abuse.

  I attended 23 different congregations in my life and served as an elder or MS in 9 of them. I also handled several abuse cases as an elder. (I reported EVERY ONE to the authoirities, by the way.) I sincerely believe that the vast majority of witnesses do NOT want or intend to encourage, promote, support or in any way condone molestation. I believe the elders (mostly) are good people who are trapped by what the Watchtower dictates, as we once were, and they are simply the WT's puppets and simply do as they say. (that's not an excuse and doesn't make it right, but we've all been there... we know how it is)

  The several times I called the Legal Department on this issue, they were very clear about three things: 1.)if it's not legally mandatory to notify authorities, DON'T; 2.) if it is legally mandatory to notify authorities, you must do so and should do so by calling from a pay phone and do not give your name, religion, contact info, how you found out about it, etc. and 3.) the family/guardian has every right to go to authorities with no repurcussion.

  Additionally, some may find it interesting to note what happened one time when I did call the authorities (thankfully I was in a "reporting state" each time there was an issue, or I too probably would have followed Big Brother's direction). When I called them anonymously from a payphone, of course Child Protection Services wanted to know who I was. I couldn't tell them. They wanted to know how I knew the victim. I couldn't tell them. They wanted to know how I found out about it. I couldn't tell them. This went on and on and on. I basically couldn't tell them anything other than what the legal department told me I could which was, "There has been an accusation that Mr. so-and-so has abused a minor child by the name of such-and-such. That minor child has verified the accusation. It occured in the state of XX, this many times, over a period of XXXX. That's all I will say." You are VERY clearly instructed by the Legal Department NOT to EVER say ANYTHING regarding the Watchtower Society or it's Legal Department, or that you were given ANY direction by ANYONE on what to say or how to handle the matter. So, they're covering their own asses - without a doubt.

  So, the point of this is that after the elder calls the authorities with basically NO information, the authorities would ask me, "Well, sir, we can't really do anything with the information you gave us. Anyone can make an accusation. Why should we believe this is a genuine case? We don't even know who you are or how to contact you. We'll follow-up, but honestly, you're doing more damage than good here. You're not giving us much of anything." They actually become fairly irate because it's like we're teasing them and PROTECTING the molester. It's horrible. I always felt SO BAD when it came to these calls. It never felt right. But, in all the cases I dealt with, authorities did contact the victim and abuser and in every one, the abuser was dealt with. (That's the good news.)

  That's what's on my mind for now. Feel free to ask any questions or challenge and I'll be happy to let you know how we were directed by the Legal Department to handle things like this.
• 

  willyloman

  slm: Thanks for sharing that experience. You are absolutely right, elders have their hands tied by WT policy. This is by design, of course.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  Thanks, slmdf.

  Calls to Legal about this make it very clear that their first priority is protecting their image and assets.

  The victims are an afterthought.

  I wonder why they don't just let Jehovah protect the organization and focus their energies on helping the victims that Jehovah didn't protect in the first place.
• 

  slmdf

  Nvr - that's a great question. And you're right... it's very clear that they are first and foremost concerned that the "Organization" will be drug into a "congregational" matter. Congregations should think about that cause if they don't do just what their told, sounds like the WT will leave them out to dry if need be - to separate themselves from the "wrongdoing". Cutthroat as hell.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  When I called, I bet the robot used the word(s) confidential/confidentiality at least a dozen times.
• 

  dawg

  Tht's some sad stuff bro... sad.
• 

  sacrebleu

  You say you followed the rules but didn't your conscience kick in?

  What if it had been your child.

  I thank your for the input but I still wonder how people can be so controlled.

  I was a JW too and never would have let this crap go.

  sacrebleu
• 

  slmdf

  You say you followed the rules but didn't your conscience kick in?

  What if it had been your child.

  I thank your for the input but I still wonder how people can be so controlled.

  I was a JW too and never would have let this crap go.

  Sacrebleu - I appreciate your thoughts. I really do. As I said, none of them went without legal punnishment. I would be forever terrorized if anyone I dealt with had not been reported and I finally came to my senses years later (now). I am so thankful that's not the case. I was incredibly assimilated into the Borg. I believe the VAST majority of JW's (especially elders) are. As a male especially - you have to perform (at least that's how it was in my family). You have to be the best, give better talks, be better examples, and do more than the other males so you can get appointed. It's sick. And to buck the system would put your "performance" as a "healthy" JW on trial and all my life I was taught that nothing comes before what the organization says.

  Please understand... I don't feel that way anymore. It's one of the reasons I left and won't go back. It's rediculous. I can't imagine the heartache and emotional distress I would feel had I known I dealt with known child molesters and they weren't dealt with appropriately by the legal system.

  I agree... you would think one's conscience would kick in. But, my conscience, up until this year was ruled by the JW theology - 1st and foremost of which is, "Do what the Mother Organization tell you".

  I am happy to say that I believe with all my heart... I now have a working conscience and would definitely do the right thing, not only what I'm told.

  Thanks for the feedback.
• 

  horrible life

  slmdf, did you call the authorities, if only the child accused, and the molester denied it?

  If the molester denys it, the Watchtower in their open letter, on their website, says IF the law makes you, call authorities. All of their wording, in all of their letters and press releases, really p1ss me off. Can't blame the WTS though. If I was guilty of allowing child molesters to roam freely, I may lie to cover my ass and assets too.

  However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit. In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  Thank you for sharing this! Succinct and valuable. And brave of you.

  >>3.) the family/guardian has every right to go to authorities with no repurcussion.

  We had a discussion about this once. A letter to the body of elders made the point that 'the family should not be discouraged from contacting the authorities'. The wording of this was picked apart by some (including me) because it sounded like a back-handed way of saying, "don't encourage the family to go to the authorities." I imagined a conversation like this:

  Mother of victim: "Brother Elder, I think we should contact the police. Don't you?"

  Elder: "Well Sister, I won't discourage you from doing that, but we haven't handled it congregationally yet. It's your decision, but we do have some ground to cover here."

  In the mind of a bOrg drone, 'I won't discourage you, but' is almost equivalent to saying, "No".

  Did you get the impression that this was the intent of the "don't discourage" comment, or are we inferring bad intent where none exists?

  Thanks again for your insights!

  Dave