Is there a Child Molester on the Governing Body? (page 2)

kairos

This type of reality could trigger mass suicide among the congregations.

Not joking. The mind control has so many people in it's grasp. Generations of families controlled.

Kanon

I would have to agree with simon, hypothetical sensationalism. Going this route just adds weight to "apostate lies"line of defense.

The revel report was damning and the reason for this was it was not based on what ifs. It was just FACT (letters, video depositions, balanced honest comments from people),

agree with Simon, there is only a 10:1 chance statistically that one of the 7 at any given time were practising pedophiles. These people were prominent even before they rose into the upper strata. Of course reading Luke 18, starting with 15: -- parents having Jesus touch children --could even qualify the top of the rulers open to accusation. stick to the real wt issues, not deviancy that is common to all institutions.

TTATTelder

I think it is obvious that the refusal to change the painfully illogical 2-witness rule for child sexual abuse is for some incredibly selfish reason that leads to further and further abuse of innocent children.

The GB's "indirect" connection to children being abused is undeniable.

When an organization insists on strange, left-field policies that make child molestation easy to get away with, the organization is taking a stand as a pedophile sympathizer and enabler.

The next question is why?...... I am aware of the business reasons often stated. It doesn't take much imagination to think there could be more to the story.

Simon, my apologies for posting anything that causes trouble. I accept full responsibility.

The GB have to accept full responsibility for the consequences of their policies. One of those consequences is "wild" speculation as I have offered the OP.

I admit that the subject is an emotional one when you think of heartless men forcing themselves on innocent children. If these emotions have clouded my judgement, and I have under-appreciated the power of Greed as a lone explanation for these policies, then for that I apologize.

-TE

OneEyedJoe

I admit that the subject is an emotional one when you think of heartless men forcing themselves on innocent children. If these emotions have clouded my judgement, and I have under-appreciated the power of Greed as a lone explanation for these policies, then for that I apologize.

I think it gets super easy to be so mad at this cult when you see it destroying lives by the thousands that it becomes impossible to see how anyone could see the same thing and be detached. But I think that's what's happening - they don't see things in terms of lives destroyed, they're detached and are simply doing what they think is best for their cult (and by extension, their meal ticket). They're just running a business, and they've gotten used to people getting caught under the wheels and they're shielded from facing the actual results of their actions head on and therefore don't have to come to terms with it the way we do.

Crazyguy

These guys think thier kings, Jesus brothers above the law of the land, rulers themselves. Narcissistic freaks

OnTheWayOut

I would go out on a limb and say, "No." There probably is not a molester on the GB. They probably are all lily-white squeaky clean men. But there are pedophiles somewhere down the chain of leadership and there has been at least one molester in the Ivory Tower in the past.

Plus, as a cult that never admits wrong, Watchtower must keep protecting what they can about the way they have done things. The 2-witness rule is supposedly "from the Bible" and universal to all things JW. They cannot bring themselves to make exceptions.

Their way out is simple- make criminal and congregational things separate. Just because you can't disfellowship someone without 2 witnesses doesn't mean you can't "mark" them after you have cooperated with the law and the law has found them guilty. It doesn't mean you can't stand by a child when they make an accusation even if you can't prove that they are telling the truth. But they see any bending as making exceptions and maybe they, as a dictatorship cult, are right.

OUTLAW

Considering the Leaders at the Top of the WatchTower have Rules/Policies In Place that Protect Pedophiles..

It`s hard not to Speculate..

About what WatchTower Leaders" may do and/or may have done",in their Private Lives..

.

...LAWYERS INVESTIGATING THE WATCHTOWER..

Marvin Shilmer

I think the main issue is not the two-witness rule but, rather, Watchtower's failure to encourage that allegations of child molestation be reported to secular authorities by either the victim themselves or the victim's parent or guardian. It's one thing to tell victims/parents/guardians they have an absolute right to report allegations to secular authorities, and it's something else entirely to encourage that this be done.

Otherwise the two-witness rule is essentially the same concept secular law uses for prosecution, only secular law does not ply the term "two witnesses" like Watchtower does. The two-witness rule is something used internally by Watchtower demanding that allegations must have corroboration over and beyond an allegation. Secular law requires corroboration too. Corroboration does not require two human beings be present for and observe an act of molestation, with the victim being one of the "witnesses". In Watchtower's case, the two-witness policy is one requiring corroboration, and corroboration should be required in order to convict a person (in JW speak: disfellowship) of such a crime. Potentially even circumstantial evidence could establish corroboration, but it would have to be precise so that no alternative was left other than guilt of the alleged molestation.

That said, to me the primary issue at stake is Watchtower's failure to actually encourage that allegation of child molestation should be reported to secular law enforcement by anyone with reason to believe the report could be true. If Watchtower is concerned about breaching ecclesiastical privilege it could at least take the step of encouraging that victims/parents/guardians should report the matter to secular authorities. There is no excuse for failing to do the latter. None at all. This failure is, to me, at the very least immoral.

Simon

There is no excuse for failing to do the latter. None at all. This failure is, to me, at the very least immoral.

I agree. Ideally this should be a clear legally enforceable requirement. i.e. if you become aware of abuse within your organization and fail to report it then you are guilty of a crime.

That would avoid them putting their own immoral desire for self-image-preservation above the welfare of vulnerable people that they owe a duty of care to.

I think it's a stretch to suggest that the chance of a GB member being an abuser is 1:10 - there is simply no basis for that number. Likewise, however dangerous and stupid the 2-witness rule is it doesn't follow that it's created purposefully in order to cover up abuses even if the end result is that it is used for that.

Is there a Child Molester on the Governing Body?