It's WT leaders, not elders, who are responsible for all the harm. My Geneva, Switz. lecture posted here for new ones & Sola Scriptura to read

by AndersonsInfo 77 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  quietlyleaving

  thank you barabra - your lecture is excellent and my intention is to print it out and make copies.
• 

  etna

  Thank You Andersons for your honesty and courage. I could never believe these things happened in the organization and I thought they were isolated incedences in Australia, but the more I talked to others about it the more I realized it was happening too often.

  I have to again agree and state its not only a sin to abuse children but it is a CRIME.... In Australia there was a programme many years ago on TV. And they said they would follow up on it, but they never did. I know of pesonnaly 3 cases where the victims were told not to speak out about it and that the elders would deal with it. I was so annoyed that the parents didn't go straight to the police, but they would have been outcasts.

  Please keep up the good work Andersons and I know that Jah will bless you for your honesty. Thank you for keeping us up to date.

  Etna
• 

  JustHuman14

  We are grateful that people like you have the courage to expose this evil cult. Keep the good work and we are next to you borther and sister
• 

  Big Tex

  the solution was the directive in the Jan. 1, 1997 Watchtower article, “Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked” Jan. 1, 1997 Watchtower magazine. The article explained if a man was a child molester before he was baptized, he would not qualify for congregation privileges.

  I was not aware of this, or maybe I've got Alzheimers and forgot it. At any rate, this is interesting.

  Does anyone know if this directive was effective 1/1/97, or did it apply retroactively?

  I guess the loophole here is the word "known" and then we're back to the two witness rule, eh?

  Thanks for posting this Barabra. As always your writing is outstanding. I appreciate you taking up this issue as your posts are far better than anything I can do.

  Be well,

  Chris
• 

  AndersonsInfo

  My thanks to those who offered kindly expressions regarding my efforts. All I am is an information "pusher alonger," nothing more or nothing less. Hence, the name I chose "AndersonsInfo". It was information that set me free of the mind manipulation that we all know that WT did to us through their literature and in the name of God. What a joy it is to be free, and it is my hope that those who have suffered so much injustice from this organization through their representatives, might be able to live in relative happiness the rest of their lives now that they also have information about the internal workings of the Watchtower Society.

  Chris: The policy change in the Jan. 1, 1997 Watchtower magazine was not retroactive but became WT law at that time. Even the loophole, "known" went into force then. FYI, here's what the March 14, 1997 Bodies of Elders letter, par. 4 states, and I typed it exactly as it appears in the letter:

  Who is 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" would not qualify for privileges in the congregaton. An individual "known" to be a former child molester has reference to the perception of that one in the community and in the Christian congregation. In the eyes of the congregation, a man known to have been a child molester is not "free from accusation" and "irreprehensible," nor does he have a "fine testimony from those on the outside." (1 Tim. 3:1-7, 10; 5:22; Titus 1:7) In view of his past, people in the community would not respect him, and the brothers might even stumble over his appointment.

  It is easy to discern from reading the above that if the man was not known to be a molester in the community and in the Christian congregation and had a fine testimony from those on the inside of the congregation and from those outside, he would remain in his position, and that's exactly what happened. For example, a man accused or who confessed many years ago, or even served time, and no one knew about his past except maybe other elders, could remain in his position, that is, if he had a "godly" record of "godly acts" for many years. This is not speculation, but information that many of us have received directly from people who knew that this was so.

  If the WT was sincerely interested in the protection of children, the paragraph should have said in no uncertain terms, just like their viewpoint on this subject is now, -- Any man who has ever been accused of molestation, or confessed molestation, or was in prison for molestation can not be used in a "position of trust" within the organization. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. They should have weighed in on the side of safety of the children, not concern for the man who practiced "Godly" acts.

  In that same letter it stated, regarding those who were "known" to have been guilty of child molestation, that the elders had to send in a report. This is what two paragraphs stated that certainly shows that known guilty child molesters were to be given further consideration and due to that, consequently, there were molesters who remained in their positions.

  It may be possible that some who were guilty of child molestation were or are now serving as elders, ministerial servants, or regular or special pioneers. Others may have been guilty of child molestation before they were baptized. The bodies of elders should not query individuals. However, the body of elders should discuss this matter and give the Society a report on anyone who is currently serving or who formerely served in a Society-appointed position in your congregation who is known to have been guilty of child molestation in the past.

  In your report please answer the following questions: How long ago did he commit the sin? What was his age at the time? What was the age of his victim(s)? Was it a one-time occurrence or a practice? If it was a practice, to what extent? How is he viewed in the community and by the authorities? Has he lived down any notoriety in the community? Are members of the congregation aware of what took place? How do they and/or his victim(s) view him? Has he ever been disfellowshipped, reproved, counseled, or otherwise dealt with? If he has moved to another congregation, please identify the congregation to which he has moved. Was that congregation advised of his past conduct of child molestation, and, if so, when? This information should be sent to the Society along with any other observations that the body of elders has. Please send this to the Society in the "Special Blue" envelope so that the factors involved may be given due consideration; this information is not to be made available to those not involved.

  This is the way it was until the media publicity started in 2001. Things have changed, but not due to WT's concerns ("The bodies of elders should not query individuals" [about their past]), but due to the bad publicity which greatly affected the flock's concerns.

  Barbara
• 

  metatron

  As to the matter of the GB being responsible for this molestation mess, we are confronted with the fact that this cultish organization seems to have removed any common sense in matters of ethics. It is reasonable to see Witness elders as so robotic and mindless in their devotion to Watchtower rules that you begin to wonder what sort of extreme would prompt any refusal to comply. Murder? Theft? Slander? How far could this go? I was appointed an elder and created a small controversy by adding a table for sisters to use in Ministry School parts. Apparently, A past CO had forbidden such. Later on, they sought to ban wearing culottes (???) for reasons I can't even articulate. I couldn't understand this craven groveling.

  I knew about older men in Bethel who fell out of favor - and were punished by being placed into factory jobs that exceeded their physical ability. Heart attack? Manslaughter? Placing Uriah into the front lines to kill him? Who cares!

  What kind of ethical moron would allow a child molester to seek out small children to sit on his lap without objection?

  If your son molests a young girl, should you hunt her down and df her in your job as an elder? (Yes!!) Would a Watchtower lawyer recommend perjury? (Yes!) Promise a dying young girl to put her in the Awake if she dies for the blood issue? Scam people out of contributions by falsely promising Armageddon Soon ------ for one hundred and thirty years?

  I cannot tell you my deep disgust in observing Witness behavior in divorce. They seem to have a "free fire zone" attitude in accusing anyone of anything or stooping to any vengeful tactic in a manner that often exceeds the world. They are so bereft of Christian love or decency that they had to be commanded (!) to help a disfellowshipped person change a flat tire in the Kingdom Hall parking lot instead of ignoring them. Can you feel the warmth?

  Jehovah's Witnesses have NO MORALS OR ETHICS apart from what the Watchtower commands or allows.

  metatron
• 

  Big Tex

  Chris: The policy change in the Jan. 1, 1997 Watchtower magazine was not retroactive but became WT law at that time. Even the loophole, "known" went into force then. FYI, here's what the March 14, 1997 Bodies of Elders letter, par. 4 states, and I typed it exactly as it appears in the letter:

  Who is 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" would not qualify for privileges in the congregaton. An individual "known" to be a former child molester has reference to the perception of that one in the community and in the Christian congregation. In the eyes of the congregation, a man known to have been a child molester is not "free from accusation" and "irreprehensible," nor does he have a "fine testimony from those on the outside." (1 Tim. 3:1-7, 10; 5:22; Titus 1:7) In view of his past, people in the community would not respect him, and the brothers might even stumble over his appointment.

  Interesting.

  It is easy to discern from reading the above that if the man was not known to be a molester in the community and in the Christian congregation and had a fine testimony from those on the inside of the congregation and from those outside, he would remain in his position, and that's exactly what happened. For example, a man accused or who confessed many years ago, or even served time, and no one knew about his past except maybe other elders, could remain in his position, that is, if he had a "godly" record of "godly acts" for many years. This is not speculation, but information that many of us have received directly from people who knew that this was so.

  So a man like my father, god knows I shouted loud enough about him and certainly not free from accusation, could stay a ministerial servant. He wasn't convicted, the statute of limitations had long since passed, so maybe that was their excuse. Or maybe they just don't care (more likely).

  And if that happened once, and it did, how many other times has it happened? The one bitter lesson Jehovah's Witnesses taught me was that if it happens to you, be assured it is happening to someone else.

  This is more sinister than the two witness rule. This is a warped version of the military's "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy. What we know about sexual offenders is they do not offend one time, but rather again and again. How many children have been been hurt because of this?

  If the WT was sincerely interested in the protection of children, the paragraph should have said in no uncertain terms, just like their viewpoint on this subject is now, -- Any man who has ever been accused of molestation, or confessed molestation, or was in prison for molestation can not be used in a "position of trust" within the organization. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. They should have weighed in on the side of safety of the children, not concern for the man who practiced "Godly" acts.

  As I said in another thread, to quote Walt Whitman, -- "What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you say."

  Anyone wanting to know the truth, need only look at what actions Jehovah's Witnesses have taken, and sometimes what actions they have not taken. The actions put a lie to all of their platitudes.

  In that same letter it stated, regarding those who were "known" to have been guilty of child molestation, that the elders had to send in a report. This is what two paragraphs stated that certainly shows that known guilty child molesters were to be given further consideration and due to that, consequently, there were molesters who remained in their positions.

  It may be possible that some who were guilty of child molestation were or are now serving as elders, ministerial servants, or regular or special pioneers. Others may have been guilty of child molestation before they were baptized. The bodies of elders should not query individuals. However, the body of elders should discuss this matter and give the Society a report on anyone who is currently serving or who formerely served in a Society-appointed position in your congregation who is known to have been guilty of child molestation in the past.

  In your report please answer the following questions: How long ago did he commit the sin? What was his age at the time? What was the age of his victim(s)? Was it a one-time occurrence or a practice? If it was a practice, to what extent? How is he viewed in the community and by the authorities? Has he lived down any notoriety in the community? Are members of the congregation aware of what took place? How do they and/or his victim(s) view him? Has he ever been disfellowshipped, reproved, counseled, or otherwise dealt with? If he has moved to another congregation, please identify the congregation to which he has moved. Was that congregation advised of his past conduct of child molestation, and, if so, when? This information should be sent to the Society along with any other observations that the body of elders has. Please send this to the Society in the "Special Blue" envelope so that the factors involved may be given due consideration; this information is not to be made available to those not involved.

  Disgusting.

  I wonder if the elders even went to this much trouble regarding my father. Probably not. Denial is so much easier.
• 

  skeeter1

  Barbara,

  I watched two different JW pedophiles at work in two different Florida congregations, both in different decades.

  Each time, the family and victims (except for a 2 year old grandson) complained directly to the elders. The elders told the family members that if they reported this incident to anyone, including the police, they would be disfellowshipped.

  So, yes, the events in these class action lawsuits are totally believable.

  I find it repugnant that some of the above posters would have the audacity to defend the Watchtower on this topic. These posters are sick, sick, sick individuals. A spade is a spade. Call it one when you see it.

  Skeeter
• 

  LockedChaos

  Andersons

  Thank You for all your hard work
• 

  Sola Scriptura

  To AndersonsInfo:
  
  You said:

  I actually have many more than two-witnesses to back up my allegations, actual real-life experiences that bolster my claims.

  Then please present your best ones to support your conclusions. I want to fully hear both sides of the story, so I can refine my own conclusions.

  Please read the Morley case than you’ll know.

  All the answers are there. The questions you ask can’t be answered because they do not apply.

  Why don't they apply? Please highlight the best answers that support your conclusions. Please don't suggest that I go find them for you.

  If you replace "Morley case" with "Bible" your argument begins to sound like typical JW Circular Reasoning You must present the "proof" for your claims, not me.
  
  RE: Conclusion #1

  Sola, at times you’re critical of WT leadership at the top, but, generally, you lay the blame for most of what is wrong with this organization at the feet of “elders-gone-wild,” men who you say did not obey the directions of their superiors.I suppose you think that if all the elders did what they were told, crossed every “t” and dotted every “i”, this child abuse mess would never have developed? However, that’s not true. It’s because most elders did obey the Governing Body’s poorly thought out directives that caused the problems.

  Elders Gone Wild™ often pick and choose what and what not to obey from the GB, based on their own self interest.
  
  page 112 of the Elder Guide book states:
  
  "Probing questions should not go into needless details, especially in regard to sexual misconduct, unless this is absolutely necessary, such as in determining whether porneia had been committed"
  
  How many times have people complained on this board, that Elders Gone Wild often "probe" (no pun intended) for deeper "juicy" details AFTER the wrongdoer has already confessed to having sex. What difference does it make where and what positions they did it in. Or how much they "liked" it. (If they are doing it right, they should "like" it a lot. It's sex! duh)
  
  It's clear that Elders Gone Wild pick and choose what they want to obey.

  Inasmuch as the elders are not free agents, who have decision-making freedom, but are directly appointed agents by the Governing Body...

  ...It is the GB who establishes policies and directs practices for all JWs and make appointments of men for “positions of trust,” ...

  Your questions do not apply to this case and you’ll see that when you read the case documents. Anyway, WT appointed the elders who recommended the monster molester...

  Elders being Directly Appointed Agents by the Governing Body is a JW Misnomer.
  
  I provide as evidence the statements of "Amazing", a well respected Ex JW Elder here on JWN:

  Reality of how JW men are appointed to be Elders: Bear in mind that not all Elders in every congregation operate the same way. Some are more conscientious and try to apply the bible standard, but many other do not. I bas the following on my experiences in 9 congregations spread across 3 states, and the comments made by other Elders I have discussed this topic from as many more congregations. The following is, I believe, a fairly representative example of the appointment process...

  Next, the PO says that we have to now market Brother Chuck. We want him to be seen by the CO as having a major role in Congregation activities...

  What a farce! Not once did we ever crack open the Bible or even use the Organization book as guidance...

  I have never seen an Elder really stand up and pull for someone against the group mentality of the Elders as a whole. Only on one occasion did I ever see a CO break with the Elders, ...But, the Elders recommended that we wait 6 months to give Brother Move-In more time. To CO reluctantly caved in.

  Which group is controlling the BALL here? The WT Leadership or Elders Gone Wild?

  ... by the way: Brother Chuck who was appointed – well – he was one of the child molesters who was later removed as an Elder. He had a child molesting record that went back years - as this was determined by talking with Elders from previous congregations. He was never turned over to the authorities. Only when he molested a non-JW child did the law get involved. Yes, real fine job the Elders did in making this recommendation. It is, as always, - Simply Amazing

  Most Ex-Elders on here understand the GB, DOs, COs have really nothing to do with the appointment of Elders. Elders are "rubber stamped". The GB doesn't really know what kind of Elders they are getting until it's too late.
  
  The CO may look at the potential Elders paper trail of field service (Easy to fake) and "observe" him for a week during his visit, usually from the stage in the form of a talk.
  
  COs don't give extensive interviews of potential Elders either, Unless "talking" with him while
  knocking on empty homes count.
  
  Unless a potential Elder does something stupid like Praying for the return of Ray Franz from the stage during the CO visit, he's pretty much "rubber stamped" as an Elder by the WT Leadership.
  
  In practice Elders appoint Elders. Not the GB.

  The facts are that pre-1996, the GB and their top supervisory force did not sufficiently inform or train their agents in the matter of child abuse. They knowingly allowed men who had molested before they were baptized and men who molested since they were baptized to remain in “positions of trust.” When they fully realized how liable they were in the matter, the solution was the directive in the Jan. 1, 1997 Watchtower article, “Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked” Jan. 1, 1997 Watchtower magazine. The article explained if a man was a child molester before he was baptized, he would not qualify for congregation privileges. If he molested after he was baptized, he did not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. By putting that directive in the Watchtower magazine, Watch Tower leadership inadvertently admitted that this was the situation before the article was published. So here’s proof that it was at the top that we can lay the blame, not with local elders at the bottom of the hierarchy,

  This statement "only" supports the conclusion that the GB was NOT innocent. (Which I already agree with!)
  It does not support the conclusion that Elders are not negligent too, for just following orders.
  Negligence: (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up") It is the opposite of "diligence". It can be generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from foreseeable risks of harm.
  
  RE: Conclusion #2

  Witness pedophiles don’t grab children they meet during the door-to-door work. They study with poor, ignorant, divorced women to get to their children who they definitely “groom.” In one case the wife and husband went together door-to-door. She knew what her husband was (a pedophile) and yet she enabled him by not going with him to study the Bible with very ignorant abandoned women and then gaining their trust, he would baby sit with the children and the rest is to awful to talk about.

  So, I assume "we agree" that people in general, (other than "poor, ignorant, divorced women" with children ) don't need to worry about JW pedophiles at their door, exercising their right to "Free Speech", any more than people need to worry about Non-JW pedophiles going trick or treating with their children. Is that Correct?
  
  RE: Conclusion #3

  I was not even thinking about other churches child abuse policies when I mentioned this example. The issue was the WT’s confidentiality policy. I asked a question—How would you like to attend a church, any church, where such a scary person attended and not know it? The answer is of course, nobody would like it.

  No doubt your audience envisioned their local Church, because that's the image your question evoked. If I was a average church goer listening to your speech, I would probably say to myself:
  
  "Hey! wait a minute. My Church doesn't "announce" to us the Past Criminal Records of the congregation. So, how do I know that new Brother Scary Dude is not a pedophile. I better look his name on the Internet when I get home. Thanks Barbara!"
  RE: Conclusion #4

  The August 1, 1995 Bodies of Elders letter was written because of me. (See, things are not what they seem, are they?) Before that letter, there was no such “Official” policies protecting all of the 1-3 in your post above.

  Yes there was. Here's my proof:
  
  The 1995 letter served as "additional" information added to what they had already written as "official" Policy.
  
  Notice what the JW elder guide book says:
  (originally written in 1977, not long after the Elder arrangement was started, with periodic revisions in 1979, 1981 & 1991 years before that 1995 letter. years before you left.)
  
  
  #1) Green

  page 93:

  "Victims of sexual abuse need to be treated with extreme thoughtfulness and kindness. Elders should always do what they reasonably can to protect children from further abuse; follow the Society's directives on such matters."
  
  page 118,119:
  
  "Handling Cases of Wrongdoing With Wisdom and Mercy
  
  However, having the witness confront the accused alone
  may not be advisable in all cases.
  
  For example:
  
  When the witness is a victim of the wrongdoer as in cases
  of incest or rape.
  
  When the witness is extremely timid.
  
  In such cases, or when other extenuating circumstances
  exist, two elders may discuss the matter with the accused,
  or an elder may accompany the witness to discuss the matter with the accused."
  
  on page 111
  
  #2) Blue
  
  
  "The committee should not take action against a person unless the evidence clearly proves this necessary.
  Failure to appear before the committee is not in itself proof of guilt."
  
  on page #112

  #3) Red

  You must exercise mercy in matters of judgment, not only by showing compassion in the Judgement rendered but also by expressing kind consideration and pity in your efforts both to bring wrongdoers to repentance and to heal and restore those who are repentant.(Rom. 2:4; Jas. 5:14-16; Jude 22,23)
  
  ---
  
  Let's face it:
  
  Men in general HATE dealing with the messy details of child molestation, (unless it's their child of course). Especially men forged from the post-war 1950's era. This is why as a woman, (no offense to all you sensitive men out there), your natural sense of Empathy helped move JW child abuse policies progressively forward.
  
  For that I and the Children of the JW World thank you!
  ---
  
  I believe we have come to a general agreement on conclusion #2 now.
  
  I believe conclusion #3 is just a semantical difference between us. No big deal.
  
  So let's focus now on #1 & #4. Agreed?
  ---
  
  Please specifically present your proof to back up your conclusions #1 & #4
  
  #1) It's WT leaders, NOT elders, who are responsible for ALL the harm
  
  (I clearly give strong evidence of Negligence on the part of Elders Gone Wild™)
  
  #4) JWs policies protected pedophiles RATHER than children.
  (I clearly give strong evidence against this statement via the color coded "official" JW policies
  above. Green, Blue & Red)
  
  
  I sincerely await your rebuttal.
  --
  Sola Scriptura
  
  "Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts." - Charles T. Russell
  Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence. pp. 8-9 July 1879