Pedophiles Among Us - (H20 post) (page 5)

mommy

OVB~ Slander is held in the same light as...Adultrey, Gossipping...Apostasy...etc...
It is a reason to reprove someone. Remember the BIG nono's?
OK basically a scare tactic. But guess what, one that works on many to SHUT UP!
FRENCHY,God bless you and keep you safe:)
mommy

Xandit

Frenchy,

I agree with you. I wish there were some way to weed out Elders with that attitude, but the way things are going they are going to be the only ones left.

I do appreciate that the Organization is giving better direction on this matter of child abuse, I'm not sure how they make everyone see what they should do.

OrangeVale Bob

I did some research re. slander.
Although they are two very different things, the Society lists slander together with gossip under the heading "gossip" in the Insight to the Scriptures book. Slander is viewed in a much harsher light. Slanderers are to be reproved and corrected by responsible ones in the congregation. the one listening to slander is also wrong and is damaging himself. Slanderers are compared to Satan.-page 990 para. 5,6,7
"While gossip can in some cases be more or less harmless (though it can become slander or lead into it), slander is always damaging and always causes hurt and contention. It may be with or without malicious motive." -Insight on the Scriptures, pg. 990 para.5

The three dictionaries I currently have available define slander as; 1.Law An oral statement of a false, malicious, or defamatory nature, tending to damage another's reputation, means of livelihood, etc.(The Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary). 2. a malicious, false and defamatory statement or report (Random House Webster's Dictionary) 3. the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage anothers reputation(Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)
It appears that, if you adhere to the Legal Definition, intent is important. Was the statement made to intentionally defame or be malicious to an individual? If the statement was made to warn someone, or protect someone, or perhaps gather information, etc., it's not slander. The other two definitions rely on the truth of the statement. If what you say is true, or you think that it's true, then it's not slander.

Any other thought's out there on this?

waiting

Hey Frenchy,

I think the problem has to do with the indoctrination of the publishers in the idea that all problems should be handled within the congregation. This, I believe, is fundamentally the problem with the situation. The parents are reluctant to go to the authorities without the blessing of the elders. The elders are for the most part unqualified to deal with such problems and will have a tendency to treat it just like a case of lying or fraud, or immorality. They have been conditioned to believe that they are qualified to handle any problem because they have God’s Word (as explained by the WTS, of course.)

I believe the publishers should be told that if and when this happens that they are to take this child to a qualified professional. Let the professional advise the parents as to whether they should notify the authorities. They should be instructed to follow the recommendations of that medical professional. In actuality the opposite happens because the Society engenders distrust in medical professionals while portraying itself as the very Word of God and in total control of the flock with God’s smile of approval. -(bold added)

In all honesty, this is the best summation of this incredibly complex problem that I have read anywhere - including my own comments. There are so many emotions entwined in the victim and the victim's parents, that it's an odd person who can remove themselves from the emotion involved and academically discuss the problem. I'm odd, but not that odd.

Thank you so much. I've made a copy for my file.

waiting

Hey Bob,

1.Law An oral statement of a false, malicious, or defamatory nature, tending to damage another's reputation, means of livelihood, etc.(The Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary).

...other two definitions rely on the truth of the statement. If what you say is true, or you think that it's true, then it's not slander.

But can a person prove it's true? If the elders say there's not enough, or no, physical evidence - thus the person walks away - if we were to discuss it with others (not including authorities), then we would be in the position of slandering a person. If we've talked to the authorities, and they say there's not enough evidence to go forward, but we continue to warn others, we put ourselves in the position of slander.

If this person is innocent, then we have slandered his reputation. If he can back up his position, whether true or not - he can sue us, and perhaps, on a long shot, the elders for letting it go on, particularily in the congregation.

Intent could be shown. If I were to continue to talk about a person as a rapist, but I couldn't prove it, I had every intention of hurting his reputation as an upright, Christian, person. Slandering him to others - even though I did it to warn others.

As I've already said - and whole heartedly believe, this is an extremely difficult matter. How many other sins/crimes involve us in so many matters of the heart/spirit/law. The loss of a loved on from lack of blood comes to mind. Look at the discussions on it, web pages, etc. Very complicated.

The common consistency seems to be the WTBTS inducing behavior in their followers which causes a tremendous amount of pain which may have not been necessary - and the followers found out.

waiting

[quote]

Xandit

The only comment I would make is that the legal authorities don't need much, if anything, to start an investigation. Just the accusation is generally enough. If you want to see adversarial just watch Child Protective Services go to work. In spite of the law you are guilty until proven innocent, at least until a judge gets involved.

OrangeVale Bob

xandit,
I agree, at least that's true where I live.
waiting,
I didn't intend to draw attention away from the original post.
It just seemed to me that the word slander is not really understood by some who offer scriptual counsel and therefore the counsel given on this subject is inappropriate.
Slander is considered extreme behaviour and is difficult to prove. The burden of proof rests with the accuser. They have to prove that you knew it was false or that you made the statement with the sole purpose of defaming. Otherwise the courts in our litigious society would be flooded with slander cases. Libel (which is kinda like written slander) is more common. But there you have a document which attorneys can sick their teeth into.
The Societies definition of slander is quite vague and although it somewhat resembles the definition accepted by others, it leaves a lot open to interpretation. I think if slander is used as an argument to encourage someone to keep quiet about something as serious as rape, incest, or pedophilia, or many other crimes, it should be crystal clear to all involved what slander really is.
I think you're right about Frenchy, he is gooooood.

Frenchy

waiting
Thank you and you're welcome.
OVB
Thank you. Even a blind Cajun will ocassionally find a crawfish!

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

LDH

Just wanted to say, I think this kind of thing happens a lot more than we would like to admit.

People don't make this stuff up.

But you know, like any other sickness, the first step to curing it is to acknowledge it. The same rule applies to the WBTS. They really need to concern themselves with making things right with past and present members before they concern themselves with recruiting new members. They need to make the congregations the place for unconditional love that Jesus preached, STOP judging those who don't deserve it and START judging those who do.

Methinks, though, that they will never admit publicly their wrongdoing in any way shape or form. That THEY gave out bum info, and bum advice, and that their advice has HURT PEOPLE'S LIVES. And they need to own up to it, like real men.

Pathofthorns

Lisa, I think you've summed one of the major issues up well.

Many people are frustrated at the past and past policies. The thing is, one cannot change the past. But at the very least, out of honor and respect for these victims, appologies and acknowledgement of error should be made.

Like you say, they need to own up to what they've done "like real men". They need to realize where their limits are on any authority they claim to have. Many matters need to be placed back where they belong. Whether that be back in the hands of individuals, professionals, or the authorities of the world.

Path

Pedophiles Among Us - (H20 post)

Share this