NEW JW POLICY POSTED!!!

by amac 67 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Solace

  We can only hope it is sincere.
  Thanks for sharing it.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Hey Farkel,dam straight!You hit the bulls-eye on that post.WBTS doe`s like to play word games.Lying bastards and they know it.You`d pretty much have to put a gun to their head to get them to speak the truth...OUTLAW
• 

  garybuss

  '
  
  Jehovah's earthly organization wrote: "We do not believe that our system is perfect."
  
  http://www.jw-media.org/releases/default.htm?content=bg_molestation.htm
  
  
  '
• 

  patio34

  Just had to put in my two cents. The subject of this thread, the statement on the JW-media website, was probably scoured and sanitized by lawyers. It is deliberately, imho, ambiguous and misleading.

  As another example, the voting issue: it was written in a Kingdom Ministry a couple of years ago, that what one does in a voting booth is their own business. Now, we all know what the real policy is: you don't vote!

  It's like the Party in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four:

  "This again was never put into plain words, but in an indirect way it was rubbed into every Party member from childhood onwards." pg. 57

  Granted, this was about sex, but the mandate was understood and applied by all.

  Although, the case in point, reporting to the authorities, may have to be tested a bit before it becomes clear how much the WT will allow their members to sully the reputation of the JWs (which isn't good anyway!).

  Note, that the statement doesn't mention any admission or regret that this may have been unclear before or that they bear any burden of guilt for not telling their members that this was the best thing to do. Their older Awake mag. (sorry, i don't have the reference) says that it often didn't do any good anyway to go to the authorities (!).

  Another point is that their favorite term they used to use back in the 70s was "community responsibility". Remember? That teaching seems to have an ironic application to the JWs themselves, and that's how Dateline presented it at the beginning, the congregations that unwittingly shield and cover up pedophiles. And then send them door-to-door knowing full well what they are. Wolves in sheep's clothing, indeed!

  Well, that's my 2 cents!
  Pat
• 

  Hmmm

  Another point is that their favorite term they used to use back in the 70s was "community responsibility".

  Excellent point, Pat

  I remember this being applied to us (so we'd feel guilty and go sell more magazines) even though we were no part of the world! How much REAL responsibility do the leaders of the WT bear for the way their elders apply their policies.

  Hmmm
• 

  jukief

  A few points of clarification:

  Until last autumn's Kingdom Ministry Schools for elders, the Society had no explicit policy allowing molestation victims or their guardians to go to authorities. Nor did they have, to my knowledge, any explicit, written policy not to allow such reporting. Rather, it has been a spotty but often applied unwritten policy that reporting is not allowed, based on the scriptural injunction not to take one's brother to court. Bill Bowen has on his website and in his files many cases where a person was told not to report based on this principle of not taking a brother to court. I believe it was invoked in the Erica Rodriguez (Garza) case, when elders forbid Erica to report her molestation and threatened disfellowshipping if she did.

  At the recent KM schools there were explicit statements made (check the downloadable material on Kent Steinhaug's website) to the effect that no congregational sanctions should be applied to anyone who in good faith reports molestation to the authorities. This was reiterated in the 15-May-2002 letter to bodies of elders in the U.S.

  Now think about this: if there were no policy (especially unwritten) to impose sanctions on someone for reporting prior to the KM schools, then it would be pointless to emphasize that elders impose no sanctions on someone for doing what U.S. law says is everyone's right, and often obligation -- to report crimes against oneself or one's family to authorities. Therefore the Society's need to explicitly instruct elders not to impose sanctions for excercising their government-given rights is proof that a policy to impose sanctions existed until last fall -- even though this policy was unwritten.

  This kind of unwritten policy, reversed by an explicit statement to elders, has been demonstrated before, with respect to the Society's 1967 ban on organ transplants. People were disfellowshipped for violating that ban, even though there is not a single statement in publicly available Watchtower literature that states that getting a transplant was a DF'ing offense. Clearly, the DF'ing policy was communicated through private letters to bodies of elders, or perhaps orally through Circuit Overseers, as is often done. Nevertheless, in the March 15, 1980 Watchtower, a "Questions from Readers" article answered the question, "Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?" The answer stated a new policy: it was now to be "a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah's Witnesses." It concluded with this: "The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant."

  This "oral law" is far more important in Watchtowerland than written law. It is used to hide policies and teachings that would result in government sanctions against the Society if they were stated outright. For example, in 1989 elders were told by the Society, in so many words, to destroy congregation records if authorities demanded them. This was not done by any written means, or even by an explicit statement. It was done by the following trickery: The speaker asked a question like, "What should elders do if authorities demand congregational records?" Typically an elder would give an unacceptable answer like, "comply with the government's demand" or "why don't you tell us?" The speaker would then repeat his question until an elder gave the correct answer: "We should not give any records to the authorities." At that point the speaker would say, "I did not say that", and then he would quit repeating the question. Most elders got the message.

  We ex-JWs know how good the Society is at this business of "saying without saying", don't we? They use it in printed publications and in their news media statements. It's really a form of lying, which again we all know the Society is amazingly good at.

  Given these facts, it's distressing that otherwise bright people cannot see the Society's manipulation in its statements about imposing no sanctions on those who report molestation. Come on people! Get with the program!

  AlanF
• 

  crawdad2

  amac, i agree with you!!!!!...HAHAHAHAHA!

  more will start going to the police./////// then the gov body will try to squelch that, cause that's what they are trying to avoid, media.

  there are tons of jw molesters and rapists, and they can't have the media in on it, so somehow, they have to convince members not to call the police, even though they have a right to.
  do you think they are capable of it?.......they have six million people convinced they are god's mouthpiece!
• 

  gumby

  Clearly, the DF'ing policy was communicated through private letters to bodies of elders, or perhaps orally through Circuit Overseers, as is often done.

  Wouldn't it have been nice if these 'letters' or an ex CO could show this as evidence of the Watchtowers 'private ways' of conveying their
  true policies.

  Why weren't BOE letters against silentlambs victims used for proof of their policies on DATELINE?

  I realize time was a factor and not all could be covered.
  But a tape recording of a conversation from the service desk dosen't seem as convincing.
• 

  Farkel

  Alan,

  : At the recent KM schools there were explicit statements made (check the downloadable material on Kent Steinhaug's website) to the effect that no congregational sanctions should be applied to anyone who in good faith reports molestation to the authorities.

  Of course that tells us that sanctions could be applied to anyone who does NOT act in "good faith." Is "good faith" defined? No, it isn't. Who determines what "good faith" means? The ones who made that rule, that's who.

  That statement is therefore total bullshit, and still leaves the elders and society to do whatever they-damn-well please. It is no different than allowing them to determine what constitutes "repentence" in a JC or not.

  The policy hasn't changed one whit. They can punish anyone they want to and for any reason they want.

  Farkel
• 

  LFitzwater

  JR Brown also stated that they take a hard line against child molesters. He is a LIAR! Just because he says that JWs have a right to go to the authorites does not make it true. Also, what about warning others. It is considered gosip and slander. And let us not forget that the WTS does not consider one guilty of molestation until THEY decide that one is gulty. So what happens when you go to the police about one that the WTS does not consider guilty. My father in law is in prison, found guilty by a jury after 4 girls testified to his abuse and the WTS still considers him innocent. And the girls and their families are shunned.