PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus 173 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Friend

  LDH

  Yes, that situation gives me a case of the heebie-jeebies too, whether in the JW community or otherwise! For this reason and out of care for my fellowman, I too argue and fight for change within the association of Jehovah’s Witnesses, starting at the top. But the situation you describe does not confirm Focus’ original assertion, which is the point of contention between us, because it has to do with a JW’s and a local elder body’s perceptions rather than actual Society policy. Very often those policies are not followed because of misunderstanding them, not knowing them or maybe even thinking there is an applicable policy when there is none. This illustrates why anecdotal evidence is notoriously inconclusive, because one person’s experiences (or those of many) can be so different from experiences of other persons. I could just as well relate many experiences where a JW (elder or not) witnessed another JW commit a serious crime, did not hesitate to call the police and suffered no adverse consequences for their actions. (Oddly enough, most often this happens regarding domestic disputes, but domestic disputes between husbands and wives rather than adults and children.) Again, anecdotal evidence is inconclusive because experiences differ significantly on this and other subjects.

  Friend
• 

  philo

  Hello Friend

  If you read Focus' post, I imagine you would have no problem reading Crisi of Conscience by Franz. In it he shows clearly the extent of influence the WT leadership and their policies have over the everyday lives of brothers and sisters. Have you read it. If so, how do you deny the picture he gives?

  philo
• 

  LDH

  Friend,

  Then please relate several of those experiences where a JW immediately ran to the police, and suffered no adverse consequences.

  You are a fool (I say this meaning NO disrepect, only affectionate kindness) to minimize the impact of the Society's Unspoken rules....

  You are one of those about whom the Society spoke of in 1976 after the 1975 fiasco, are you? Did you also have an overactive imagination like the WTBS says about the rest of those who expected Armageddon?

  Don't be fooled.
• 

  Friend

  philo

  I know Ray and Cynthia probably better than you imagine. Yes, I have read his work, including Crisis of Conscience. I take no exception to his conclusions, and in fact agree with most of them. Ray would not approve Focus’ assertion that is the subject of contention between he and I. He knows perfectly well that JWs are free to report serious crime committed by another JW and to do so without reprisal.

  LDH

  You wrote:
  

  Then please relate several of those experiences where a JW immediately ran to the police, and suffered no adverse consequences.

  Okay, here is one:

  Mildred was married to Carvin; both were JWs. Mildred left home one night because Carvin had said ugly things to her; she went to a local motel to spend the night. Late that night Carvin found her and he was mad and out of control. Under duress Mildred let Carvin into her room and things went from bad to worse. After Carvin had hit her several times with his fist and palms Mildred ran out of the room straight to the mangers office and called the police. Carvin was arrested and detained until the morning when he was released without bond. Mildred was a pioneer at the time and remained one for a few years afterward. Carvin was sorry for his actions, the two reconciled and have since improved their relationship. Mildred suffered no adverse consequences for having her JW husband arrested. As you can imagine some elders were called to see about the matter and they did. They told Carvin that he should be glad that his wife freed herself and sought help or things could have got much worse, in which case his troubles would have only been worse. They also commended Mildred for her willingness to work toward reconciliation in spite of her husbands sometimes impossible temperament. The only consideration of Mildred’s appointed capacity as a pioneer was whether her continuing was in her best interest because of having to meet pioneer requirements on top having to cope with her husbands problem. She wanted to continue and did with those elder’s blessing.

  I can repeat different versions of that same story until my fingertips are bleeding on this keyboard.

  There are other stories about JWs who manage people for large companies. There have been cases where a JW employee of the same company presented enough of a danger in the workplace that the managing JW would call the police to see about the matter with an arrest being the result.

  Relevant to our discussion here, there have been numerous occasions where JW parents have reported to police that another JW had sexually abused their child. The Society’s reaction to local elder bodies was "Do not interfere with that, at all!" Some of these cases have involved children of elders, yet the elder was not removed for letting the law take care of things as best it could.

  Friend
• 

  waiting

  Like LDH, I've stayed out of this - but have kept up with the reading. Much information given.

  I could just as well relate many experiences where a JW (elder or not) witnessed another JW commit a serious crime, did not hesitate to call the police and suffered no adverse consequences for their actions. - Friend

  Then please relate several of those experiences where a JW immediately ran to the police, and suffered no adverse consequences. - LDH

  I would be one of those experiences. When my daughter was molested, I did go to the police with no ramifications. It was cautioned that I be silent for the good of the congregation weeks after going to the police, but that had nothing to do with going to the police.

  Relevant to our discussion here, there have been numerous occasions where JW parents have reported to police that another JW had sexually abused their child. The Society’s reaction to local elder bodies was "Do not interfere with that, at all!" Some of these cases have involved children of elders, yet the elder was not removed for letting the law take care of things as best it could.

  There were two witnesses against the ministerial servant - yet he was never questioned by the elders. They never questioned my daughter, and to the best of my knowledge - never talked with his daughter who was raped by him for years. That was wrong of the elders and of the WTBTS. They told me they got their directions directly from the Service Department.

  But the situation you describe does not confirm Focus’ original assertion, which is the point of contention between us, because it has to do with a JW’s and a local elder body’s perceptions rather than actual Society policy. Very often those policies are not followed because of misunderstanding them, not knowing them or maybe even thinking there is an applicable policy when there is none. This illustrates why anecdotal evidence is notoriously inconclusive, because one person’s experiences (or those of many) can be so different from experiences of other persons. - Friend

  My experience will most likely vary from victim to victim. Sad to say.

  waiting
• 

  AlanF

  I guess I'll add my two cents to this discussion.

  I think that the truth about whether the Society requires not reporting crimes such as child sexual abuse to secular authorities is not as clear cut as I understand either Focus or Friend to be saying. The truth is that both situations are allowed for by the sum total of Society policy for the past hundred years. It seems clear enough that the Society's official policy is to leave it in the hands of the individual. But it also seems clear that there is a long tradition of pressure to avoid reporting many types of crimes because of wanting to avoid "bringing reproach on Jehovah's name", meaning on the Watchtower Society. This avoidance is certainly the Society's unofficial policy.

  The constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees religious freedom for everyone. That constitution is Communist China's official policy. However, everyone knows very well that there is no religious freedom in China in practice. People even today are jailed for long periods for practicing certain religions, even though the constitution supposedly doesn't allow it. China has two sets of rules for almost everything. There is the official set, which looks good on paper, and there is the real set, which is what most everyone goes by. Usually no one gets too upset if someone goes by the official rules, but those who try to go by the written rules inevitably find that they hardly ever get anything done, and hardly anyone takes them seriously. Thus, it is a crime to bribe officials to get work done, but unless a bribe is paid, usually no work gets done. Sometimes a person is caught paying a bribe -- usually by doing something stupid or just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time -- and he is imprisoned or even killed, even though most everyone else gets away with it.

  China today is probably the most glaring example of an 'organization' running on two sets of rules, the official and the unofficial, but the Watchtower Society is another good example. When young men go to Bethel they're given intensive training in official Bethel rules and regulations, and they'd better know them. However, they also get training in how things really get done. This training is not part of some official course. Indeed, Watchtower officials would deny that such a thing exists. The training is given by experience, where some poor newbie Bethelite finds that obeying the official rules 'is not how it's done'. In practice, Bethel overseers have their own way of doing things, which they learned partly by long tradition and partly by experience. People who've been there a long time take it in stride and think little of it, as near as I can tell. When a newbie is called on the carpet for the first time for doing things the way he thought the rules said, he's taken the first step to learning the real rules. These cover just about every facet of Bethel life. Most important for this discussion, they determine what real Watchtower policy is in terms of how the Service and Legal departments actually deal with outsiders.

  As in China, there is official Watchtower policy as determined by the Writing department under its controlling Governing Body and Executive Staff members, which is what is stated to the media and appears on the Society's several Internet sites, and there is unofficial policy as determined by other GB members and Executive staffers, which is implemented by the Service and Legal departments. Sometimes the two policies diverge. For example, the jw-media website claims that those who "simply leave" the JW religion are not shunned. Unfortunately, and even though whoever wrote that bit of nonsense may have believed it, that's not how Service instructs elders to deal with many who "simply leave". Indeed, many such people are actively sought out and disfellowshipped, even though they may not have associated with a congregation for years. This can only happen when two major segments of the Society's staff are operating on two sets of rules. Which set actually determines real Watchtower policy? The statements to the media? Or what the Service department and local elders actually do?

  A good example of unofficial policy at work is the scandal that erupted nearly a year ago in Tacoma, Washington, in connection with one of the Tacoma district conventions. It seems that the Society had negotiated with the City of Tacoma that the Society would not charge for parking at the stadium, and so the Society would not have to pay the City of Tacoma any parking fees. However, this was kept secret from the local JWs, who were told that they had to pay parking fees of about $4 in their local Kingdom Halls, where they would be issued parking tickets. Back in the 1980s the parking tickets were checked upon entrance to the parking lot. However, at recent assemblies the tickets were not checked by parking lot attendants, and so anyone could park for free if they wanted. Why were the tickets not checked? Obviously because to do so would be a public admission that the Society had lied to the City of Tacoma about collecting parking fees. So the Society not only lied to the Tacoma officials, but also deceived the local rank and file JWs into thinking they had to pay Tacoma for parking, when all along the Society was just pocketing the money. This actually turns out to be the way the Society has worked things at many district conventions in recent years -- collecting parking fees for itself and claiming to stadium officials that no fees were collected. Now, were these shenanigans official Society policy? Not on your life. Instead they were the policy of GB member Ted Jaracz, who amazingly enough, personally negotiated the Tacoma and other stadium contracts. Jaracz has done plenty of other underhanded things over the years, often by giving some Bethel flunky a half-sheet of paper with his instructions on it. That way, nothing underhanded is ever 'official', and deniability is maintained. Jaracz, of course, is the most influential GB member (he's called The Boss in Bethel) and the head of the Service Department. Since Jaracz is demonstrably capable of lying to government officials and to the JW rank and file, it is to be expected that the Service Department under his control would exhibit a measure of deceitfulness and of implementing unwritten, unofficial policies.

  I think it's pretty much the same with the Society on this child molestation issue. There are a number of written policies the Society has put out to deal with it, in the form of Watchtower and Awake! articles, letters to bodies of elders, and oral instructions given to elders in Kingdom Ministry School seminars and by CO's and DO's. There are also the instructions that elders get when they deal directly with the Service or Legal departments. According to the experience of many people, sometimes the official written policy is followed closely, and sometimes it is abandoned. Anything in between can happen. Therefore I think that it's incorrect to claim that official policy means all that much, when the Society demonstrably operates much like Communist China. Similarly it's incorrect to think that even if many elders and Watchtower officials abandon official policy in specific cases, that official policy is anything other than what is clearly on paper.

  Various people have raised the question of whether two witnesses to different acts of molestation by the same person are enough to convict the person of molestation before a JW judicial committee. Several facts have become clear:

  (1) No statements appear in public Watchtower literature directing that elders can convict someone of molestation on the testimony of two witnesses to two separate molestation events.

  (2) No statements appear in private, elders-only Watchtower literature directing that they can do the same.

  (3) One statement appears in the Flock book that in general cases of "sin", two witnesses to two separate events can be "considered". Just what "considered" means is not explained. The next statement says that such evidence may be used to establish guilt, but again no definite standards are given to establish just what may constitute sufficient evidence.

  (4) The only definite statements about two witnesses to two separate events of molestation appear in the November 1, 1995 Watchtower that dealt with the subject of repressed memories of child abuse. The article defined "repressed memories" essentially as memories that were forgotten for a period of time, and which then resurfaced an unspecified number of years later. The article specifically stated that two such witnesses are not sufficient evidence to convict someone of child molestation.

  (5) In Kingdom Ministry Schools in 1994, elders were orally instructed that in cases of child sexual molestation, two witnesses to the same event were required to establish guilt. This cleared up the ambiguity in the Flock book.

  (6) No statements appear in public Watchtower literature telling JWs in a positive way that reporting sexual abuse to secular authorities is desireable.

  (7) No statements appear in elders-only Watchtower literature telling elders in a positive way that reporting sexual abuse or encouraging the rank and file to report sexual abuse to secular authorities is desireable.

  (8) A 1993 Awake! article on rape encourages a rape victim to report to secular authorities.

  (9) Some child abuse is counted by secular authorities as rape and some is not. In the U.S., laws vary from state to state. In some states, an adult's putting his fingers in the genital or anal openings of a child is defined as rape. In other states, the same act is defined as "sexual assault" but not "rape" because rape is defined as the violent commission of sexual assault, and in most cases of what some states call "digital rape" the molester has managed to get the consent, or at least not a strong objection, from his victim.

  I've probably left out some important information, but I think that it's pretty obvious from the above facts that the Society's policy on reporting sexual abuse is extremely fuzzy. I think that it's fuzzy on purpose, since it allows the Service department to handle each case without too many written rules. People can draw their own conclusions, but I agree with both Focus and Friend that in many respects the Society's official and unofficial policies and practices with regard to dealing with child molestation are quite inadequate. They may meet the bare minimum standard of the law, but they certainly don't meet modern ethical norms and they don't protect children well enough. The Society's policies clearly are designed to protect the Society first and foremost, first by meeting the bare minimum legal standard for each state or country, and then by allowing as many molesters as possible to remain hidden from public exposure.

  It is really this last point that is such a nasty part of Society policy as it is actually practiced. There are known molesters who are still serving in positions of responsibility in JW congregations. Why are they serving? Largely because of the loopholes that exist in various Society policies. A "known molester" is defined as one known to JW elders as an abuser. This might be someone who has a reputation in the community at large of being an abuser, but elders are not required to take that reputation into account. Instead, elders themselves must determine the guilt or innocence of an accused molester. If they decide that the person's reputation was established unfairly, such as if there are only scattered accusers to several molestation incidents, then they are free to decide that the person is not a "known molester" and to appoint him to a position of responsibility. This has resulted in a number of children being abused, since the perpetrator is still on the loose.

  Now don't get me wrong on any of this: I think that the majority of JWs and elders are properly horrified at child molestation, and given the opportunity, the majority of elders will do the right thing. I've been told about a number of cases where elders really did the right thing and put a molester away. Often this has been at the direction of a good man in the Service department.

  I think that the basic problem with the Society's molestation policies is that they aren't clear enough, they aren't proactive enough to protect children, and they err on the side of protecting the Society and the perpetrator rather than the children. Those things constitute an overall bad policy. This, despite the fact that one can find good advice in a few Awake! magazines. And I really must ask why, if the Society considers child abuse as important a problem as its apologists claim, such articles don't appear in the Society's main journal, The Watchtower, rather than a magazine that a large fraction of elders don't even bother to read? How can elders be expected to glean information from a secondary magazine like Awake!, when even the many Publications Indexes don't reference those articles in connection with child abuse?

  All in all, the next few months are going to prove interesting. The Society will be very much under the gun. Will it respond in such a way as to increase protection for children? Or will it go the usual route, do everything in its power to protect itself at the expense of individuals, and end up hurting children even more?

  AlanF
• 

  Focus

  Hi, I'm back!

  Friend scribbled on 6 March 2001 at 23:58
  

  You do understand the meaning of “? ”, don’t you?

  Sure I do, and thanks for your solicitude Do not try to catch an old dog with new ticks, please.

  For others:
  Probably, he is trying to see if I make the same mistake as he did, when I asked him "Does your 'yours' mean 'your's'?" and he was caught misinterpreting that question as meaning that I was saying he had used the word "yours" incorrectly!

  Friend continued:
  

  Earlier I wrote: "you based an unconditional conclusion upon the Society’s writings."
  Afterward you responded: "Proof By Assertion YET again, eh? Sorry – WRONG! I base it on writings, some of which I quoted, ANDmy sure knowledge of how the Society operates"
  I made an assertion, you then asserted that it was wrong. The question then becomes, what was wrong with my assertion?
  1) Was I wrong about what you based your assertion on? No, for in fact you admit that you based your conclusion upon the Society’s writings, namely that w73 [SNIP!!!!]

  Change the last "No, [..]" to "Yes." and you will be correct. As I pointed out earlier, "Try and work out why the word "AND" was capitalized and emboldened by me in the original material (knowing, as I did then, your capacity to fool yourself).. LOL! LOL! Your apparent lack of reading comprehension is STUNNING, [Friend]! Does the penny drop?"

  Let me be even more helpful, and teach you some Boolean logic too. I explain the terminology too.
  (1) The statement 'X is based on Y' is equivalent to (i.e. implies and is implied by; i.e. is a necessary and sufficient condition for; i.e. <==>) the statement 'Y implies X' (i.e. Y is a sufficient condition for X; i.e. if Y, then X; i.e. Y => X).
  (2) Therefore, 'X is based on (Y ANDZ)' <==> (Y ANDZ) => X
  (3) However, and this trips up many students of elementary logic, the last statements are NOT AT ALL equivalent to (Y => X) AND(Z => X), which would have implied (Y => X).

  Hope that helps. Take it to local grade school math teacher if further exposition is needed, or if you cannot see the relevance.

  So, given your ignorant response, again I must ask, do you understand the meaning of “?”?

  Again? Overkill. Do you enjoy beating your wife?

  Regarding your claim of me that:
  "But, but... "Oh So High Up" [Friend] said in the Pedophile thread that there was NO DIFFERENCE between Official JW Policy and congo-level Practice ON IMPORTANT AREAS .. and LIFE or DEATH sounds important to me!" [..]
  My answer to Expatbrit does not evidence your claim of me because my answer only spoke of the Society and whether it had a policy or policies, NOT whether that policy (or policies) is practiced differently on important areas at the “congo-level.
  expatbrit wrote: Are you referring to the WT's formal written policy, or to the WT's informal unwritten policy?
  Friend wrote: When it comes to serious criminal actions, I am referring to the Society’s only policy.

  Does "policy" include the wink at the end of it? Your naivete would be touching if it was naivete and not cupidity.

  And I see you have not commented in or on http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3099&site=3 at MacHislopp's notice of a "life-or-death" issue where two policies existed (one at elder level; another at R&F level).

  And, whose definition of "policy" are you trying to rely on? I've stated the only sensible (and that, only just) definition of "policy" that can be applied to an Organization with a shameful track record of deception, weasel-worded statements, (occasional) outright lies, denials, backtracking, flip-flopping, tacking-a-la-180-degrees, somersaulting, revisionism even including scandalous Stalinistic reprinting, deliberate ambiguity, buck-passing, blame-shifting, contradictions ... and AMBIGUITY?.

  The AMBIGUITY upon which the Society relies when it later comes up with "but that was not policy .. we never said 'you must .. or else'" or similar.

  And THE READING BETWEEN THE LINES which the Society has conditioned the dubs to do.. so that its discreet comments (from which it can legally distance itself later, if needed) have the effect of a RULING.

  "Those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned."

  And of course there must be some good reason why F iend has not responded in the http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3088&site=3 thread, which contains the evidence that the "policy" even by Friend's assumed definition included overtones of "SSSSSSHHHHHHHHH"...

  We have established just WHAT YOU ARE, F IEND. All we need to do is establish what your price was.

  --
  Focus
  (Fighting Evil Class)
• 

  Focus

  Friend said on Mar 7, 2001 7:21:22 PM
  

  Ray would not approve Focus’ assertion that is the subject of contention .. to do so without reprisal

  If true, it would indicate that either Ray's reading comprehension has deteriorated, or that he is still partially in denial. How interesting that you claim to speak for him, Friend! (Check Presumptuousness). Do you speak for God too?

  As to "without reprisal" .. remember that http://www.jw-media.org promises there are no reprisals against JWs who simply cease to associate..

  Mildred .. Carvin

  Surnames, dates, location?

  And - Mildred was not just the WITNESS to the violent assault. She was the VICTIM, AND was in apparently well-justified, immediate fear for her life. A BIG DIFFERENCE

  Friend's anecdote was part of a self-serving, technically accurate and technically relevant response to a loosely-framed question - indicating how dangerous it is for the Naive-Lisa Class to engage with the Spiritually-Syphilitic Class.

  --
  Focus
  (Penicillin Class)
• 

  Focus

  AlanF wrote:

  Well, perhaps unsurprisingly, I agree with virtually all you have written.

  I think that the truth about whether the Society requires not reporting crimes such as child sexual abuse to secular authorities is not as clear cut as I understand either Focus or Friend to be saying.

  Perhaps you are blurring what I actually wrote with what Friend tries (for obvious reasons, and with characteristic guile) to make out that I wrote. I stand by what I have written, and welcome any specificcommentary on anything I have written with which you even slightly disagree.

  And as Friend repeats that there is no overtone of "SSSSSSSHHHHHHH" in what Society POLICY (even using his absurd definition thereof!), and neglects to comment in the thread where that is refuted, I must repeat myself. Above, we have seen a lot of what Friend has to say.. But one often learns more by what certain types of people do NOTsay!

  Singularly, Friend has failed to produce any literature emanating from the Society actually counselling the victim of child abuse by a JW to whistle blow to the police or other secular authorities. How odd! Think how that would serve to bolster his case, or damage mine (he tries to draw some distinction between these - doubtless he has contempt for the intelligence of his readership)!

  Now, Friend was able to produce counsel (g93 3/8 10) to whistle-blow when the perpetrator of the assault was in all likelihood (given context - a JW raped) not a JW! Of course he made out there was much more material to prove his case (but, also of course, he failed to come up with any of this vaunted material when I asked and then pressed him to so do).

  Strange then that he couldn't produce even one quote that would support his contention when the perp was a JW... even if not from an official WTS publication to the world at large, or to the R&F, then at least from an official "letter to elders" where one might expect to find counsel of this sort that the WTS did not want to make too public (denying as it has been that there is any sort of pedophile trouble here - I have a dozen quotes where it attacks the clergy of Christendom for pedophilia!).

  It is, after all and as Friend demonstrated above, the sort of area on which the WTBTS does express opinions! So - why no mention by him? Hmmm... I thought. There's possibly something there.

  Now below we see why Friend did not produce evidence directly supporting his claim (and instead engaged in all variety of legalese and red-herringDOM) - because there is material out there BUT NOT ON THE OFFICIAL CD utterly damaging to his case.

  All dated quotes are from the Society's letters "TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS IN THE UNITED STATES" (the date is the date on the letter - letters in other countries will differ slightly, even in date) - strictly not for the rank and file!

  Firstly - and I quote the PB - "there is nothing at all in any of the letters I read to suggest that the victim of child-abuse by a JW should be counselled to report the incident, except - and this is reading between the lines and giving the WTBTS the benefit of the doubt - if the law compels it".

  As seeing justice is meted out to the perpetrator is often the first stage of "healing", that is indeed a telling omission!

  Now, having seen WHAT IS NOT THERE, let us see what IS THERE:

  March 23, 1992
  If a current case of child abuse comes to light in your congregation, elders should do what they can to protect children from further abuse. (See 'Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock' page 93.) How might this be accomplished? In the Addendum presented at the Kingdom Ministry School, direction was given that when elders receive reports of physical or sexual abuse of a child, they should contact the Society immediately for legal advice. Thereafter, if it is established that a member of the congregation is guilty of sexually abusing a child, a judicial committee would meet with this one, following theocratic procedures. If the person is not repentant over the gross sin, disfellowshipping action would be warranted. Additionally, elders can encourage parents to review the January 22, 1985, issue of Awake! which provides suggestions on what they can do to protect their children from sexual abuse by anyone, inside or outside the family . -See also Awake! issues of June 22, 1982, and December 22, 1986

  My comment: And none of the voluminous material referred to here contains counsel for the victim to whistle-blow to secular authorities - WHY NOT? The message is clear, except to the Friend Class!]

  February 3, 1993
  It is also a personal decision if the alleged victim chooses to report such accusations to the secular authorities. Elders should encourage the sufferer to use discretion if that one chooses to confide in a mature friend. They can help him to see that the matter should not be indiscriminantly discussed in the congregation.

  My comment: Sure, we get the message... SSSSSSSHHHHHH And there lies the nub.

  August 1, 1995
  Many states make it mandatory that elders report an accusation to the proper authorities but other states do not. In those states where such is required, oftentimes the parent, the guardian, or the accused person himself can do the reporting. In this way the confidentiality protected by ecclesiastical privilege is not violated.

  My comment: Simply complying with "superior authorities" requirements - no concession at all here. And no counselling to whistle-blow on the part of the victim at all, where the law does not force it! The wording is very telling and bears re-reading. They could have said so much here. THEY DID NOT.

  March 14, 1997
  What should elders do when a former child molester moves to another congregation? .. The secretary should write on behalf of the elders to the new congregation's body of elders and outline this publisher's background and what the elders in the old congregation have been doing to assist him. Any needed cautions should be provided to the new congregation's body of elders. This letter should not be read to or discussed with the congregation.. 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.. this information [re the abuse] is not to be made available to those not involved.. Elders should not discuss this information [re the letter itself] with others.

  My comment: It speaks for itself. SSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH is implied.

  July 20, 1998
  In addition, court officials and lawyers will hold responsible any organization that knowingly appoints former child abusers to positions of trust, if one of these, thereafter, commits a further act of child abuse. This could result in costly lawsuits, involving dedicated funds that should be used to further the Kingdom work. So, legal considerations must also be weighed

  My comment: Sure, we now see what is really important - the concluding consideration - $$$$$ to WTBTS!

  A most telling omission then... no wonder Friend steered so well clear of this! There simply had to be a reason.

  In conclusion, and somewhat less significantly, I am reminded of how Friend made his Nuremberg-style apologia for the Society by claiming how he could find no trace of evidence in S-2 forms of congregation-level troubles...

  Friend somehow also forgot the Society's track record on these sorts of things (paper-trails):

  (1) For example, during the Kingdom Ministry Schools held in Nov/Dec '94 in the U.S., elders were told to handwrite, word for word, the following things relating to the S77/S79 forms (judicial committees use these to report disfellowshipings to Brooklyn) in their 'Pay Attention To Yourselves And To All The Flock' booklets:
  Six Expressions That Should Not Be Used on S77 and S79 Forms
  1. Anything alluding to or naming one of the Society's attorneys
  2. Any mention of the Legal Department
  3. Any comments referring to direction from the Society
  4. Any comments mentioning anyone other than the committee itself as a possible influence in the decision reached
  5. Any comments that might suggest to someone with a critical eye that the committee did not reach its decision on its own but, instead, somehow yielded to the influence of an outside party
  6. Any comments indicating that the elders mishandled the case or committed any error in the investigation or the judicial committee process.

  (2) What follows relate to counsel from "The Slave" on matters of serious wrongdoing (excommunication)

  July 1, 1989
  Be Extremely Careful with Written Material .. avoid sending .. any kind of correspondence .. Nothing should be put in writing .. without specific direction from the Society. The rules and procedures of Jehovah's Witnesses do not require such written disclosures.. should be informed orally .. inform him orally .. inform him by telephone.. Guard the Use of Your Tongue!

  So we surely read volumes into the absence of paper trails...

  As I am fair, I point out to those who have little time to read long threads, that I have never contended here or elsewhere that this resultant pedophilic wickedness was (ever) the deliberate objective of the Society - Russell's misconduct notwithstanding. I do not believe it was, and have seen no evidence that it was. But where fools abound, promoted way above their ability, what would appear(to AlanF, LDH and other not-unintelligent ones not excluding myself, who can figure out how pedophiles convince their poor victims to stay mute) to be an inevitable consequence of the "bring no shame to God's name" policy/practice probably came as an unwelcome surprise to the boastful, presumptuous, deceitful halfwits who head "God's Organization".

  IN CONCLUSION:

  I believe that the evidence I have provided in this thread fully supports my contention that the answer to the question posed in the subject of this thread i.e. "PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?" is YES. The way in which the Jehovah's Witnesses operate make the organization a MAGNET FOR PEDOPHILES, and encourages those already within it who have tendencies in that direction to be less fearful of being reported if they indulge in their depraved 'needs'

  The Watchtower Society and the Creed of the Jehovah's Witnesses is a CHEAT, a 100% SCAM, a WICKED TRICK, a FILTHY LIE, a BLASPHEMOUS INSULT, a SCANDAL, a FRAUD, a DISGRACE, an ABOMINATION and a DAMNED OUTRAGE from start to finish - and furthers the cause of pedophiles.

  --
  Focus
  (Pedophiles are to the Watchtower as flies are to honey. :( Class)
• 

  TR

  Focus,

  Let me say that I do appreciate your attention to this subject. Your posts bring to light what many of us were previously ignorant about. There are no excuses for the WTS's inattention to this matter. Just like any corporation, the WTS does whatever it can to protect itself, even at the expense of children. The WTS seems to care as much about child rape victims as the tobacco companies care about a smoker's health.

  TR