PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus 173 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  ISP

  Hi Focus/Danielle and other fragmented personalities;)!

  I thought you have overlooked/misrepresented a few things, whether intentionally or not I hardly care.

  But you said to Xandit regarding whether it was referring to civil matters

  >Firstly, the article - which I quoted in full - neither states nor implies that.

  Well did you quote the article in FULL? I think not. Further more the article did certainly imply that it was talking about civil matters.

  Well it said....*** w73 11/15 703 Questions from Readers ***
  Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worth the time and expense as well as whether the congregation could still come into disrepute by bringing to public attention the actions of one of its former members.

  Time and expense are only considerations in a civil suit as you know the state takes over the expense of pursuing criminalactions.

  You also said
  >So - the summary is: "YES, YOU MUST NOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST A FELLOW JW - NO EXCEPTIONS".

  But its not. There are exceptions....and its not a fair summary.

  *** w73 11/15 704 Questions from Readers ***
  There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers. This might be to obtain compensation from an insurance company. In some countries the law may specify that certain matters have to be handled in a court, such as wills that may have to be probated by courts.

  If you go against the WTS 'instructions' do you recall what the sanction was?

  *** w73 11/15 704 Questions from Readers ***
  He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

  WOW so ya can't hand the mikes out! Not exactly fire and brimstone for the non-compliant!

  Oh and the point about pedophiles...the WTS has its problems but they are typical of this 'sector'! Pedophiles have targeted 'christian' groups historically. Every Christian belief sytem has its own nightmares in this regard and there is much evidence of cover-ups etc. They are too numerous to tell. I am critical of the WTS in that they should have very clear rules on this. After all they can dominate and rule over millions worldwide and surely they could easily have a uniform approach - that is an example to all. But they are no worse/better than the miserable bunch that operate in this 'market'.

  ISP

  Edited by - ISP on 3 March 2001 4:28:7

  Edited by - ISP on 3 March 2001 5:54:58
• 

  Focus

  ISP:

  If I didn't quote the article in entirety, it was wholly inadvertent - sorry. Please do so and rectify matters, then! There was nothing selectively included or omitted in what I placed there; it was clearly a contiguous block, apparently complete - and was all that was available to me. Indeed, that the material you quoted that I did not have assists the overall case (as I show below): rather supports what I have just said.

  From the material I have:

  Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worth the time and expense

  ISP interjected:

  > Time and expense are only considerations in a civil suit as you know the state takes over the expense of pursuing criminalactions. [1st emphasis mine]

  No, you are WRONG, ISP.

  (1) The fact that the WTS states that the individual should consider whether the time etc. is worth it, means just that and no more. If the matter is civil, the considerations may be (much?) more relevant. "Consider the effect of rain on your new suit" does not imply it is raining at present. The advice is blanket advice, not a detailed set of rules for determining the propriety and worthiness of the said items. OK? It is bizarre that you should rely on, or even mention, this!

  (2) "only"???? Please, learn what a private prosecution is... the state is under no obligation to take over such cases (and frequently does not). Search for "Stephen Lawrence" on the web or in Usenet, and you will realize your error. Time and expense is very much an issue in such a case. And even when such proceedings are brought by the state (clearly - are you really so naive as to think that there is no time (and therefore expense - or do you really think court attendance fees are compensation?? LOL!) cost for a victim ensnared in some inevitably protracted criminal investigation, with ancillary impairment of their concentration, ability to function and focus, etc.

  Face it - if the law is involved, there will be time and expense matters to consider. Or do you think you live in Friend's Cuckoo Land?

  There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers.

  If you, ISP, thinks that the quote helps your case, you need to buy a new set of reading glasses. The wording is exactly that often employed by the WTS to cow the Brothers into submission... "There may even be times when you feel you are not doing wrong" is an Old Tune for the Watchtower.

  > If you go against the WTS 'instructions' do you recall what the sanction was?

  Now I know you are trolling, ISP, and such conduct is unworthy where the matter as weighty as this one.

  Leviticus 17:12-15 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.. he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean.

  The adjacently-specified sanction just shows how important is the issue of eating blood, doesn't it? A little temporary loss of privilege, eh? But whoops, for that one you lose your life! LOL!

  JT has already addressed this, with excellent directness, and makes an irresistible case that it is not the minutiae of Watchtower wording that matters - but instead the (cumulative) effect of its PERCEPTION in the great unwashed and semi-literate body.

  Re-read until understood, please, ISP.

  > the WTS has its problems but they are typical of this 'sector'

  Rubbish. The scale of the problem in the WTBTS is far greater, because no other large sect has such an absurd closet-mind, stick together, protect the congregation's good name etc. After all, we just need to rely on the much-vaunted WTBTS claim of:

  Yes, because you must understand we must have unity, we cannot have disunity with a lot of people going every way, an army is supposed to march in step.

  ... the words being of Society lawyer and one-time V.P. Hayden Covington, in the Pursuer's Proof, The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde, MP, PC, as representing the Minister of Labour and National Service vs Douglas Walsh, Scottish Court of Sessions 11 1954.

  And as to loyalty and obedience .. how many quotes do you want?

  And returning to your earlier "defense" - it doesn't matter how small the sanction may be (even assuming the R&F remember precisely what it is within the tossing sea of ever-changing rules and regulations) - if one is OBEDIENT it does not matter one whit. ONE JUST OBEYS.

  Move Ahead with Jehovah's Organization.. What, can we say, is the basic principle underlying the movement of Jehovah's living organization? It can be expressed in one word: OBEDIENCE

  - 1967WTWR 6/1 p337-8

  > But they are no worse/better than the miserable bunch that operate in this 'market'.

  And where are the statistics to support this contention, in the absence of a rational argument?

  THAT IS DANGEROUS GARBAGE, AS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE. BY SPEWING FORTH SUCH, YOU ARE THE PEDOPHILE'S ALLY. If you still feel the need to toss here, read and refute what JT wrote earlier in this thread. If you can. . JT immediately understood the essence of my position. Are you trying not to, or are you truly unintelligent - or do you have an agenda?

  Meditate prayerfully on that before ejaculating further complacency about a matter relating to which complacency is QUITE intolerable into this or any other forum. Thanks for your assistance.

  --
  Focus
  ('Taught to HATE by the PROFESSIONALS at HATING, the Watchtower' Class)

  Edited by - Focus on 3 March 2001 8:16:54
• 

  waiting

  Hey Focus,

  Interesting thread - particularily with SilentLambs in mind. When several of his last posts and newspaper links was brought to this forum - very little interest, even in the number of persons interested enough to click onto the thread.

  So after years of having it pounded into thier heads that any problems in the hall are to be handled by the "Volunteer and Untrained elders"

  and if it will make the Org look bad then you need to reconsider, it has layed the Ground work for what would we see happened with the child abuse cases

  bro Jones had his hand down the panties of little mary, the elders meet with him

  he had said he was sorry, they felt that he had works that BEFIT REPENTANCE

  HE WAS NOT df BUT Privately reproved- the sister was told that the elders had handle the matter

  she asked the elders if she could go to the Police, they told her that it was a personal decision, but she needed to consider somethings

  so they got the bound vol out in fact they used w73 11/15 703-4 Questions from Readers

  they EXPLAINED TO HER that this article dealt with Civil cases BUT THE PRINCIPAL was the same in that you will be taking your case before a Worldly judge who may not be favorable toward jw and keep in mind how it will affect the name of the congo and how hard it will be to go out in service when this hits the papers

  but sister it is your choice WINK WINK - Jt

  This is exactly how it's done - I'm living proof and have written about it to SilentLambs. The CO didn't physically wink wink, however.

  Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worth the time and expense

  Walk into any atorney's office either initiating a lawsuit or defending against the same, he will give you the exact same advice - because there will be time and expense spent. Time off work, translates into money. Expenses to be met for expert witnesses, research, etc. On a large lawsuit, massives of time and expense are expended - before ever going to court.

  Anyone whose dealt with attorneys knows this fact.

  waiting
• 

  happytobefree

  .............Shame on you, Friend. Having the brains to see the FILTHY, PUS-FILLED PAPS OF THE WHORE for what they are - and to continue FEEDING and VENDING the FILTH................

  Focus, where do u come up with these terms. You crack me up. Tears are rolling down my face.

  Happy to be Free (Me)
• 

  Focus

  > Silentlambs .. When several of his last posts and newspaper links was brought to this forum - very little interest, even in the number of persons interested enough to click onto the thread.

  Maybe they were following it elsewhere: maybe it was a matter of presentation. Don't know - they seem interested now!

  In dealing with the press, SilentLambs uses terms like "disfellowshiped" which won't be properly understood - he should be using the understandood "excommunicated" and the emotive "shunned". One needs to know how to feed the machine. The WTBTS does.

  > This is exactly how it's done

  I know. Shocking how the apologetics try to weave all manner of legalese around precise wording employed by the Great Whore, when the brainwashed R&F stare at it with a glazed look, are subject to arbitrary, inexpert and often malicious local control and manipulation - and take the path they pray is least likely to bring trouble (and a mad, vengeful J-God) down on their poor heads..

  F iend and others should be ashamed of themselves for attempting to defend the Spiritual-Fornicatrix on this one.

  --
  Focus
  (I Hope Hell Exists! Class)
• 

  waiting

  Hey Focus,

  In dealing with the press, SilentLambs uses terms like "disfellowshiped" which won't be properly understood

  Correct. Even some jw's don't understand the emotional damage until it occurs in their immediate family. I think most, including me last year, jw's don't understand at all what "disassociation" is or how it will impact their lives.

  waiting
• 

  ISP

  Hi Focus,

  Lets keep to the point....

  >If I didn't quote the article in entirety, it was wholly inadvertent - sorry.

  Well keep your 'wholly inadvertance' under more control because when you say.....
  >Firstly, the article - which I quoted in full

  are you correct or incorrect? I don't accept your explanation about having material available to you BTW.

  With regard to the WTS advice....
  *** w73 11/15 703 Questions from Readers ***

  Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worththe time and expense as well as whether the congregation could still come into disrepute by bringing to public attention the actions of one of its former members.

  You are wrong. In a criminal case the state makes the decisions as to whether to pursue the matter on the basis of liklihood of sucess. The injured party does not have to consider the expenseand the time is not a factor either. It is simply not that persons decision. or do you think you can say to the police in a murder investigation...'I've been reading this WT article and I don't think I should get involved becasuse of the time and money involved'....duh?

  In a civil case your own time and money are factors and crucially it is only you that need decide whether the case proceeds ot not.So the WTS is talking about cases that you have control over...i.e.civil cases.

  BTW Focus when I quoted
  *** w73 11/15 704 Questions from Readers ***
  There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers. This might be to obtain compensation from an insurance company. In some countries the law may specify that certain matters have to be handled in a court, such as wills that may have to be probated by courts.

  It was n't to make out a 'case' as you say but to correct your statement which was.....

  >So - the summary is: "YES, YOU MUST NOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST A FELLOW JW - NO EXCEPTIONS".

  So are there exceptions or are there not?

  And the sanction for non-compliance was........
  *** w73 11/15 704 Questions from Readers ***
  He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

  So whats ya problem, if you want to sue your brother because he owes you money, theres nothing stopping you in actual fact. You do so at risk of your priviliges in which case there maybe little loss if you are a sister as oppose to an elder etc.

  BTW I agree this is a serious subject but I don't think the WTS QFR has much bearing on this matter.

  ISP
• 

  Friend

  Focus

  Xandit is correct, you are an idiot!

  Initially, and incorrectly, you stated:

  So - the summary [of w73 11/15 QFR] is: "YES, YOU MUST NOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST A FELLOW JW - NO EXCEPTIONS".

  A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW - if the matter is serious enough, and the JW is unrepentant, he/she will be disfellowshiped and then one will not be taking a "Christian" to court if one proceeds. But a JW must not act until the disfellowshiping happens, as the above article makes clear.

  By your own words you later refute yourself, yet you are apparently too stupid to see it! After being asked about an instance of a JW witnessing another JW commit a serious criminal wrongdoing and whether that JW would be free to report the crime, you answered, "Yes." What does that mean? It means that an assertion otherwise is false! So, your assertion is false. If you don’t understand that then I suppose it must be spelled out with a crayon. Alas, there is no crayon feature on this forum! I guess you must reside in your idiocy!

  You also (and errantly) feel that your question to me about whether a JW is required to report a crime is germane to your initial assertions, which assertions is what my criticisms were about. Your assertions have to do with JWs being prevented from reporting, not, I repeat, NOT whether they are required to report them. Please review your quoted assertions above. Plainly you assert that JWs "MUST NOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST A FELLOW JW - NO EXCEPTIONS" and, "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…"

  As for categorizing my responses here as a defense of the Society, shame on you, Focus! Do you suppose it is a defense of the Society that I point out your error? That an assertion is evidenced as false is construed as a defense is ludicrous! Defense means that you stand beside a subject and protect it, in this case allegedly the Society. All I have done here is point out your blunder! What in the world kind of reasoning ability do you have, anyway? The subject of my responses here has not been the Society, rather it has been your assertions! Claiming that my actions herein are a defense of the Society is no less than you introducing a red herring into our discussion, which is a thoroughly dishonest act (or else an act of ignorance!).

  I suggest that you get an education! When you are ready to critically examine yourself first, then we can perhaps pursue some semblance of conversation. In the meantime those choosing to be persuaded by your brand of folly are being guided by a jester.

  To the others

  As for the Society’s actions regarding issues like reporting child abuse, there are many misconstruals about what the Society’s policy is. This does not mean that the Society is somehow innocent of any bad acts, it just means that many of the accusations are less than completely valid (with some being completely invalid). For sure people have been hurt, and whatever role the Society has played in that result should be accounted for if possible. But it does little good to make false accusations on specific issues when those false accusation may actually lend support to the Society in the form of providing them with material to easily rebut.

  Friend

  Edited by - Friend on 3 March 2001 13:49:10
• 

  expatbrit

  Friend:

  Thank you for your reply to my question: "When it comes to serious criminal actions, I am referring to the Society’s only policy."

  I'm afraid I must differ with you on the society having only one policy on this issue. Quite often, the policy the society puts in print is very different to the actual attitudes and actions reflected in the congregations.

  For instance: the society has stated that disfellowshipping does not dissolve family ties. And this is quite true as a policy, since the society has no legal authority or physical ability to dissolve family ties. However, we know that in the congregations and familys, disfellowshipped members are emotionally and spiritually shunned as though family ties had been dissolved. The official policy differs from the unofficial policy as demonstrated by the actions of the society's members.

  Similarly, with regard to the reporting of crimes (whether serious or not), the society may very well say that it's policy is either to report crimes, or even to not hinder reporting of them. But when the brother or sister reporting the crime first to the authorities rather than to the elders knows that there is a high probability that they will be regarded as spiritually weak and a bad associate to be marked, they will likely remain silent. Then the unofficial policy of the society (avoiding negative publicity at all costs) becomes clear through the actions of it's members.

  Finally, having grown up as a JW, I certainly do not think that all JW's are child molesters, or that they are all callous to the effects of such abuse. But surely the society should be taking a pro-active view of this issue, not retreating into denial and exercising the knee-jerk reaction of blaming apostate troublemaking.

  Expatbrit.
• 

  Friend

  Expatbrit

  I'm afraid I must differ with you on the society having only one policy on this issue. Quite often, the policy the society puts in print is very different to the actual attitudes and actions reflected in the congregations.

  I understand what you are saying in that statement, but please keep in mind that you equivocate Society policy with actions of local congregations; they are not always one and the same. My comments responded to your question asked, which was strictly about Society policy.

  On the subject of congregational action, the Society is certainly accountable for libelous actions of elders when they are acting as directed in that capacity. The Society is also accountable if they appoint elders that are less than ready for the work assignment. That is, it is negligence to charge an elder with handling sensitive situations for which they are not known to be qualified for. But, too often elders who are qualified act sincerely though indiscriminately in certain situations out of a misunderstood impression of Society policy. This is one problem with giving so much leeway to local elders (who may also be lacking in certain abilities) in assessing the qualifications of each person working as an elder.

  For instance: the society has stated that disfellowshipping does not dissolve family ties. And this is quite true as a policy, since the society has no legal authority or physical ability to dissolve family ties. However, we know that in the congregations and familys, disfellowshipped members are emotionally and spiritually shunned as though family ties had been dissolved. The official policy differs from the unofficial policy as demonstrated by the actions of the society's members.

  That is not an example of what you asked about. You did not ask me about the Society’s policy regarding shunning of relatives or the more general question of whether the Society sometimes plays with semantics in its policies. Regarding shunning of family members, the Society tells half-truths in its public PR language. However, regarding serious criminal actions, there is no such half-truths in the Society’s public comments. Society policy does not hinder JWs from reporting such acts to legitimate law enforcement authorities.

  Similarly, with regard to the reporting of crimes (whether serious or not), the society may very well say that it's policy is either to report crimes, or even to not hinder reporting of them. But when the brother or sister reporting the crime first to the authorities rather than to the elders knows that there is a high probability that they will be regarded as spiritually weak and a bad associate to be marked, they will likely remain silent. Then the unofficial policy of the society (avoiding negative publicity at all costs) becomes clear through the actions of it's members.

  This is where your assertions are lacking, at least in regard to Society policy. It may be that you have experienced what you claim above, but that does not make it Society policy. In those cases elders or others could have been acting under wrong ideas about what Society policy is. For a fact the Society does not view it as spiritual weakness that a JW would report a serious crime to legitimate law enforcement officials whether the offender is a JW or not. Certainly there is no policy to congregationally "mark" such a person! As for the Society’s policy being clear through the actions of its members, assuming by "members" that you mean all JWs, then how do you explain the contradiction of JWs who do report such crime as we are speaking of here without experiencing adverse repercussion? Additionally, if your assertion is true that, for instance, elders avoid reporting child abuse cases "at all cost" then how do you explain the contradiction of the Society instructing elders to report child abuse when the law requires it?

  Finally, having grown up as a JW, I certainly do not think that all JW's are child molesters, or that they are all callous to the effects of such abuse. But surely the society should be taking a pro-active view of this issue, not retreating into denial and exercising the knee-jerk reaction of blaming apostate troublemaking.

  Let me ask you a question here. If you were a parent who learned that your child had been sexually abused by an adult (JW or not), would you want the prerogative to report or not, or would you rather someone else hold that prerogative? Let me put this in more specific terms. If you learned that a JW had abused your daughter but were concerned that reporting to law enforcement might make your daughter’s circumstances worse, would you feel free and comfortable seeking pastoral help from congregational elders if you knew they were obligated to report the crime whether you wanted it reported or not? Again, who should hold the prerogative to report these crimes? Do you think the answer is a simple one?

  Friend