Anthony Morris III: "...we cannot control everything that an individual might say..." (page 2)

steve2

Has anyone got a scanned copy of that "landmark" Awake! magazine?

Given its putative status, I am astonished it is not widely available for others to "benefit" from its message.

JustVisting

I thought that the titles in that Awake were made up, but Tony read them on the broadcast. "Baby Pros and Kiddie Porn", really? That sounds obscene and sick.

Magwitch

Did that "Landmark" Awake have anything to do with protecting children from predators "INSIDE" the congregation?

oppostate

"Baby Pros and Kiddie Porn", really? That sounds obscene and sick.

It does, and maybe Leo Greenlees wrote it. It would seem he was somewhat of an expert in such things.

sparrowdown

"Baby pros and kiddie porn" seriously?

Maybe they call it that because the babies and the children are partly to blame -especially once they're baptized!

Hyperbolic, I know but I wouldn't put anything past these sick bastards!

Oubliette

Magwitch: Did that "Landmark" Awake have anything to do with protecting children from predators "INSIDE" the congregation?

Of course not because they are still in denial that there even is such a problem.

leaving_quietly

Ok, I just finished watching the segment. Here's my thoughts:

I believe Mr. Morris truly feels child abuse is deplorable and despicable. Of that, I have no doubt. And, I believe he feels the organization is doing a good job of alerting people to the dangers of it. By trotting out the 1982 Awake article and the Public Service Announcement, that shows that the organization has been committed to bringing the issue to the awareness of parents.

However, he did not address the one thing that is in the courts today. What is the organization doing to protect children within the congregation who are victims of child abuse by other members of the congregation?

By stating that the organization does not discourage the VICTIMS to go to the authorities, that simply takes the light off the real issue. It is true that the organization does not discourage the victims to go to the authority. That is NOT the issue. The issue is that the organization does not encourage ELDERS to go to the authorities as the very first step. And the issue is that the organization does hardly a thing to protect the children from known molesters WITHIN the congregation.

There are definitely nuances to all of this. For example, what if a man years and years and years ago got into trouble for molestation when he was 18 and she was, say, 15? He was past the age of consent, but she was not? This is a blurry line when she was a willing participant, but in the eyes of the law, it is still considered molestation. Should this charge remain with him for the rest of his life? Hard to say. It puts the congregation into a bit of a predicament.

What, though, about a man who is a known molester? He did the deed, got in trouble for it with the congregation, but it never got reported to any authorities? What responsibility does the congregation and the organization have then?

These are the issues that the legal department no doubt grapples with. And these are the issues the organization is not being forthcoming about to its membership. Are there easy solutions to all of these issues? No. Are there steps that could and should be taken to be out in the open about it all? Absolutely, yes.

One molester protected by the organization's current policies is one too many. If I were making policies, I would make the following adjustments immediately. I'm sure there are more that you can think of. If the organization does indeed view this site, maybe they can have some ideas here to implement.

1. Make policies regarding handling of molestation cases PUBLIC to all members, not just confidential letters to elders.

2. If an allegation of molestation is made, go directly to the authorities FIRST and let the authorities handle it the way they would any other case. Do not attempt to determine whether there is merit to the accusation. Simply contact the authorities. AFTER contact is made with the authorities, contact the legal department for assistance. In addition, all elders on the body should be made aware of the accusation. Not all need to be made aware of the details, but they should at least be made aware of who is accused.

3. While the investigations are proceeding (both secular and congregational) the accused person should not be permitted to go in the field ministry with any child. I would go so far as to say that the accused can only go in the field ministry when accompanied by an elder.

4. Elders should meet privately with every head of every family with children and make them aware of the situation. No details need to be given. Simply state: "We want to make you aware that <so and so> has been accused of molestation. The investigation is ongoing. It hasn't been proven one way or the other, but to protect your children, the organization feels you should be made aware." Family heads should not spread this information to others in the congregation as the accusation may ultimately prove untrue, but should inform their spouses, if applicable.

5. If the allegation of molestation PROVES TRUE by EITHER secular authorities or by the investigation by the body of elders, a public warning should be given from the platform, regardless of whether the person was repentant and is allowed to remain part of the congregation. This warning must include the person's name and that it has been found to be true that he is a molester.

6. If the allegation of molestation DOES NOT prove true by BOTH the secular authorities AND the body of elders (both must be in agreement that the accused did not carry out any molestation,) then the elders handling the case should meet privately with every head of every family and update them on the status. No public warning needs to be given. In addition, the person who falsely made the allegation could be open to civil and congregational proceedings.

7. A permanent mark should be made in the accused person's file and that file must be (a) copied to the branch, (b) copied to the Circuit Overseer, and (c) sent to each congregation whenever the person moves. The mark should be made REGARDLESS of whether the accusation proves true or not. If it does not prove true, the mark should include the name of the person who made the accusation and any pertinent information regarding findings. It is possible that a person did actually molest, but was able to get out of it in one way or another. A permanent mark could establish a pattern in case a future accusation occurs.

I believe today that molestation cases are permanent and those files are not to be destroyed by the congregation. That policy was made a few years back, if I recall.

Obviously, policies with this issue are HARD to make because someone may be falsely accused, and the long term damage to that person would be nearly irreparable. However, to protect the children, a hard line must be taken. These changes, I think, would protect the organization, protect the elders, and most importantly, protect the children.

What policy changes would you make?

Island Man

leaving_quitely, I agree with most of what you said. However, when it comes to an unproven allegation, I don't think the elders should inform the family heads of the name of the individual that was accused. They should simply inform them that a member of the congregation has been accused of pedophilia and that as a precaution they're telling all parents to not leave their children alone with ANY adults in the congregation, no matter how trustworthy they think they are - no elders, no ministerial servants, no pioneers, no one! and they must accompany them to the bathroom.

Furthermore, when informing the parents the elders should take the opportunity to ask the parents if their child has ever said anything to them about the behavior of any member of the congregation regarding them touching the child inappropriately. You see, it may be that the accused touched another child but when the child told the parent, the parent brushed it off as a misunderstanding. By not telling the parents the name of the accused, it ensures that if the accused did in fact touch another child, then the parent or child giving that same name would constitute an unbiased corroboration - unbiased by the knowledge of the identity of the accused in the current case - that the accused is indeed a pedophile.

It would also serve to protect the reputation of the accused from any stigma should it later turn out that the accusation was untrue, because sometimes the stigma can continue on the accused even after he was shown to be innocent.

leaving_quietly

Island Man, I'm glad you posted that. When I wrote what I would do for a policy, this was a hard one. I went back and forth in my mind whether I'd name the accused name or not. Now that I think further about this, naming a name, if falsely done, could be construed as slander. That's a problem, too. You bring up a reasonable alternative.

This, no doubt, is similar to the discussions they must have from time to time behind closed doors.

Like I said, a policy for this is HARD to come up with, especially one that protects everyone involved.

Any other thoughts anyone?

OUTLAW

Anthony Morris III: "...we cannot control everything that an individual might say..."

...We`d Kill Them If We Could,It`s Against the Law!..

....................CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT??!!..

.................. Image result for watchtower anthony morris

Anthony Morris III: "...we cannot control everything that an individual might say..."

Share this