by Jim Penton 86 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
I have made it a point to stay completely out of this debate, but I wanted make a quick post to avoid confusion. I noticed there is a new poster by the name of Anton. As this is my real name and I sign all of my posts with it, I just wanted to clarify that we are not the same person.
Anton
Jim,
Thanks for those well-reasoned comments. FWIW, I'm pasting here a post I made to the SilentLambs yahoo group.
-Bob Walker
===
JMHO here, my 1 & 1/3 cents' worth ...
I read Bill's post on JWD, even saved it to my computer, as it was well-written;
however, I do feel a need to respond to some of the comments there and in
others' posts, critical of Ray Franz; and, equally, others critical of Bill.
I am neither defending Ray, nor anyone else. However, I am speaking from the
perspective of an ex-elder, 32 years in the bORG (in fact, I was in the J-Wits
group and was among the first to use the term "bORG," which is now widely used
in these groups). I was known as "LoneRanger" in J-Wits and on Philia. I left
the Wickedtower in 1996, and am vocal among those who know me in criticizing the
various closed, high-control policies of the Wackytower and the Groaning
Bodies. After being on several discussion groups involving ex-dubbies, I've had
a chance to see the wide spectrum of emotions and opinions that are posted, both
those still apologetic for the Terror, and those who are so full of spite and
venom that they sound incredible.
I am also aware, as has been written about extensively by Steven Hassan, Amnesty
International, and other psych's that it takes from 3 -7 years for anyone coming
from such a high-mind-control group to go through all the phases of recovery,
from shock, loss, anger, pain - all the way to finding a place where they no
longer even consider themself an ex-dub, but just as a human with some past
flaws... I can vouche that it's a great place to be, when you wake up one day
and find that having been a Dubby is just a place you once visited and is no
longer part of who you are ... no longer an 'ex-wit,' just a human with some
flaws, battlescars, and some amazing growth that came therefrom.
Bill takes some exception in his post that Ray claims to have never known of a
case of alleged child abuse while he was in the bORG, as if to say that anyone
who was in that long and at that level would HAVE to have known of such cases;
in addition, Bill seems to feel that it is naive for someone to believe that the
incidence of child abuse within the WaterTomb is no worse than in other
religions.
OTOH, some have posted rather virulently about Bill's comments, as if Ray is a
holy icon who cannot have any flaws.
I submit that both views are a little skewed by the psychological 'filters' each
poster has developed, based on their own experiences. It's a little like
Aesop's Fable of the five blind men asked to describe an elephant. One man
touched the trunk and described the entire elephant as a writhing muscular
animal like a snake; another touched the tusk, and disagreed, insisting the
elephant was a hard, bony creature; still another, who had held the tail,
averred they were both wrong, for he was certain the elephant was a small
whip-like creature; etc. etc.
Since each of us have unique experiences vis-a-vis the bORG (in addition to the
common experiences we all share), we each have a slightly different and unique
perpective of it.
I have to compliment Bill on his comment in the JWD post, wherein he said of
Ray, "he is just exercising his freedom and everyone should have the right to do
that. That position angered me at first, but if I can be kind to Jehovah's
Witnesses who do not understand this issue can I not be kind to Ray? I am sorry
Ray for not respecting your freedom, I will leave you alone. There is no Ray
camp or Bill camp this is not an issue about choosing sides ..."
Bill, that comment - and your reaching that realization - indicates that you
have already taken a huge step in the healing process we all must journey
through.
For those who posted rather virulent criticizms of Bill's orginal comments about
Ray, I'm sure you recognize that our experience in an unbelievably
narrow-focused, inward-thinking group has left all of us a bit dented and
damaged, and with some bruises we have to work through. Bill has had a
tremendously unsettling couple of years, and the emotional toll of the trauma
involved with confronting such indefensible, immoral dogma - and being vilified
for doing what one KNOWS is right - that is a pretty hard load to deal with in
the beginning. In addition to that, in Bill and Barbara's cases, they were also
being thrust into a media and PR spotlight at that same time ... I think one
could cut them a little slack if they speak their mind a little curtly, then
retract themselves upon reflection.
Bill, I disagreed with your original assessment of Ray. But I do agree with
this most recent comment, that everyon has freedom to become involved - or not -
in any issue they wish. After all .... didn't we just leave behind an
organization that insisted in "like-think"? And who vilified and ostracized as
"worldly" or "unspiritual" anyone in the bORG who didn't repeat the same mantra?
In defense of Ray, I will say that I was in the bORG for 32 years, 28 as either
an MS or an elder. I had parts on almost every convention or assembly that
occurred during that time, my very first one being an interview at the Circuit
Assembly at which I was baptized. Radio interviews, assembly administration,
quick build co-ordination, yadda yadda yadda. At one time or another, I had
held every congregational position except PO, and had been considered for
circuit work. Does that make me someone? No ... but I say that to illustrate
this ... in that entire time, I never was personally involved in any case of
alleged child abuse. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, and I'm sure that it
does happen, and I've talked with some since to whom it DID happen... I'm
convinced it is far more common within the bORG than I was aware back then.
It's just that, had you told me this was common at any time during those years,
I would have said you are crazy, or apostate, or something like that. In all
those years, I HEARD of two accusations ... one involving a divorce where the
wife was accusing the husband of abusing the kids (her children, his
stepchildren), and another one. In the divorce case, the kids themself
retracted their statements in court and revealed that the mom had put them up to
the accusation because she wanted a divorce which would allow her to remarry.
In the other case, I don't know the outcome, only that the accusation was made.
Being a "good elder," I did not inquire further about a matter to which I was
not privy (see how easy it is for them to cover up egregious situations, even
from sincere 'insiders'?).
I'm not saying this to minimize the problem. In the years since leaving, I have
become convinced that it is a real problem in the bORG. I'm only pointing these
cases out to illustrate two things ... one, that it IS possible to spend many
years in the cult and be unaware of the gravity of the problem (after all ... if
they're that secretive, it's reasonable to believe that some, even at
responsible positions, may not know the prevalence of the problem) ... and, two
... that even the bORG's dogma on divorce and other teachings create
opportunities for lies and cover-ups on both sides of the issue.
As to whether it is worse than in other churches .... well, a sociologist might
contend that since the bORG is made up of a 'cross-section' of the general
population, that the incidence per 100,000 members would be about the same. How
do we know? I would contend to the contrary, that the secrecy of the
organization as a whole makes it more likely that individuals so disposed would
be more likely to act out their pedophile fantasies; therefore, that the
incidence of pedophilia in such an organization would be greater per 100,000
members than in the general population. My opinion is that the recent
disclosures of the Catholic Church's problems would bear that out. However,
since reporting pedophiles and acknowledgement of the crime has a relatively
recent societal history, we can't so state with definitive assurance. Some
might insist that it has been common for many years in many churches, and that
only the recent publicity has caused more people to report. And, while I would
disagree, I must admit that that is a statistical possibility. I think secrecy
makes it more likely to happen, but I don't know if, or how, that could be
proven. Someone with a better legal mind than mine could find a way, I'm sure.
As for Ray's feelings otherwise, I think we have to give him a little slack,
recognizing that he grew up in, and came from, a generation of dubbers to whom
such conclusions were unthinkable. As Bill said, that does not make him
insensitive or 'a bad person.' His opinion is base upon his unique experience,
just as are each of our opinions. His perception of reality is filtered through
that unique experience, just as our perceptions are. And we must all remember
that - to each of us - our perception is our reality ... our truth.
As Bill seems to suggest in his recent JWD post, let's give each person some
credit for the truth according to their perception. We don't all have to agree
on every minute point. We each have unique experiences which influence our
opinions of that reality. Even Einstein would have been surprised at some
scientific/physics discoveries since his great eureka moment. Each person is
with us for a reason or a season. Ray was the right man at the time he exposed
the hypocrisies at that time. Bill is the right man for this issue. In the
future, someone else may educate us about other hypocrisies within the
WarpedTower. Let's give credit to each for the role they play, and not be
overly critical of someone else because they don't see the same light in the
same intensity or same color as ourself.
JMHO,
Bob Walker, S4F
Jim,
Re: Your comment: "The noted Jewish American historian Peter Novick uses the concept of collective memory as developed by the French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs and shows, I think quite conclusively, that people tend to project present concerns onto the past."
I am reminded of a phenomenon called "The Recency Effect," wherein we all give more weight to recent events than those further removed into the past. I read about it vis-a-vis interpersonal relationships, the premise being that a negative/positive interaction today will carry more weight in our opinion of another person than several events in the distant past.
This is not to minimize the absolutely revolting secrecy and self-protective hypocrisy in the bORG. But it is to remind all, that it is much easier to criticize someone who does not meet expectations for today's concerns, than to have a balanced opinion based on the times they have both met/exceeded or not met our image of them.
JMHO, S4F
I agree, this situation has gotten entirely out of hand.
Mr. Penton,
I believe my last post here was not reasonable, in that it appears that I'm attacking the educated, which certainly was not my intention. I feel that I should clarify. At the time that I read larc's response to me, regarding your background, it would have been wise on my part to have turned off my computer and gathered my thoughts before responding. But I didn't, and responded to what I believed to be a shallow defense. That being, since one is educated one need not explain the relevancy, or lack of relevancy to their position. That most likely was not larc's intention, and even if it was, no reason for me to attack your educational background. My initial question to you concerned your reasoning for providing the background of traditional common law that has been held to be inadequate in today's judicial system. You then went on to defend the WTS's "two-witness" rule, stating that you hesitated to see it attacked. You further stated that you would not testify on behalf of anyone that was not legitimate. You spoke of civil liberties being violated and radical feminists. By the time one read through this much, one could have got the impression that this Mr. Bowen was a "radical," out to destroy the judicial system, pressuring you to testify on the behalf of liars. Yes, Mr. Bowen, a man attacking a reasonable two-witness policy that protects the innocent, as well as child molesters. You then went on to discuss Mr. Bowen's attack, never mentioning that indeed, this issue of further damaging JW children by silencing them, certainly needed addressed by some common sense.
If the organization feels that the two-witness rule is such a good policy for handling a secretive act, fine, then they shouldn't act on allegations, unless of course, the molester invited two onlookers to watch. But for the sake of preventing further damage to a child by destroying any remaining confidence and trust they may have in adults, the WTS would be only providing good by keeping church matters and criminal allegations separate. The elders can deal with the allegation any way they please, which as you know, often includes shunning a victim, but they should CONTACT THE AUTHORITIES ALSO. Unfortunately, many adult witnesses listen, not to the voice of rationality, when dealing even with such a serious allegation, but to the WTS, via the elders. Until these children can reach an age in which they can make their own decisions regarding this organization, don't you agree that it is in their benefit to expose this lack of common sense approach in the handling of molestation allegations?
What is the most troubling of this entire Franz/Bowen drama, is that published persons of the EX-JW community believe it not necessary to involve themselves in "causes" which strive to address an insufficient policy in order to defend children, which is certainly reasonable. But then these same persons have found it necessary to involve themselves in coming to the defense of a former member of the GB, whom is fully capable of defending himself.
Edited by - deddaisy on 30 October 2002 19:36:6
Deddaisy, I would like to see Jim Penton respond to your last paragraph. I'm still waiting for his response to Hawkaw's points above. How about it.
bttt
Mr. Penton:
I just want to take this opportunity to tell you how much I've enjoyed your book. Thank you for all your hard work.
Dr. Penton,
First, I can't tell you how much I appreciated your book, in my opinion it is by far the best work on Witnesses that I've read, and I've read most of them. Secondly, I appreciate your comments and agree with them completely. Lastly, it's so obvious why posting here is not a practice with you and I think it's highly commendable that you made this effort.
Regards
Pork Chop
Edited by - Pork Chop on 1 November 2002 18:9:25
Joining in to welcome you to our board, Dr. Penton.
Patio, Hawkaw, and Ddaisy asked pertinent questions in response to your first post, and have been seemingly sidestepped by you. I, along with several other posters, are looking with anticipation to your response to them. They were not crude in the comments, disruptive, nor impolite.
I also have read your book, Ray Franz's two books, and COJ's book (well, part of it anyway). I appreciate these men's efforts and Franz's specific accomplishment - to "free thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses." Actually, I think only we can free ourselves - others can just give us information and a helping hand. We have to do our own work, imho, including using our gut instincts.
As a survivor of violent child abuse, I believe my gut instincts are one reason I'm able to communicate today. I'd hate to say it was with God's help, because my brother then, obviously, didn't get God's help. I think it's kinder to say that my brother's gut instincts just didn't happen to realize what type of game he was playing, perhaps because he was too young. It's kinder than saying that God might have watched out over me more than him.
I appreciate Bill Bowen (and the people who are working with him) tremendously. He's put himself in harm's way for others. He is a showman, to be sure. Most people in the public eye are. He gets attention for SilentLambs and good is being accomplished through his efforts, along with others. He, perhaps, hasn't freed thousands, but I suspect he & SilentLambs have helped that many.
What is the most troubling of this entire Franz/Bowen drama, is that published persons of the EX-JW community believe it not necessary to involve themselves in "causes" which strive to address an insufficient policy in order to defend children, which is certainly reasonable.
But then these same persons have found it necessary to involve themselves in coming to the defense of a former member of the GB, whom is fully capable of defending himself. -ddaisy
That is an excellent observation. Again, it's been interesting to have Ray Franz, COJ, & Dr. Penton post on Jehovah's Witness Discussion.
Thank you for visiting on Mr. Franz's behalf.
waiting
Several people have questioned some of my statements and have asked a number of questions. So I think I should attempt to give some reasoned answers.
First, I am not ashamed in the least at having mentioned the radical or gender feminists whom I want to separate form equlitarian feminists. I respect the latter greatly but not the former. I think that much of what the radical feminists are about is hatred of the so-called patriarchy and often of men in general. I feel too that what they have promoted has had a very negative effect on law and social attitudes, particularly in relation to rules of evidence in the courts. In fact, much of the "new law" that has been made by feminist judges and justices, in particular in Canada (I know more about that than I do about law in the United States.) For instance, there are certain problems with the new Canadian Rape Shield law, although in many ways it is a good thing. Let me give an example: Now I think everyone will agree that no woman should be raped, including a prostitute. In other words, no one should have the right to violate another person's body no matter what the circumstances. So, is the fact that the woman is a prostitute something that should not be brought up in court? Most people, being asked the question in this way today would say "no." But there is another side to the matter. Perhaps the woman gave consensual sex and then demanded more money from the "john." Now the john will argue that the sex was not rape at all but consensual sex. So at that point (note: without any second witness against the john or any physical evidence), the john's lawyer tries to bring in evidence to say that because the woman is a prostitute (a fact that can be proven), she is trying to punish the man for not giving her more money. Now should the fact of her professon be brought in or not? What is more important in this instance, the probative evidence or the possibility of prejudice?
Now I can hear some people who have difficulty in connecting ideas say, "what does this have to do with the issue at hand?" Okay, not too much except that it shows that society can be swept away by interest groups and change old rules of evidence for new; and sometimes that can lead to the punishment of the innocent, something that I abhor. But more to the point, in child abuse cases, the courts have even begun allowing hearsay evidence, in Canada at least, because often they don't have any other corroboration to a child's charges. That is something I consider to be very dangerous because children can often be led by third parties.
In referring to the Common Law, I probably should have said that traditionally the courts have insisted on corroborative evidence rather than that of two human witnesses, but at least one should not be convicted of a crime without corroboration (which is very much the same as having two witnesses).There may, however, be other forms of evidence, some of which may come out in trial when an individual is questioned directly or under cross examination or through forensic evidence. However, usually that has meant direct evidence rather than hearsay. And I think that point was made clearly by Ray Franz, Carl Jonsson and by me. Yet many have chosen to ignore it.
Now about the two-witness rule. I don't think it is antiquated at all. It was promoted by Moses, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul. So it has a long and valued tradition behind it. However, I do not think that it has been applied properly by the Watchtower. If two girls or boys have been molested at different times, they are bearing witness to the fact that they have been molested by the same man or woman. That should be enough for the elders, in those jusrisdictions where the law does not require them to report directly to the secular authorities, to do so anyway. And I strongly favor a policy whereby every religous organization should immediately report charges of sexual abuse to the authorities, at least in advanced countries where one may have some confidence in those authorites. Thus to say that those of us who have concerns about the justice of a charge of child abuse do not have concern for children is nothing but malarcky and pretty nasty contumely at that.
The issue that should be faced here, as several have noted, is not whether there is more child molestation among Jehovah's Witnesses than among Catholics or other religions (how can anyone know?) but rather that the Watchtower has created a policy whereby it is willing to allow child molestation for public relations purposes and is stonewalling.
So should all of us get on the bandwagon and support the attack on the Watchtower as promoted by Bill Bowen and silentlambs? I have already taken a stand against child abuse. As a father and grandfather, I take the matter very seriously. But I will not be stampeded into a one man crusade that I think has some very dangerous aspects about it. In addition, I am doing other things that I consider to be more useful. I have just completed a manuscript on the JWs and Nazi Germany, and I am involved in many positive human activities along with my dear wife. After all, I think it is much more important to be engaged in activities that are upbuilding and promote love rather than fighting with an organization like the Watchtower. By saying that, however, I do not want to condemn anyone else who feels that he or she should take a different stand or be involved in exposing falsehood. At the same time, I would urge all to be careful. Crusades can kill the innocent as well as the guilty. That has been the historical tradition of crusades, and we today are no smarter than our forefathers, though many may think they are.
Finally, I want to reply briefly to the gentleman from France. Yes, I know what is taking place in France. I have read the reports of the commision, have read the new anti-cult (secte) law and think that both are infamous. When the Jesuits, the Quakers, the Salvation Army, Baptists, and any number of other long-standing religious groups are so stigmatized, I feel there is something wrong with the heads of members of the French Parliament. Furthermore, it is obvious that much of what is behind this report and this law comes from Marxists and atheists who hate religion. Unfortunately, too, there is an element of anti-Americanism in what is going on. To say that this is all a matter of Scientology propaganda is simply not so. The law on the face of it is an attack on religious freedom and violates the spirit of the French Constitution. I suspect it will be nullified by the European Court.
Jim Penton
TO JIM PENTON::
Hi Jim,
I just wanted to tell you that I appreciated your original contribution, which appears to me as the most sober, judicious, and penetrating post published here so far on this subject.
I share your concern that the organized crusade against child abuse among the Witnesses may get out of hand. Although Bill Bowen explains that "silentlambs is not part of any anti-jw movement," but is "a support group" that "help people in need", there is a clear risk that many of his supporters do not see this difference. Unfortunately, many former Witnesses have become so "anti-jw" that they may see the crusade as another opportunity for them to attack the Watchtower organisation, thus trying to turn the silenlambs into exactly what Bowen says it is not. Another risk is, as you point out, that in a crusade of this kind, innocent people may be hurt, because many accusations of child abuse have turned out to be false. There are examples also here in Sweden of persons who have spent years in prison before it was shown that they were innocent. For this reason the demands for evidence have been sharpened. Psychological judgements are not accepted as the final word.
This is not meant to belittle the witness of all those courages victims of child abuse, who have stepped forward to tell their story. It is intended to show that there are valid reasons for the demands made with respect to the evidence, the need for documented facts.
I have read Bill Bowens lengthy "apology and defense". His quotations from the conversation he had with Ray do not show Ray saying something offensive. Bowen tried to tell him what he should say or not say to the media, which Ray declined. I fully understand this, as I myself sometimes have been requested to say, do, or write certain things in a certain way that were incompatible with my views and way of conduct. When I declined, this has upset some. We cannot tell others what to do, what to say, or what to write. Each one can only answer for what he or she knows and feels about a certain matter. Bill says that Ray took offense at his request, but from what he says it seems clear that it was rather Bill who took offense at Rays refusal to comply with his request. I do hope this whole affair can be laid to rest now.
Bowen now evidently realize that Ray Franz cannot have been the "author" of the Societys present policy in child abuse matters. And of course he was not the "author" of the "two or three witnesses" principle. As you say, this principle is at least as old as Moses. Like you, I feel it is a valuable principle, if used correctly and discriminately.
As I pointed out in my original post, this "two or three witnesses" principle has been accentuated within the Watchtower organization repeatedly all the time since the days of Charles Taze Russell. When, for example, the procedure to be followed in connection with disfellowshippings was outlined in some detail for the first time, in The Watchtower of March 1, 1952, the "two or three witnesses" principle was insisted upon as an absolutely necessary requirement to be followed. In fact, as Rud Persson pointed out recently, the statements on pages 164-165 in the "Organization" book of 1972 were almost literally repeated from a book published in 1967, four years before Ray Franz became a member of the Governing Body, namely, "Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot". This book says, on pages 177-178:
"Judgement of matters affecting the lives of dedicated servants of Jehovah carries with it a great responsibility, and, for that reason, the committee is obligated to be sure that it has all the facts before it renders its decision. (1 Time. 5:21; Prov. 18:13; Deut. 13:12-14) For a matter to be established as true, there must be two or three witnesses. (1 Tim. 5:19; Deut. 19:15) These cannot be persons who are simply repeating what they have heard from someone else; they must be witnesses of the things concerning which they testify. No action is taken if there is just one witness; it is not that brothers discredit the testimony, but the Bible requires that, unless the wrongdoer himself confesses his sin, the facts must be substantiated by two or three witnesses in these serious matters."
This should be compared with the practically identical statements in the "Organization" book of 1972:
"Judgement of matters affecting the lives of servants of Jehovah carries with it a great responsibility, and, for that reason, the judicial committee is obligated to be sure that it has all the facts before it renders its decision. (1 Tim. 5:21; Prov. 18:13; Deut. 13:12-14) For a matter to be established as true, there must be two or three witnesses. (1 Tim. 5:19; Deut. 19:15; Heb. 10:28) These cannot be persons who are simply repeating what they have heard from someone else; they must be witnesses themselves of things concerning which they testify. No action is taken if there is just one witness; it is not that the brothers discredit the testimony, but the Bible requires that, unless the wrongdoer himself admits his sin, the facts must be substantiated by two or three witnesses in these serious matters." Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making (1972), pp. 164-165.
Thanks again for your contributions, and forward my greetings to Marilyn!
I also appreciated the recent post by "Gilgamesh".
Carl Olof Jonsson
