Jackson Vs Lett and Morris: Pedophile Fiasco

by BashfulAshG 8 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  BashfulAshG

  So Jackson admits that there's a problem in the JW community with pedophiles, but Lett says that it isn't true that JW are permissive to pedophiles. Also, Morris says that JWs where ahead of the game with the 1980s Watchtower by blaming homosexuals for pedophilia.

  Hmm...Seems legit. *sarcasm*

  But seriously, I hope that the "friends" wake up to TTATT.

  In my congregation there was a "brother" who raped his biological younger sister who still gets to comment at meetings. Sadly, his sister committed suicide after confronting her parents for letting the rapes happen. She was in the "truth" too. After all of this damage this jackass caused, he's still welcomed with open arms. I can't believe that they let a registered sex offender (and he is registered) be in the vicinity of children.

  My JW uncle is a sex offender too. He raped a child. Unfortunately, I think that he is inactive which means that he could be one of us, skimming this site. I shudder at this. The XJWs are a pleasant, upstanding bunch.
• 

  Splash

  I wish there was a video mashup of these three statements.
  I read on here somewhere that they've taken down one of the videos where a GB member says there's no paedophile problem.
• 

  punkofnice

  Splosh - Mashup....yes, that's the word.....and one with canned laughter.

  The thing that hacks me off is that their holinesses the watchtower popes once again spin the truth.....I know of NO ONE that has said that the WBT$ is 'permissive' with paedophiles. What we are saying is that due to their cranky WBT$ laws, they 'protect' paedophiles. There is a difference there.

  I sincerely feel that the reason paedophiles are protected is because the GB are protecting themselves. To clarify, I believe that there are or were paedophile/s on the GB when these lenient rules were invoked....and it was done to protect the pervert/s on the GB. I didn't mention any names cough**cough**Jaracz**cough**cough**.

  Anyway, I have no proof but just suspect. What I do know is that if you take the things the GB are saying, they are bloody liars and filth.
• 

  Heaven

  I think one of the problems this group is about to or is already facing is a pool of 'qualified' men to lead it.

  If elders and MS's are stepping down, if people leave, they'll have no one to run the Borg. So what happens in this case? They have to lower their standards to allow for a broader group of men to lead. They may even have to issue nu-lite that 'the women' can now be appointed.

  ( Just as an aside, that term 'the women' grates on my nerves like there's no tomorrow! )
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  What we are saying is that due to their cranky WBT$ laws, they 'protect' paedophiles - exactly. WT procedure is hopelessly inadequate here, plus paedophiles are more 'useful' (i.e. can take service meetings, pray, give talks, etc) to the WT than children who appear to be going off the rails. WT higher-ups can denounce child abuse as much as they like, but with a system that favours the abuser, not the abused, it's all just hot air.

  I believe that there are or were paedophile/s on the GB - I suspect this, too. There was a quote in the watchtower about brothers high up in the organization indulging in adultery, fornication and even child abuse. Does the latter point refer to Leo Greenlees? Were the police ever called?
• 

  JustVisting

  One difference is that the young Bethelites he had sex with would NOT have been minors.
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  Heaven

  They have to lower their standards to allow for a broader group of men to lead. They may even have to issue nu-lite that 'the women' can now be appointed.

  I am willing to wager a substantial amount that this is exactly what wil transpire. I also disagree, appointing ladies is raising their standards.

  ( Just as an aside, that term 'the women' grates on my nerves like there's no tomorrow! )

  Have you noticed in my posts I try my best to avoid using the word "women"? It carries such a negative connotation in my opinion, in the sense that it is comparative in a negative way - I prefer the word "ladies". I'm not a Social Justice Warrior, but It is in my character to fight unfairness and bullies. After witnessing first hand how ladies are relegated to second class (in some cases third class) citizens in various cultures and religions, then my wife having to fight for her just dues in the professional sphere where she works harder, has more experience and is more qualified than the male chauvinists who get placed above her in both position and respect simply because they were born with balls. When one considers how a large portion of the maleverse look to a punch list for "the rites of passage" in order to qualify as a "real man" my wife leaves them standing in the dust in many of those requirements:

  She knows baseball better than any man I've met (besides her dad who was a West Point baseball coach)

  She hunts and fishes as well if not better than most men

  She's fitter than most, and thus the absence of a beer gut may disqualify her

  She can shoot better than most men I know

  She's way more knowledgeable about survival than any man Ive met in New York

  She has been known back in our partying days, to outdrink all our male friends

  BUT: she doesn't treat the opposite sex as second class, doesn't behave poorly around the opposite sex and doesn't make a public fool of herself in order to demonstrate how tough she is. I suppose then these traits would disqualify her from the male rites of passage.

  Sorry If I hijacked this thread, but just last night I was listening to how she is being treated at work and it makes me see red and seeing your remark, I just had to share my disgust.

  Believe me the still pervasive superior male attitude really grinds me too, as you can tell.
  
• 

  the girl next door

  The "apostate driven lies" video was not removed from the website: http://tv.jw.org/#video/VODProgramsEvents/pub-jwbmw_201502_5_VIDEO
• 

  Vidiot

  The vast majority of occasions they even hint at the subject, they always - always - present it as a problem in the "World", and not something that happens in the Org.