St. Louis Reporter Seeks Silentlambs for Interview

by abbagail 27 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  AlanF

  SwordOfJah laments:

  : You guys are very mean.

  Not really. Just realistic about the dishonesty of the typical JW when it comes to anything critical of Mommy.

  : You complain and cry that no JWs will answer questions on camara and then when I offer a JWs point of view and invite any reporter to email me, then I get all of this bad treatment.

  Look what you just wrote. The complaint, you say, is about JWs not answering questions on camera. You then make an offer for reporters to email you. You have not answered the complaint. Yet, in your stereotypically dull JW way, you think you have. Don't you have any thinking ability left?

  Actually one of the biggest complaints is that the JW leadership refuses to answer most specific questions on camera. Instead they refer reporters and other questioners to their website, which contains a thoroughly incomplete and therefore misleading set of claims about how the JW organization deals with various issues, and in particular, the recent accusations that they have royally fouled up with their policies and especially practices with respect to child molestation. They realize that their best defense is to shut up, circle the wagons and let the accusers try to prove their charges. Of course, the accusers are doing that in spades, but Watchtower leaders keep hunkering down, hoping that the ever right-around-the-corner Armageddon will soon save them. Well, it ain't gonna happen. The chickens have come home to roost and there's gonna be hell to pay. The typical JW will assume that Satan is orchestrating an attack on his religion, when in reality it is the wicked practices of JW leaders that are becoming public knowledge and leading to a delivering of their just desserts.

  While the Society has in place a policy that in principle allows that if there are two instances of a man molesting two different children, and they both come forward and make an accusation, a judicial committee can be formed and if the man is judged unrepentant, he will be disfellowshipped. Something like this occurs regularly, when a JW who starts smoking is seen by two or more other JWs, and if "unrepentant" is DF'd. But in practice the Society has rarely, if ever, applied this to child molestation cases.

  We have a typical example of this in the case of the convicted child molester Daniel Fitzwater, who is now in prison in Nevada. By 1997 he had been accused, according to a Circuit Overseer (Michael Emillio) serving the Yerington, Nevada congregation, of molesting 17 young girls. He was even notorious in the community as a molester. Over a period of several years, many JWs in that congregation demanded that Fitzwater be disfellowshipped, and when that didn't happen some of them moved away or even quit the JW religion. But when a judicial committee would meet with Fitzwater, he would deny the accusations, and then the elders -- with the approval of the Service Department in Brooklyn -- would drop the charges. This, despite the fact that 17 accusations had been made. Furthermore, the elders, CO and Service Department conspired together to hush up the local JWs who were clamoring for justice. They did this by giving "special needs" talks that encouraged the abuse victims and their families to shut up and "wait on Jehovah" for justice. You can see the thread that I started, titled "Belching Gun..." to see the proof of this, in the form of a letter from the CO to the Service Department, dated in 1997. This document is part of the court record of the lawsuit brought by the parents of an abused 12-year-old girl, Tina Churchfield, who attempted suicide after the molestation by Fitzwater and after the JW organization refused to properly deal with this monster.

  Now, SwordOfJah, if you can read that thread, and still tell me that your Organization is holy and righteous, then you're as sick as your leaders are. But if you're an honest Christian, you owe it to yourself and your loved ones to deal in a Christian manner with the fact that JW leaders are wicked charlatans.

  : I really don't understand you guys.

  You don't even understand your own religious leaders.

  AlanF

  Edited by - AlanF on 13 January 2003 12:12:21
• 

  blondie

  Anyway, good JWs are not supposed to talk with the media without checking with the elders first, The elders have to check with the WTS or if in a large city, with the city overseer.

  Obedient JWs must do the following, SwordofJah:

  *** w95 4/1 28 How Christians Cope With Public Reproach ***

  
  Sometimes the facts can be corrected by a properly written letter to the editor if the letter is published in full. But such a letter could achieve the exact opposite of what is intended. How? The original untruth might thus receive even more publicity, or opposers may be handed further opportunity to get lies or slurs into print. In most cases it is wise to leave the question of a letter to the editor up to the elders concerned. If a negative press report stirs up prejudice, the branch office of the Watch Tower Society can inform congregations in that country of the facts, thus enabling all publishers to give a satisfactory explanation to inquirers.

  Blondie (who always obeys the WTS)
• 

  SwordOfJah

  AlanF, I can see by your post that you are very manipulative. Lets look at the choice you give me:

  "Now, SwordOfJah, if you can read that thread, and still tell me that your Organization is holy and righteous, then you're as sick as your leaders are. But if you're an honest Christian, you owe it to yourself and your loved ones to deal in a Christian manner with the fact that JW leaders are wicked charlatans."

  Lets see if I say the "first sentence" then you've already judged me as sick manipulating me into agreeing with the "second sentence". That's a good tactic I must say on your part. But see, why should I judge Jehovah's representatives on that one case. Maybe the elders messed up, maybe the service desk did, I don't know, see there is only one version of the story. I know, unfortunately, the elders will not speak on grounds of confidentiality so I will do what all you apostates distaste and laugh at, I leave it up to Jehovah to do justice. Am I crazy to take that stand? Well I guess I'm as crazy as King David when he did not take justice into his own hands by killing King Saul, Jehovah's annointed one. No, King David left it in Jehovah's hands and he handled it at his own time. Maybe David would of preferred Jehovah to handle the situation sooner, but still he was respectful to Jehovah's ways. So I choose to do the same.

  Blondie: I appreciate your counsel based on the publications. But as you can see by the words you quote, it is not a law, but advice. I don't follow everything word for word as stated in the Watchtower but I weigh the advice with my God-given conscience. Again, thank you for pointing out that information.
• 

  Gedanken

  SwordofJah,

  : But see, why should I judge Jehovah's representatives on that one case.

  Why do you call them Jehovah's representatives?

  Gedanken
• 

  AlanF

  SwordOfJah said:

  : AlanF, I can see by your post that you are very manipulative.

  It's diagnostic of your JW training that you can recognize manipulation in my presentation to you, but you can't recognize it when your leaders do it to you.

  : Lets look at the choice you give me:

  :: "Now, SwordOfJah, if you can read that thread, and still tell me that your Organization is holy and righteous, then you're as sick as your leaders are. But if you're an honest Christian, you owe it to yourself and your loved ones to deal in a Christian manner with the fact that JW leaders are wicked charlatans."

  : Lets see if I say the "first sentence" then you've already judged me as sick manipulating me into agreeing with the "second sentence". That's a good tactic I must say on your part.

  That's right, and I know exactly what I'm doing. Some might say that this is a "false dilemma" of the classic "have you stopped beating your wife?" variety. But the latter is a false dilemma, and therefore a bad argument, because there are not only the two implied choices of "having stopped beating your wife" (which means you used to beat her) and "continuing to beat your wife". A third choice is that you never beat your wife at all. This is quite different from the dilemma I presented you (and I know that you never read that thread, so you were playing false to your readers in even replying here as if you did) because the details presented in that letter from the CO to the Service Department proves that JW officials engaged in a deliberate conspiracy to cover up at least 17 cases of child molestation! The Service Department directed the Circuit Overseer and local elders to shut up the local JWs who were complaining about the molestation accusations. The most prominent Governing Body member, Theodore Jaracz, is the head of the Service Department, and in all probability personally directed this coverup. It was documented on NBC Dateline last spring that Jaracz has directed similar coverups. Thus it is evident that a number of people up and down the JW hierarchy actively participated in covering up many cases of child molestation.

  Now, given the above facts, are you still prepared to cry Foul! and say I'm merely manipulating you? True, I'm manipulating you, but I'm doing it with hard facts. And as a supposed lover of truth, is that not what you should expect from another lover of truth?

  Now go read the thread I told you to, and when you're done, you'll have some more facts to go on. But unless you do, you've proved yourself a hater of the truth.

  : But see, why should I judge Jehovah's representatives on that one case.

  See how you make unwarranted assumptions? How do you know that JW leaders are Jehovah's representatives? You don't. You have only their claims. And these claims are falsified by their conduct in covering up cases of child molestation. Are you prepared to argue that Jehovah would back anyone who systematically covers up molestation, and even threatens people who won't stop talking about having been abused, or about their children having been abused? Yet that is exactly what the Governing Body, and in particular Theodore Jaracz, practiced especially during the 1990s. True, in early 2002 the Society issued new guidelines to elders on how to handle such cases, but they did it for only one reason: the bad publicity generated by the Silentlambs movement!

  : Maybe the elders messed up, maybe the service desk did, I don't know, see there is only one version of the story.

  They all messed up, and they did it deliberately. According to the now-disassociated daughter-in-law of the molester Daniel Fitzwater, both local elders and the Society conspired together to cover up the molestation. When her loyal-JW husband inquired of the Society as to why Fitzwater was never disfellowshipped -- even after being convicted in court of it -- he was told that it was all in the hands of local elders. But when he inquired the same of the local elders, they claimed that the Society told them to back off. So at least one set of people were lying, and from experience I know that the Society was lying. They've been caught in plenty of lies in court, so this is just par for the course.

  What? You don't believe me? Do you want the names of some Watchtower people to call and verify everything I've said? Do you want the Society's side of the story? Or do you want to hide your head? How about looking up some posts on this board by the daughter-in-law, Laurie Fitzwater? This courageous woman has told the truth, and if you get in contact with her you'll know the ring of truth when you hear it.

  : I know, unfortunately, the elders will not speak on grounds of confidentiality so I will do what all you apostates distaste and laugh at, I leave it up to Jehovah to do justice. Am I crazy to take that stand?

  Yes, because it plays right into the hands of your dishonest leaders. They tell you to make no inquiries about their vile conduct, and so you don't. That leaves you the perfect "out": If you never verify their claims, you always can make the excuse that you couldn't verify them, and then tell yourself that your conscience is clear. But be honest with yourself. You have now been innoculated with doubt about these leaders, and your mind -- no matter how hard you try -- will plague you until you get some real answers. And the answers will come, like it or not. Cases accusing the Society of gross mishandling of child abuse cases have already been filed in a number of courts. When these are finished, the court records will be public knowledge and the Society's utter disregard for molested children will be so public that even the most diehard JW will not be able to deny it. And it takes no great brain to figure out that, because of the adverse publicity of the last two years, plenty more cases are being prepared. Jehovah will not protect these self-proclaimed speakers-in-Jehovah's-name from the consequences of their wicked acts.

  Picture yourself before Jehovah as Judge: If he asks you, "SwordOfJah, why did you not take the time to get the facts about the accusations against these men who claimed to speak in my name?" What would you say? "Oh, well, these men refused to talk to me about it and so I just assumed that they were speaking for you." Do you realize how flimsy an excuse that is? What if Jehovah then asks, "Why did you make such an assumption when you had facts all around you that should have made you ask questions?" What would you answer?

  : Well I guess I'm as crazy as King David when he did not take justice into his own hands by killing King Saul, Jehovah's annointed one. No, King David left it in Jehovah's hands and he handled it at his own time. Maybe David would of preferred Jehovah to handle the situation sooner, but still he was respectful to Jehovah's ways. So I choose to do the same.

  You're making a terribly wrong comparison. First, Saul was anointed by an inspired prophet of Jehovah and so was David. The Governing Body's "appointment" was made by no one but themselves. Second, no one is asking you to take justice into your own hands in any way by doing anything to anyone (why do you JWs so consistently come up with these ridiculous notions?). You are only being asked to evaluate the facts and to judge for yourself whether JW leaders are what they claim to be, in light of the facts. Third -- and this is the most important for you to consider -- while David did not take it upon himself to remove Saul, he certainly disassociated himself from Saul! Why? Because he saw that Saul was determined to continue in his wicked ways, in his unfaithfulness to Jehovah, because he saw that Saul continued to try to kill him. In other words, just as Jehovah expects his servants to make continual judgments about whether things are good, bad or indifferent, and just as David did exactly that with respect to Saul, so should you. Why would you not? Are you afraid of the consequences of examining your own religion? Are you a spiritual coward? So far that's what you've shown yourself to be.

  AlanF
• 

  Golden Girl

  Thanks Grits!

  Snoozy
• 

  SloBoy

  SwordofJah,

  I detect a bit of a double standard. If waiting on Jah is such a fundamental part of the Watchtower Publishing Company's teaching, then why do they maintain a legal dept., chock full of lawyers, poised to take ANY and ALL matters into litigation, whether they be defendant or plaintiff. A legal dept., I might add, of formidable financial clout, funded on the backs of those "waiting on Jah".
• 

  wednesday

  .

  But see, why should I judge Jehovah's representatives on that one case. Maybe the elders messed up, maybe the service desk did, I don't know, see there is only one version of the story. I know, unfortunately, the elders will not speak on grounds of confidentiality so I will do what all you apostates distaste and laugh at, I leave it up to Jehovah to do justice. Am I crazy to take that stand? Well I guess I'm as crazy as King David when he did not take justice into his own hands by killing King Saul, Jehovah's annointed one. No, King David left it in Jehovah's hands and he handled it at his own time. Maybe David would of preferred Jehovah to handle the situation sooner, but still he was respectful to Jehovah's ways. So I choose to do the same

  . Well Swordofjah,

  Jehovahs' people did have to wait at times for Him to "clean house". As far as i'm concerned-that is what He is doing now. Perhaps u and the average jw are unwilling to accept that unjustices have occured to children and women, but i do believe Jehovah has heard their cries for help. As far as i am concerned, the way any religion treats its children and women, reflect hevaily on it. Anyone who would silence child molestation deserves what they get. I no longer will i be silenced. If this is still the org Jehovahs is going to use, well He's got some house cleaning to do .For this org. to have any credibility, they must come forward and admit their crimes aginst children and women, and take steps to make sure it never happens again. they must police themselfs. They don't and probably won't until it cost them Money.