Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing

by wannaexit 60 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TimDrake1914

  Another point where I thought WT was right, and a point that I think many of us forget, is how the understanding and handling of child abuse really has changed drastically over the years, and one can not totally fault them for their lack of understanding the best way to handle it in the past. Especially considering how society in general has also had to learn how to better help victims, right alongside WT.

  However, on the flip side, with all the new insights we have gained, one would expect them to be more willing to change their policies and procedures where needed, or at least, be more humble about their shortcomings and show that they genuinely want to improve things. Reading their rebuttal, though, doesn't really give you the sense that that is their genuine desire. To me, they just come accross as "not at fault", rather than coming accross as desirous of helping those who have suffered.

  Because of that, it makes one of their better points (the one I initially mentioned) sound as if it lacks substance, and only really comes accross as an "excuse" due to the overall tone of the rebuttal. Like everyone else has stated, they just make themselves look worse, and if they were in a judicial committee, one could argue that their response lacks "repentance", and they would be deserving of being DF'd. LOL!
• 

  Mephis

  steve2 - they've been specifically directed to go away and consider the problems raised during the hearings and to find solutions to propose, courses of action to take to prevent the issues identified during the hearing from arising again. Their answer has been "we don't have problems" and "we need you to write us a law to tell us to do what we already know responsible adults should do". Agree there's face-saving going on, but until they accept there are problems then the response and culture internally will continue to put children at risk. And that's the bottom line which needs addressing, and won't be based upon their response here. They have the opportunity to work with experts to create policies and procedures which will help, but there's not a hint of them even considering that direct recommendation already made by a commissioner. They're willfully negligent because they want to dictate to people whilst refusing to accept responsibility for what they say.

  edit: Just something to keep in mind, even the one thing which they say they've stopped has actually given cause to a Charity Commission investigation in Britain dating from events last year. It's actions and practice as well as the blizzard of letters sent out which matter.
• 

  sparky1

  "They don't require two witnesses to fornication. Hypocrites." - slimboyfat

  I'm glad you brought this up. When I went to Bethel entrants school, one of the examples that we were supposed to "judge' on was whether or not to disfellowship someone who stayed overnight in a house or apartment with someone of the opposite sex alone. The consensus was that they should be disfellowshipped because............what else would they being doing behind closed doors alone? I was mad as hell because I thought that no one could judge another persons motive or know what their behavior was without being present. At any rate, I haven't looked at a 'Flock' book in years. If that is still in there as a disfellowshipping offense,, someone should point out to the Royal Commission that Jehovah's Witnesses DO NOT ALWAYS REQUIRE two witnesses to a sin. Some of it is left up to the imagination.
• 

  wannaexit

  From the Guardian

  http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/01/jehovahs-witnesses-fostered-distrust-of-secular-authority-royal-commission-counsel
• 

  slimboyfat

  Sparky it was in the summary if I'm not mistaken. They're sharp cookies at this commission. All sorts of Watchtower nonsense laid bare.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Another point where I thought WT was right, and a point that I think many of us forget, is how the understanding and handling of child abuse really has changed drastically over the years, and one can not totally fault them for their lack of understanding the best way to handle it in the past

  I'm sorry, but I'm not giving the WT much wriggle-room, here. And I don't think we can stretch this idea of 'understanding of child abuse improves through the years' and apply it to the WT Society's dangerous f**kwittery.

  There were 1,000 cases of child abuse within Australian KHs and families - and none was reported by the elders to police.

  Firstly, child abuse has been a crime in Australia since before WT established KHs there.

  Secondly, as the WT consistently claims to have superior standards than worldly organizations, they mustn't be allowed to get away with "but other groups had similar crappy procedures decades ago!"

  As Justice McClellan remarked, it's not a competition.
• 

  steve2

  slimboyfat - "They don't require two witnesses to fornication."

  Actually, in the event that an individual categorically denies he/she has committed fornication, despite an allegation from another person, jw organization policy would need at least one other "witness' to proceed with a judicial committee meeting.

  More often than not, when an allegation emerges (e.g., one of the partys to it confesses to the elders and names the other person), the alleged fornicator confesses and it's all on for a judicial committee meeting.
• 

  steve2

  Secondly, as the WT consistently claims to have superior standards than worldly organizations, they mustn't be allowed to get away with "but other groups had similar crappy procedures decades ago!"

  Absolutely nailed it LUHE! Totally agree. Remember when jw organization first came out in the early 1970s and made tobacco use a disfellowshipping offense? The brothers and sisters crowed on about how the organization was well ahead of other groups in identifying tobacco use as a scourge.

  No way can jw organization ever claim their having the "truth" has enabled them to develop best evidence practises for responding to child secual abuse AND that even worldly authorities have commended the organization's high standards of responding.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Steve did you miss the "overnight rule"? No direct witness to fornication required.
• 

  TimDrake1914

  @LUHE - Do you work for WT? Cause you quoted me out-of-context like a WT Pro. HAHAHAHA! But seriously, my post was not intended to defend WT actions. We all know that it is pretty f***ed up not to report a single case of child abuse over that time, no matter the reasons. But there are many other factors involved in the systemic failure of WT, many of which were not even understood at the time, such as the dynamics and consequences of group-think mentality, that we are now more aware of and can help us, as a society in general, to better understand why we failed to do more in the past. Acknowledging the reality of that one good point doesn't mean that WT is off the hook for their past mistakes, though. However, following up on that thought, and something that I forgot to mention in my previous post, was that in light of how most organizations in general would probably fail if we examined their child abuse procedures from the past, perhaps it would have been better to use case studies that were more recent than those they examined. That way, the commission could've shown definitively, without a doubt, that WT continues to fail in regards to their child abuse handling procedures. I think it's fair to say that they did show that anyway. But in the minds of current, mentally in JW's who are aware of what occurred during the royal commission, they cling to the fact that these were old cases to excuse WT in order to reduce their cognitive dissonance and make themselves think that those were just mistakes of the past that no longer occur.