Deny this! Brooklyn! I dare you

by stevenyc 104 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  stevenyc

  One thing that's interesting is, if you search for court cases involving Jehovahs Witnesses sueing the Watchtower society for mishandling child abuse cases, you notice the same retoric from their lawyers. One prominent case, detailed at silentlambs,shows that the policy of asking the accuser to confront the accused is old policy, and no longer voiced from Brooklyn.

  Here's part of the testomony:http://www.silentlambs.org/wordVickiboertranscript.htm

  [62] In my view much of the confusion surrounding the Matthew 18 issue stems from the fact that it does not actually apply to a situation such as this one. I accept the evidence of John Didur(the elder involved in the case) that it is not now the policy of the Jehovah's Witness to require a victim of abuse to proceed through the steps envisioned in verse 15-18 of Matthew 18, nor was that the policy in 1989. He explained that Matthew 18 applies to private disputes brween people such as disputes over financial matters, and cannot be applied to a serious sin against God's aws, such as child abuse. I understand why the defence witnesses are genuinely puzzzled as to how this could have come up in this situation. However, I am confident that Matthew 18 was mentioned specifically to the plaintiff and that she was told it applied. Further I am confident that it was after receiving this advice that she spoke to the Mott-Trilles .

  If this is so, then why is it not refellected on their official site, in the section of how to deal with abuse cases. I'm no Johnnie Cochran by any means, but there must be an argument to sugest that this policy is still in use. If so the lawyers might be commiting contempt by stating the opposite.

  steve
• 

  Big Tex

  Steve, what you need to understand at a gut level is the 2 witness rule, and how WTS handles child abuse in general, is cynicism at its deepest core. Know that this is a business. Their primary function is to sell, thereby bringing money. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is more important. They dress it all up, make it look pretty, sound noble, put God's name on it but at its heart it is nothing more than about money. If you understand this, their actions make sense.

  If this is so, then why is it not refellected on their official site, in the section of how to deal with abuse cases.

  With what I said in mind, now look at your question. The answer is clear. This organization was never set up to help people, care for their problems or in any way attempt to solve their pain. The 2 witness rule was put in place to try to make an uncomfortable problem go away. Child abuse doesn't fit in with the sales pitch. Additionally, the ancillary results of it create so many problems it takes people away from selling and this cannot be tolerated. Better to sweep it under the rug, pretend it doesn't exist or by God stamp it out of existence. It matters little to those at the top if real people are in pain, being brutally assaulted, and so on. All that matters is that the selling of the literature must continue.

  I'm no Johnnie Cochran by any means, but there must be an argument to sugest that this policy is still in use. If so the lawyers might be commiting contempt by stating the opposite.

  Yes it is absolutely still in place. As to why the Society does not come out in a Watchtower or on CNN and be this explict? Answer: plausible deniability. Keep things vague and the core is protected. Sacrifice individual people, elders, hell even congregations but the core remains safe.

  It's a similar dynamic to the Nixon White House during the Watergate crisis, if you've ever read anything about it. The mindset of doing anything to protect Nixon is very similiar to WTS's actions regarding child abuse. As to litigation, well imagine trying to prove Nixon had knowledge of the break-in if there were no tapes.
• 

  lowly one

  "Even if more than one person "remembers" abuse by the same individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain to base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence."

  It is common knowledge actually, it is a thing of pride among the people of the Watchtower to be able to remember scriptures because it evidences that the holy spirit is working on the individual in the capacity as a rememberancer why, even the Watchtower wrote through the experiences of another(s) that it even calls back to mind diagrams... For an Elder to consider Memories to be to uncertain, may actually be denying the witness bearing of God's Spirit as a rememberancer.
• 

  mamochan13

  Aside from the legal issues & the two witnesses stuff that has already been so aptly discussed - the implications in this message to people who have been sexually abused are beyond sickening. Child sexual abuse traumatizes victims in horrific ways - to coldly suggest that memories are probably false, that the accuser must face the perpetrator, that talking to the elders is enough therapy, etc. etc....well, it enfuriates me, to put it mildly. Anyone who knows anything about counselling sexual abuse issues should be enraged by this. What they are doing, in effect, is re-victimizing the victim and depriving them of receiving real therapeutic help.

  Yet more proof (as if I needed it) that this religion is toxic.
• 

  dedpoet

  Reading this bs makes me so angry. It's totally sickening that they keep getting away with this - they df people for minor offences that no-one outside the borg would even worry about, yet use their 2 witness rule to protect criminals. The wt truly is a paedophile paradise. It just makes me so glad I got out, I just can't believe how I ever got involved with these morons
• 

  InquiryMan

  I remember this article very much. In fact it upset quite a few in the congregation. They said they were deprived of their joy because of this. In fact, it created such a stir that several elders, incl. myself, felt impelled to write a letter to the branch office raising our concern. We made our objections to the article in a clear languae, albeit in a respectful manner of WTerism-language. They did not even reply to it.... However, I remember boycotting that issue of the WT, not delivering it to my magazine routes or offering it while out in service. (Incidentally, it was an issue with an angel crying out a message in front of it, and also the new understanding of the generation if I my memory serves me right.
• 

  katiekitten

  This is unbelievable. A childs life can be totally ruined and they have the comfort that they can 'rely on Jehovah' to dispense justice. Eventually.

  Why bother with any kind of punishment for ANYTHING then? Why not just rely on Jehovah to dispense all the justice?

  They are a crock of rotten shit.
• 

  katiekitten

  
  This is a wicked article. The VERY FIRST subheading after raising the subject of child abuse is 'Repressed Memories' - i.e. the first argument is that if you think youve been abused you probably havent!

  It is noteworthy, however, that a number of individuals have been unable to corroborate their "memories." Some afflicted in this way have had vivid recollections of a certain individual committing abuse or of the abuse being committed in a specific place. Later, though, legitimate evidence to the contrary made it clear that these "remembered" details could not be true.

  First line of the quote above - HOW is is possible to corroborate a memory that you have been abused? Its not possible to bring any other evidence years later - so thats a trump card isnt it. You think its happened but you havent got any other evidence, so were going to dismiss it straight away.

  Later, though, legitimate evidence to the contrary made it clear that these "remembered" details could not be true.

  What evidence? What evidence to the contrary SHOWED it could not be true? The accused didnt have a cock and fingers?? If its not possible to corroborate the abuse happened neither is it possible to corroborate it didnt happen. This is such a vague statement, but is used as CONCLUSIVE evidence that abuse memories are false.

  Everything they say works towards the result they want - namely that no-one was abused, it didnt happen, its made up, its encouraged by evil worldly psychologists.
• 

  Ticker

  This organization was never set up to help people, care for their problems or in any way attempt to solve their pain. The 2 witness rule was put in place to try to make an uncomfortable problem go away. Child abuse doesn't fit in with the sales pitch. Additionally, the ancillary results of it create so many problems it takes people away from selling and this cannot be tolerated. Better to sweep it under the rug, pretend it doesn't exist or by God stamp it out of existence. It matters little to those at the top if real people are in pain, being brutally assaulted, and so on. All that matters is that the selling of the literature must continue.

  Couldn't have said it better Big Tex.

  Ticker
• 

  Big Tex

  It is noteworthy, however, that a number of individuals have been unable to corroborate their "memories." Some afflicted in this way have had vivid recollections of a certain individual committing abuse or of the abuse being committed in a specific place. Later, though, legitimate evidence to the contrary made it clear that these "remembered" details could not be true.

  First line of the quote above - HOW is is possible to corroborate a memory that you have been abused? Its not possible to bring any other evidence years later - so thats a trump card isnt it. You think its happened but you havent got any other evidence, so were going to dismiss it straight away.

  It's very difficult. What I did was to investigate my past. I wanted to know for a certainty how accurate my memories were. After a couple of years, not only were the little bits of fragments that I had recovered proved accurate, but numerous relatives told me stories that were even more hideous. Apparently I was not the only child raped. Cousins, aunts and uncles also told me their stories.

  Other victims I know also investigated their past. It can be done, but it is very difficult. I would only advise someone to do it only if it would help them in their recovery, not to "prove" something to someone else.

  To recover, it really doesn't matter if the victim remembers the rape at night when it really happened in the day, or the father wore a green shirt as opposed to a striped one. At some point in recovery a victim needs to let go of the need to prove, the need for facts and data and accept that something extraordinarily hideous happened and the begin to deal with the tremendous emotional damage.

  Chris