Watchtower PR Statement 8-7-01

by silentlambs 63 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  bboyneko 2

  Who actually is legally responsible for serious "errors of judgment", the Corporation, the elders or the individual Jehovah’s Witness, is the question that could possibly be the focus of a major legal argument.

  It will definitley be the society. The pay attention to yourselves and the flock book will be important in a court of law. It will prove elders have very very very razor thin room for their own judegment, but that they must follow the intructions in the book to a 'T' They must also keep the book secret and not allow non-elders to view its contents. Who issued these rules? The Society.

  THeir argument that elders are independent is very weak and flimsy and a good lawyer will tear it to shreds. Don't forget there are many apostate elders out there who just might testify against the socity. That will be very damaging to them.

  The societies overconfidence will be their downfall.
• 

  Kent

  Hi GodRules

  Maybe you should change your handle to "GodMakingAnAssOfHimself"?

  You started your highly knowledgable and scientific post with this:

  I don't know why you people are so surprised. This has been the stance the organization has taken since I can remember. A C.O. told us in 1995 that all child abuse, even if it was intercourse between say a 19 year old and a 17 year old, had to be reported.

  Could you please prove that? I'm extremely interesting in publishing the evidence on the Watchtower Observer. By doing this I hope to help the good guys in Legal Dep, since they are not aware of that policy at all. I just feel this piece of evidence could help them now.

  Most of you are just silly with comments like the "iceberg", "run, wt, run". What is that all about? That's kid stuff. No one is bringing down Jehovah's organization, no one. Whether you believe or not, Jesus is in charge of his remnant.

  Yeah, I agree. Saying things like that IS silly, isn't it? We both know the assholes in the Witchpower are too stupid to do that, don't we? They know, of course, the judicial system in the US will understand their views when they explain their internal judicial system. The honorable judges will understan their problem getting 2 or 3 witnesses to such a thing, and they will of course understand this:

  Pedophiles are knocking peoples doors daily! There isn't any use warning their neighbours, because they visit other children in another part of the city!

  They will also understan "the fact" many of these monsters are elders, and the fact that the once accusing them of their crimes get severely punished by Jesus. Jesus is the one responsoble for having these pedophiles walking around the public, right?

  So, Silentlambs and all the rest of you morons that don't understand this thing. Stop "persecuting" the Watchtower - and sue Jesus instead! He's in charge of the friggin Pedohile Paradise!

  Yakki Da

  Kent

  "The only difference between a fool and the JW legal department is that a fool might be sympathetic ."

  Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
  http://watchtower.observer.org
• 

  JEMIMAH

  My sources tell me that the WT is preparing the Org ffor new changes to be announced at the KMS and the new textbook.

  This PR is the first of many

  Jem
• 

  bboyneko

  They wont fool the press like they did with the blood issue recently.

  'Oh, we aren't dissfelowshipping people for taking blood anymore. Its their free will...but umm..if they take blood they will be dissasociating themselves.'

  There is NO DIFFERENCE other than legally. All the press jumped on it saying headlines like 'Jehovah's Witnesses change their stance on Blood'

  What will get them is that the lawsuits represent a period before they rearange wording and policies to appear more 'normal'

  Chaning their name to Christian Congregation of JW's or whatever is another attempt to look 'normal'.
• 

  waiting

  Hey Flip,

  That's passing the buck back to the elders. The WTBTS put the elders in an authoritive position by appointment. It is the WTBTS's responsibility to oversee *their* flock - not the elder's seemingly sole responsibility. If the WTBTS provides the proper training (in your opinion) - they should see that it's enforced then, and take responsibility when it's not. - waiting

  Waiting,I believe the WTB&TS has already publicly denied legal responsibility for the actions of elders and officially treats elders as independents, have they not. - flip

  Just because a corporation denies culpability and responsibility for it's directors, managers, trainers, does not dismiss that responsibility.

  Much like an "independent" Amway re-seller is legally made personally responsible for their own actions, so to are the elders of a congregation.- flip

  If an Amway re-seller tells you something in error - they are responsible. If Amway has written information, or they've been purposefully trained in error by the corporation, and someone is able to prove that - then the responsibility shifts.

  Who actually is legally responsible for serious "errors of judgment", the Corporation, the elders or the individual Jehovah’s Witness, is the question that could possibly be the focus of a major legal argument. - flip

  I agree - that would be the question which is begging to be asked, and fought over, in the Courts.

  Strange Days ahead.

  waiting
• 

  Robdar

  I know that every congregation is different. I know that some elders are bigger power freakers than others but I cannot imagine how an elder could ignore a report of child sexual molestation. But then maybe my experience with elders has been different from the norm. All the elders in my congregation, other than one, showed a genuine love and desire to serve the flock in an manner perscribed in the bible.

  I do not know of a single accusation of child molestation that wasn't taken seriously by the elders in my former congregation. I know that I was not a memeber of the disciplinary committees or held any kind of position of authority within the congregation due to being female. However, I do know, because people talk, that when cases like this arose, the elders jumped on it. They investigated and disfellowshipped those involved-- up to and including members of the annointed class.

  In my former cong, it was discovered, after the chldren molested became adults, that for years a member of the remnant had been molesting children in his own family. He of course denied it but the former victims prevailed. He is still disfellowshipped and of course unrepentant of his actions.

  I thank God that as a a child, I listened to my gut feeling that there was something wrong with this guy. For the life of me I couldn't figure out what made him so special as to be a member of the heavenly class and why members where always kissing his ass.

  I have been away for a while but can anybody tell me if this "brother" is still considered to be a member of the annointed? I seem to recall that at one time it was believed that a member of the heavenly class would always be a member no matter what they did. Has there been any "new light" on the matter?

  My heart goes out to the victims. Not only because of the horrible things that happened to you but because when you sought help from your spiritual fathers (elders)of the congregation, they failed you so miserably. I applaude you for finding the courage to come forth and force change. The future generation will be safer because of you.

  Robdar
• 

  Richie

  Interesting subject..........

  How many brothers or sisters have been disfellowshipped because they went to the authorities (police) reporting the crime of pedophelia on the part of a baptized brother....
  Yes, they were disfellowshipped for "pushing ahead", which is against the Society's directive and in so doing they were viewed as wicked rather than the perpetrator of the crime itself...

  Shaking my head in disbelief........

  Richie :*)

  You are the music as long as the music last...............
• 

  MadApostate

  WAITING-WAITING-WAITING:

  My "radar detector" just jumped out of its mounting. After reading your last post above, I "suspect" you have "legal background/experience", YOU SLY DOG!!! (referencing comments in my BERRY CASE EVALUATED thread)

  However, I would caution the equating of WTS/Elders with AMWAY/Distributors for purposes of legal anaysis. Amway Dist are "independent contractors", while Elders are not. While it is true that BOTH situations may involve principles of Principal-Agent Law, the WTS has a much closer relationship with Elders than does Amway with its distributors. Frankly, I'm not sure how to label it "legally", but it is closer to an employer-employee relationship than prin-indeptK'or.

  As you are likely aware, when the Elders perform functions of their "office", the "apparent agency" accepted by the R&F makes the WTS directly responsible for any resulting harm regardless whether the Elders are following WTS instructions correctly or not. While, the WTS could technically resort to "joining" the elders individually, or pursue a later "action over", we both know that neither will happen.

  PS: I would love to hear your "honest" analyse of the REES and BERRY cases. If you would rather do such via email, I understand why; just let me know.
• 

  waiting

  Hey MadAp,

  You are just the strangest poster..........I thoroughly enjoy your posts, your information is good, interpretation articulate (whether I agree or not) and capable of being grasped. Your quick irritation with others is becoming legendary.

  I'm learning about legalistic interpretations from some of the members of this board - it helps me to stay centered as to "yeah, I can see where he (or the Court) is coming from...."

  However, I don't understand your above post. Are we sharing a chuckle I'm unaware of? You sly dog.........

  Amway Dist are "independent contractors", while Elders are not.

  Good point. The elders are not allowed to run "their businesses" as they see fit and just using the mother company's product. The WT mother company demands complete compliance - and says so in a plethora of writings.

  However, it's deciphering these writings past the flowery speech and "suggestions" to get a court to understand that these arent' "suggestions" - they're commands with negative consequences to those who disobey.

  I do like the thread BERRY CASE EVALUATED - a lot of points to grasp and interpret.

  waiting
• 

  MadApostate

  Waiting:

  The "sly dog" remark was simply directed at your sitting back in the BCE thread and allowing others to post, although you likely have better qualifications than some of the participants. (which you nicely avoided specifying.)

  With regard to your point about Courts realizing the control which the WTS via Elders exercise over the R&F, I really don't believe such will impact the finalized decision at the appellate level.

  The Courts are quick to point out that membership in a religion is "voluntary", and if the religion does something you don't like, then quit. For instance, in the BERRY case, whether it is ever memorialized in a Court Opinion or not, I guarantee you the Appellate Judge/s are going to blame the BERRY's Mother for not reporting the abuse herself. No matter what pressure/influence the Elders exerted, the person most responsible for the children's protection was the Mother. If she allowed a "voluntary" relationship with a religion to override her maternal instincts, then so be it. The Court will not shift the blame from her to someone whose advice she should have ignored. The Courts could care less that she might have been disfellowshipped.

  I know that these comments will earn more "points" from the "subjective" crowd here, but ... what the hell... I'm not here to win friends ...just trying to get this DB to think objectively. HAHA! Probably would have just as much success at WOL or GC at that!