hey i was wondering if maybe someone who is an ex elder or who knows a lot about these things could help me.
my dad is an elder but i need to be cautious with questions i ask.
now that i’ve been woken up from my brainwashed love of this corrupt corporation and from my belief in the bible, and my fiancé is starting to wake up as well, i really don’t want to have the sexist, overused, impersonal talk outline used for my wedding ceremony by some elder who is trying to show off his talk giving skills.
It's none of my business but I would urge you to put off the wedding until your fiance is FULLY awake at the very least. Might be good to wait until you're out of the cult and stable. Leaving the cult can lead to people changing in unexpected ways as they settle into their authentic selves. I wouldn't marry someone that hasn't been allowed to be themselves yet.
I wish you the best no matter what you decide.
i'm not sure if this was mentioned yet, but at this week's meeting they announced (or will announce for those who haven't had theirs yet) the availability of a new official statement on child abuse that can be downloaded in the legal section of jwdotorg.
(funny it's in the legal section, it just shows their mentality and how this is really damage control.
) here's the link:.
Some additional thoughts:
in point 3:
The elders do not shield any perpetrator of child abuse from the authorities.
Sure, they take no positive action to shield abusers, but isn't the very fact that they consult the branch office to find out if they're legally required to report the abuser (instead of, you know, just reporting the abuser...) to authorities a form of shielding the abuser? They'll first shield the organization from potential legal problems by complying with law, but if that's not an issue, then they shield the abuser by refusing to report them. All this statement is really saying is that if the authorities subpoena their records about an abuser they'll provide them. Oh, wait, no they won't even do that - they'll fight a legal battle to prevent providing their records on abusers to the point of paying millions of dollars of donated money to avoid it. I guess really all this is saying is that if police bust into a kingdom hall to arrest the abuser, they won't try to stop them.
Point 4:
In all cases, victims and their parents have the right to report an accusation of child abuse to the authorities. Therefore, victims, their parents, or anyone else who reports such an accusation to the elders are clearly informed by the elders that they have the right to report the matter to the authorities. Elders do not criticize anyone who chooses to make such a report
Riiiiiiight. I'll believe that when I see it. Even if I'd grant that elders wouldn't criticize someone that reports child abuse, the culture of not reporting anything to the authorities when legal troubles arise between JWs is so strong that it's virtually guaranteed that someone (probably many) in the congregation will criticize the reporter of abuse, and they will very likely be somewhat ostracized as a result. To make matters worse, this fact is absolutely present in the mind of anyone that's been a JW for any length of time, which makes it less likely that abuse will be reported. And just like their claim that they don't shield abusers, this statement is likely only true if interpreted very narrowly. Maybe elders won't "discourage" reporting the abuse, and maybe they won't "criticize" someone that does, but it's been well documented that they will generally "provide a warning" that reporting abuse could result in them being brought before a JC on charges of slander.
in point 5:
If the alleged abuser is one of the victim’s parents, the elders will inform the other parent.
Let's just think for a moment about why a child might be reporting one of their parents' abuse to the elders. Could it be that 1) they already told their other parent and were met with skepticism, punishment, or an ineffective attempt to end the abuse or 2) that they fear telling the parent will result in option 1? In either of those two cases, which are unfortunately all too common in the world at large (and I suspect even more common in situations where people believe themselves and the abuser to be among the 0.1% most virtuous people in the world, as is the case with JWs) it seems that the action to take should be to first inform the authorities, then the other parent.
Their policy of informing the other parent of the abuse reminds me of their policy to send replies to letters from individuals to their elders. This reflects the authoritarian, pyramid-shaped, power structure that they're all to eager to reinforce because it's the very core of how the cult (indeed any cult) is run and sustained.
Elsewhere in point 5:
Even if the elders have no legal duty to report an accusation to the authorities, the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses will instruct the elders to report the matter if a minor is still in danger of abuse
Isn't it just so heartening to know that it will be one or more elders, men completely uneducated in the fields of social services, child protection, or criminal psychology will be the ones to make the determination of whether a minor is still in danger from the accused abuser. Why would you ever want impartial authorities to make that decision? (sarcasm)
in point 8:
Victims and their families may decide to consult a mental-health professional. This is a personal decision.
Again, while this is technically true, the culture in JW-land is explicitly opposed to seeking help from mental-health professionals. The reason for this goes directly to statements in their own literature that comes from the top. So while it's "a personal decision" it's one that has been preemptively explicitly discouraged. They presume that it's acceptable that they don't discourage it in connection with their policy on child abuse, but considering the fact that they explicitly discourage it for any problem (preferring to recommend, instead, that people rectify the problem with prayer and deeper involvement in the cult) this should not exonerate them in the slightest.
Beginning of point 9:
Elders never require victims of child abuse to present their accusation in the presence of the alleged abuser.
This represents a policy change and considering the fact that there was a recent lawsuit over this very behavior, this point would be more honest if it started with the words "Going forward" or "In the future" but of course they are loathe to admit (especially in view of their adherents) that they've ever made a mistake and therefore present it as if this has never happened in the past.
In point 10:
A member of the congregation who is an unrepentant child abuser is expelled from the congregation and is no longer considered one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
What they fail to mention is that in many (perhaps most) cases they will fail to establish someone as being an abuser with sufficient evidence for them to actually take any action. Which leads to:
Point 11:
If it is determined that one guilty of child sexual abuse is repentant and will remain in the congregation, restrictions are imposed on the individual’s congregation activities. The individual will be specifically admonished by the elders not to be alone in the company of children, not to cultivate friendships with children, or display any affection for children. In addition, elders will inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with the individual.
So when someone is determined by 3 janitors (with absolutely no experience in the field of criminal psychology) to be "repentant" they place primary trust in that person's self-monitoring of their own activities? The naivety of this policy is incomprehensible. Then they state that they will inform parents in the congregation to keep their kids away from this abuser - again, when reading this it seems to be necessary to keep in mind that any point that they make should be taken as narrowly as possible, and it appears to be pretty reliable to assume that any point that they fail to make is indeed false. Viewing the statement that they'll inform parents in that light, one can assume with reasonable confidence that they won't inform the congregation at large. So, what about babysitters, aunts and uncles or grandparents. If the parents decide to take a weekend vacation and the grandparents take the kids to the meeting, will they remember to pass along a list of all the abusers in the congregation to the grandparents? Either way, it's not the elders' problem! They informed the parents and told the abuser to stop abusing kids so their hands are clean. (sarcasm)
Furthermore what this point fails to explicitly say (and thus we can assume with high probability that it is not the case), following on from point 10, is that they will inform parents in the congregation of an accusation of abuse that they could not establish with enough evidence (i.e. they didn't confess and there weren't 2 witnesses, both wildly unlikely scenarios) to actually take action by the cult's rules. This would include cases where the case was reported to the authorities and the person was convicted in criminal court of the crime. So if someone manages to escape a judicial hearing because only one victim reported them and they didn't confess and then is convicted, serves their time, and returns to the congregation the elders won't mention to anyone that this person is a known child abuser.
Perhaps the saddest thing in all of this is that even with the above glaring flaws, this policy document actually represents an improvement over the previous status quo. It remains to be seen if some of these improvements are actually put into practice or if elders will stick to their old habits.
i consider myself an atheist.
and right now i'm reading a lot on atheism in general (books written to answer creationists).. i'd be interested in knowing how you became an atheist after leaving the jws and how long did it take?
was it instant or did your belief in a deity gradually decline?.
I had basically primed myself to realize there were no gods well before I woke up. After observing the many failures in reasoning that people used to justify belief in god combined with the pervasive hypocrisy in religion and its being used cynically as a means for control and monetary gain, I started thinking to myself "if I weren't a JW, I'd surely be an atheist" starting sometime in college. Of course we all know that it's easier to be an atheist with respect to someone else's religion, and unfortunately it took many years and an understanding of cult mind control to see clearly enough that I was in a cult to be comfortable lighting the match that would burn down my former life entirely. But once I knew JWs were a cult, I knew god was universally a delusion.
In some ways I think this is a great way to go about things - I'd already worked out a lot of the things that can be jarring in the transition, and I'd done it without actually having to commit myself to atheism. I already understood a lot about cosmology, so I didn't get hung up on silly "first cause" arguments. I'd pondered morality without the appeal to a higher authority, so I wasn't shocked by nihilistic despair. I would've liked if the process had gone a bit more quickly, though.
I'm definitely happier now - not having to constantly lie to myself in order to maintain internal consistency of thought is an underrated luxury.
news room > legal developments > legal resources.
jehovah's witnesses scripturally based position on child protection.
i am having trouble understanding paragraph 5. it says: .
the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses will instruct the elders to report the matter if a minor is still in danger of abuse or there is some other valid reason.
Wait...isn't a child making an accusation of abuse automatically a "valid reason" to inform the police? The FIRST call they should make is one to the police, not to some cult bureaucracy. It's disgusting that they're proud enough of this policy to publish it publicly!
Edit: oops, in my outrage it seems that I missed that this had already been pointed out. Still though....absolutely disgusting...it's like they don't even look at the words they've written. How can someone read that back and think it's reasonable or casts them in a favorable light?
...which was kind of her.
i find i like most christians, even mormons, and jw's.. she sent me a leaflet, which asks: where can we find the answers to life's big questions?
science?
Why do you need to look anywhere to find the meaning of life? The cult phrases the question in a way that excludes deciding for yourself what the meaning of your life is, because they want to give people a meaning (be slaves for the cult).
i've noticed in the past 10 years that the social support that used to be available in the congs, a shoulder to cry on, elders to help with family/marriage issues these seem to have been purposely withdrawn.
counsel is even heard from the platform that the elders are not there to help people with their problems.. so first in the 80s-90s they take away the congregation get to getters and social events and now they seem to be going one step further in taking away the emotional support for people too.. this will take away an aspect that i'm sure was keeping alot of people in the borg, the community support.
if that's not there and its just about meetings and ministry how many will start to get their emotional support elsewhere?.
I'd say I definitely saw some of this before I left too. I think it's a symptom of other problems/priorities, though, and not an intentional thing - essentially they prioritize other things over being supportive to the common member and it ends up showing in things like this. I may be wrong, but I thought the elimination of official congregation get-togethers was related to concerns over potential liability should there be some accident or altercation occur at these events (the cult always seems to be more concerned with money than the benefits of its adherents) and I think the observed withdraw of elder support in recent years is likely due to the fact that elders are increasingly in short supply. When you see an organization make cuts like this, you see what its true priorities are. They prioritize money over r/f JWs quality of life, and they prioritize the administrative and punitive duties that elders perform over helping and supporting individual members.
well, i finally got round to reading this book.
having read many positive reviews, i thought i would give it a blast.
i am trying to deprogram myself from watchtower group think and avoid going back because of family and peer pressure.. hopefully this book will give me the tools i need to do this.
My experience of reading it definitely helped remove some aspects of the cult programming that I didn't even know were there to begin with. Having been born-in, there were some aspects of how people relate to each other that I just didn't know the cult wasn't normal. In the long-run, though, I've found it's definitely helpful to talk stuff through with a good friend or a therapist periodically - I may have an intellectual understanding of how I was controlled, but getting rid of those automatic responses takes continued effort.
It'll probably be different for everyone, but the hardest thing for me hasn't been understanding the way the cult indoctrinates and controls people and how not to allow it in my life anymore, but it's been unlearning all the defenses that I built up in the cult that are now purely impediments to me (even though they were a matter of survival when I was in the cult). One of the things I learned in the cult was that if something in your life is good, you don't share it with anyone or tell anyone about it lest it be taken away to make more time for cult activities. I'm still instinctively really guarded in conversation with people, especially if the conversation turns to something like my dating life or whatever. It takes a lot of reinforcement to shed those sorts of defenses.
Good luck to you on your journey! Keep making progress - as has been said many times: living well is the best revenge!
i remember an elder questioning a woman who had admitted to giving and receiving oral sex from her unbelieving mate.
he asked her the most intimate questions which clearly flustered her.
interestingly, she “confessed “ to the elders because her conscience bothered her.
Have you asked your wife what she thinks about the two-witness rule, and how it affects children who are the victims of sexual abuse?
I got the standard excuses. "It's Jehovah's arrangement, we just have to trust it." "There can be bad people in any group." Etc. She wouldn't trust any details that I gave regarding specific cases, because I was an evil apostate. She certainly wouldn't look at any external information because that was all apostate lies too. She was a lost cause if ever there was one.
i remember an elder questioning a woman who had admitted to giving and receiving oral sex from her unbelieving mate.
he asked her the most intimate questions which clearly flustered her.
interestingly, she “confessed “ to the elders because her conscience bothered her.
In my last-ditch effort to make my ex-wife see the cult for the blood-guilty cult that it is, I brought up the issue of blood fractions and actually got her to admit that it was possible or even likely that at least one person who's conscience would've allowed them to take fractions had died rather than take fractions and face the penalty of being shunned by their family prior to that policy being revised to make fractions a "conscience matter." When I pressed her to acknowledge that this means the watchtower society is bloodguilty, she said "No, because it doesn't matter if they died, because they'll be resurrected." That's the moment when I knew that nothing I'd ever say to her would make a difference. The cult could literally do no wrong in her eyes - any evils they commit in the name of god would be undone so they don't even matter.
i ask because i'm working in a 28 day residential addiction treatment center and one of my co-workers is studying with the jw's.
he does not know i'm an xjw.
i suspect that at some point they're going to tell him he can't go to aa meetings anymore.
Why don't you explain your JW past to your coworker and offer to give him a fuller picture of the religion and your experience? Seems like kinda a dick move to watch someone getting indoctrinated into a cult all the while just standing by and watching.
