at the 1994 district convention in bismark, north dakota, (could possibly have been 93) my sister wrote a note to her friend and tossed it in the garbage.
the note contained a discussion about going to boy's hotel rooms after the sessions ended, and other troublesome activities, including lying to the parents about what my sister and her friend were doing.. presumably, an attendant found this note in the garbage and turned it into the elders.
on the last talk of the last day of the convention, the note was read out loud to the entire audience, along with the warning that "whoever you are, we will find you.
Simon:
I just had a crazy mental image of 2000 Jehovah's Witnesses all simultaneously shouting "bullshit" after the speaker finishes an experience. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
On another subject: this morning I woke up in the bathtub which was full of ice. I'm starting to feel a little unwell. Does anyone know what might be going on?......
Expatbrit.
how do you get your grubby little apostate fingers on this wonderful award?
simple!.
just predict what you think will be the next bit of "new light" coming down the heavenly cable modem to brooklyn.
Announcing the Rutherford Award for Predicting New Light!
How do you get your grubby little apostate fingers on this wonderful award? Simple!
Just predict what you think will be the next bit of "new light" coming down the heavenly cable modem to Brooklyn. If you're right, you get the award!
More blood fractions? Another date for the big A? Whoops, God changed his mind about the Sodomites again?
Make your prediction!
Note: The Rutherford Award doesn't actually consist of anything. It's an antitypical award, you see. (Acknowledgements to Fred Franz for that bit of cobblers.) However, we may try to get Michael Jackson to present it in any case.
Looking forward to your prophetic visions!
Expatbrit.
Edited by - Expatbrit516 on 6 March 2001 23:32:12
despite the ranting in some of the posts on this board i thought today was a good day.
today, march 1 (for me still right now) can be regarded as the first day of spring unless youre a stickler for changing the season on the equinox.
today was the first morning in umpteen days that i woke to outside temperatures above 0 degrees.
PHOOEY!!!
I only live in Canada. Back in old blighty we have real EXTREME weather.
Stuff like, er... um... WIND.
YEAH! And FOG too! Real thick!
And....and... RAIN! Rain so hard it's just water with slots in it!
THAT'S WEATHER!!!!
Expatbrit.
can you remember that distinct moment in your life when you suddenly knew that your time as a jw was truly over?.
for me, that moment came several years after the removal of my privileges in the congregation when i admitted to having known my then fiance in a way that was not fitting for a ministerial servant.. i was quickly stripped of my 2 servants jobs, group study conducting, pioneer status, public talk giving and praying in the kh.
i was also forbidden to ever be alone with the lady concerned.. about 15 months later i was assigned a public talk, after 30 minutes i dried up.
Englishman:
Like Unanswered, I had slow but steadily accumulating doubts. Like Neyank, the 1995 generation change was the factor that finally punctured the balloon of fear in my head and enabled me to really sit back and look at the society from an objective viewpoint.
Once you do that, you're finished from the WTS point of view. All of the deceptiveness and doublespeak becomes so clear.
Expatbrit.
w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.
do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?
-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.
Friend:
You use the well-worn JW technique of expecting that everyone must comply with your conversational ground rules and answer leading questions the way you wish them to.
Your question is predicated upon my putting myself into a hypothetical situation of your choosing, namely:
1)that I have a daughter
2)that she has been abused by a JW
3)that I am still a "loyal" follower of the WTS
4)that I feel that informing the secular authorities will worsen my daughter's circumstances.
5)that I wish to seek help from the elders.
Very well, if all the above circumstances were true, then the answer is that of course I would not feel comfortable seeking help from the elders if I knew they were obligated to inform secular authorities.
But, in feeling so, I would make myself an accessory and compounding factor to the abuse of my child, and I would share responsibility for the suffering of any further victims of the abuser.
My opinion is unchanged. The WT operates one policy for the secular world based on deception, that attempts to show that it is open and honest in declaring instances of child abuse. Meanwhile it operates another policy within it's congregations to cover up child abuse and stifle victims by means of emotional pressure. The GB is aware of this: the pain of the victims is on their heads. They care only for the preservation of their power and image.
Any organisation or person that attempts to reserve to itself the prerogative of whether or not to inform the duly constituted authorities of an instance of the abuse of another person is part of the problem.
Friend, we are obviously not going to agree on this subject. But thank you for a thought-provokng discussion. I hope we can exchange views on other subjects in the future.
Expatbrit.
despite the ranting in some of the posts on this board i thought today was a good day.
today, march 1 (for me still right now) can be regarded as the first day of spring unless youre a stickler for changing the season on the equinox.
today was the first morning in umpteen days that i woke to outside temperatures above 0 degrees.
PAH!!!
If you whinging Americans want to experience REAL winter, you should come to CANADA!
I just lost another arm to frostbite!
Third one this winter!!
Expatbrit.
w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.
do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?
-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.
Friend:
For that reason the Society is very often unaware of specific local problems.It may well be that the society is unaware of specific local problems (Bro. X's wife wears skirts to mid-thigh and it's very distracting etc.), but the child abuse situation is a widespread problem. It beggars belief that the society is simply not aware of what the elders are doing in these situations.
I do not doubt what you say elders are told on the phone by the legal dept. But, "nudge, nudge, wink, wink". Elders are company men: they will know what this really means. The dozens, even hundreds of cases being documented where elders actively discouraged disclosure shows this to be so. What is said to the elders on the phone is merely for form, a tactic for the society spin doctors. To put it another way: the victim has a free choice to report in the same way I have a free choice to give a mugger my wallet when he's holding a gun to my head.
Again, there will be no instance in writing of the society actively discouraging reporting of serious criminal behaviour (I cannot recall any articles actively encouraging it, either). In this case, the society doesn't have to put it blatantly in writing. It knows that the tactics mentioned in my last post will accomplish it's desires.
Laws of the land typically would not hold the Society to that high of a standard.One thing I should have clarified is that I'm not commenting on responsibility from a legal standpoint. I have no legal training. The finer points of the society's legal position will no doubt be decided in the courts by better minds than mine. My comments are from a moral viewpoint. To return to my employee illustration: I may not be held legally accountable for my employees misconduct, but because I appointed and placed that employee, I must accept moral responsibility for the damage caused my wronged client. I must also accept the consequences when the client tells me to get stuffed. This may seem harsh, but when I accepted the advantages of becoming an employer, I also assumed the responsibilities.
The society appointed elders. They are morally responsible for the effects of their appointments, and should not attempt to avoid the consequences when their appointees "screw up". When they accepted the privileges of leadership over JW's, they also assumed the responsibilities.
Certainly in those cases the Society does not view a person as "spiritually weak" because they report a serious crime to legitimate law enforcement officials.The society may not officially promote the view that reporters are spiritually weak. But that is cold comfort to the reporter suffering the snubbing, unpleasant comments and emotional coldness of the other menbers of their congregation. The society knows this will happen: silence inplies consent.
If you learned that a JW had abused your daughter but were concerned that reporting to law enforcement might make your daughter’s circumstances worse, would you feel freeand comfortable seeking pastoral help from congregational elders if you knew they were obligated to report the crime whether you wanted it reported or not? My answer was in general terms, however the principles would apply to this specific situation. If my daughter were abused, then:
1)I would not feel free and comfortable seeking help from the elders under any circumstances, as they would be utterly unqualified to deal with the situation. Whether they are obligated to report is irrelevant to how I would deal with the situation.
2)In my opinion (I'm sorry if anyone finds this offensive), any parent who seeks help from elders before secular authorities and agencies is failing their child. Any parent who does not wish to report the offense is failing both their child, and the children of others.
3) Your comment in your question about reporting to law enforcement agencies making my daughter's situation worse, and your subsequent comment about victims being afraid to seek out pastoral help because of subsequent secular involvment, reflects the society's conditioning that secular authorities and agencies are "part of Satan's world" and are therefore to be avoided. This is part of the society's unofficial policy.
4) I would certainly not feel free and comfortable talking to elders knowing that coercive pressure will be put upon me and my family to hush the whole situation up so as not to "bring reproach upon Jehovah". The cases being compiled and documented show that this is what happens.
Expatbrit.
Edited by - expatbrit516 on 4 March 2001 11:33:52
w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.
do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?
-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.
Hi Tina!
Nice to see you posting here!
And you're right: JT did do a good job of wading through all my verbose rhetoric!
Expatwafflybrit.
w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.
do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?
-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.
Friend:
please keep in mind that you equivocate Society policy with actions of local congregations; they are not always one and the same.
On the subject of the actions of elders: the society is responsible for all action of elders performed in their capacity as elders, period.
To illustrate: I, as an employer, often send out my employees to clients. I do not know all of the actions that person will take at the clients. For all I know, they may spend the entire day using the client's computers to look at pornography. But, because I placed that employee as my agent at the client, I must assume the ultimate responsibility and consequences for all of the actions of that employee while he or she acts in that capacity.
If elders are incompetent; if they do not follow the society's printed policy; if they do not understand the society's policies or sincerely misapply them: the society is still ultimately responsible and must accept the consequences.
For a fact the Society does not view it as spiritual weakness that a JW would report a serious crime to legitimate law enforcement officials whether the offender is a JW or not.I have to flat-out disagree here. The fact that elders are instructed to compulsorily report serious crimes only when there is a legal requirement demonstrates the society's preference: to not have such things reported. Someone reporting when not absolutely required by law will certainly be considered spiritually weak.
If you were a parent who learned that your child had been sexually abused by an adult (JW or not), would you want the prerogative to report or not, or would you rather someone else hold that prerogative?My answer is simple. In situations such as the one you describe, there should be no prerogative on whether to report or not. It should be compulsory at all times. Given the nature of these offenders, there is a high probability that they will abuse another victim. To not report is to endanger other children.
To reclarify the point in question here: does the society have more than one policy regarding reporting of child abuse?
The society creates one policy (course of action) in the congregations while espousing another policy (written) to the outside world. They do indeed use semantics and half-truths which only JW's will understand e.g. saying "a known child abuser" rather than "a child abuser" (this has been discussed before on other threads).
Finally, thank you for your considered and reasoning reply. This is an emotionally loaded subject. All the more important for it to be considered without resorting to name-calling and insults.
Expatbrit.
w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.
do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?
-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.
Friend:
Thank you for your reply to my question: "When it comes to serious criminal actions, I am referring to the Society’s only policy."
I'm afraid I must differ with you on the society having only one policy on this issue. Quite often, the policy the society puts in print is very different to the actual attitudes and actions reflected in the congregations.
For instance: the society has stated that disfellowshipping does not dissolve family ties. And this is quite true as a policy, since the society has no legal authority or physical ability to dissolve family ties. However, we know that in the congregations and familys, disfellowshipped members are emotionally and spiritually shunned as though family ties had been dissolved. The official policy differs from the unofficial policy as demonstrated by the actions of the society's members.
Similarly, with regard to the reporting of crimes (whether serious or not), the society may very well say that it's policy is either to report crimes, or even to not hinder reporting of them. But when the brother or sister reporting the crime first to the authorities rather than to the elders knows that there is a high probability that they will be regarded as spiritually weak and a bad associate to be marked, they will likely remain silent. Then the unofficial policy of the society (avoiding negative publicity at all costs) becomes clear through the actions of it's members.
Finally, having grown up as a JW, I certainly do not think that all JW's are child molesters, or that they are all callous to the effects of such abuse. But surely the society should be taking a pro-active view of this issue, not retreating into denial and exercising the knee-jerk reaction of blaming apostate troublemaking.
Expatbrit.
