Posts by COJ

5

Review of ROLF FURULI: PERSIAN CHRONOLOGY book by C. O. Jonsson

by Dogpatch in

jw
friends

a review of:

rolf furuli: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews

(oslo: rolf furuli a/s, 2003)

COJ

Leolaia,

Thanks for your valuable information! I will save it and use it to improve my discussion of this point.

Best wishes,

Carl

113

Bill Bowen's attack on Ray Franz

by COJ in

bill bowens attack on ray franz: .

i very seldom find time for checking the discussions going on at various debate sites, and wasnt aware of bill bowens statements about ray franz in his original post of oct. 9, 2002 at 7:26 (now evidently altered), until a friend quite recently sent my a copy of it.

i was not only surprised but was shocked at his statements.

COJ

TO FOCUS:

Thanks for your lengthy response. Mt question was:

But here is what Bill Bowen stated in his original post:
> Ray Franz supports the WT policy on child abuse. He is the author of the two
> eye witness rule. [snip]
So what do you say?

And your answer:

"If only all questions were so simple!
Answer (I was waiting for this): I have to say just what I have said to Bill, i.e.;

THAT BILL WAS NOT SENSIBLE TO HAVE SAID THAT, OR TO HAVE THOUGHT THAT.

And Bill NO LONGER thinks that."

OK, Focus. If Billl had just admitted this openly and frankly, without any attempts to defend his nonsensical statements, I suppose this whole matter could have been laid to rest long ago.

I have carefully gone over your explanations as to why you and several others feel that the pedophile ratio is considerably higher among the Witnesses than elsewhere. I choose to leave the arguments without further comments. Nor can I become involved in any research project aimed at checking whether your estimate can be verified or not. I simply do not have time and resources for this. I'm presently deeply involved in other urgent matters that will keep me busy for a long time. If your estimates can be verified by careful and unbiased research, I will be interested to learn about this, of course.

As I feel I have said what I had to say when I jumped into this debate, this will be my last contribution to it.

Thanks all of you for your responses.

Carl Olof Jonsson

113

Bill Bowen's attack on Ray Franz

by COJ in

bill bowens attack on ray franz: .

i very seldom find time for checking the discussions going on at various debate sites, and wasnt aware of bill bowens statements about ray franz in his original post of oct. 9, 2002 at 7:26 (now evidently altered), until a friend quite recently sent my a copy of it.

i was not only surprised but was shocked at his statements.

COJ

TO FOCUS:

Hi Focus!

I remember very well our vain attempts to help "Joshua92" back to reality!

I have checked your post as referred to, where you say:

"May I first say that no sensible person has suggested that the two witness policy had originated with Ray - and conceptually origination is somewhat akin to authorship (which is what you and COJ have been discussing)."

But here is what Bill Bowen stated in his original post:

> Ray Franz supports the WT policy on child abuse. He is the author of the two
> eye witness rule as well as the slander issue that prevents anyone from
> warning another of child abuse in the congregation. It is interesting that
> the WT is willing to fight to the last man standing for a policy that in large
> part was founded by their biggest apostate.

So what do you say?

Best wishes,

Carl Olof Jonsson

41

Ray Franz -some personal recollections.

by Gilgamesh in

this is my first post.

please forgive its length, its bad timing, its preachiness, its prejudices, etc.

it's just one more opinion that i feel obligated to add.

COJ

TO GILGAMESH:

Ray asked me to tell you that you are welcome to contact him if you so choose. He thinks he knows who you are, but is not sure.

Best wishes,

Carl Olof Jonsson

86

Bill Bowen's unfortunate attack

by Jim Penton in

like carl olof jonsson, this is the first time i have ever written to this forum.

i have decided to do so, however, because i am saddened at what bill bowen has chosen to do in reference to ray franz.

let me say that i given bill full marks for publicizing an issue child abuse and the watchtower cover up of it and for taking a stand that has cost him a great deal personally.

COJ

TO JIM PENTON::

Hi Jim,

I just wanted to tell you that I appreciated your original contribution, which appears to me as the most sober, judicious, and penetrating post published here so far on this subject.

I share your concern that the organized crusade against child abuse among the Witnesses may get out of hand. Although Bill Bowen explains that "silentlambs is not part of any anti-jw movement," but is "a support group" that "help people in need", there is a clear risk that many of his supporters do not see this difference. Unfortunately, many former Witnesses have become so "anti-jw" that they may see the crusade as another opportunity for them to attack the Watchtower organisation, thus trying to turn the silenlambs into exactly what Bowen says it is not. Another risk is, as you point out, that in a crusade of this kind, innocent people may be hurt, because many accusations of child abuse have turned out to be false. There are examples also here in Sweden of persons who have spent years in prison before it was shown that they were innocent. For this reason the demands for evidence have been sharpened. Psychological judgements are not accepted as the final word.

This is not meant to belittle the witness of all those courages victims of child abuse, who have stepped forward to tell their story. It is intended to show that there are valid reasons for the demands made with respect to the evidence, the need for documented facts.

I have read Bill Bowens lengthy "apology and defense". His quotations from the conversation he had with Ray do not show Ray saying something offensive. Bowen tried to tell him what he should say or not say to the media, which Ray declined. I fully understand this, as I myself sometimes have been requested to say, do, or write certain things in a certain way that were incompatible with my views and way of conduct. When I declined, this has upset some. We cannot tell others what to do, what to say, or what to write. Each one can only answer for what he or she knows and feels about a certain matter. Bill says that Ray took offense at his request, but from what he says it seems clear that it was rather Bill who took offense at Rays refusal to comply with his request. I do hope this whole affair can be laid to rest now.

Bowen now evidently realize that Ray Franz cannot have been the "author" of the Societys present policy in child abuse matters. And of course he was not the "author" of the "two or three witnesses" principle. As you say, this principle is at least as old as Moses. Like you, I feel it is a valuable principle, if used correctly and discriminately.

As I pointed out in my original post, this "two or three witnesses" principle has been accentuated within the Watchtower organization repeatedly all the time since the days of Charles Taze Russell. When, for example, the procedure to be followed in connection with disfellowshippings was outlined in some detail for the first time, in The Watchtower of March 1, 1952, the "two or three witnesses" principle was insisted upon as an absolutely necessary requirement to be followed. In fact, as Rud Persson pointed out recently, the statements on pages 164-165 in the "Organization" book of 1972 were almost literally repeated from a book published in 1967, four years before Ray Franz became a member of the Governing Body, namely, "Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot". This book says, on pages 177-178:

"Judgement of matters affecting the lives of dedicated servants of Jehovah carries with it a great responsibility, and, for that reason, the committee is obligated to be sure that it has all the facts before it renders its decision. (1 Time. 5:21; Prov. 18:13; Deut. 13:12-14) For a matter to be established as true, there must be two or three witnesses. (1 Tim. 5:19; Deut. 19:15) These cannot be persons who are simply repeating what they have heard from someone else; they must be witnesses of the things concerning which they testify. No action is taken if there is just one witness; it is not that brothers discredit the testimony, but the Bible requires that, unless the wrongdoer himself confesses his sin, the facts must be substantiated by two or three witnesses in these serious matters."

This should be compared with the practically identical statements in the "Organization" book of 1972:

"Judgement of matters affecting the lives of servants of Jehovah carries with it a great responsibility, and, for that reason, the judicial committee is obligated to be sure that it has all the facts before it renders its decision. (1 Tim. 5:21; Prov. 18:13; Deut. 13:12-14) For a matter to be established as true, there must be two or three witnesses. (1 Tim. 5:19; Deut. 19:15; Heb. 10:28) These cannot be persons who are simply repeating what they have heard from someone else; they must be witnesses themselves of things concerning which they testify. No action is taken if there is just one witness; it is not that the brothers discredit the testimony, but the Bible requires that, unless the wrongdoer himself admits his sin, the facts must be substantiated by two or three witnesses in these serious matters." Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making (1972), pp. 164-165.

Thanks again for your contributions, and forward my greetings to Marilyn!

I also appreciated the recent post by "Gilgamesh".

Carl Olof Jonsson

113

Bill Bowen's attack on Ray Franz

by COJ in

bill bowens attack on ray franz: .

i very seldom find time for checking the discussions going on at various debate sites, and wasnt aware of bill bowens statements about ray franz in his original post of oct. 9, 2002 at 7:26 (now evidently altered), until a friend quite recently sent my a copy of it.

i was not only surprised but was shocked at his statements.

COJ

Hi Joseph,

I have looked at your post on the Two Witness Rule, and the scriptures you quote are undoubtedly relevant to the subject discussed. Thanks for the reference.

I will forward your greetings to Rud.

Carl

113

Bill Bowen's attack on Ray Franz

by COJ in

bill bowens attack on ray franz: .

i very seldom find time for checking the discussions going on at various debate sites, and wasnt aware of bill bowens statements about ray franz in his original post of oct. 9, 2002 at 7:26 (now evidently altered), until a friend quite recently sent my a copy of it.

i was not only surprised but was shocked at his statements.

COJ

To Christina Boucher:

I find your post calm and sensible, and your questions reasonable. Hear are my answers:

You ask:

"Wasnt the initial reason for these campaigns to publicise the faulty WTS policy"?

Answer:

Yes, and if this policy is understood to mean that a crime, such as child molestation, can or should be concealed, this is criminal. Please notice that I never accused Bill Bowen for his attempts to change such a policy, nor have I ever dissuaded anyone from supporting him in this. My criticism referred to Bowens questioning of the motives of those who decline from joining in with him in his media campaign. His questioning of the motives of Ray Franz was also a questioning of the motives of thousands of other former Witnesses, including Rud Persson and myself, who have taken the same position as Ray Franz.

Your illustration with my study of the Societys chronology is excellent. Suppose I asked Bill Bowen to join me in a media campaign to reveal the Societys errors in this area, but that he chose not to join in with me in this. Would that give me any reason for attacking him and publicly start to question his motives? Of course not.

Because I stated the we have found no evidence to show that child molestation is more common among Jehovahs Witnesses than in the community at large, you ask:

"What data do you and Mr. Persson based your conclusion on?"

Answer:

On the lack of data to the contrary. If such data exists, I am not aware of them.

Finally, you ask:

"Must the percentage of molestations be as great as, or greater, than in other organizations or general population before a faulty handling of molestation is addressed?"

The answer is obviously No. If just one such case came to my knowledge, and I had any kind of evidence on the case, it would be my responsibility to reveal this to the police.

As to your statement about a childs ability, or inability, to take action, you are quite right, of course. What I had in mind was what you say in the next sentence, that the child years later, as an adult, may be strong enough for seeking justice.

Best wishes,

Carl Olof Jonsson

113

Bill Bowen's attack on Ray Franz

by COJ in

bill bowens attack on ray franz: .

i very seldom find time for checking the discussions going on at various debate sites, and wasnt aware of bill bowens statements about ray franz in his original post of oct. 9, 2002 at 7:26 (now evidently altered), until a friend quite recently sent my a copy of it.

i was not only surprised but was shocked at his statements.

COJ

The large and varied number of reactions to the few lines I posted surprised me, and it is, of course, impossible for me to respond adequately even to a handful of them. I find some of them particularly pertinent and informative.

"Gedanken", in his judicious and balanced post of Oct. 25, 2002 at 13:03, shows he has correctly understood the meaning of my post. (Danke schn!) And "Amazing", in his enlightening post of Oct. 25, 2002, at 13:35, helpfully brought me up to date on this story by giving a detailed review of what had transpired before I butted into the discussion. Valuable information and comments were also provided by "IslandWoman", "Wasasister", and others. Thanks all of you!

The most puzzling explanations are those posted by "bjc2012" on Oct. 25, 2002, at 16:19, in which he/she tries to cast the blame on Ray Franz for the way my case was handled by the Watch Tower Society and its representatives back in the 1970s, after I had sent my treatise to the headquarters in 1977. The story you tell, "bjc2012", is totally misleading and false. I have been corresponding regularly with Ray Franz during the past 20 years and feel I know quite well what happened. Here are some facts:

My treatise on "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" was examined at the Writing Department by a number of brothers there. At that time about 18 writers were working at the department, and nearly one third of them more or less accepted the evidence presented in the treatise. One of them was Ray Franz, who was well acquainted with the subject, as he had done a lot of research on it himself and, as you say, had written the section on "Chronology" for the "Aid" book. He wasnt aware of the enormous burden of evidence against the 607 BCE date, however, until he read my treatise, so you cant blame him for what he wrote in defense of the date before 1977.

As he realized that my conclusions were correct, how can you claim that he encouraged or participated in the widespread defamation of my name and character as a result of my research? This is completely illogical. During the correspondence I had with the headquarters and the Governing Body in the years 1977-1980, I received a number of letters, none of which was written or authored by Ray Franz. I know this, because I have a copy of the internal list from that time that explains the symbols used by the various authors and writers of letters.

Ray, of course, was aware of the way the Society had decided to handle my case. But this policy was based an majority decisions, and it could not be changed by one man. Further, like myself, Ray was at that time in the process of reevaluating his whole belief system, so we were in a similar situation, mentally. As he also describes in detail in Crisis of Conscience, he brought up the subject of chronology at the Governing Bodys sessions, even copied a part of my treatise for each of the members. He tried to convince them that they needed to reconsider the whole subject, but met very little response. Instead, he soon got under fire himself, as we all know.

I do not know why you are trying to throw suspicion on Ray Franz, his motives and actions, and why you are publishing your personal grudges against him here. You claim that you have presented "facts" about this matter, but I find none in your post. You speak of courage. Do you have the courage to step forward and tell us what is your real name and where you live, thus showing that you are prepared to take the responsibility for your statements and are prepared to present any evidence in support of them? Or do you prefer, as some others do, to use (misuse) your signature as an "ambush", from behind which you can attack those you dislike?

I feel rather sure that none here believe your story.

Carl Olof Jonsson

113

Bill Bowen's attack on Ray Franz

by COJ in

bill bowens attack on ray franz: .

i very seldom find time for checking the discussions going on at various debate sites, and wasnt aware of bill bowens statements about ray franz in his original post of oct. 9, 2002 at 7:26 (now evidently altered), until a friend quite recently sent my a copy of it.

i was not only surprised but was shocked at his statements.

COJ

As expected, the reactions to my post have been blended, some of you have been encouraging, some negative. Here are just a few comments, and they may be my last ones on this topic, as time does not permit me to be drawn into a lengthy debate. I have already stated my position as clearly as I can.

The signature "gsark" states that it was he/she, not Bill Bowen, that attacked Ray Franz in the post dated October 9, 2002 at 7:26. If this is correct, I owe Bill an excuse, of course. What is your real name, "gsark"? To use a signature for attacking a well known and widely respected person is like shooting at him/her from behind an ambush. A Swedish debate forum I am visiting sometimes had to set up the rule that, if somebody is going to smear the name and character of someone else, he/she has to step forward with his/her real name, thus showing that he/she is prepared to personally take the full responsibility for what is said and is willing to present the evidence on which the statements is based. This turned out to improve the forum considerably.

Deliberately or not, you who use the signature "expatbrit" have a tendency to misconstrue my statements. For example, you claim I argued that it is up to the victims to go to the police, thus leaving out the second part of my statement, that also "those who have evidence on such cases" [of child molestation] have the responsibility to reveal what they know. Such persons may include, for example, elders. I explicitly wrote that "to conceal a crime is also a crime." You further indicate that Im not willing to help the victims. This charge is unfounded and false. When a person seeks my help in a matter, whatever it is, I feel a responsibility to assist and try to do this as best as I can. I do not really understand your attitude, "expatbrit".

Carl Olof Jonsson

113

Bill Bowen's attack on Ray Franz

by COJ in

bill bowens attack on ray franz: .

i very seldom find time for checking the discussions going on at various debate sites, and wasnt aware of bill bowens statements about ray franz in his original post of oct. 9, 2002 at 7:26 (now evidently altered), until a friend quite recently sent my a copy of it.

i was not only surprised but was shocked at his statements.

COJ

BILL BOWENS ATTACK ON RAY FRANZ:

I very seldom find time for checking the discussions going on at various debate sites, and wasnt aware of Bill Bowens statements about Ray Franz in his original post of Oct. 9, 2002 at 7:26 (now evidently altered), until a friend quite recently sent my a copy of it. I was not only surprised but was shocked at his statements. Bowen first claims that Ray has "founded" and is "the author" of the Societys "two eye Witness rule as well as the slander issue that prevents anyone from warning another of child abuse in the congregation." Then, because Ray chose not to join in with him in some media event on child abuse among the Witnesses, he turns against him, even insinuating that he "is covering up for something he does not wish to reveal."

I have checked what Ray wrote for the Organization book back in 1972 on the "two eye Witness rule". I find that he did not discuss child abuse or any other particular crime, but simply referred to the apostle Pauls words at 1 Timothy 5:19 as a principle to be applied in judicial matters, emphasizing the need to get all the facts from reliable witnesses. (The Organization book, 1972, page 164) By this, Ray did not author a new policy! Similar statements had been published several times in the past. Already Charles Taze Russell, in Vol. 6 of Studies in the Scriptures, pp. 293-294, gives similar, but more detailed comments on 1 Timothy 5:19. Other discussions of the text were published later, for example in the Watchtower of April 15, 1944, p. 154, and of April 1, 1957, 217.

Child abuse is despicable. This crime has been very much in the news here in Sweden recently because of the activities of pedophiliacs on the net. A number of them have been tracked down, exposed and prosecuted. It has become evident that this crime is much more common in the community than most people ever thought. That it does occur also among the Witnesses cannot be doubted. A couple of the Witnesses I am in contact with here in Sweden told me not very long ago that they knew of some cases of child molestation among Witnesses that had not been properly dealt with by the elders. To conceal a crime is also a crime. It is excellent that a number of those who have been molested, or are aware and have evidence of such cases, have begun to talk, whether the crime has been committed within their religious organization or elsewhere.

Because of the campaigns carried on in the media in some countries to publicize child molestation cases among Jehovahs Witnesses, some seem to have concluded that this crime is more common among Jehovahs Witnesses than elsewhere. I have discussed this with some former Witnesses here, including Rud Persson (Wolfgang Herbst), the co-author of the book, The Sign of the Last DaysWhen?. Our conclusion is that child molestation is no more common among the Witnesses than in the community at large.

Remarkably as it may seem, few of us ever heard about any cases of child abuse while we were Jehovahs Witnesses. Rud Persson, who grew up as a Witness and left the organization at the age of 44, got to know about one case during all those years. During my 26 years as a Witness, seven of which as an appointed elder, I never heard about child molestation among them at all! Certainly, there must have been some cases at some places, but they didnt come to my knowledge. During my time as an elder, we had to deal with a number of different problems, including various kinds of sexual wrongs, but the crime of child abuse never turned up. I got to know about one event, though, that came close to it. A close friend of mine (now dead) once told me that his wife, while she was a defenseless teenager, had been sexually utilized and almost raped by a circuit overseer. This event, my friend told me, had left deep emotional scars in his wife, which in turn severely impaired their sexual relationship.

Some former Witnesses here in Sweden are now planning to start a media campaign about child abuse among the Witnesses, similar to the one going on in the United States. Neither I nor Rud Persson have any wish to become involved in it. Why not? Have we done or do we know about something that we are "covering up", something we "do not wish to reveal"? No. The simple reason is that we have no evidence to present against anybody, nor do we have any evidence to show that child abuse is more common among the Witnesses than in other organizations or in the community at large. If we were to partake in an organized attempt to control this particular crime, and had the time, energy, and resources for it, we would find no reason to pick out the Watchtower organization in particular as the sole object of our activity. In this matter, we fully understand the position taken by Ray Franz, and undoubtedly thousands of other former Witnesses, because we have taken the same position.

Having said this, I dont want to be misunderstood. As stated above, I find it excellent that those who have been molested and those who have evidence on such cases and of the attempts by the Society to conceal the matter, are stepping forward to reveal what they know. This is, in fact, their responsibility.

Carl Olof Jonsson