Australian Royal Commission hears that 1,006 alleged child sex abusers were covered up by Watchtower

Angus Stewart, Senior Council, at the public hearing into allegations of child sexual abuse by Jehovah’s Witnesses
Angus Stewart, Senior Council, at the public hearing into allegations of child sexual abuse by Jehovah’s Witnesses

Australia’s Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has heard shocking evidence that 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sex abuse were identified by the organization in Australia going back to 1950, but none were reported to the authorities.

The Commission was launched in 2013 with a broad remit to investigate serial child abuse in institutions, including religious organizations such as the Witnesses and the Catholic Church.

At the opening hearing held today, Angus Stewart, the senior council assisting the commission, described the church as an “insular sect with rules designed to stem the reporting of sexual abuse.”

According to Stewart’s written opening submission, the figure of 1,006 perpetrators was derived directly from Watchtower documents summoned (subpoened) by the Commission…

During the investigation of this case study, Watchtower Australia produced some 5,000 documents pursuant to summonses issued by the Royal Commission on 4 and 28 February 2015. Those documents include 1,006 case files relating to allegations of child sexual abuse made against members of the Jehovah’s Witness Church in Australia since 1950 – each file for a different alleged perpetrator of child sexual abuse.

Stewart’s submission goes on to explain the astonishing findings from analyzing these case files…

Evidence will be put before the Royal Commission that of the 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse identified by the Jehovah’s Witness Church since 1950, not one was reported by the Church to secular authorities. This suggests that it is the practice of the Jehovah’s Witness Church to retain information regarding child sexual abuse offences but not to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police or other relevant authorities.

As part of the hearing two Witnesses, identified as BCB and BCG, are expected to give testimony that elders discouraged them from reporting their abuse. One of these victims is apparently “riddled with guilt for betraying the Jehovah’s Witness Church.”

The hearings are being streamed live to Australians, and doubtless will cause further humiliation for an organization already under siege for negligence regarding child molestation.

Governing Body member Stephen Lett recently insisted that claims of child abuse mishandling are nothing more than “apostate-driven lies and dishonesties,” but added to courtroom defeats in the United States and Britain, this latest news coming out of Australia suggests otherwise.

1,006 unreported alleged perpetrators since 1950 is an appalling statistic, and if used to extrapolate historic figures around the world, the number of concealed pedophiles could easily number into the tens of thousands.

It will be interesting to see what conclusions are drawn by the Commission, and how this will impact the fate of the organization, not just in Australia, but further afield. Certainly Tony Morris’ recent claim that the Governing Body are “proud” of their reputation concerning child abuse is becoming increasingly preposterous.

One child who suffers unnecessarily due to Watchtower’s negligence on the issue would be a child too many, and yet according to this public hearing, in just one country of many, the pain and trauma of sex abuse has been ignored and covered-up on an unimaginable scale.

 

new-cedars-signature3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further reading…

Related videos…

176 thoughts on “Australian Royal Commission hears that 1,006 alleged child sex abusers were covered up by Watchtower

  • July 29, 2015 at 7:48 am
    Permalink

    I can hear the excuses now, “don’t let a few bad apples destroy the bushel”. Reality is, these are more than likely the low lying fruits of JW teachings, if not what mechanism do they have in place to screen/prevent deviant sexual behavior? Does JW faith wipe the slate clean of troubled converts/reverts? Like any process needing control, reporting is one thing but action on the data? Is corrective action mostly burying it or shifting some of the perps vertical/horizontal away from the scene? Any trouble shooting analyzation would look to “upstream” first! For a small organization 1006 cases seems high per capita basis, just wondering if this count is only the tip of the iceberg showing?

    IMHO

    dogstar

    • July 29, 2015 at 8:47 am
      Permalink

      Dog Star,

      The figure is not referring to cases, but to perpetrators. We do not know how many times these criminals abused, or how many victims they abused.

      I really enjoy your comments and thank you for them.

      Peace be with you, Excelsior!

  • July 29, 2015 at 10:44 am
    Permalink

    Can someone explain something for me?
    How can the Australians successfully subpoena the records of the 1,006 child abusers in Australia but the justices in America have been unable to secure the list of 20,000 pedophiles worldwide. I don’t get it. If you as an organization go against a subpoena in America aren’t you criminally accountable ?

    Secondly, why are the Watchtowers finances not a matter for public record if they are a non profit . I thought non profits and charities had to have publish open financial reports.
    Is anyone a lawyer her that can explain these two questions … Cuz I’m lost on this stuff.
    Thanks
    G

    • July 30, 2015 at 12:15 am
      Permalink

      California state courts don’t have jurisdiction over New York residents. And federal courts are limited to civil cases having matters of federal purview.

      If the federal government investigates one church (WT), they will have to investigate them all (Catholic, Protestant, Baptist). In the USA there is little political willpower for such. It’s viewed as a local problem, to be handled locally.

      The US Constitution enshrines the principle of separation of church and state, and most citizens strongly agree. So politicians avoid meddling in religion.

  • July 29, 2015 at 2:10 pm
    Permalink

    @Garrett, this might shed a bit of light to the thrust of a Royal Commission is. Here’s a bit of c/p from a site noted below:

    A Royal Commission is a major ad-hoc formal public inquiry into a defined issue in some monarchies. They have been held in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Saudi Arabia. A Royal Commission is similar in function to a Commission of Enquiry (or Inquiry) found in other countries such as Ireland, South Africa, and Hong Kong.

    A Royal Commissioner has considerable powers*, generally greater even than those of a judge but restricted to the terms of reference of the Commission. The Commission is created by the Head of State (the Sovereign, or his/her representative in the form of a Governor-General or Governor) on the advice of the Government and formally appointed by Letters Patent. In practice—unlike lesser forms of inquiry—once a Commission has started the government cannot stop it. Consequently governments are usually very careful about framing the Terms of Reference and generally include in them a date by which the commission must finish.

    Royal Commissions are called to look into matters of great importance and usually controversy. These can be matters such as government structure, the treatment of minorities, events of considerable public concern or economic questions.

    *bolded

    in part & credit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission

    IMHO

    dogstar

  • July 29, 2015 at 5:16 pm
    Permalink

    I tried to tell my JW sister about this. She didn’t want to hear it. She asked, “What are you telling me that for after I told you I don’t want to hear about it?” “Why do you have to be so negative?” “You sound like a broken record.” “Why do you bring this up again when I’ve told you I don’t want to hear about it. (JWs only hear what they want to hear.)

    • July 29, 2015 at 6:18 pm
      Permalink

      Oh yeah, Catalina, I get the exact same reactions from my mother and wife. I am “negative”, “a whiner” and I don’t want to “listen to anyone” (about rules or direction, I guess). They say that they “don’t want to hear it” but I ask them why they go door-to-door when those poor people beg them to stop?!? They are doing the exact same thing to strangers! They go and tell these people that their religions are wrong and engaged in disgusting practices. But they don’t want to hear about their own. A little hypocritical, eh?
      My mother says that they stop when asked. I said, “you never stop and you never will!”
      I think the JW’s are going to taste their own medicine from now on!!!

    • July 29, 2015 at 7:33 pm
      Permalink

      Catalina, I’m accused of the same thing… :/

      • July 30, 2015 at 3:25 pm
        Permalink

        Catalina, U are not alone. I am as well told by my wife she doesn’t want to hear it or talk about it and i thought she was a “lover of truth”.

        • August 12, 2015 at 11:14 am
          Permalink

          I use to be the same, I would complain to my mother and sister…. Guess what? I am studying again with the witnesses and it is the best thing I’ve done yet. I’m so glad to be in Jehovah’s organization again.

  • July 29, 2015 at 6:27 pm
    Permalink

    Thanks Dogstar
    That gives me a tad bit of insight to what a royal commission is. I.e. It is something understood and applied amongst the British commonwealth countries. However I still don’t understand how the American GB/WT society can be subpoenaed and not be forced to give up the 20,000 names.
    And I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how the WT societies finances are not publicly accessible if they are a non profit.
    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

    • July 30, 2015 at 12:13 am
      Permalink

      @Garrett. I wholeheartedly agree with your comments & Questions!! If anyone keys into Google ‘Church of England financial accounts ‘ there is a 66 page PDF detailing all investments, pensions , equities, donations,etc a very DETAILED ACCOUNTS where ALL the MONEY goes !!’& this is meant to be part of Satans system BUT The HOLY of HOLIES the 7 MEN Governing Body NEVER prints a Detailed Worldwide Accounts on how much Warwick,Patterson, Walkill,Chelmsford in UK costs or what all the buildings in Brooklyn sold for or the EXPENSES of the 7 GB Men & families Cost,etc!!
      Or what STOCKS & SHARES the GB have invested in ??! WHO MENTIONED HEDGE FUNDS???

  • July 29, 2015 at 6:32 pm
    Permalink

    At the Meeting last nite, which i left at half time, the opening prayer was very direct in talking about Satans attacks, i got an email from a elder who i had sent the news paper article to, as i know he has concealed stuff, he just said its bad for Jehovahs name, my wuestion to him is, whose fault is it then, we are lead to believe that we are run by a “God” directed organisation, he instructs them on what to do, so concealing pedo’s & not helping Victoms is Gods Fault, hang on i think i found another flaw, God is not diecting this organisation. go figure

    • July 29, 2015 at 8:58 pm
      Permalink

      I hear that too! So who’s fault is it for ruining jehovahs name, the victims?! No, it’s the organization, elders and perps… It’s so backwards, I can’t even see straight anymore…

    • July 30, 2015 at 12:18 am
      Permalink

      @ Garrett . The 7 MEN GB has something in Common with MORMONS!! The Mormons haven’t printed Worldwide Financial Accounts since 1959!!’ Funny how JW.Org seems to have copied the Mormon website which started up way before JW.Org!!’

    • July 30, 2015 at 9:22 am
      Permalink

      Thank you for the link!

  • July 30, 2015 at 12:16 am
    Permalink

    Can Cedar please inform me why my comment, posted yesterday, does not appear? I don’t feel I violated any of the rules.

    • July 30, 2015 at 4:06 am
      Permalink

      I had a fairly lengthy comment that hasn’t appeared also…

      • July 30, 2015 at 4:07 am
        Permalink

        Never mind – it appeared just now :-)

        • August 3, 2015 at 10:58 am
          Permalink

          Good for you, mine didn’t. I still haven’t been told why.

  • July 30, 2015 at 1:43 am
    Permalink

    I think this is the right time for all of us to hit the streets and fight for our rights. We could organise a campaign and distribute leaflets. The aim is not to criticise JW.org doctrines (after all if they want to be brainwashed is their choice) but for the right to leave a religion without repercussions and loosing family and loved ones. What we are seeing in Australian is the result of people putting their faces fighting for what is right.

    Even other people from other cults will join and the governments will respond.

    Instead of wasting time in front a PC we should solve the problem now. JW.org should be ashamed of their dark ages mentality and not us. We cannot convince them because for them exists only their way, only the black and white cultish mentality.

    Our JW family members should be ashamed of listening to 7 ex window cleaners instead of their own blood.

    Many people have lost dignity, mental health, social bonds for this fanatic individuals that think that they are God and have the right to step over people.

    We have to stop it now, and we can do it if we want it.

  • July 30, 2015 at 4:06 am
    Permalink

    The Royal Commission into Child Abuse began in 2013. As the July 27th date was publically knowledge, I have very little doubt in my mind that the June and July broadcasts were nothing more than smokescreen attempts to play down the oncoming PR flak-storm of negativity that was about to hail down. Considering the general rule of thumb is to not report child abuse so as not to bring reproach on Jehovah’s name, I believe this approach has backfired on a multi-million dollar scale. The property selloffs within the current portfolio of assets will likely be put to use to compensate victims. No other need for a war chest of that size in “the last days” unless you have some huge settlement offers to make.

    Some personal comments of mine based on the July broadcast, and in light of the recent Royal Commission –

    AM III: “As a religious organization, we have taken a decisive stand against such behavior.”

    MY RESPONSE: Except that stand will be secretive, hidden from view and swept under the rug (plus we’ll ensure notes from Judicial Meetings are destroyed so know one can retrace what action was taken).

    AM III: “It is our fervent desire to protect children from any kind of abuse.”

    MY RESPONSE: Well this one comes straight from the horses mouth –

    w00 6/15 pp. 12-17 ‘Honor the Ones Given Authority Over You’
    As Christians, we have “compelling reason” for respecting those exercising secular authority. The apostle Paul admonished Christians to “be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.” (Romans 13:1, 2, 5; 1 Peter 2:13-15)
    This “fervent desire” can’t be all that “fervent “if completely ignoring THE LAW that requires child abusers to be reported to “superior authorities” occurred over 1006 times.

    AM III: “Many governmental, educational and religious organizations were somewhat naïve about the magnitude and the complexity or the situation. Others knew of the problem and covered it “

    MY RESPONSE: This is the part that makes my blood boil over due to the hypocrisy of his words! Others knew of the problem and covered it up? 1006 cases were “covered up” and NOT reported to the secular authorities (double hypocrisy!). And that’s just the cases that have been documented and aren’t ‘missing’ from their files.

    AM III: “It is clear that over the decades protecting children from abuse is a top priority for this organization. We are proud of reputation in this regard.”

    MY RESPONSE: What IS clear is that it has NOT been a top priority. PSA’s and articles to a “naïve” world don’t just mean protection of children is a top priority. It’s just an attempt to make it appear that way.

  • July 30, 2015 at 4:29 am
    Permalink

    Tony, Tony you make me laugh!
    “It is our fervent desire to protect children from any kind of abuse.”

    You let a kid grow in the religion, filling his young mind with the opinions of 7 men with bronze age ideas.

    And when he becomes a young person and decides that he has the right to use his brain it is treated like a beast. And avoided for the rest of his life

    And you say you protect the children, aha ahhah! This is destroying a child not protecting

  • July 30, 2015 at 6:19 am
    Permalink

    The lobotomised elders, questioned at the royal commission
    demonstrated the amount of control this so called religion
    exercises over its members.

    They were afraid and unable, and not allowed to make an
    independent, humane decision, but had to contact the branch
    office at every turn.

    Many times they mentioned writing to the Aussie branch, but
    not even, once, about how to help the distressed victim.

    When cornered and asked to give a personal opinion about
    the traumatising practice of making victims confront their
    attacker, the elder was plainly uneasy and avoided the question.
    He replied instead, this was the org, policy.

    Another elder, when pressed to say whether the org, had an
    obligation to compensate for psychological damage caused,
    and subsequent medical bills. Was visibly agitated and refused
    to answer the question.

    When exposed by skill full attorneys, they were helpless, unable
    to give an account for themselves. Like babies, entirely
    dependent on their mother.

    • July 30, 2015 at 4:42 pm
      Permalink

      How true Ted. How lame they look and they are being abandoned by their ‘mother’ like they were a hot potato. The governing body have shown no emotion or concern about any of this. Surely, these people should wake up and see what old selfish evil men are leading them?

    • August 26, 2015 at 4:42 pm
      Permalink

      What you describe, Ted, is the relationship of the Harlot/GB/beast to the Wild Beast/organization in Revelation chapter 13.
      Wild Beast – “He was GIVEN power (by the Harlot/GB) to make war against the saints and to conquer them. (disfellowshiping) And he was GIVEN authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast” Rev 13:7,8 (the organization as the means to salvation)

      GB/Harlot – “Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. He exercised authority over the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed.” Rev 13:11,12
      We are told to ““‘Come out of her, my people,’ so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues” Rev 18:4

  • July 30, 2015 at 4:13 pm
    Permalink

    When I mentioned this to my Jw sister she said pedos are everywhere. The Jdubs didn’t brush it off so so when the exposure in the Catholic church was happening.. HYPOCRISY at its best!!!
    All the stone throwing and hateful words they have spewed about the religions of Christendom are now coming back on them!!

  • July 31, 2015 at 3:20 pm
    Permalink

    At least thanks to the Royal Commission making all the evidence documents available to the public, there is now a LEGITIMATE way for EVERYONE to get hold of the elder’s book:
    http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=75759c53-1248-4710-a6a8-7beda7ae5411&type=exhibit&filename=WAT.0003.001.0001&fileextension=pdf
    Not from an apostate site but from a government site. Also on this page:
    http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney
    Secret letter & guidelines (from USA to Oz) for “branch eyes only”.

  • August 1, 2015 at 8:26 am
    Permalink

    The Royal Commission should demonstrate to the world how serious this matter is. Turning a blind eye or claiming it is the work of “apostates” is simply not good enough.

  • August 3, 2015 at 6:01 am
    Permalink

    Possible responses of a typical JW:
    1. This is the work of Satan’s agents to defame the true worship
    2. The organization cannot be held responsible for the acts of imperfect members, even in bible times people like David committed serious sins but that doesn’t mean …
    On the other hand, these type of matters are surely considered as extremely damaging by the governing body. I suspect this is perhaps one of the main reasons the organization is in cash problems as confessed by Stephen Lett recently. JWs will continue to give generous donations only if their belief that WT is the only true channel of God is strongly intact. Such incidents will certainly erode the belief of some and hence hold them back on their donations although the extent will be varying and as I mentioned above even having no effect on many. But for sure this won’t do any good to the already shaking financial foundation of the organization.
    The expenses to settle individual paedophilia cases whether revealed or not are clearly taking their toll on the organization and such publicised events will only add more fuel to the fire that has already started consuming the finances of WT.

  • August 3, 2015 at 8:30 pm
    Permalink

    I am just curious. Has the commission called any women or more specifically elders wives as witnesses?

    • August 4, 2015 at 4:09 am
      Permalink

      Yes, there have been the two victims or cases which have been singled out for the Royal Commission to be examined and also Dr Monica Applewhite who is said to be some kind of expert adviser for child abuse engaged by the Watchtower. They are the only females so far.

  • August 4, 2015 at 3:21 pm
    Permalink

    I’m just commenting trying to see if anyone has an email address to the Jehovah’s Witness headquarters. I have searched online for a week and found nothing. I called their headquarters and the woman said she is a switchboard operator who has no emails to give out. I was sexually abused by a brother in a Kingdom Hall as a child and that act has lead to several other sexually abusive acts. It’s literally ruined my life. I feel the least they can do is hear what happen to me and acknowledge it. If anyone has an email to their headquarters please let me know. I would be very grateful. Thank you.

    • September 21, 2015 at 1:24 pm
      Permalink

      I have sent you a link below. jw.org select about us, then contact us, then scroll down and there is an email link. Hope this helps.

  • August 16, 2015 at 5:27 am
    Permalink

    Regardless of all the comments listed it does not change who the true GOD is his name is Jehovah Psalms 83:18 He will clean his house and hold all accountable in due time by his righteous Judgement not MANS. I work for one of the largest banks in the U.S. CROOKS THEMSELVES I receive a paycheck for the work I do which does not conflict with the laws of the land but inside the corporation there are ones who have not been transparent and have engaged in criminal activity am I going to quit and give up my lively hood for the actions of another imperfect human being that has tainted the BANKS brand? The same goes to those faithful witnesses of the TRUE GOD, why would we blame him? It’s very unfortunate because it causes reproach but he will set matters straight !!! At his appointed time.

    • August 16, 2015 at 5:53 am
      Permalink

      Dear Imani. I remember saying that very thing to my husband when he refused to go to meetings for over ten years. Why blame Jehovah when it’s imperfect men who are the problem? If you read the comments here, you will see that nobody is blaming God. If those men were appointed by Holy Spirit, then either the Holy Spirit is wrong in appointing them or there was no Holy Spirit appointing them. Do you see the point? Is the JW religion run by Holy Spirit or not? If the Organization is not run by Holy Spirit, then it’s false religion, just like any other false religion. You need to prove to yourself that the Organization is run by God. That is the problem. Nobody is blaming God.

    • August 16, 2015 at 8:13 am
      Permalink

      Imami,

      To follow your argument, no, you would not have to quit your job, but you would be under the obligation to report anyone you worked with to the authorities if they were breaking the law, would you not?

      You are mistaken. There is no need to wait for God to address the situation of child abuse.

      The superior authorities, placed there by God, can and do investigate, prosecute and sentence paedophiles all the time. But only if they are aware of a crime. Why don’t the WTBTS report allegations of child abuse to the superior authorities, Imami?

      The bible passage is the whole of Romans chapter 13.

      Peace be with you, Excelsior!

  • August 17, 2015 at 2:55 pm
    Permalink

    I am very curious indeed to see what the WT’s response to this RC will be. Many of us are skeptical as to whether reform is possible for this power hungry group of men. Those of us that have been burnt by the borg will never recieve anything that even looks like justice, our only hope is that through public exposure of their methods any “interested person” will think twice before inviting them into their homes and their lives, and that the children of JWs will not get baptized.

  • August 18, 2015 at 1:06 pm
    Permalink

    This so called ‘ Truth ‘ has appointed men by Holy Spirit right? I don’t think so somehow. Even so called apostates and atheists would not hesitate to contact the Police on matters of abuse, so why does this Organisation procrastinate and make excuses and say they might be prepared to award damaged to the victims? Because they do Not have the truth… Just mis-guided loyalty to a a religion that serves another master…

    • August 18, 2015 at 3:11 pm
      Permalink

      @ Innocent Son. SO TRUE your comments about ‘EVEN APOSTATES & ATHEISTS would call the Police if a Child complained about Sex Abuse!!
      So why didn’t 1006 Elders Judicial committees which would have been 3 men on each committee! That is 3018 Elders DID NOT CALL the Police to END THIS DISGUSTING SUFFERING!!!

  • August 30, 2015 at 6:30 am
    Permalink

    Do you think that these are the only things wrong with these people? What about emotional blackmail cases that are undergoing a lot of people and not say anything? A broader inquiry would reveal other equally harmful irregularities. With regret I say, I am afraid that these people did not understand what they preach.

  • September 19, 2015 at 6:52 pm
    Permalink

    Clearly, for the leaders of the Watchtower, conceal abuse cases of… it is more important than the lives of their victims; which proves that the guidance of the Holy Spirit and “anointed” is an invention.

  • September 21, 2015 at 11:27 am
    Permalink

    Anonymous speaker go to jw.org follow the about us link. Then contact us link. There is if you scroll down an email link. Hope this helps.

  • December 13, 2015 at 5:53 am
    Permalink

    The skew issues as a result of it affects the binary considerably greater than the common options.

  • December 18, 2015 at 9:12 pm
    Permalink

    Vielka Rodriguez . I believe all kid teen and Yong adult need to be protected, From people,Thad like to commit. Crames . Like child abuse or sex exploration .I now I have and living thes ,situation with my sons .they ,they child abusers. They wore lorking my sons, lives around 16 of Ashe . Diego and victor .I can tell you I have sofer ,thes abuse .like is have being don to me. Cass they make my fill pawereles not be avow to help my son’s and Andy way . Tell let me now . They will hert us if we look for some help. Thes abuse still today. And they getting more aggressive weth my sons and I .severely wounded all tree of us. Mentally . Need to stop cass they cane a way to stop all cane of help ai look for they here now. You people can call me @ 814-504-2475 thanks vielka

  • January 3, 2016 at 8:35 pm
    Permalink

    I posted this before but it was deleted. If you delete it a hundred times I will repost it a hundred times. For more clarifications, anyone can add me on Facebook :Nsuhoridem Jackson.
    There’s something you people don’t get quite
    clear. Jesus himself appointed 12 Apostles,
    among them was a betrayer, Judas. The JW
    organization is made up of humans, imperfect
    humans capable of commiting sins too. But
    people should appreciate the motives and
    mission of the organization. In my few years as
    a Witness (Now a Ministeral Servant) Most of
    the things I hear at meetings and teach from
    the platform is Good conduct, respect for
    Jehovah’s moral standards… We even hardly
    talk about long life, material prosperity, a fact
    that make our ministry largely unpopular. We
    are careful enough to even have a judicial
    committee that handles cases such as child
    sexual abuse, how many religious organizations
    do? Now, in event such case is brought before
    the elders, the elders will
    1.Establish the authenticity of the claim
    2.Discipline the accused if found guilty,
    sometimes by disfellowshipping
    3.Ensure that the case is reported to the
    authorities if it is mandatory to do so
    4.If it’s not mandatory to do so, the elders will
    leave the victim to decide whether to report to
    authorities or not
    5. The victim will be assisted spiritually.
    What more do people expect? Well Geoffrey
    Jackson has said, those that challenge our
    methods are free to give their suggestions, we
    will welcome that.
    But also, how rampant are cases of sexual
    abuse in the congregations? I have not heard
    about a single one in my local community. The
    JW organization is so morally strict that some
    persons who slept with their wife before the
    wedding are either disfellowshipped or reproved.
    How many religious groups even care to do
    that? That’s the case I have witnessed. I have
    never seen or heard of a sexual abuser. So if it
    happens elsewhere, it’s just a peculiar situation,
    not to be generalized.
    It is also note-worthy to any open-minded reader that a good number of the people commenting here are aggrieved former members of the organization who were disfellowshipped for misconduct. The JW organization maintains a strict moral code.

    • January 4, 2016 at 3:03 am
      Permalink

      Allow me to address each of the points you raise.

      You say:

      “There’s something you people don’t get quite
      clear. Jesus himself appointed 12 Apostles,
      among them was a betrayer, Judas. The JW
      organization is made up of humans, imperfect
      humans capable of commiting sins too. But
      people should appreciate the motives and
      mission of the organisation.”

      You have missed the point. This is not about individual people committing a sin. This is about the Organisation’s stated policies for dealing with child abuse, as sanctioned by the Governing Body, and the fact that those policies have been found to be inadequate at best and actively damaging at worse. The red herring you have tried to deploy gets used many times be JW’s but simply does not apply to this discussion.

      “In my few years as
      a Witness (Now a Ministeral Servant) Most of
      the things I hear at meetings and teach from
      the platform is Good conduct, respect for
      Jehovah’s moral standards… We even hardly
      talk about long life, material prosperity, a fact
      that make our ministry largely unpopular.”

      None of this has any relevance to the Organisations handing of child abuse.

      “We are careful enough to even have a judicial committee that handles cases such as child sexual abuse, how many religious organisations do?”

      If you had paid any attention to the Royal Commission, you would have heard that THIS-IS-EXACTLY-THE-PROBLEM. Your Judicial process has been proved to traumatise victims, damage official police investigations and frequently will not actually deal with the allegations of child abuse presented to them due to the two witness rule. Most other organisations simply turn the matter over to the police, which means they do not inflict the damage on victims that your religion does.

      ” Now, in event such case is brought before
      the elders, the elders will
      1.Establish the authenticity of the claim”

      If you had been paying attention to the Royal Commission, you know that elders will only accept the claim as authentic if there are two or more witnesses. With sexual assault this is rarely the case, thus elders simply reject many claims of child abuse and never act on them. Hence over 1006 JW abusers in Australia alone who were never reported to the police. That figure comes from your organisations own records by the way.

      “2.Discipline the accused if found guilty,
      sometimes by disfellowshipping”
      If you had paid attention to the Royal Commission you would see how they demonstrate that the two available sanctions for the abuser are reproof and disfellowshipping. The Commission showed how reproof does nothing to protect children in the congregation and the wider community as the reasons for the reproof are not given. Disfellowshipping does nothing to protect children in the wider community as witnesses do not warn the community or, as a matter of policy, report the abuse.

      “3.Ensure that the case is reported to the
      authorities if it is mandatory to do so
      4.If it’s not mandatory to do so, the elders will leave the victim to decide whether to report to authorities or not”

      Lets take a scenario where a father is raping his ten year old daughter, and the mother is either dead or absent. His daughter complains to the elders, but there is no other witness to the act, and not mandatory reporting so the elders do nothing. But don’t worry! That ten year old can go to the police on her own, with no help from an adult, because she fully comprehends the legal system and is under no emotional or physical control from her father.

      I trust you see the problem here? This is just one of many examples of how JW policy fails to address abuse in the real world.

      “5. The victim will be assisted spiritually.”
      Reading scriptures to a child who has been raped is not even close to a substitute for professional psychiatric help. Again, this was demonstrated during the Commission.

      “But also, how rampant are cases of sexual
      abuse in the congregations? I have not heard about a single one in my local community.”

      Probably because the Elders do not warn congregations about child abusers in their midst, as per policy, as you would know if you had paid attention to the Royal Commission. But as the facts show, since 1950 there have been at least 1006 known JW abusers in Australia alone. If you google “Jehovah’s Witness Child abuse” you will see case after case after case after case of abusers and of congregations covering it up. Go on. Google it. I’ll wait.

      “The JW organization is so morally strict that some persons who slept with their wife before the wedding are either disfellowshipped or reproved.
      How many religious groups even care to do
      that?”
      The obscene double standard in the way that Watchtower persecutes adults who have consensual sex but are reluctant to act on child abuse is indeed worth taking note of.

      “That’s the case I have witnessed. I have
      never seen or heard of a sexual abuser. So if it happens elsewhere, it’s just a peculiar situation, not to be generalised.”

      I’ve never personally seen anyone get murdered, or know anyone who has been murdered, therefore murder does not happen. Right? Learn the difference between anecdotal evidence and actual evidence, and you’ll understand why your statement means nothing.

      “It is also note-worthy to any open-minded reader that a good number of the people commenting here are aggrieved former members of the organization who were disfellowshipped for misconduct.”
      I’ve never been disfellowshipped, but I’m sure many open minded people would indeed note the way that you are trying to slur and slander those who leave your cult. But unfortunately for your argument, these facts come not from “apostates,” they come from an independent Royal Commission and from the Watchtower’s own records. Geoffrey Jackson admitted as much during his testimony.

      “The JW organization maintains a strict moral code.”
      Yep. Question the governing body, you’re an evil mentally diseased apostate who must be shunned! Rape a child and you can be privately reproved and carry on as before if you look sorry enough. Great moral code you have there.

      I await your reply.

      • January 5, 2016 at 7:14 am
        Permalink

        On the 2 – witness rule, did you notice the statement by Geoffrey Jackson that the SECOND WITNESS COULD BE THE CIRCUMSTANCES? how do you understand that? Did you also notice when he said IF THE CASE CONCERNS A CHILD WE WILL BELIEVE IT…. BUT we could be careful IN THE CASE OF A BREAKUP BETWEEN THE PARENTS COS ONE PARENT MAY WANT TO USE THAT TO CLAIM CUSTODY OF THE CHILD.
        Did you also notice wen he said that the elders would hand over the child to women to ESTABLISH THE CASE, You know what that means, don’t you? If they confirm it, that’s the SECOND WITNESS.

        • January 5, 2016 at 7:38 am
          Permalink

          Please also note that nobody can rape a child and is covered up… The whole city would hear about it, where I’m from. You mentioned 1006 from 1950 till date in Australia. You said we kept the records. How many cases are there in other churches? Do people care? You said we are a cult, a cult that focuses on teaching people to live righteous lives? Now if after all our righteousness crusades, we still have records of people who descended to that level of impunity. Can you imagine what could be happening in other places where there are no checks and balances. Are you aware that some persons are frustrated about being Jws cos of the checks and balances /strict moral code?

          • January 5, 2016 at 9:09 am
            Permalink

            On the hypothetical situation of a 10yr old being raped by the Father, and there’s no Mum.
            1.What is the probability of such occurrence among witnesses? In Australia 1006 cases of child abuse have been documented between 1950-2015. How many a year in the whole country? 1006 /65 =15.48. The chances of a congregation in Australia witnessing a case of child abuse in a year? There are currently 788 congregations, so the probability is 15.48 /788 =0.0196!.Now what are the chances that your hypothetical situation could be experienced? Pls a answer for yourself.
            2. from the statistics u can see that in your years as an elder in a congregation in Australia, u may not even experience a case of sexual assault on a child. So in that case of that 10 yr old, I DO NOT KNOW what a particular judicial committee would decide. But please accept this truth from the depth of my heart that THERE IS NO POLICY IN THE ORGANIZATION THAT PROHIBITS REPORTING SEX OFFENDERS (which is Hardly encountered) TO THE POLICE.
            3. We are known all over the world as an organization that maintains strict moral code. But among Jesus disciples, which the Son of God handpicked after an all night prayer, THERE WAS JUDAS. That didn’t condemn Jesus ministry or undermine the integrity of other faithful disciples

          • January 5, 2016 at 9:30 am
            Permalink

            Does the JW organization shun people who choose to dissociate from the organization or label them Apostates. To get your answer, please follow the link https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/return-to-jehovah/#?insight%5Bsearch_id%5D=1a264abe-0cae-4f90-abf3-10267438107c&insight%5Bsearch a result Qom]=0

            Whom does the JW organization shun? And why?
            1.An unrepentant wrongdoer, example child abuser, Thief, fornicator who has been disfellowshipped.
            2.Just the same way a father will not hug a child who stole in the University and was rusticated, unrepentant wrongdoers are shunned to make them see reasons to feel remorse and repent from their sins

          • January 5, 2016 at 10:20 am
            Permalink

            @Jackson, Nsuhoridem Isaac – there are 1006 ABUSERS not abuse cases. That means 1 ABUSER could have abused 1 or more victims. The math you did below is irrelevant.

          • January 5, 2016 at 10:37 am
            Permalink

            You said;
            “Please also note that nobody can rape a child and is covered up… The whole city would hear about it, where I’m from.”

            Again, please look up the term “anecdotal evidence” and understand why it renders your statement meaningless. Seriously. Go to google, type “anecdotal evidence” and educate yourself.

            You said;
            “You mentioned 1006 from 1950 till date in Australia. You said we kept the records. How many cases are there in other churches? Do people care? “

            Firstly, I’m glad that you now acknowledge that there are at least 1006 JW child abusers in Australia who were not reported to the police. This is progress, and a change from your previous statement that such cases were not rampant, or were just a peculiar situation and not widespread.

            I’m sure you also noted from the Royal commission that Watchtowers own lawyer, Vince Tool, admitted under oath that he got about 3 or 4 new reports of child abuse from the Australian congregations every month. So taken over a ten year period that enough accusations for half the congregations in Australia to have their very own child abuser.

            Additionally, I’m sure you also googled “Jehovah’s Witnesses Child Abuse” and saw the long long list of court cases and newspaper articles relating to similar cases around the world.

            Therefore, child abuse is a serious, widespread problem in the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

            However, your next point is badly flawed and illogical. You say ”How many cases are there in other churches? Do people care?”

            Firstly, just because other churches are doing awful things doesn’t excuse your organisation for doing awful things. If I had been caught stealing money from a child, I could hardly expect to say “But other people steal money from children as well” in order to excuse my actions or somehow divert blame. The unethical behaviour of other organisations does not excuse the unethical behaviour of yours.

            Secondly, yes there are many cases in other churches. It is clear that many religious organisations have dealt terribly with child abuse, and yes, people do care.

            But one of the reasons that Jehovah’s Witnesses cause so much more concern is that currently they appear to be one of the only groups to have significant flaws relating to (but not limited to):

            -The two witness rule, which was clearly demonstrated to prevent many accusations from even getting to a judicial committee stage.
            -An all male elder group interrogating female abuse survivors, frequently in ways that massively increase the suffering of the victim and often render evidence inadmissible for use in further police investigations.
            -An explicit non-reporting policy unless mandated by law.
            -Requring a survivor to confront her attacker.
            -Enforced shunning of any abuse survivor who is so upset by her treatment at the hands of Watchtower that she wishes to leave the organisation.
            And more (The full report can be found here. Please read it. )

            http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.aspx

            As the Chief Justice McClellan, chairperson of the Royal Commission stated: “I don’t know of any other organisation that has the flaws that we have identified in the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

            You said;
            “You said we are a cult, a cult that focuses on teaching people to live righteous lives?”

            Firstly, “teaching people to live righteous lives” is a very subjective claim.

            The Islamist Terror Group ISIS also claim that they teach people to live righteous lives.

            Hindu sages claim that they teach people to live righteous lives.

            The Catholic church claim that they teach people to live righteous lives.

            The key factor is not what you claim, but what you actually do. That however, is a whole other debate.

            However, yes, you are part of a cult. Your organisation adheres perfectly to the BITE mind control model common to all cult like organisations. Behaviour control, Information control, Thought control, Emotional control. I’ll include a link here if you care to educate yourself more on this subject, but basically, Jehovah’s Witnesses tick every box in the “Cult Warning Signs” category.

            http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0967068827?keywords=combating%20cult%20mind%20control&qid=1452007514&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1

            (By the way, The Governing Body would tell you not to read that book. Which is part of the Information Control section of the BITE Checklist, )

            You say:
            “Now if after all our righteousness crusades, we still have records of people who descended to that level of impunity. Can you imagine what could be happening in other places where there are no checks and balances.”

            Your argument is not relevant to this discussion. This is NOT about the fact that some JW”s have engaged in child abuse. This is about how your organisation behaves AS A MATTER OF POLCIY once it find out. Please address the issue under discussion, and not the one you WISH was being discussed.

            Oh, and what happens in organisations that don’t have your “checks and balances” is that child abusers are reported to the police and the whole thing is handled by trained professionals. My goodness, you’re right, that’s HORRIBLE!

            You say:

            “Are you aware that some persons are frustrated about being Jws cos of the checks and balances /strict moral code?”

            Actually I am very aware that some Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer agree with the teachings of the cult and wish to leave. They may no longer believe in God at all, or perhaps they wish to join another religion. Tragically for them, they cannot do so, for they would be shunned by their JW family and friends as again demonstrated by the Royal Commission, and as you well know as an active Jehovah’s Witness.

            Thus I agree, there are many JW”s who are frustrated and heartbroken every day of the week having to pretend to believe the teachings in order to avoid losing their family and friends.

        • January 5, 2016 at 10:33 am
          Permalink

          Again, let me respond in detail to your points, although it disappoints me that you have not responded in detail to mine. Perhaps you can find the time to do so in your next response.

          You say:

          “On the 2 – witness rule, did you notice the statement by Geoffrey Jackson that the SECOND WITNESS COULD BE THE CIRCUMSTANCES? how do you understand that?”

          Actually no that’s not what he said.

          Let’s get the transcript of Jackson’s testimony, shall we, and see what he actually said when put in context.

          Here is a link to the transcripts of the Royal Commission. You want Day 155, that was the day of his testimony.

          http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.aspx

          The part of the testimony you’re referring to starts at page 39 line 24.

          It’s important to point out that, up until now, every elder who was interviewed had given evidence that the two witness rule required two actual human witnesses to the same act of abuse, or two witnesses each observing a seperate act of abuse. None of them had stated that the circumstances could count as a witness, despite being given countless opportunities to do so. In fact they had stated that this was NOT the case. Additionally, both case studies of the two victims showed two real life cases where elders did not accept “Circumstances” as the second witness.

          Lastly, none of the Witnesses own documentation (The elders manual Shepard the Flock of God, and multiple Watchtowers and letters) suggested that circumstances could be a second witness, but also indicated that two human beings were required.

          Now we come to what Jackson said;

          When questioning on this begins on page 39, The question is put to Jackson by the commission:

          “Commission: I mean, the reality is if there is only one witness, in the case of child sexual abuse, then it cannot be taken further by the elders and, as it is put in the literature, it is left in the hands of Jehovah?”
          What does Jackson reply?”
          “Yes,”
          He then waffles about how they would put into place some other measures to help the child (the judge later presses him on this and he admits that there isn’t actually anything all that practically useful done at all) ,but he here supports what previous elders say. One witness means no action, irrespective of circumstances. This is due to the mosaic law commands in Deuteronomy.

          So far no change. Two Witnesses or no action.

          But what happens next is interesting.

          The commission puts it to him that Deuteronomy 22:23‐27 seems to suggest a scenario where a man rapes a women in the field, but is nonetheless put to death on the evidence of one witness alone.

          Commission: @So the point of this last example is that there’s no second witness, is there, because the woman is in the field, she
          screamed, but there was no‐one to rescue her; do you accept [email protected]

          This is where Jackson contradicts his previous testimony and says something really bizarre:

          Jackson: Could I explain, Mr Stewart, that ‐ you see, I think
          already under testimony some of Jehovah’s Witnesses have
          explained that the two‐witnesses needed can be, in some
          cases, the circumstances-“

          Actually no-one had said so far, but never mind.

          Firstly, if that were true, why didn’t he simply say that before? It would be so simple for him to have said right at the beginning “We always take the circumstances as the second witness in these cases, if the child’s claims are credible. ”

          But he didn’t do that, did he, and none of the previous elders did that either.

          Again, a little later he makes the same claim at page 44 line 1
          Jackson: “Again, if I could just mention the fact that we’ve already acknowledged that circumstances can also be one of the witnesses.”

          Does Jackson know something no other elder does? No one else has mentioned this, The Watchtower publications and rulebooks don’t mention this, and it’s clear no Judical Committee so far examined is using this definition of a second witness.

          Later the commission shows how Watchtower DOES allow circumsntaces to convict a person of adultery if just one person sees them spend the night in another persons house.

          The commission then asks
          Commission” So now, in the case of child sexual abuse, it should be, should it not, that a witness to an opportunity for the sexual abuse to have taken place would be the sufficient second witness?”

          Jackson: “Yes if it’s if there is no- what does it say here?”

          Commission: “Extenuating Circumstances?”

          Jackson: “Improper Circumstances”

          Commission: So a second witness to circumstancial or corroborating evidence would be sufficient to fill the second witness requirement?”

          Brilliant! All Jackson has to do is give a clear and positive yes and a major problem is solved! What does he say?

          Jackson: “That’s a very large question and I think it’s something we would need to consider carefully.”

          Huh? That’s a bit…vague. A bit noncommittal. Why didn’t he just say yes? What did he mean?

          His whole testimony here is confused.

          He starts off saying that yes, there have to be two human witnesses, then he seems to contradict himself and claim that no, in fact one of the two witnesses can be the circumstances, and then at the end he backs away from THAT and says…”hmmm, I don’t know we’ll have to think about it.”

          What on earth is going on?

          Firstly, it’s important to point out that Jackson gave vague and seemingly contradictory responses to a number of questions put to him in the Commission, such as over the role of women, his own role in the organisation and so forth. The Judge had to admonish him multiple times for being evasive and for not answering the questions that were put to him. In fact, the commission found him so difficult to work with, that one of their official findings was that:

          “336 It is submitted that Mr Jackson was evasive and unhelpful in assisting the Royal Commission to understand whether there is scope for interpretation of the two‐witness rule such that would allow for action to be taken in circumstances where there is only one direct witness to an incident of child sexual abuse.”

          What happened after Jackson gave this confused and contradictory testimony?

          Go back to the Royal Commission Website and download the document “The statement of Geoffrey William Jackson” from the evidence page.

          This was submitted after Jackson’s Testimony and its his clarification of what he thinks about the two witness rule.
          Read it.

          Go on I’ll wait.

          Does he say, “yes, circumstances can be one of the witnesses?”

          Or does he rather defend the idea of needing two human witnesses to establish guilt for rape and murder, and dismiss the application of Deuteronomy 22 of allowing circumstances to be a “witness to rape?”

          Come on. Tell me.

          You say

          “Did you also notice when he said IF THE CASE CONCERNS A CHILD WE WILL BELIEVE IT…. “

          Believe it, but not act on it, unless another child got raped and gives us a second witness. That they believe it but won’t act on it actually makes it worse dude, not better.

          “BUT we could be careful IN THE CASE OF A BREAKUP BETWEEN THE PARENTS COS ONE PARENT MAY WANT TO USE THAT TO CLAIM CUSTODY OF THE CHILD.”

          A valid fear, and probably something child physiologists are better placed to investigate rather than untrained men, wouldn’t you say?

          “Did you also notice wen he said that the elders would hand over the child to women to ESTABLISH THE CASE, You know what that means, don’t you? If they confirm it, that’s the SECOND WITNESS.”

          Nope. You missed the point. They were not discussing if a child (one witness) could give evidence to the women and then the women would become the second witness. They were discussing if the child (one witness) could give testimony to women, instead of men, and then let the women decide if the child was credible. It would still leaving only one witness (the child) it’s just that the women, not the elders, might do the interview. Read it again.

          • January 5, 2016 at 11:04 am
            Permalink

            You say:

            “On the hypothetical situation of a 10yr old being raped by the Father, and there’s no Mum.

            1.What is the probability of such occurrence among witnesses? In Australia 1006 cases of child abuse have been documented between 1950-2015. How many a year in the whole country? 1006 /65 =15.48. The chances of a congregation in Australia witnessing a case of child abuse in a year? There are currently 788 congregations, so the probability is 15.48 /788 =0.0196!.Now what are the chances that your hypothetical situation could be experienced? Pls a answer for yourself.”

            Your statistical skills suck. You’ve not realised that those figures accumulate every year.

            Assuming 1006 offenders since 1950. (1006 offenders, not 1006 cases, each offender might have multiple victims) That’s sixteen cases a year since 1950-2015. That’s not very comforting.

            Right now in 2015 there 788 congregations but in 1950 there were far less, but even assuming that there have always been 788 congregations in Australia, and assuming a 70 year life span, that means that there is now potentially one child molester in each congregation, and some lucky congregations even get two!

            And given that Vince Toole, Watchtower Lawyer, admitted under oath that he gets about four new cases a month, that means every year 40 more congregations get an extra molester!

            Yeah, that’s not a problem at all. You’re right, the congregations shouldn’t worry…

            You say:
            “So in that case of that 10 yr old, I DO NOT KNOW what a particular judicial committee would decide. “

            I do. Because the Governing Body and Watchtower told me, in their publications and their Royal Commission testimony what they’d do. They’d do effectively nothing. They certainly wouldn’t report it, unless there was a law. Maybe you should read the Royal Commission report and listen to what your own leaders said?

            “But please accept this truth from the depth of my heart that THERE IS NO POLICY IN THE ORGANIZATION THAT PROHIBITS REPORTING SEX OFFENDERS (which is Hardly encountered) TO THE POLICE.”
            Yes there is. Have you paid no attention? It is the stated policy of Watchtower that elders will not report child abuse unless legally required to do so. Geoffrey Jackson said that plain as day in his OWN Testimony. Read it again.

            Now, it’s true that INDIVIDUAL VICTIMS are not forbidden from reporting, but, as shown in the example i gave you, victims are not always ABLE to report on their own. In both cases studies (abuse survivors BCG and BCB), it was shown how pressure from the congregation and fear of “the world” prevented victims from coming forward. It was also shown how some victims, such as the hypothetical ten year old (who incidentally is a prime risk for undetected abuse) would be essentially abandoned by Watchtower policy

            You say
            “3. We are known all over the world as an organization that maintains strict moral code. But among Jesus disciples, which the Son of God handpicked after an all night prayer, THERE WAS JUDAS. That didn’t condemn Jesus ministry or undermine the integrity of other faithful disciples”

            Again, that is NOT the point under discussion, We are not discussing whether or not some Jehovah’s Witnesses are paedophiles, we are discussing what Watchtower does when it finds out. THAT was the issue investigated by the Royal Commission, stop trying to deflect from it.

          • January 5, 2016 at 11:06 am
            Permalink

            You say

            “Does the JW organization shun people who choose to dissociate from the organization or label them Apostates. To get your answer, please follow the link https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/return-to-jehovah/#?insight%5Bsearch_id%5D=1a264abe-0cae-4f90-abf3-10267438107c&insight%5Bsearcha result Qom]=0

            Whom does the JW organization shun? And why?
            1.An unrepentant wrongdoer, example child abuser, Thief, fornicator who has been disfellowshipped.
            2.Just the same way a father will not hug a child who stole in the University and was rusticated, unrepentant wrongdoers are shunned to make them see reasons to feel remorse and repent from their sins”

            You will also shun, for example, a person who gets baptised at 13, then later decided when an adult that he no longer believes the faith and wants to leave. He has committed no crime, is a thoughtful, kind and loving man, but simply on the grounds that he no longer believes that seven old men in New York are the mouthpiece of god, Jehovah’s Witnesses will forbid his family and friends from associating with him.

            You will also shun a child abuse victim who is left so traumatised that she no longer wants to be part of the religion who she feels abandoned her. One of those victims testified at the Royal Commission, but you must treat her as a dead woman.

            How very ethical and nobel of you.

          • January 5, 2016 at 12:46 pm
            Permalink

            I do not have the time and skill to dissect and address each section of the matter as you have done. But I put it to you that some of the conclusions you draw from the interrogation of the Jws are actually wrong. For example, you conclude that the judicial procedures are hypocritically designed to hide child abuse cases, but in essence they’re no secret intentions, I’m a ministerial servant.
            You conclude that IT IS A POLICY NOT TO report cases except it’s mandatory, but what the organization says in essence is When there’s a law to report, do it. When there’s no law, the victim or family, or others may choose to do so, we don’t want to make it mandatory for the organization to take that up legally. Assume that the molester belongs to the same family as victim, the rest of the family members decide to let go, but the church says they want to go to police (how does it sound to you?), and at the end the person is jailed, would that not amount to interference in family affairs by the JW. My friend, these are some of the issues. That’s why you heard Geoffrey Jackson talk about “spiritual dilemma”. He said if there’s a state law on reporting we could be at liberty to send anyone to jail without fear of reprisals from families or community. I hope you get the point. We are not internal police, the judicial committee is NOT a substitute to formal legal action.
            The case of BCG, the father was disfellowshipped, was no longer a witness, the family could have sought secular justice if they wanted. A lot of factors could hinder the interference of the congregation, but you don’t have all the information right now, the elders that handled the case did not write them down. But what I want to put tru to you is that, they’re no secret motives. We are not a cult.

          • January 5, 2016 at 1:03 pm
            Permalink

            Again on the issue of shunning, I don’t know where you got your information that a person who just stopped associating with witnesses would be shunned. I know of a former regular pioneer who suddenly left the organization and started drinking. On one of the nights he went on a drinking spree, he tried to run away from police and got shot. We were the ones who took care of him in his Sickbed. They’re many examples. Again, here’s our attitude towards persons who VOLUNTARILY stopped associating https://
            http://www.jw.org/
            en/
            publications
            /books/
            return-to-
            jehovah/#?
            insight
            %5Bsearch_
            id
            %5D=1a264
            abe-0cae-4f
            90-abf3-
            102674
            38107c&
            insight
            %5Bsearch
            a result
            Qom]=0
            The people we shun are unrepentant persons who committed a serious sin and was disfellowshipped. The sin will not be announced from the platform. But it is NOT a secret. Everyone will know about it, even beyond the congregation

  • January 5, 2016 at 1:26 pm
    Permalink

    You say

    “For example, you conclude that the judicial procedures are hypocritically designed to hide child abuse cases, but in essence they’re no secret intentions, I’m a ministerial servant.”

    I would actually agree that the procedures are not specifically designed to HIDE child abuse, they were originally designed to investigate adults for sins such as apostasy, adultery and so forth.

    That’s the problem.

    Child abuse is not a sin.

    It is a crime.

    Its a very serious, and delicate and complex crime in which the victims are far more vulnerable than in most crimes. The Royal Commission demonstrated that the judicial committee process (designed for sin) is simply not designed in a way that makes it capable of addressing this crime without causing further harm to the victims, and that the elders are certainly not trained to deal with the complex psychological, legal, and criminal issues involved.

    Watchtower is taking a tool designed for one thing and using it for a purpose it was never supposed to be used for, and is causing horrible damage.

    Think about it. If the elders found a murder scene, a crime, they would not rope off the room, start to examine the body for clue, interview witnesses and dust for fingerprints. They would phone the police. Right? Yet for child abuse, they are told NOT to the police (unless forced by law) and they have to start investigating the crime themselves, with no professional training in criminal investigation, forensics, legal process, victim handling, and no actual authority to get involved at all.

    Why is child abuse different to murder? Or robbery. The elders don’t investigate robbery, or hijacking. They call the police. Why is child abuse so different?

    You say:
    “You conclude that IT IS A POLICY NOT TO report cases except it’s mandatory, but what the organization says in essence is When there’s a law to report, do it. When there’s no law, the victim or family, or others may choose to do so, we don’t want to make it mandatory for the organization to take that up legally.

    Why not make it mandatory? What possible harm would it do to report it? How can the result be worse than all the harm that will be done if things are left the way they are and the child continues to be abused? How is that possibly a better outcome. There is no law commanding me to help a child drowning in a swimming pool, but if I just saw him, shrugged, and walked on by, it wouldn’t be illegal but it would be deeply immoral.

    You say:
    “Assume that the molester belongs to the same family as victim, the rest of the family members decide to let go, but the church says they want to go to police (how does it sound to you?), and at the end the person is jailed, would that not amount to interference in family affairs by the JW. ”

    Let me repeat your statement back to you, with the horrific crime of child abuse replaced with the horrific crime of murder.

    “If the murder belongs to the same family as the victim, and the rest of the family members decide to let it go, but the church says they want to go to the police, and at the end the murder is jailed, would that not amount to interference in family affairs by the JW?”

    Can you see problem? Can you see how absurd that sounds? How it totally discounts the right of the victim and makes a mockery of the law?

    You say:
    “My friend, these are some of the issues. That’s why you heard Geoffrey Jackson talk about “spiritual dilemma”. He said if there’s a state law on reporting we could be at liberty to send anyone to jail without fear of reprisals from families or community. I hope you get the point. ”

    So, you’re worried that if elders report the rape of child to the community, the community might beat them up? Jehovah’s Witnesses are happy to be persecuted for not taking blood transfusions, or celebrating christmas, but you’re not willing to be persecuted for protecting children from rape?

    “We are not internal police, the judicial committee is NOT a substitute to formal legal action.”

    Yet if the police are not informed, then the committee is the only process the victim has, right?

    “The case of BCG, the father was disfellowshipped, was no longer a witness, the family could have sought secular justice if they wanted. A lot of factors could hinder the interference of the congregation, but you don’t have all the information right now, the elders that handled the case did not write them down.”
    Actually, we do have all the information. Read the transcripts and the evidence statements. It’s pretty detailed as to how, for example, Watchtower’s Judicial Committee process ruined the evidence in the trial so badly that it took two re-trials to actually convict the abuser.

    “But what I want to put tru to you is that, they’re no secret motives. We are not a cult.”
    Here is the thing.
    I will grant to you that most elders involved think they are doing the right thing.

    But if you watch those videos of the testimonies, and read the transcripts, you will see almost all of them admit, when faced with the evidence of how Watchtower policy had failed, that their process doesn’t work. That it needs to change. Max Horely, Doug Jackson and Kevin Bowditch for example, eventually admitted that the process was flawed, but only after they saw the evidence. Yet the member of the Governing Body ignored the evidence and did no even bother to listen to the victims testimony (yet he did listen to the elders’ testimony)
    What does that tell you?

  • January 5, 2016 at 1:37 pm
    Permalink

    Actually, on the issue of shunning I got my information from your own Elders Manual Shepherd the Flock of God, and also from my experience of being a Jehovah’s Witness for over 30 years.

    You can download the elders manual too if you like.

    It’s on the Royal Commission Website evidence page.

    The book shows how, whilst a person who leaves the organisation by simply not attending meetings anymore, but then does any of the following things, will be considered to have Disassociated themselves and will be shunned. Things like: Joining another religion. Taking Blood. Being critical of the governing body. Getting involved in politics. Joining the military. And so forth.
    So should I no longer believe in the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and become a Catholic, I will be shunned, even if I’ve already “left” under your terms by ceasing meeting attendance.

    It’s in your own book dude.

    • January 5, 2016 at 2:13 pm
      Permalink

      You replied : So, you’re worried that if elders report
      the rape of child to the community, the
      community might beat them up?
      Jehovah’s Witnesses are happy to be
      persecuted for not taking blood
      transfusions, or celebrating christmas,
      but you’re not willing to be persecuted
      for protecting children from rape?

      You can see how you can easily draw the wrong conclusions from words, that’s a problem.
      What I was saying is that when they’re members of the family of the victim, the organization gives them the right to make a decision on a FAMILY matter. They decide to stop at handling the SIN while the family handles the CRIME. It could be cos of the relationship between abuser they chose to let go, only to realize that the church is trying to jail the person. It might spark reprisals if the person is jailed. That’s the dilemma.

      • January 5, 2016 at 3:20 pm
        Permalink

        You say
        “What I was saying is that when they’re members of the family of the victim, the organization gives them the right to make a decision on a FAMILY matter. They decide to stop at handling the SIN while the family handles the CRIME. It could be cos of the relationship between abuser they chose to let go, only to realize that the church is trying to jail the person. It might spark reprisals if the person is jailed. That’s the dilemma.”

        Would you say the same thing if one family member murdered the other?

        • January 5, 2016 at 3:50 pm
          Permalink

          Also you say:
          “It might spark reprisals if the person is jailed. That’s the dilemma.”

          That’s not a dilemma. That’s abject cowardice.

          Jehovahs’ Witnesses make this big show about how they stand up for righteousness no matter the cost, even if they have to die to do what’s right, but now you’re seriously telling me that if you were an elder you wouldn’t report a raped child in the congregation in case the family got angry with you?

          Really dude?

  • January 5, 2016 at 2:20 pm
    Permalink

    You replied :The book shows how, whilst a person
    who leaves the organisation by simply
    not attending meetings anymore, but
    then does any of the following things,
    will be considered to have
    Disassociated themselves and will be
    shunned.

    Can you quote me a portion of the book containing the phrase WILL BE SHUNNED?
    cos I have three brothers who are no longer witnesses, but yesterday I was with two of them. I may soon travel to spend some time with another in another state.
    Sincerely, I don’t know what you’re saying there. It is not happening.

    • January 5, 2016 at 3:37 pm
      Permalink

      Certainly, happy to.

      Let’s take my example of someone was baptised at 14 as a JW, but when he gets to say, 26,no longer believes that JW’s have the truth, and genuinely believes that the catholic church has the right religion, and his conscience tells him that if he wishes to serve God he must become a Catholic. This is what Shepherd the Flock of God says about this situation, page 111.

      “If it is learned that a person has taken up association with another religious or- ganization and thus is identified with it, a com- mittee (not judicial) should be selected to inves- tigate matters and endeavor to provide spiritual assistance. If the individual has joined another religious organization and intends to remain with it, he has disassociated himself.”

      We both know that a disassociated person and a disfellowshipped person are treated in exactly the same way.

      It’s possible that in your area of the world these rules are not being enforced quite as strictly. If you travel a lot you will see that JW strictness actually varies greatly around the world. Additionally, it’s possible for someone to fade and still keep their family contacts as long as they don’t get caught doing something Watchtower considered as serious sin, like move in with a partner before marriage.

      But the official JW line is that such ones must be treated as outlined here in the Watchtower book Keep yourself in Gods Love.

      https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/gods-love/disfellowshipped-person/#?insight%5Bsearch_id%5D=cf092ae0-4c3e-4a5f-8252-abbbd9077f64&insight%5Bsearch_result_index%5D=0

      • January 5, 2016 at 4:26 pm
        Permalink

        Just realised that my autocorrect changed “an example” to “my example.” Just to be clear, that illustration of a young man who wants to become a catholic is not me, my apologies if I caused any confusion on that point. I’m neither young, or a Catholic. :)

      • January 5, 2016 at 5:22 pm
        Permalink

        Can you quote me a portion of the
        book containing the phrase WILL BE
        SHUNNED?
        cos I have three brothers who are no
        longer witnesses, but yesterday I was
        with two of them. I may soon travel to
        spend some time with another in
        another state.
        Sincerely, I don’t know what you’re
        saying there. It is not happening.
         Reply
        Covert Fade on January 5, 2016
        at 3:37 pm
        Certainly, happy to.
        Let’s take my example of
        someone was baptised at 14 as a
        JW, but when he gets to say,
        26,no longer believes that JW’s
        have the truth, and genuinely
        believes that the catholic church
        has the right religion, and his
        conscience tells him that if he
        wishes to serve God he must
        become a Catholic. This is what
        Shepherd the Flock of God says
        about this situation, page 111.
        “If it is learned that a person has
        taken up association with another
        religious or- ganization and thus
        is identified with it, a com- mittee
        (not judicial) should be selected
        to inves- tigate matters and
        endeavor to provide spiritual
        assistance. If the individual has
        joined another religious
        organization and intends to
        remain with it, he has
        disassociated himself.”

        NO YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THAT QUESTION! Your quote DOES NOT contain the phrase in caps above “WILL BE SHUNNED”
        YOU know what, I was beginning to think maybe there’s something that I do not know, but now I can see that the whole problem with this stunning stuff lies on your perception.
        Now let me educate you a bit, Disfellowshipping and dissassociation are two very different things. A disfellowshipped person has committed a serious sin, like rape, stealing, fornication etc, and does disappointed the congregation, family, friends, God. Disfellowshipping and shunning is meant to help the person feel remorse and repent of his sins. The portion of God’s love book you shared DEALS STRICTLY WITH DISFELLOWSHIPPING.
        on the other hand, a dissassociated person has DECIDED to leave the organization. He has his freedom of worship, he had not committed a sin. I challenge you, you can’t quote a material from the organization that says someone who DISASSOCIATES himself From the organization SHOULD BE SHUNNED.

        • January 5, 2016 at 9:50 pm
          Permalink

          In the eyes of the Borg a person who is disassociated is to be treated exactly the same way as a disfellowshipped person. As covert has said, it may be different where you live, but the letter of the “law” says that they are one in the same.

          From the Organized book…
          “The term disassociation applies to the action taken by a person who, although being a baptized member of the congregation, deliberately repudiates Christian standing, rejecting the congregation and stating that he no longer wants to be recognized or known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. … Also, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of a secular organization the objective of which is contrary to the Bible and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Compare Revelation 19:17-21; Isaiah 2:4.) So if a person who is a Christian chooses to join those who are disapproved by God, it would be fitting for the congregation to acknowledge by a brief announcement that he has disassociated himself and is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Such a person would be viewed in the same way as a disfellowshipped person.”

          • January 6, 2016 at 3:29 am
            Permalink

            I eagerly await your reply to Dblaron and my posts on this issue, Jackson, Nsuhoridem Isaac. You have been given proof from your own literature that disfellowshipping and disassociation are treated the same way:How do you respond?

          • January 6, 2016 at 4:10 am
            Permalink

            The person will be VIEWED is different from should be TREATED as disfellowshipped. Again, shunning is MEANT TO HELP AN UNREPENTANT SINNER LIKE A CRIMINAL SEE THE NEED TO FEEL REMORSE AND REPENT. it shows that you are not a permissive parent. Assume that you sent your son to the University, there he becomes a cultist and is expelled. What do you do when he gets back home? Hug him and treat him to the cinema? You will likely enforce some discipline.

            On the other hand, a person who disassociates from the congregation is visited and shown love. When the circuit overseer comes, arrangement may be made to visit them. We call them “ailing ones”. My close friend recently left the organization cos a certain “prophet” told him he is destined to be a politician. I still have his contacts. I have pleaded to just let me see his face but he has refused. Have I shunned him? No.

            But I know of another person who moved in with a young girl without marriage. He was reached by the elders, he refused to change. He was disfellowshipped. Have I shunned him? Yes. Why? Because I believe that can give him a reason to rethink about his “new morality” and change.

            I think if all religions could put in the same effort Jehovah’s Witnesses put at shaping human behavior, THIS WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE.

  • January 5, 2016 at 2:26 pm
    Permalink

    Meanwhile in the church you attend now, is there a framework that allows people to report sins, and how do you handle sinners and criminals?

    • January 5, 2016 at 3:43 pm
      Permalink

      Who says I attend any Church?

      But I would suggest to you that if you look at the other religions and organisations studied by the Royal Commission, you’ll find that whatever their failings in the past, they now all have the policy of contacting the police at once.

      It’s not hard. You issue a letter to all congregations saying” If someone reports an accusation of child abuse to you, contact the police at once.”

      See how easy that is?

      • January 5, 2016 at 5:27 pm
        Permalink

        Please do you mind telling me why you don’t attend church?

        • January 6, 2016 at 3:39 am
          Permalink

          I’m an atheist, dude, attending Church would be a bit strange for me ;)

          I’m still waiting for you to answer the following question:

          You say
          “What I was saying is that when they’re members of the family of the victim, the organization gives them the right to make a decision on a FAMILY matter. They decide to stop at handling the SIN while the family handles the CRIME. It could be cos of the relationship between abuser they chose to let go, only to realize that the church is trying to jail the person. It might spark reprisals if the person is jailed. That’s the dilemma.”

          Would you say the same thing if one family member had murdered the other, instead of abusing the other?

    • January 6, 2016 at 3:34 am
      Permalink

      That’s very thoughtful, but I’ve read that brochure and it addresses none of the issues that made me realise that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not the true religion.

      Issues such as the child abuse mishandling, and the Governing Body lying about it to the witnesses and the courts.

      Issues such as the Watchtower’s membership of the UN for 10 years as an NGO. (Did you know about that? Check jwfacts.com for proof)

      Issues such as the way the publications misquote sources and engaged in journalistic and intellectual dishonesty to support false positions

      The account of Ray Franz, a former member of the Governing Body, which exposed how hypocritical and uncaring the leadership structure of the Watchtower is (did you know about him? Read the book Crisis of Conscience. )

      And many many more issues. That brochure addresses nothing of substance, I’m afraid. It gives no answers.

      • January 6, 2016 at 3:36 am
        Permalink

        Incidentally, you say
        “The judicial issues will be handled in due course.”
        How do you know? What makes you so sure? DO you have evidence for this claim? The Watchtower response to the Royal Commission (also available for download on the Royal Commission website) makes it clear that they are NOT going to deal with this issue. So why do you think they are?

  • January 5, 2016 at 7:13 pm
    Permalink

    I know personally of 3 different cases of JW child abuse cover ups.
    Here is how the judicial issues were handled in every case.
    No contact with the police/child protection
    No support for the innocent victim
    Temporarily taking some “privileges” away from the perpetrator
    No warning given to any other parents in the congregation.
    Victims families warned not to talk about the situation or they would bring reproach on Jehovahs name!
    1 perpetrator had 2 different children from different families report him to the same body of elders and they still didn’t report him. 2 witness rule?
    2 of the perpetrators were only caught after the molested children had become adults and reported them retrospectively.
    If the elders have to report to the legal department of their local branch, not to the trained professionals in law enforcement, where does the love of the society lie?
    They are a selfish, greedy business.

  • January 5, 2016 at 11:59 pm
    Permalink

    @Wanderer what I’m saying is that just as those persons reported the SIN to the congregation, they were at liberty to report the CRIME to the police. Is your own church a place where crimes are reported to link the police?

    • January 6, 2016 at 12:28 am
      Permalink

      When your Elders have told you to wait on Jehovah to sort it out, and not to bring “reproach on Jehovahs name” by talking about what has happened, especially with worldly people, it makes it extremely difficult for these people to report what has happened to them to the police.
      When 2 different families report the same individual for these awful crimes, and the body of elders do nothing to their Ministerial Servant who has committed the crimes. To the point that even when his court trial has started, it says a lot about poor JW child abuse policies. Why would other families not be warned about him?
      I don’t have a church, I was born into a strict JW family, as an adult I have faded and would never go back to being a JW.

      • January 6, 2016 at 1:06 am
        Permalink

        You said ” and the body of
        elders do nothing to their
        Ministerial Servant who has
        committed the crimes”
        Please are you saying they did not discipline him at all? Again I can’t believe you, that the ENTIRE family of the victim refrained from reporting the crime to the police because THE LOCAL ELDERS TOLD HIM NOT TO.
        please note that As per policy NO ELDER HAS THE RIGHT TO STOP THE VICTIM AND FAMILY FROM REPORTING THE CRIME TO THE POLICE.
        if a local elder tries that, report to circuit overseer.

        Meanwhile, can you tell me with Jehovah God as a witness, WHY you are no longer a witness?

        • January 6, 2016 at 2:58 am
          Permalink

          I kind of figured that you would ignore/not comment regarding the dissasociation-disfellowshipped issue. It’s nice having you participate in the comments section. Although reverting to “how does your church do it” is little more than misdirection and completely weakens your argument.

          • January 6, 2016 at 4:16 am
            Permalink

            Well I can grant you that the clause could lead to wrong perception of my argument. I am imperfect.

  • January 6, 2016 at 5:54 am
    Permalink

    @Jackson, Nsuhoridem Isaac
    Can I request something of you?

    You have made many statements here, and we have given you evidence as to why your statements are incorrect. Yet you do not address this evidence, you simply move on to make other claims.

    Yet, we have taken care to respond to the questions and statements you have made, and when you have challenged us we have responded and backed up our claims with argumentation and evidence.

    With this in mind, could you please address some of the following:

    Do you still maintain that Disassociated ones are not treated the same way as Disfellowshipped ones, given the evidence provided from your own publications that they are?

    Do you accept that, given the above, someone who wishes to leave your organisation and join another religion will therefore be shunned simply for following their conscience and exercising their religious freedom?

    Do you now accept that Watchtower policy is NOT for elders to report child abuse, unless mandated by Law?

    Do you accept that, if one takes Australia as an example (1006 abusers split between 779 congregations, facts all provided by your own organisation) that Jehovah’s Witnesses elders are likely to become involved in dealing with a child abuse care during their career?

    Do you think that if a father had murdered his child, and the family didn’t want to report it, the elders should simply ignore the murder?

    If so, why do you feel the crime of child abuse should be treated differently to the crime of murder?

    Please address these questions.

    • January 6, 2016 at 7:48 am
      Permalink

      You asked ” Do you still maintain that
      Disassociated ones are not treated the
      same way as Disfellowshipped ones,
      given the evidence provided from your
      own publications that they are?

      Persons who just stop attending meetings will not be treated as a disfellowshipped person. But if the person begins to live without moral principles, the person will be formally announced as dissassociated. That is when he becomes like a disfellowshipped person. But even at that people will still try to help him.
      This may not make sense to you because as I just realized, you don’t even believe in God or the Bible. But you will agree with me that even in secular organizations NOTHING MAKES SENSE WITHOUT STANDARDS

      • January 6, 2016 at 9:39 am
        Permalink

        We are starting to get closer to the truth here.

        You initially tried to portray your religion as allowing people to leave without being shunned.

        We showed you from your own publications that this was not the case.

        You then tried to give the impression that shunning only happened to a disfellowshipped person.

        We showed you from your own publications that this was not the case.

        You are now, finally admitting that both a disfellowshipped and a disassociated person will be shunned.

        Yet even now you are trying to pretend that the only people who are “immoral” will be disassociated.

        Leaving aside the rather dubious nature of actions you claim to be “moral” (which apparently include not reporting the rape of children to the police), you are STILL trying to evade the ACTUAL reality of Disassociation.

        We have clearly shown to you, from your own publications, that a person could keep all of the bible’s moral commands TO THE LETTER, yet STILL be Disassociated if he joins another church.

        Do you agree? You seem to from your comment below.
        You say:
        “Persons who just stop attending meetings will not be treated as a disfellowshipped person. But if the person begins to live without moral principles, the person will be formally announced as dissassociated. ”

        In other words, you DO agree. You started off by claiming that one could leave your religion without being shunned, but now you agree that in order to do so, one would essentially have to leave the religion BUT STILL OBSERVE ALL OF IT’S COMMANDS. In other words, you CAN’T leave without being shunned. The closest you can do is not attend meetings.

        Correct?

    • January 6, 2016 at 7:52 am
      Permalink

      You asked ” Do you still maintain that
      Disassociated ones are not treated the
      same way as Disfellowshipped ones,
      given the evidence provided from your
      own publications that they are?

      Persons who just stop attending meetings will not be treated as a disfellowshipped person. But if the person begins to live without moral principles, the person will be formally announced as dissassociated. That is when he becomes like a disfellowshipped person. BUT REALLY NO ONE WILL POLICE A PERSON WHO HAS STOPPED ASSOCIATING TO FIND OUT WHAT HE DOES, Geoffrey Jackson mentioned that. But even at that people will still try to help him.
      This may not make sense to you because as I just realized, you don’t even believe in God or the Bible. But you will agree with me that even in secular organizations NOTHING MAKES SENSE WITHOUT STANDARDS

  • January 6, 2016 at 6:28 am
    Permalink

    You say;

    “The person will be VIEWED is different from should be TREATED as disfellowshipped. Again, shunning is MEANT TO HELP AN UNREPENTANT SINNER LIKE A CRIMINAL SEE THE NEED TO FEEL REMORSE AND REPENT. it shows that you are not a permissive parent. Assume that you sent your son to the University, there he becomes a cultist and is expelled. What do you do when he gets back home? Hug him and treat him to the cinema? You will likely enforce some discipline.”

    I submit to you that there is big difference between “enforcing some discipline” and pretending that a person does not exist. Cutting off someone’s hand because they slapped their sister is a massive over-reaction. Shunning someone because you don’t like their religious choices or they were a bad student is also a massive over-reaction

    Also, if my son had chosen a religion or cult I did not agree with, I would not cut off association with him. I would love him as my son, keep as close to him as I could, and discuss his choices with him. If he would not listen, I would still keep as close as I could to him and love him. Firstly because shunning someone simply because I disagree with their religious choice is barbaric. Secondly because you can’t force someone to change their beliefs with threats. You change believes with discussion and evidence.

    “On the other hand, a person who disassociates from the congregation is visited and shown love. When the circuit overseer comes, arrangement may be made to visit them. We call them “ailing ones”. My close friend recently left the organization cos a certain “prophet” told him he is destined to be a politician. I still have his contacts. I have pleaded to just let me see his face but he has refused. Have I shunned him? No. “

    Then you are not following the orders of your Governing Body, as outlined in the Organisation book, which Dblaron42 provided for you. If you keep doing this, you yourself could be disfellowshipped under the rules contained in. Check out Shepherd the Flock of God page 58. Go one, have a read.

    you say
    “But I know of another person who moved in with a young girl without marriage. He was reached by the elders, he refused to change. He was disfellowshipped. Have I shunned him? Yes. Why? Because I believe that can give him a reason to rethink about his “new morality” and change. “

    So because he does not agree with your moral principles, you have decided to treat him like he is dead? So you will associate with a family who don’t want to prosecute a child abuser in their midst, but won’t talk to a guy who moved in with the girl he loves without going through a ritual first? Really?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: