The Watch Tower Society has issued a new letter to all Bodies of Elders instructing them on how to handle cases of child abuse in the wake of the Candace Conti verdict.
It was hoped that the Governing Body would use the lessons learned from the Conti case to bring the Society’s child protection policy into conformity with the law, not to mention the basic principles of community responsibility.
However, it is shocking to note that this October 1st letter addresses none of the key procedural flaws that lead to the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses being routinely exposed to predatory pedophiles within the organization. Such individuals are often aware of the loopholes in the judicial practices of Witnesses and how to effectively exploit these to gain access to new victims. Still, despite the jury’s multi-million dollar award of punitive damages against the Society in the Conti case, little is being done to ensure that similar cases do not arise in the future.
If anything, the Society has rigidly stuck to its stance on the “two witness rule” and has assumed yet more jurisdiction for itself in deliberating over these sensitive and often complex cases. In an astonishing development, the Society is now insisting that the branch office should have the final word in deciding whether a pedophile is to be considered a “predator”, or even a “known child molester”.
Only if the brothers at the branch office determine that a brother is a “predator” can parents in the local congregation be warned of his tendencies. Only if the branch office decides that a brother is a “known child molester” can he be blocked from ever serving as an elder. Many would rightly argue that whether or not someone is to be classified in these ways depends on the local law enforcement authorities, not some remote branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Barbara Anderson, who is a well-known campaigner for the protection of children in the organization, noted the significance of these dramatic changes in policy, saying: “Both of these are radical departures from Watchtower’s historical position that matters are decided locally.” She added, “By taking these decisions in-house, Watchtower is admitting that judicial decisions are not made purely by local elders on the scene. This is a pill being swallowed by Watchtower, the result of recent litigation. I believe this letter opens up the Watchtower for more liability, not less. In my opinion, a religion shouldn’t be making a psychological/criminal evaluation that others in the religion are counting upon. This could lead to serious problems.”
The letter was once available for download on these pages, but has now been removed for legal reasons. However, if you have a friend or relative who is an elder, he should be able to confirm its existence. In the next few paragraphs I will be explaining (with quotes) why this letter falls so woefully short in offering guidance to elders that would genuinely serve to protect Witness children, and why so little has changed despite the June 2012 verdict.
The “Two Witness Rule” still stands
At the epicenter of the Watch Tower Society’s entire approach to the handling of cases of child abuse is their love affair with the “two witness rule”. It is because of this rule that a pedophile is considered innocent unless two people witnessed the abuse (the victim and someone else) which is hardly ever the case in instances of child molestation. Usually child molesters are smart enough to carry out their despicable crimes without someone else watching.
It is also because of this rule that the Society insists on managing all child abuse cases themselves to the extent possible, because (in their view) they do not want those accused of child abuse to be judged by “worldly” standards, but through God’s standards as determined through a mistaken application of the Mosaic law.
The Society also has a keen eye on its public image and reputation, and its latest measures to increase its power and control over congregational decisions is a clear indication that local application of the “two witness rule” on its own is becoming increasingly inadequate in their eyes. This raises the question, if the rule is becoming so complicated to implement with regards to child abuse, does this alone not indicate that its application needs to be completely revised in judging cases of criminality?
Indeed, it was hoped that the Conti case might result in the Society revisiting the “two witness rule”, and perhaps coming to the realization that they are wrong to apply it to criminal matters. However, sadly this has not happened. Note the following comments in paragraph 11 of the new letter…
“In addition, the elders should investigate every allegation of child sexual abuse. When elders learn of an accusation, in addition to this letter, they should carefully review the direction outlined in the Shepherding textbook, chapter 12, paragraphs 18-21. However, in evaluating the evidence for internal congregational purposes, they must bear in mind the Bible’s clear direction: ‘No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good.’ (Deut. 19:15) This requirement to consider testimony of two or three witnesses was confirmed by Jesus. (Matt. 18:16) Thus, although they investigate every allegation, the elders are not authorized by the Scriptures to take congregational action unless there is a confession or there are two credible witnesses. However, even though the elders are not authorized to take congregation action when there is only one witness, the elders should remain vigilant with regard to the conduct and activity of the accused. (See paragraph 12 of this letter.) If two persons are witnesses to separate incidents of the same kind of wrongdoing, their testimony can be deemed sufficient to take judicial action. (1 Tim. 5:19, 24, 25) If the person is not repentant over the gross sin, disfellowshipping action would be warranted.”
You will see from the above quote that the Society uses two citations from the Greek Scriptures in support of their application of the Mosaic “two witness rule”. These are as follows:
“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.” (Matthew 18:15,16 – New World Translation)
“Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses. Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear…. The sins of some men are publicly manifest, leading directly to judgment, but as for other men [their sins] also become manifest later. In the same way also the fine works are publicly manifest and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hid.” (1 Timothy 5:19,24,25 – New World Translation)
If you notice the text that I have highlighted in bold in both scriptures, something should become immediately apparent. That is, both scriptures apply the “two witness rule” of the Mosaic Law in judging over cases where a brother in the congregation commits a sin. In the case of Matthew 18 it is a case of a brother committing a sin against another brother. The scripture in 1 Timothy describing an “accusation” appears to be little more than a rewording of Jesus’ words in Matthew 18. The fact that the “accusation” refers to some form of sin is made clear by the context (highlighted by the Society) in verses 24 and 25, which I will go into in greater detail shortly.
The problem we have is that the Society has an entirely wrong perspective of child abuse as being first-and-foremost a sin, and only coincidentally a crime depending on the laws of the land. This is the reason why, if an accusation of child abuse comes to light, the elders will assume this falls under their jurisdiction to investigate the matter (because it is a sin), when really the supreme jurisdiction should fall to the superior authorities for these to investigate the matter and determine guilt.
For example, imagine for a moment that a brother murders another brother in your congregation. You alone see him do it, and you telephone an elder to tell him what happened. The elder would not question the validity of your accusation because you were the only witness, nor would he delay for a moment in calling the police (if you hadn’t already done so). He certainly wouldn’t tell you that the body of elders first needs to launch their own investigation to determine guilt before the authorities can be notified, if they are told at all. Murder is a crime, and therefore the police would be called straight away to intervene! Anything else would be reckless in the extreme, and would leave the killer on the loose to kill yet more people.
Just because life is not always lost when a child is molested, child abuse is still a crime and should be treated as such. Therefore, if the Society wishes to insist on using the “two witness rule” to determine whether the SIN of child molestation has been committed, this is their decision. However, just as with murder, child abuse is a crime – therefore the jurisdictional priority falls to the police for them to intervene and determine who the culprit is before anyone else is harmed.
Unfortunately, the Society completely underestimates the harm caused by child abuse. As an example, you need look no further than the previously quoted scripture in 1 Timothy 5. Please read again what it says in verses 24 and 25:
“The sins of some men are publicly manifest, leading directly to judgment, but as for other men [their sins] also become manifest later. In the same way also the fine works are publicly manifest and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hid.” (1 Timothy 5:24,25 – New World Translation)
What Paul is saying here is that when some people sin it is “publicly manifest” because someone witnesses it. However, sometimes when people sin, it becomes “manifest later”. In other words, the sinful pattern continues until the person makes a mistake and gets caught in the act by two or more witnesses. By using this scripture, the Society is effectively saying: “Don’t worry if a pedophile abuses a child but nobody witnesses it, because he will very likely abuse another child, and THEN we will catch him.”
You may find the way I have paraphrased this verse shocking, but this is effectively what is being said in the way this verse is applied in the letter. This highlights more than anything else the Governing Body’s callous disregard for the serious and devastating effects of molestation on young children. They feel that abused children are expendable as “evidence” in the primary goal of bringing a sinner to repentance. The law views things very differently, and maintains that a molester should be brought to justice BEFORE he abuses another.
In this way, through their stubborn refusal to let go of the “two witness rule” in judging cases of child abuse, the Governing Body demonstrates how oblivious and dispassionate they have grown regarding their responsibility to protect the children under their stewardship. Our Governing Body should be letting the Law judge cases of crime, and only THEN, after the Law has intervened, busy themselves with deciding which of these crimes constitute sin. Instead, they proudly bypass the law and allow themselves to judge cases over which God has appointed the “superior authorities” to adjudicate. – Romans 13:1
This is the problem that lies at the very heart of this ongoing problem with child abuse – a total failure to grasp the seriousness of it as a crime first-and-foremost. It is for this reason that, rather than humbly conform to the law and basic principles of community responsibility, the Society proudly continues to drag this on to the bitter end. The Governing Body would rather “go down fighting” and try to weather the storm of lawsuits and adverse publicity than reform its policies and thereby protect children.
No change on reporting
The letter instructs elders to advise parents that they bear the primary responsibility for protecting their children, but it does not explicitly state what this means – namely that parents should immediately contact the authorities to report an accusation of child abuse without fear of reprisals in the congregation.
Paragraph 10 of the letter attempts to shift blame for when things go wrong from the elders to the parents, who in most cases turn to the elders for guidance and are assured by them that everything is being “dealt with”. The Society uses this passage in the letter in a cowardly way, getting elders to inform parents that they bear responsibility rather than directly reminding parents through their publications to report all cases of abuse to the police.
Note what is said in paragraph 10…
“Regardless of whether the law requires the elders to report an accusation to the authorities, steps need to be taken to protect children. Elders should help the parents of the children involved to understand that they have the primary responsibility for protecting their children. Obviously, such parents will be keenly interested in taking precautions in this regard. Our publications contain helpful information on how parents can protect their children.—w10 11/1 p. 13; w08 10/1 p. 21; g 10/07 pp. 3-11; lr pp. 170-171; g03 2/8 p. 9; g99 4/8 pp. 9, 11; g97 4/8 p. 14; w96 12/1 pp. 13-14; fy pp. 61-62; g93 10/8 pp. 5-13.”
I have checked each of the above publication references to see what they say, and they mostly offer advice on how to prevent child abuse in the first place using such precautionary measures as (1) discussing sex with your child at an early age, (2) telling children how to respond to would-be attackers, i.e. “I’m going to tell on you!” (3) not allowing teenagers to dress provocatively, (4) keeping an eye on the child’s use of the internet, (5) being vigilant of other adults’ behavior towards your children.
Out of all the above-quoted references, the final reference from the 1993 Awake! article is the only one that comes close to instructing parents to contact the authorities in the event of child abuse. It has this to say:
“Some legal experts advise reporting the abuse to the authorities as soon as possible. In some lands the legal system may require this. But in other places the legal system may offer little hope of successful prosecution.” – Awake! 1993 10/8 page 9
The Society would likely argue that the above half-hearted admonition doesn’t dissuade parents from contacting the authorities. However, it’s surely plain to see that the word “some” was inserted in the first sentence to immediately instill doubt as to whether this is always the right course of action to take, and the final sentence in the paragraph hardly fills parents with hope of a favorable outcome if they call the police. In short, the paragraph is inserted in the article by the writers through legal necessity, and the Society does everything they can to make contacting the authorities sound like something that is either optional or sometimes ineffective.
The article even goes on to urge similar caution with seeking help from a psychiatrist, and suggests parents or victims should only do this if the professional will “respect” Witness beliefs.
“Parents must therefore make every reasonable effort to protect their children! Many responsible parents choose to seek out professional help for an abused child. Just as you would with a medical doctor, make sure that any such professional will respect your religious views. Help your child rebuild his or her shattered self-esteem through a steady outpouring of parental love.” – Awake! 1993 10/8 page 9
Overall, the references provided in the letter as evidence that the Watch Tower Society “protects” children are at best insulting if used on a parent whose child has just been molested (i.e. if you’d done all this, it wouldn’t have happened!), and at times the statements made in the quoted publications are downright hypocritical. Consider the following quote, also in the 1993 Awake! article…
“AFTER using children to satisfy perverted lusts, after robbing them of their security and their sense of innocence, child molesters still want something else from their victims—SILENCE. To secure that silence, they use shame, secrecy, even outright terror. Children are thus robbed of their best weapon against abuse—the will to tell, to speak up and ask an adult for protection.
Tragically, adult society often unwittingly collaborates with child abusers. How so? By refusing to be aware of this danger, by fostering a hush-hush attitude about it, by believing oft-repeated myths. Ignorance, misinformation, and silence give safe haven to abusers, not their victims.” – Awake! 1993 10/8 page 5
The hypocrisy in the above quote is astonishing, coming from an organization that refuses to openly encourage parents to always report those who abuse their child to the authorities in the first instance. The failure to encourage parents to approach the authorities is precisely the sort of “hush-hush” approach which, to use the words of the Awake!, results in the Watch Tower Society unwittingly collaborating with child abusers. The only difference is, with each passing lawsuit and media onslaught, the Society’s damaging stance on child abuse becomes less and less “unwitting”, and more and more deliberate.
Branch to decide on who is a “predator”
In these new instructions, elders are told to “remain vigilant with regard to the conduct and activity” of someone accused of child abuse. This advice applies “especially” to those who are found guilty of child abuse but who are not disfellowshipped (reproved), as well as those who are disfellowshipped for child abuse and later reinstated. Consider what is said in paragraph 12 of the letter…
“Loving elders should take steps to protect children, especially when a judicial committee determines that the one who has sexually abused a child is repentant and will be allowed to remain a member of the Christian congregation. The same concern would be shown when one who has sexually abused a child is disfellowshipped, later cleans up his life, and is reinstated. The elders should be especially mindful of the activity of any who are known to have sexually abused a child in the past. They should also ensure that newly-appointed elders are made aware of this caution. It would be appropriate for elders to talk kindly but very frankly to individuals who have manifested a weakness in this regard, strongly cautioning them to refrain from displaying affection for children, to avoid hugging or holding children on their lap, never to be alone with a child (other than their own), not to allow children to spend the night in their home, not to work alone in field service (hence, they should always be accompanied by another adult), and not to cultivate friendships with children. This not only serves to protect children but will help to prevent those who have sexually abused a child from putting themselves in the way of temptation, being subjected to an unfounded accusation, or doing things that may cause concern to others in the congregation. (1 Cor. 10:12, 32) If the individual does not follow this direction from the elders, the elders should immediately call the Service Department for assistance.”
As mentioned, the above guidelines are specifically applied to cases where a child molester is found guilty of child abuse by the elders and either “let off with a warning” (reproved but not disfellowshipped) or disfellowshipped and then later reinstated.
Paragraph 11 indicates that a person who is accused of child abuse but not found guilty by a second witness may also have his “conduct and activity” watched, although the letter does not make clear whether an accused person would be warned or watched to the same extent as a reproved or reinstated person, or how long this surveillance would go on for. One assumes this is left to the discretion of the branch office, who advise the elders on how to deal with each case individually.
With all of the above in mind, what happens if someone accused or found guilty of child abuse ignores the elders’ warnings and spends time around children? Please consider paragraph 13…
“If the individual [the accused, reproved or reinstated child molester] does not follow the above direction from the elders [to completely avoid children], or if the elders believe he may be a ‘predator,’ the elders should immediately call the Service Department for assistance. A ‘predator’ is one who clearly lacks self-control and by his actions provides reason to believe he will continue to prey on children. Not every individual who has sexually abused a child in the past is considered a ‘predator.’ The branch office, not the local body of elders, determines whether an individual who has sexually abused children in the past will be considered a ‘predator.’ If the branch office determines that an individual will be considered a ‘predator,’ parents with minor children will need to be warned of the danger that exists so that they can protect their children. In such a case, and only after receiving direction and instructions from the Service Department, two elders should be assigned to meet with the parents of minor children in order to provide a warning. At the same time that parents are warned about an individual, it would be appropriate for the elders to inform the individual that parents in the congregation will be discreetly informed.”
On the surface many elders reading this letter may feel satisfied that the Society is finally allowing them to warn parents in the congregation of a predatory pedophile being in their midst. However, when read in context, elders are ONLY given this permission at the sole discretion of the branch – not the local law enforcement, or even based on their own concerns or observations. It is left to men in a remote office with only second or third hand knowledge of the situation to decide whether families should be warned that there is a predatory pedophile in the congregation worshipping alongside them.
Most disturbingly, even these seemingly robust instructions still allow loopholes through which committed and cunning child molesters may still find opportunities to prey on young children. By way of an explanation, consider the following scenario…
A loophole in the “predator” rule
Imagine a man is found guilty of child molestation following a judicial committee hearing. Despite his best efforts to cover his tracks, a mother in the congregation has discovered him molesting her child and has immediately reported him to the elders. Because there were two witnesses to the abuse (the mother and the child), the man sees little point denying it and confesses everything to the elders when they question him.
In the judicial committee hearing the man weeps profusely and expresses deep regret for what has happened. He tells the elders that he is spiritually weak, and needs their help. The elders decide he is repentant and they reprove him, but do not disfellowship him. Instead, they warn him to stay away from other children in the congregation, and advise him that they will be keeping a close eye on his “conduct and activity”.
An announcement is read from the platform, “Brother So-and-so has been reproved” as per the instructions in the elder’s manual. Nobody in the congregation (apart from the elders and the victim’s family) know what he has been reproved for, and the parents of the abused child are informed by the elders that the matter has been “dealt with”.
It is now for the branch office alone to decide whether he is a “predator”, and so far (to the elders’ knowledge) he has only abused one child, so they proceed under the assumption that he will not abuse another. Therefore, no other parents in the congregation are warned of his abuse because the branch have not deemed the brother a “predator”.
The parents of the abused child are hesitant to approach the authorities, because they have been assured that it has been dealt with judicially – even though they have been informed that the “responsibility” for protecting their child rests with them (and shown a number of articles to imply that it was their fault in the first place for not taking better care). The elders may never have told the parents NOT to inform the authorities, but neither have they told them that they SHOULD report the abuse. The parents are therefore under the illusion that this is first-and-foremost a judicial matter against their “brother”, and from their viewpoint, everything is under control. They have trust that Jehovah has resolved matters, and that no other children will be harmed.
The elders are now supposed to be “on alert” regarding ANY contact that the brother may have with children in the congregation. The problem is, this is a relatively small body of elders, all of whom have jobs and families of their own, and they cannot be everywhere all of the time. Only the victim, the victim’s parents and the elders themselves know what has happened, and all of these individuals are observing strict confidentiality according to the Society’s guidelines.
The man belongs to a field service group that is under the oversight of an elder who works long hours. Although the elder takes the field service arrangement on a Saturday, he entrusts the midweek field service arrangements to his group assistant, who is a ministerial servant. This servant knows that the brother has been reproved, but doesn’t know what for, because this is strictly between the brother, the elders, and the victim’s family.
It is the time of the school holidays, and the brother shows up at the midweek meeting for field service and asks to work with a young girl who is there with her mother. The mother knows nothing, the girl knows nothing, and the servant who is leading the group is also completely oblivious to any danger. They go out in service together.
The man finds he has opportunity to work with the young girl repeatedly through the school holidays in midweek. He is fully aware of the warning from the elders and cunningly goes out of his way to only work with adults during the weekend when the elder is present. The servant feels no need to tell his Group Overseer anything because he doesn’t know what the brother has been reproved for. Also, the servant sees the brother working with adults during the weekend, so he suspects nothing.
So you see, even after these latest guidelines from the Society have been implemented – a cunning and determined predatory pedophile could still find loopholes to exploit, allowing him or her to gain access to children in the congregation at an opportune moment. I have considered just one scenario in this article, but there are many similar permutations that a determined child molester could conceivably take advantage of, whether they are accused, reproved, or reinstated.
Even so, some might say, “Well, even if that brother does something to the young girl, he might then be caught, disciplined by the elders, and labelled a ‘predator’ by the branch – and under the new rules all the parents in the congregation would then be alerted by the elders”. However, those who argue in this manner are, like the Society, failing to see the point. If the confirmed child molester in the above scenario succeeds in abusing just one more young girl before being caught and exposed to other parents as a “predator”, he has still abused one victim too many who could otherwise have been protected if the elders had been allowed to perform their duty to warn parents in the congregation of someone who has previously been found guilty of child molestation.
This is precisely the problem with Watchtower policy regarding child abuse, it allows opportunities to pedophiles where none should exist – and just one victim who is abused as a result of these loopholes is one victim too many. This is what the Society fails to understand, because they do not fully grasp the seriousness of child sexual abuse.
Branch to decide who is a “known child molester”
In the eyes of the law, a “known child molester” is someone who is known to have molested a child. In other words, if a body of elders are aware that a brother or sister in the congregation has molested a child, then in the eyes of the law that person is a “known child molester” to them. However, even in this simple area the Watch Tower Society insists on having their own definition of the term. Why? This is all to do with the matter of who gets to serve as a congregation elder.
Note the following words from paragraph 15…
“Who is considered a known child molester? The January 1, 1997, Watchtower article ‘Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked’ mentions on page 29 that a man ‘known to have been a child molester’ does not qualify for privileges in the congregation. The expression ‘known to have been a child molester’ has reference to how such a man is considered in the community and in the Christian congregation. In the eyes of the congregation, an adult ‘known’ to be a former child molester is not ‘free from accusation’ or ‘irreprehensible,’ nor does he have ‘a fine testimony from people on the outside.’ (1 Tim. 3:1-7, 10; 5:22; Titus 1:7) In view of his past, those in the community would not respect him and congregation members might be stumbled over his appointment. Keep in mind that the branch office, not the local body of elders, determines whether one who has sexually abused a child is considered a known child molester.”
Notice from the above how, regardless of whether a person has been found to molest a child with the elders having full knowledge of their actions, the Society insists that only THEY should have the authority to decide whether someone is to be considered a “known child molester”. What is the reason? Put simply, they do not believe that molesting a child at some point in the past is necessarily grounds for a brother to not serve as an elder in the future. It’s shocking, but true.
If this sounds too outrageous, you need only read paragraph 22 – and the first sentence in particular…
“It cannot be said in every case that one who has sexually abused a child could never qualify for privileges of service in the congregation. However, the elders will certainly want to be very cautious, especially when dealing with one who had repeatedly engaged in this kind of wrongdoing or who had been disfellowshipped for such an offense. Before privileges can be extended, such a man must meet the Scriptural qualifications of being ‘self-controlled’ and ‘irreprehensible.’ He must ‘also have a fine testimony’ from individuals inside and outside the congregation. (Titus 1:6-8; 1 Tim. 3:2, 7) Elders should keep in mind what is stated in the January 1, 1997, Watchtower article ‘Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked,’ page 29, paragraph 2: ‘Child sexual abuse reveals an unnatural fleshly weakness. Experience has shown that such an adult may well molest other children. True, not every child molester repeats the sin, but many do. And the congregation cannot read hearts to tell who is and who is not liable to molest children again. (Jeremiah 17:9) Hence, Paul’s counsel to Timothy applies with special force in the case of baptized adults who have molested children: ‘Never lay your hands hastily upon any man; neither be a sharer in the sins of others.’ (1 Timothy 5:22).’”
Once again, here we have a clear example of the Society not taking child abuse seriously enough. They admit in their own publications that “many” child molesters repeat their “sin” – yet they stop short of admitting that, for this reason, it would be entirely wrong to allow ANYONE who has previously molested a child to serve in a position of trust as an elder or ministerial servant. By making such a serious lapse in judgment, they fall foul of the words they themselves quote from 1 Timothy 5:22 and become sharers “in the sins of others”.
A terminally flawed policy
The Watch Tower Society’s child abuse policy is like a leaky bucket – however it is adjusted or reworked, it is rendered entirely useless by the Society’s insistence on the “two witness rule”. No matter how they try to adjust the policy, it is still ineffective and dangerous because it allows determined pedophiles to find loopholes through which to operate without hindrance.
What is needed is not an amended patched-up policy that still allows child abusers to exploit loopholes, but a NEW policy – one that recognizes that it is the God-assigned role of Caesar’s law enforcement authorities to decide who is or isn’t a child abuser, and not unqualified ministers.
At the core of any such new policy should be three key principles. These principles might be summarized under the acronym “RIP”, or “Report, Inform, Prevent”, as follows…
- REPORT – Child abuse is a crime. Therefore, accusations or confessions of child abuse should be reported to the police or law enforcement authorities immediately when they come to light.
- INFORM – Parents in a congregation should be discreetly informed by the elders of any known pedophile who might potentially come into contact with their children by worshipping alongside them. There should also be no repercussions for parents who wish to inform other parents of a known child molester if the elders fail to do so for any reason. Elders should also be freely able to inform the elders of another congregation if a known pedophile decides to move on.
- PREVENT – Child molesters should be prevented from serving in positions of trust in any congregation, or from enjoying privileges that would enable them to gain unsupervised access to children or conceal their history from congregation members.
The above principles are both reasonable, legally compliant and scripturally justifiable. They reflect the fair expectations of a modern society where any institution bears a responsibility to protect the children under its care from known child molesters. The sad part is, most Witness parents probably expect some if not all of the above principles to already be in place, but the truth is – none of them are.
It is disturbing to think of the number of children who are taken to Witness meetings each week by parents who are totally oblivious to the true depth of negligence in their congregation’s child abuse policies as dictated by the Governing Body. If all Witness parents were fully aware of the true ramifications of such policies, many would likely be shocked and appalled.
How it is…
As things stand, child abuse victims and their parents are often locked into a “triangle of secrecy” with their abuser and the elders. The police are marginalized and the Branch assumes complete control of the situation through the elders. In turn, the elders take their orders only from the branch and not from the local authorities, who are mostly kept out of the loop unless they are contacted and therefore able to intervene. Other parents are also oblivious to what is going on, meaning that the abuser has a greater likelihood of finding more victims.
Unless the abuser openly tries to spend time with other children, other parents are not to be informed of his “sin”, even if he is found guilty and disfellowshipped according to the “two witness rule”. Child molesters can therefore use this “triangle of secrecy” to bide their time and prey on yet more victims, as I have already discussed in my hypothetical scenario above. But it doesn’t need to be this way!
How it should be…
If everything were to be done properly, the police would be involved from the very beginning in every case. If the victim (or the victim’s family) approached the elders BEFORE informing the police, then the elders would tell them to phone the police immediately. The police would then assume full management of the situation, including conducting their enquiries with the accused, supporting the victim (taking evidence, offering therapy, etc), and informing the elders as to whether other parents in the congregation need to be warned (for example, if the accused is released on bail until the trial and still wishes to attend meetings or go out in service).
Under this correct arrangement, the role of the elders would simply be to pass on information, protect the other children in the congregation, and provide spiritual support wherever needed (as depicted by the grey arrows in the diagram). If the Governing Body wishes, there wouldn’t even be any need for the elders to accept a criminal prosecution as evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the accused if they don’t want to – they simply have to fulfil their responsibility to inform others who may be at risk, and not impose any sanctions on those who take it upon themselves to do this.
During the investigation, this would mean the elders warning other parents in consultation with the police if the police deem it necessary, and advising the branch office of what is happening. Contact with the branch office would be of particular importance if the accused was an appointed man (an elder or ministerial servant) within the congregation, but otherwise it would be a mere formality because the authorities would be managing the situation, and the elders would be taking advice straight from them.
This is how it should be, but despite the modest improvements in this latest letter (which actually make the Society more vulnerable to lawsuits than ever before), we are still a long way off from seeing policies introduced that would genuinely protect Witness children from devious, cunning and committed child molesters in the future.
What this letter proves
Firstly, this letter proves that despite the enormous uproar surrounding the Conti case the Society is STILL refusing to seize this obvious opportunity to introduce urgently needed reform to their out-dated, ineffective and dangerous child abuse policy. Over the decades the Watch Tower Society has clearly grown out-of-touch and oblivious to the very real dangers that its current flawed policy exposes children to.
I have already demonstrated this by highlighting the Society’s use of 1 Timothy 5:24,25 to imply that, even if a child abuser succeeds in covering his tracks to begin with, he will eventually be caught when he repeats his “sin” in the future – as though the number of victims a child molester accumulates before he is stopped are expendable. As another example of the Society’s failure to take the threat posed by child molesters seriously, consider the following statement in paragraph 11 of the letter…
“If the decision is to reprove [a child abuser], the reproof should be announced. (ks10 chap. 7 par. 20, second bullet) This will serve as a protection for the congregation. Information concerning an individual accused of child molestation, proved or otherwise, should be placed in the congregation confidential file and marked ‘Do Not Destroy’ and kept indefinitely.”
Precisely how is the congregation “protected” by an announcement from the platform that “So-and-so has been reproved” when there is no information as to the nature of his wrongdoing? The very fact that the Society can consider a vague platform announcement as a “protection” is extremely disturbing, because it demonstrates that they have no idea what they are doing. Just because an individual is reproved, this does not mean parents will assume he is a child molester – or is this how all parents should now look upon anyone in the congregation who is reproved?
In addition to giving clear evidence that the Society is seriously out of its depth in coping with this urgent problem, the very release of this letter proves something else, perhaps even more profound. This letter, which must have been leaked by a conscientious elder, proves that there is a growing movement of unsettled elders who know there is something deeply wrong about the organization, and are starting to find the courage to do something about it.
I salute the honesty, bravery and conscientiousness of whichever elder forwarded this letter to my colleagues for our analysis and distribution to others. Whoever did this has real courage and is to be greatly admired for putting the needs of Witness children first above everything else. The very fact that the Governing Body can no longer release letters in privacy shows that any claims that their organization enjoys the support of God’s spirit are entirely unfounded.
What can you do?
As you read my article, you may perhaps feel helpless or even enraged that so many children within the Witness faith are being endangered by the Governing Body’s neglect in their approach to child abuse. This is completely understandable, and as you can perhaps tell from my writing, I share this sense of deep despair and frustration.
As I’ve said before, the Governing Body has shown itself to be completely disinterested regarding the concerns and opinions of those whose lives they control, but this doesn’t mean we should all simply give up and not try to do something about it. If you have the courage and the circumstances, please pass the information in this article along to someone else so that as many people as possible can learn about this new letter and how it falls so woefully short when it comes to protecting children.
If you’re not able to take such bold action, that’s totally understandable. Still, I would urge you to register your disapproval of the Watchtower’s shamefully negligent child abuse policies in our 2012 JW Survey (to take part, click here). Four of the options in the final question relate directly to the issues I have discussed in this article, so you can make your voice heard (anonymously, if you want) by ticking to say that you disagree with the Governing Body’s approach to child abuse. This is only a relatively small thing that you can do, and there are no guarantees that it will make a difference – but it’s still a means by which you can tell the Governing Body that you disapprove of its failure to safeguard the children under its self-assumed duty of care.
For more background on this issue, please read Barbara Anderson’s new essay entitled ‘Megan and Candace – Casualties of Known Molesters‘
Well done
The Watchtower’s absurd ‘two witness’ rule is an overextension of 2 Corn 13:1 and is unfairly applied.The two witness rule permeates everything JW even social sins like gossip and congregation back stabbing.
I am so happy that there is someone like you out there who has the drive and dedication to continually update this blog to keep myself and others aware. This blog has become the primary place for me to get information about current events regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses. I can’t thank you enough as I know that it must take much time to prepare and can aslo be an emotional drain. Thanks a million!
Thank you, dear cedars (and peace to you!), for posting this online. I am not sure if you mentioned it in your commentary but there seems to be a pretty big contradiction in their policy (between Paragraphs 15 and Paragraphs 21-23). I posted about that here:
http://xjwsforchrist.madmooseforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=3044#3044
Mayhaps this will be the beginning of the end for her. Too bad… too bad…
Peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
Hello AGuest, and welcome to JWsurvey! I’ve checked the paragraphs. Yes, there is a contradiction – but not in the eyes of the Watchtower. They are saying that a KNOWN child molester cannot serve as an elder, but that a child molester can so long as he/she isn’t KNOWN. They are also saying that they get to decide whether a child molester is KNOWN or not, depending on how widely his habits are known in the community and congregation (i.e. irrespective of whether the elders know about it). That’s how I read it.
Ok first instinct WTF sorry I am enraged at this after years of publicity they are still holding that scripture to use for their shameful policy in regards to child protection, never mind the fact the new Great Teacher book enraged me enough as an abuse victim that the child should say “NO Stop doing that and I’m going to tell on you” (Honour your father and your mother springs to mind there) So how do we as an Ex jdub community help these children and protect them? I feel powerless at times especially as this is the 21st century (time to move with the times GB) As I have said before in previous posts across boards across the internet if they really want to follow the bible then they should take heed from Romans 13:1-7 which states 13:
1. Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.
4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.
7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.
I am outraged that they do not understand the meaning of this scripture. I for one am no longer Christian however I fully understand what is meant by that scripture and the WTBTS are not following scripture and therefore not following the big man/woman upstairs which tells me this is not “the truth”. Let’s protect the children, [post edited] silent lambs the organisation who started the ball rolling to get the WTBTS to listen. It’s obviously they have not listened but hopefully one day. Then the children will be safe.
Blessed Be!
It would be reasonable to expect the organization to modify its policies on child abuse cases after the huge wake up call of the Conti case, but it has not. Something unreasonable is going on. I would dare to suggest that there may be people in important decision making positions that want pedophiles to have easy access to children, that they actually feed off of the anguish caused by the situation. It is not uncommon for psychopaths to be attracted to organizations that give them cover to operate. These policies certainly do that.
Just a remarkable article on the reality of how detached the Governing Body and it’s WT legal department are from the issues of child abuse and it’s refusal to obey the laws established by our Government regarding child abuse. They still feel they are above the laws, and that no Court or Judge on this planet can tell them what to do and that it is “ok” in their book to DISOBEY the law. I f you are an Elder seving in a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesess and a child is sexualy abused by another member in that congregation immediately notify the proper authoritys so other children can be protected. It’s the “ONLY WAY” to make sure that other children can be protected.
I see what you mean, dear cedars (again, peace to you!), but I think that’s the problem. And if they had kept to their former policy (no privileges ever) they might have saved themselves. But this new one not so much because it would require the BOE to cover up having a known (to THEM) molester around children.
A solution? Have all those who wish to serve in the capacity of religious leaders… where they might have contact with children (and, saving monastic monks, who of them wouldn’t?) get fingerprinted. Just like do for school and childcare workers.
Imagine what THAT would flush out… and how many children would be saved from harm…
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
In addition to paedophiles wrecking a child’s life and causing untold psychological problems, for example an inability to hold regular employment, abusive relationships and the most extreme being self-destructive behaviour, addiction, leading to premature death and sometimes suicide.
Aside from some of the effects above, the effects of child abuse on adult survivors. Child abusers can and do often kill children. They abuse children, penetrate them and them murder them.
Here in the UK there is the recent story of April Jones. The following quote is taken from a recent news report today
“A man has been charged with the murder of missing five-year-old April Jones. Mark Bridger, 46, was arrested the day after April went missing from near her home in Machynlleth, mid Wales, on Monday evening.”
So back to the watchtower. This delaying, this ruminating over whether a paedophile is repentant or not, or a repeat offender is a very dangerous delay, time delayed can not only result in more children being abused but also in child murder.
The watchtower are outrageously irresponsible and seem to provide an excellent area for child abusers to play about in and indulge their fantasies, untouched by the law. They are playing with fire. One day a child will be not only abused but killed. Shame on them.
Thank you for keeping us up to date on this matter. From the latest letter, it is clear that this organization does not have God’s spirit.
This is a scandal, yet again. Bravo for exposing it. Whether they like it or not, nothing is secret anymore – and they will choke on this. I will watch this all-American organization crash with a feeling of justice. Time is on the side of the abused. Presumptuous pricks.
Cedars your writing skills get better every time you write an article. The society like to make everything they do as complicated as possable so that witnesses just think the society must be right. You have shown very clearly how the solution is actually very clear. The police have to be the ones that investigate an offence. They are trained to do that, the elders are not.
Well done and keep up the good work.
I read the Elders letter first before reading your comments, and was thinking exactly the same thoughts as I read the letter. So ITA competely with what you wrote. I´m so upset, that I cannot even bring myself to write what I want to write. NO HUMAN CAN stop me from telling other parents in the congregation if I knew for a fact that one of us was a molester, or to report to the cops. Enough said.
This is an excellent article and thank you for the information. I was enraged when I read this because they have not learned a thing. They are arrogant men who don’t care about children and it is obvious by their policies. I was reading this to my husband (former elder) and he feels that there have to be men at the top with this problem because again they are protecting the abusers instead of the victims. I asked him how he felt about these different letters when he received them and that was one of the many reasons why he stepped down and just recently left the org. I don’t know how these men live with themselves. It should be reported to law enforcement and let them take care of it because these brothers have no training what so ever and they shouldn’t even be trying to deal with it. I will never forget the look on a sisters face, who had three young children, when she found out a so called brother was involved with a teen girl. She was so angry and said she would never allow her children to go into the bathroom alone at the KH, needless to say she left the org. Good for her! Thanks again for your hard work presenting the information and to all of those men and women who have worked so hard to make this disgusting crime against children public. I am thinking of ways I can get this info out to some still in!!
Seems like the Watchtower may have been struck blind . Hebrews 10:30-31
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is aterrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.******
The elders want to be careful, as to whom they are obedient.
Jehovah is not one to be mocked .
I just went over the posts.
I agree with others on this board that there is more here, then meets the eye.This case may be kept open for more to be uncovered.
Jehovah has the upper hand here, where the courts are in session. THE WT ) may be the first to go down, at least that will free THOSE THAT ARE KEPT IN THE DARK , WITH TIME LEFT TO SEE THAT JESUS IS tHE WAY ,THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE >
It appears that a change in qualifications to serving as an elder are in order. When a brother is recommended by the congregation, and the branch sends an approval back, the elders are required to ask the brother several questions before his final “approval”. One of those questions is “Have you ever been involved in the sexual abuse of a child?” The instructions in the letter state that if the brother answers YES to any of the questions, including that one, then his appointment does not get announced and he is not appointed.
From what is stated in this newest set of instructions, a brother who HAS been a child molester in the past CAN serve as an elder. I find this terribly disturbing, as do others, because the proverbial BAR is being lowered.
An extension of your “scenario” could put a brother with a past history of child abuse, now serving as an elder, in a position to look “less harshly” on someone else that may have a liking for children. Sound far-fetched? I’ll bet it doesn’t, all of a sudden…
Cedars, I too read the Letter to the BOE, firsthand, prior to reading your comments. I agree with some of the other readers, that the red flag warnings are ringing rampant, and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the problems with the whole issue, including the obvious deflection of blame, not to mention the attempt to control the brothers, who for the most part, want to do what’s right…
I agree with Ms. Conti’s comments, as I am sure are many other elders who are following this debacle….. any man worth his salt WILL take the RIGHT course of action, even if it means taking a few personal hits in the chin! No “title” or “privilege” is worth covering up, or “not telling” others about the wrongs done to a child.
I for one, will be at the forefront of “telling” other families if one of these miscreants steps foot in our KH, despite any “instructions” given.
Cedars, you and your fellow “mentally disturbed” friends keep up the vigilant fight for our children. :-)
We will do what we can on this side. For any other brothers and sisters in the congregations who are following along silently, watching how all this turns out…… PROTECT OUR CHILDREN, do what it takes, even if it isnt popular or “in the instructions”. BS to that…….. DO WHAT’S RIGHT! Follow your GUT INSTINCTS!
What more can I say? Cedars – you have written an excellent and thorough presentation of this subject unlike any of the rest of us. We can only hope that at some point in the near future that the Watchtower Society’s leaders wake up to the facts and start to act like reasonable and responsible human beings. Are they all that dense? Can seven (now eight) men be so completely out of touch with reality that they can not see that this single issue threatens the very existence of the organization and brings shame upon their god Jehovah’s name and reputation. Is Jehovah powerless to give them proper direction in this matter? Or is he like the false gods of the pagans who were only made of wood and stone? If Jehovah is all powerful and just, how is it that the Watchtower is always on the wrong side of this issue? How many more children will suffer at the hands of evil ones associating with those who only want to serve God and do good? Who really is directing the Governing Body?
Thank you for your concise explanation and understanding of the WT’s recent letter to the Elders.
It seems to me they have some concern, although misguided for the victims ‘inside’ the congregation. But by not involving the secular authorities they seem to have little or no concern for children ‘outside’ the congregation. How do they know if the ‘molester’ is assaulting others not in their midst? They can’t make that determination. Only the proper governmental authorities are in a position to investigate the matter fully.
The 1997 Watchtower states:”Experience has shown that such an adult may well molest other children. True, not every child molester repeats the sin, but many do. And the congregation cannot read hearts to tell who is and who is not liable to molest children again. (Jeremiah 17:9)”
Although the congregation “cannot read hearts to tell who is and who is not liable to molest children again,” (i.e., predators versus non-predators) the Branch Office is nevertheless taking on this function. Here’s a clue: let those trained and experienced in predatory behavior, namely law enforcement personnel, make that call.
I was raised by Jehovahs Witnesses. After paying for me (yes I have the Papers) I was adopted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were not kind to me, just as they were not kind to her daughter from a previous marriage. Her daughter was molested many times by her husband. At the time he was not an elder in the Congregation. There was a lot of turmoil in the family due to his problem. It was overlooked by everyone. When the girl graduated from high school she left home, never to return. She was excommunicated because she chose not to belong to a religion which allowed this to go on. Not long after she left home he started on me. He admitted to it and was never punished. I was punished more than he was. There was physical abuse, mental abuse and sexual abuse. Yes, he went before the other elders and was forgiven because he sought repentance. It was not quite that simple for me. When I left home and chose not to be of their religion, I was the one looked down upon. When people asked where I was they were told horrific lies about me, ie: I was in love with him and I wanted him to leave his wife and marry me. This was done with the intent to make people believe that I was a horrible person so that they would not talk to me or associate with me. That way if I ever came back and said anything they would not believe me. When I lived at home, I was used as a maid, punished for every little thing, molested, beaten so bad that her daughter had to threaten CPS if she ever saw it again. When he died, his witness friends had the audacity to walk over to me and thank me for taking care of his funeral arrangements, and I was told: Why I had no idea that they had children, they raised us kids and we were told they had no children. These people discarded 2 young girls like we were trash. He and his wife left every last thing they owned to their Organization. If J.W.’s are self sufficient and non-denominational, why do they take peoples property in wills? Kind of reminds me of Jim Jones and hundreds of other fakes who talk from both sides of their mouth. I was not allowed to have friends or go places with friends, and when I was, they either sent a friend along with me or I was only allowed to associate with adults who would report back every word that I would say. They are mean cruel twisted people and should not be allowed to make any decisions when it comes to childrens well being. Many years down the road I asked her daughter why she never stayed close to her mother? Her reply was: “She was my real mother, she was supposed to help me and defend me, she knew it, he admitted it and nothing was done.” How sinful to waste a childs life on such garbage and get by with it. These are things we never get past because no one seeks our forgiveness or acknowledges the bad they did to us. We Do Count.
Sarah, I really feel very sorry for what happened to you two girls.
Pls trust in Jehovah because he is just and will not forget to pay sinners what they deserve.
And i know how easy rumors appear heavy for victims of a crime like this.
Hope you con find your balance again…….I pray for you!
October 1, 2012 letter to the Body Of Elders
Paragraph 4:
Most states have child-abuse reporting laws that, depending on the facts, mandate elders to report an accusation to the authorities. Thus, when elders learn of an accusation of child abuse, two elders from their congregation should immediately call the Legal Department for legal advice.
Paragraph 13:
The branch office, not the local body of elders, determines whether an individual who has sexually abused children in the past will be considered a predator.
Paragraph 13:
If the branch office determines that an individual will be considered a predator, parents with minor children will need to be warned of the danger that exists so that they can protect their children. In such a case, and only after receiving direction and instructions from the Service Department, two elders should be assigned to meet with the parents of minor children in order to provide a warning.
Paragraph 15:
Keep in mind that the branch office, not the local body of elders, determines whether one who has sexually abused a child is considered a known child molester.
Paragraph 22:
It cannot be said in every case that one who has sexually abused a child could never qualify for privileges of service in the congregation.
Paragraph 24:
If the elders as a body conclude that one who has sexually abused a child in the distant past may now qualify for privileges, they should assign two elders to call the Service Department.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are now doing what no other religious organization on the planet is doing, warning congregation members if it’s established there is some prior incident of sexual assault. Jehovah’s Witnesses are rising to a very high standard on combating child abuse. Marvin Shimler constantly raved on his blog and forums about this and opposers are still trying incriminate the organization’s response to what’s a social epidemic. Mandatory reporting laws are explicitly mentioned more than once in this letter. This is hard evidence that opposers online are lying, slanderous human beings that care nothing about the protection of children, they simply want to carry on their hate campaign.
The reason for contacting the legal department is simply to prevent a person from being falsely accused. There are slander statutes to consider.
Ryan, like the Society you seem to miss the point I’m afraid. “Mandatory reporting” can be mentioned from beginning to end in this letter if this makes you feel happier, but these words mean nothing if elders are not given the freedom to contact the authorities immediately as soon as an act of child abuse is reported or confessed – which is ALWAYS the best and most responsible course of action whenever a crime is committed. The Society simply wants to be able to keep things “hush hush” in States where mandatory reporting has not yet been legislated, because they do not treat child abuse seriously enough as a crime. It is ALWAYS in the interests of justice to have the authorities judge guilt when a crime is committed rather than a group of untrained elders whose bias is to protect the abuser if the two witness rule has not been satisfied.
I can only repeat: “let the bible judge sin, let the law judge crime” – which part of that slogan do you have a problem with?
Cedars
if you are wise Cedars, you will comprehend what Ryan stated in his comment.
Cedars,
Thank you for exposing the doctrines of men from the WTS. Their letter to the BOE ,Oct, 2012 speaks volumes. And thank you to the elder who provided this document.
The WTS , as usual, continue their blatant and unyielding disregard of innocent children. They are more concerned with the Congregation’s reputation than they are in protecting children. How dare they insist that they are to judge whether or not someone is considered predatory. The Governing Body has continued to make themselves a god.
The WTS should have their heads bowed, hat in hands and showing some kind of remorse, or humility by changing their unfair, unjust and uncompromising “2 Witness Rule”.
Instead, they have decided to firmly dig in their heels and clearly made the stance that they will not yield. The rule STANDS. The WTS continue to be blind men leading their followers off into destruction.
My heart goes out to you. I can’t imagine the horror you went through and it is awful that this org thinks so little of children that they would throw them away like that instead of being a comfort and a protection to them. I have always hated the way they deal with children even the fact that they have no “Sunday Schools” according to their age group, instead of having them sit through adult meetings and taking them out and spanking them when they don’t listen. They have no activities for the youth and they keep them from participating at school functions because of “bad association”! They take away their childhoods by not offering them anything but adult meetings! I should have run after the very first meeting I went to and I sat beside a woman who kept taking her child out and hitting her with an object. The little child was just restless. I hope you are getting the help to overcome the horrors of child abuse. Hang in there Sarah.
“The reason for contacting the legal department is simply to prevent a person from being falsely accused. There are slander statutes to consider.”
Ryan, I call BS on the above statement (just to mention one).
Knife cuts both ways. Slander is also punishable by law and would serve as a deterrent against baselessly accusing people.
Back to Cedar’s point, if the crime was suspected murder instead of a suspected child abuse, would the possibility of a slander be even considered while calling the authorities?
Look in the mirror and answer the question honestly to yourself.
-Yan
Sarah, please know that there are people out here that understand your anguish, and are standing with you… Please accept my condolences for having to live such a hard life… I pray things go better for you as you go along. I can tell you that life does get better the longer you’re out of this lie of a cult that destroys people.
How many decades of sexually abused children and failed WT policy do you need before you get that the system in place does not work? This Organization Inc. has had decades to work through this problem and their chosen method of self preservation and damage control is the same as the Catholic Church has used for decades in order to protect their own reputations over the safty of children. You people remind me of the wind up toys that continually bump into the walls hoping for a different result, just because “SOMEONE” tells you to. Use your common sence, obey the laws outlined by our state and governments to protect our children. Aren’t you people taught that you are “suppose” to obey the laws of the land anyway!!
The above was a reply to Yan Bibiyan. Using slander as an excuse to contact the WT legal department before notifying the police is just an attempt used by Watchtower to hide a pedophile problem “contain” and keep secret.
Some clarification; the legal department is to determine if an elder is a mandated reporter, the branch office makes a determination if a person meets the criteria of a “predator.” The centralized administration is simply to reduce the chances of a mistake being made.
If you do know anything about the recent litigation involving the Watchtower Society, governmental authorities didn’t find Jonathan Kendrick to be a predator. In 1994 he was simply convicted of a misdemeanor with no restrictions placed on his freedoms whatsoever, but a civil court found the Watchtower Society and two elders liable for not determining his propensity for future abuse, nonetheless. Evidently, the standards of Jehovah’s Witnesses have to be higher than that of the federal government. Why do you think this letter has been released? If you probe this latest lawsuit, you’ll see other things that are rather bizarre and a legal premise that rests on falsities, even proven perjury from the plaintiff. That’s why Jehovah’s Witnesses are appealing the case. In the mean time, Jehovah’s Witnesses are meeting the challenge and are going above and beyond any other religion by instructing the elders to visit with parents and issue a warning about a potentially dangerous person in their community.
As for the comparison to murder, there’s no comparison to what we’re dealing with here. That’s much more serious. If you read this letter, you could be dealing with abuse that took place many years ago, even repressed memories. Ninety-nine percent of the time, it’s adults with first hand knowledge, adults that are eyewitnesses, adults that are primarily responsible for making a report to the authorities. The way laws are evolving, states are beginning to abolish any distinction between a “professional” and other adults when it comes to a legal responsibility to report child abuse. That’s the way it should be anyway. The elders are simply laymen that volunteer their time on a limited basis to the congregation. They’re not “professionals.” Unless, an elder is an eyewitness to something, there’s nothing that distinguishes them from other adults when it comes to collaborating with the authorities.
Ryan, you’re evading the points that I’ve made, so if you don’t mind I’ll ignore the smokescreen you’ve thrown up about the Conti case and drag you back on to the points in question:
“In the mean time, Jehovah’s Witnesses are meeting the challenge and are going above and beyond any other religion by instructing the elders to visit with parents and issue a warning about a potentially dangerous person in their community.”
This is a lie. Elders are only instructed to warn parents if the branch, with only second/third hand knowledge of the circumstances, deem the accused a “predator”. Only then can parents be warned, and I have gone into great detail above in describing how this latest adjustment could still lead to a determined molester abusing a child. Perhaps you should read the article again before commenting further?
Ryan, in all seriousness, if you are going to comment on such a sensitive issue, please get your facts in order. Given the severity of this matter I will have to delete any future comments of yours that are unfactual, because I don’t want people researching this topic to be misled. Disagree with me if you want – just make sure that what you say is factual. I’ve put considerable time into researching this topic and made sure that everything I’ve said is true. If you’re going to start arguments with me, the least you can do is make these arguments factual or tell me specifically what I’ve written that is wrong.
“As for the comparison to murder, there’s no comparison to what we’re dealing with here. That’s much more serious.”
Again, you entirely miss the point of the “murderer” illustration. I was not saying that murder is more or less serious than child abuse. I was highlighting the fact that murder is considered a crime by elders so the two witness rule is bypassed entirely if a murder is reported. If the Society truly regarded child abuse as a crime, they would treat it in the same way as a murder and inform the authorities immediately in all cases. This is not unreasonable, this is just the right thing to do.
I can only repeat (since you didn’t answer the question)…
“Let the bible judge sin, let the law judge crime” – which part of that slogan do you have a problem with?
Il go one step further and not only blame the society for their lack of compassion and responsibility and duty towards children but more so the ELDERS! Why you may ask.. Because the elders are in the men in every single congregation with the knowledge that a pedophile is in their midst and maybe serving as elder or a ministerial servant or a publisher and very well aware of the sickening rules the society has imposed on them but still choose to uphold it and put these innocent lives at risk..so PLEASE no compassion for the elders they’re not children or infants not to comprehend the seriousness of child abuse PLEASE PLEASE do NOT feel sorry for the elders!!
Pls consider:
“5. The Legal Department will provide you with legal advice based on the facts and the applicable law. If the individual who is accused of the child abuse is associated with a congregation, please provide the Legal Department with his date of birth and, if applicable, his date of baptism. After a report has been made to the Legal Department, depending on the need, the elders may be directed to contact the Service Department for assistance with questions regarding theocratic or ju-dicial aspects of the case or regarding how to protect children.”
(As mentioned,”the legal department will provide” elders ” with “legal advise based on the facts AND APLICABLE LAW”.)
Considering missing exeprience of most of elders with crimes like this it is a good advise to talk first to experts, even if part of the congregation, and than taking action, of course also to inform authorities, police, prosecutor or anything similar.
The letter to our elders does not say not to inform authorities, AND I KNOW SEVERAL CASES elders HAVE given victims and parents the advise to inform authorities.
So pls take care and do not judge where it is not necessary to judge.
Geronimo – can you give an example of how it might NOT be a good idea to contact the authorities when a child is molested, regardless of the “applicable laws”?
Geronimo – You say and I quote, AND I KNOW SEVERAL CASES elders HAVE given victims and parents the advice to inform the authorites. Sounds like this oranization has a serious Pedophhlie problem and your speacking only about the area you that you live in.
Attorney for Defendant (Watchtower) Robert Schnack said in his closing arguments that Wathtower is stunned by the verdict because this is the “FIRST” time that the Jehovah’s Witnesess have had a case of child abuse, and that we (WT) are not like the Catholic Church. If the Watchtower attorney’s will lie in a court of law then why should I believe what you say Geronimo?
“Again, you entirely miss the point of the “murderer” illustration. I was not saying that murder is more or less serious than child abuse. I was highlighting the fact that murder is considered a crime by elders so the two witness rule is bypassed entirely if a murder is reported. If the Society truly regarded child abuse as a crime, they would treat it in the same way as a murder and inform the authorities immediately in all cases. This is not unreasonable, this is just the right thing to do.”
The “two witness rule” just pertains to whether or not a judicial committee is formed to make a determination whether or not a person may need to be removed from the congregation, it has nothing to do with whether or not a report is made to the authorities. The elders can’t form a judicial committee unless a matter is established. The secular courts aren’t much different. In many jurisdictions, rape, especially sexual abuse of minors, has no statute of limitations, but this doesn’t change the fact that our judicial system adheres to a premise of scientific evidence and testimony based on credible witnesses.
If the elders were to learn of a murder, how do you think they find out about something like that? It obviously wouldn’t be from the victim. It would be from someone who witnessed someone getting shot or stabbed. The eyewitness is undoubtedly the person responsible for informing the police about what they witnessed.
99% of the time, this is the way the elders find out about anything. Other adults tell them things. In the Candace Conti lawsuit, Evelyn Kendrick was a witness to an accusation from her daughter and confession from her husband four months before the elders were told anything.
“Ryan, in all seriousness, if you are going to comment on such a sensitive issue, please get your facts in order. Given the severity of this matter I will have to delete any future comments of yours that are unfactual, because I don’t want people researching this topic to be misled.”
I won’t answer to any bias moderator. I won’t be commenting on your blog again.
I am a moderator who is biased by the facts, and I make no apologies for this. I go to a great deal of time and effort to research my articles, so if anyone wishes to refute anything I have written that is fine, but I expect that they will do so on a factual basis. Your previous post contained atleast one blatant lie about the new “predator” rule, and I don’t see why I should tolerate people on this website who seek to deliberately misinform my readers.
Your latest post describes the two witness rule, and I feel I have made it clear that if the Society wishes to use this to determine sin, that is their decision as a religious organization. What is inexcusable is impeding the intervention of the law enforcement authorities in the mistaken belief that child abuse is first-and-foremost a sin and should be dealt with as such. This is the point I make in this article, and so far you haven’t provided me with a single paragraph or sentence that isn’t factual. If you are going to debate with me, please do so clearly and based on facts – especially on an issue as sensitive as this where some of those reading this article are actual victims of abuse (i.e. Kathleen and Candace Conti) and are therefore understandably emotional about the matter.
I notice there is still no answer to my question: “Let the bible judge sin, let the law judge crime” – which part of that slogan do you have a problem with?
“”If a brother was seen killing someone by a single witness, the body of elders wouldn’t hesitate to phone the police immediately to arrest him – why should a child molester be treated any differently””
Well you cannot pilfer 60 million in “out of court” settlements, and set up the JW org for more massive judgments as part of the financial kill move on the worldwide JW org;
This is part of the overall covert actions being conducted inside the org since awareness of the 1991 globalist UN promotions within the GB;
No one would do things like this without a broader objective, it is surreal now to the point of being absurd like comedic tragedy, and is easily reverse engineered to determine the confidence profit motive and future positioning objective to compromise the JW org in the future, a “coup de grace” attempt – which already has two trended phases on record since 1991 – expect a third strike;
SOON;
By insisting that the Two Witness rule will remain, the WT is saying that Paul’s re-iteration of the Mosaic law is a moral absolute. When the law was made in Moses’ time the primitive conditions under which Israelite justice was carried out, this law may have been an advantage. Two thousand years ago, the separatism between Christianity and the Roman State may also have made this law necessary, but where does Romans 13:1,2 fit in then?
The WT decides for itself how it will limit Paul’s admonition (Romans 13) here to suit its own agenda. Fitted together, the two principles become close to a moral absolute (the Bible doesn’t actually teach moral absolutism) and should be exegetically interpreted alongside all the science and modern policing available today. WT policies show they know nothing about a paedophile’s psychology – to the detriment of the victims.
Frank you said
(WT policies show they know nothing about a pedophile’s psychology – to the detriment of the victims. )****
They really don’t know ,
Wasn’t there a accused pedophile on the governing body, that was found guilty of this very issue ? I think he died last year. I’m sure there was.
That governing body surely was aware of this man being among them, and now have the nerve to they say they have been appointed the faith ful slave.
Faithful to whom.?
Dear susanna,
sorry i do not know which member of the GB you are talking about.
Please tell me more about that.
But: Don’t you think, a heavy sin of a member of the GB does not automatically mean that all of them knowing his sin did not bring this to accusation? How can you claime an accusation like this? Do you have real evidences or are we walking about rumors here?
Imagine the other members of GB realizing the heavy sin of one of them and taking action immediately after disclosure! Do we have to complain about all other members of the GB based on a heavy sin of one of them in that case?
Do you really believe that a person with heavenly appointment still living as imperfect humans are free from any risk connected with “the law of sin” Paul described so properly?
Geronimo, Its all on internet , I would rather you do your own reseach , to make sure of all things, one clue is to look into silentlambs.
as far as the BOE being appointed by Holy spirit, Alans post says it all.:)
Hi Alan, all you clarified is – following my understanding – summarized in Acts 20:28: “Pay attention to YOURSELVES and to all the flock among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers….”.
Considering Acts 14:23, recommendation of men to serve in a responsible position was – and is – done under prayer, but
“…they committed them to Jehovah….”.
Meeting the demands of a ministerial servant or an elder is one thing, keeping these high standards is another thing!
Paul pointed out that “the holy spirit has appointed you…”.
So he made clear that finally Jehova and/or Jesus through Holy spirit allowed some brothers to take over responsibility – to serve “the flock” and to take care for Kingdom interests.
But Paul also said they should “pay attention to YOUR(them-)selves..”, and we all know why.
Alan, if you know about servants not free of heavy sins it is – according to Matthew 18 and 1. Timothy 5:22 in connection with
James 5: 13-15 – also up to you to help them to confess and change….to allow the holy spirit to work with them again.
Anyway – of course authorities should be informed in cases of child abuse/molestation according to Romans 13:4….as I already mentioned before, there is no doubt about this despite it might be the intantion of some “elder men” to kepp things covered.
Don’t do it!
Thank you for your attention.
It is not necessary to give you an example BECAUSE as far as I unerstood new recomandations to elders there is no reason to WAIT for an decision of elders in a congregation before the molested person and/or its parents contact authorities.
When an elder is appointed by holy spirit, all that means is that the bible (which was written under inspiration) was used to set the benchmark for the qualities an elder should show. That is all well and good if the person is totally truthful and open about everything in his life. Sometimes an elder or ministerial servant is harbouring a guilty secret which only comes out later, if at all.
Certainly I new many ministerial servants that were apparantly appointed by holy spirit, and yet they carried on all sorts of immorality that never became known to anyone in authority, and yes I did as well.
The appointments are no different to a boss, who when interviewing a prospective candidate for a job, looks for certain qualities in that candidate. However many people often act a lot differently on interview than in their normal every day working life.
Therefore the organisation should not be surprised when one of their elders or ministerial servants sins badly. Rather than try and cover it up and keep it ‘in house’ they should allow the police to do the job they are trained to do, which is investigate fully the one accused. If the person is cleared then all well and good. Either way it will be a much better investigation than a bunch of untrained elders, who often do not want to bring ‘shame on the organisation’
A;lan your post was right on the mark, so glad you see it as I do.
If a person knows in his heart that he feels he really doesnt meet the qualifications for a responsible position, then let him speak up and say hes not ready yet.
Why greave the spirt because of pride . Jehovah is not one to be mocked.
Well, lets examine every case I’ve ever witnessed personally where a charge was made against an Elder…what is the Society’s standard procedure to humiliate and intimidate the accuser and discourage them from making any challenge legal or otherwise and to build up the accused in the eyes of the congregation? POWER!The old PR game as misusing the platform? That’s right…the very first thing is the ol’ “Put ’em up on the platform” policy as well as “Rape the Sheep and Praise The Wolves!” which will continue for as long as necessary until the accusers give out because the Society can’t be wrong or lose and especially before the Congregation. Has anyone noticed how Elders never seem to get removed or Disfellowshipped? They are not held to the same judicial standard as the lay class (Sheep) and are constantly fed the propaganda from the Society of “Unity” even if it is with wrongdoing/doers…more control! Scarier…
Dear disputant,
yes I HAVE SEEN several cases elders lost their “position” and/or fellowship caused by heavy sins committed by themselves.
In cases of charges against men in responsible positions everything has to be clarified immediately to protect the congregation AND themselves.
I know such cases…..
Well I’m not a disputant I’ve been in and associated with the organization for 30 years and seen pedophiles and criminals etc who have not so take your generic many and post their names and I will be happy to post the cases of some of the many who have not!
Hi Alan, all you clarified is – following my understanding – summarized in Acts 20:28: “Pay attention to YOURSELVES and to all the flock among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers….”.
Considering Acts 14:23, recommendation of men to serve in a responsible position was – and is – done under prayer, but
“…they committed them to Jehovah….”.
Meeting the demands of a ministerial servant or an elder is one thing, keeping these high standards is another thing!
Paul pointed out that “the holy spirit has appointed you…”.
So he made clear that finally Jehova and/or Jesus through Holy spirit allowed some brothers to take over responsibility – to serve “the flock” and to take care for Kingdom interests.
But Paul also said they should “pay attention to YOUR(them-)selves..”, and we all know why.
Alan, if you know about servants not free of heavy sins it is – according to Matthew 18 and 1. Timothy 5:22 in connection with
James 5: 13-15 – also up to you to help them to confess and change….to allow the holy spirit to work with them again.
Anyway – of course authorities should be informed in cases of child abuse/molestation according to Romans 13:4….as I already mentioned before, there is no doubt about this despite it might be the intantion of some “elder men” to kepp things covered.
Don’t do it!