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‘
Hi Anonymous, you are quite right of course when you say I should have tried to get the guilty ministerial servants to confess what they had done to the elders, as Mathew 18 tells us. However in reality that seldom happens in the organistion. Most members do not have the guts to talk to someone direct about a bad course they are following. And as I said before I was engaged in wrongdoing as well, so I could hardly tell one of my peers to confess and stop sinning when I was as bad.
The point I am trying to make is that, being appointed by holy spirit as it is called means nothing. Those individuals are no different to anyone else. They can easily be enticed into sin the same as anyone else in the congregation. However most of them are smarter than the average member and can keep their sin or sins quiet. We see this with the sex abusers in the org. They know the organisation is a great place to get to know and groom youngsters for sex. There are many opportunities which outside the organisation they simply would not get. Door to door work where an individual can ‘help the parents out’ by going on the preaching work with a son or daughter. Visiting families in their homes is another way. Arranging demonstrations for the service meeting with a child is another way. As Bill Bowen rightly said 10 years ago it is a paedophile paradise for anyone who is that way inclined. Things have improved a bit, but still much needs to be done
As long as the Society indoctrinated in Elders this “Doctrine” (root of indoctrinate) that UNITY! is the priority which equates to loyalty “to Jehovah” (which really means liability to WTS) you will deal with this issue! Until each Elder comes to accept the Bible standard that unity with the wrongdoer/doing is sharing with the accountability as well and will render such when due. No matter what fleshly men gave them “instructions” or “directives” since they always had the Bible in their hands! And it screams from start to finish to “Stop touching” and “Remove yourself”, “Get out from among!” and “Don’t associate with” Their own Bible trained conscience should have accused them as well…We each will render an accounting before God and I doubt The Society’s Attorneys will speak then!
Yes, you are right IF reputation is more important than God’s law!
Unity is never in reach as long as heavy sins are covered by responsible persons – it doesn’t matter whether responsible relatives or responsible brothers in WTS.
But I cannot see the doctrine you mentioned because GOD’S word is the only “doctrine” we have.
Hi, Alan, thank you for being that open!
With view to “the guts” I can tell you that I myself know very well what it means to “have the guts”.
But – with view to my sisters and brothers, their spiritual wellfare and my own relation to Jehovah there are enough reasons to force myself to discover things – but allways based on GOD`s advice HOW to do it, e.g. Matthew 18
Yes, I am aware of the problem that our organization CAN be a place for people with wrong sexual tendencies. My wife herself pointed in more than one case out brothers showing more empathy than to e expected to our daughter. I missed these “signs” but checked it and had to admit that my wife was right.
Bu I also have seen people changing their personality by the power of God’s Word coping with wrong sexual tendencies!
And we may not forget compassion and mercy…..
…but we have to take care, that’s a fact!
Geronimo, you seemed to have missed the point. Failure to report criminal offences is in violation of Romans 13:1,2. Simply pleading innocence on the basis of “Oh, we’re just imperfect humans!” is no excuse in the eye of the law. To insist that a second witness be present is to say that this is a perfect law (a moral absolute) and would apply in all circumstances. Science works in partnership with secular authorities to create a “second witness,” which is why the Society should be counselling their elders to seek Caesar’s help rather than rely on “their own understanding.” This is Biblical.
It was claimed that Leo Greenlees was the person in question. There is anecdotal evidence as far as I know with victims claiming to have been abused.
One thing to keep in mind is that suing a dead priest means the person in question cannot defend himself, but as Jimmy Saville (British entertainer) was accused and has apparently undeniable evidence against any claim of innocence means that he is now dishonoured. This means that evidence is evidence.
Chitty and Greenlees were both silently “moved” to Elder positions in other congregations as I was saying?
@ Sarah ~ The fact that you are here reaching out says very clearly that you have not forgotten Jehovah and he has never forgotten you! You have always mattered and you know the indisputable truths that know man’s badness can deny…dejected and outcast people are special to him and I know this first hand and for a fact! Hold on because there are things happening that you are not aware of…
See what I wrote on 8th of October:
“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.
So, dear Frank, in my opinion I did not miss YOUR point but it might be necessary to make a distinction between what the above mentioned letter includes AND what elders might to accept.
By the way – we might understand that Acts 20:28 describes how elders became elders today, but it also might be necessary to accept that these men in responsibility have to make sure that they do what Jehovah wants them to do – there is no reason to cover crimes for reasons of reputation. Jehovah never did so in cases one of his anointed kings did a heavy sin. So woe don’t have to…..
And: tHE WO WITNESS rule cannot be a dogma in any case of sexual crime, everybody knows this.
calm down, be just and trust in Jehovah.
I never did hold me back to do necessary steps in cases of heavy sins in a congregation, steps within the congregation and/or with authorities. Do the same!
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/bowen_william_jehovahsandfreespeech_0602.htm
There’s something…
Most of this thread really seems moot to me. There is NO holy spirit and Jehovah is the figment of the imagination of barbaric men, that’s why he resembles so much imperfect humans, jealous, vengeful, prompt to genocide, slavery, then regrets.
Our sense of morality today is much sharper than back then.
Hence, any “Organization” that claims to represent him, will have the flaws of such ridiculous mythological deity. The WTS only has the authority YOU give it.
As for pedophiles, only trained Police and Judges have the tools to deal with each case – they are trained for it.
All reference to 2,000 year old scripture is not only idiotic, but irresponsible. Put your thinking caps on.
Dear disputant, you’ve choosen the right pseudo!
It is always fun to see how self-confident a person con claim that Jehovah himself and/or the HOLY Bible are simply an “oldish” concept born in human fantasy.
I feel attempted to ask you for the reason(s) being that self-confident. But I do not give in to that temptation – I think it does not make sense.
You see an high-tech product like a CT and you self-confindent claim: ” This is a product of evolution, not a product developed and produced by high-skilled people”!?
Don’t try to argue this is a totally different topic – it is not!
And do not try to explain origin and/or advantage of ethics – you will never find proper arbuments!
Cheerio!
So you ask the questions, and give the assumed answers?
May I answer myself?
Evolution is not in debate here, because it is a fact. The evidence is plethora. Denying it is akin to those that still believe the Earth is still flat (yes, they exist too).
Caution though; I do not not claim that Intelligent life is impossible in the Universe – in fact, I’m starting to think Nature has more a design than we think. So I do not say say god(s) cannot exist (although I find the word “god” loaded). So I’m the contrary to self-confident on all this.
However, Yes – I am convinced, and have written much on this subject, that the Abrahamic god is no less a myth than Thor, Zeus, and Vishnu to name a few. The Biblical stories would be laughable if they were not horrid, and inspired hate and war to it’s readers.
It is ironic that Christians who mock Evolution seem to not see how ridiculous the story of two naked people in a perfect paradise ruined all humanity because of a talking snake! And when I ask for proof of God’s existence, I am asked to look at nature as proof! This is just as asinine than to ask people who don’t believe in Thor to look at thunder and lightning, as if it was obvious proof of Thor’s existence. Reason and logic needs a bit more, don’t you think?
Please look into the Dover Trial to see how complexity does not – at all – prove the existence of a Deity.
As for Konrad, I assume you are talking to me? If so – I have just as much weight and reason to comment here. I was a JW for over 40 years, very active. But I kept on studying hard, deep. I came to the conclusion that the WTS was just a bunch of men with no special power (except that of keeping much of the flock after lying thru their teeth repeatedly).
Granted, saying to another person here “shut your mouth or leave” suggests you are only a 10, maybe 12 years old. In view of that, I will just let it pass for what it is.
Geronimo, also – about the question of ethics, or morality – it may be pointless to invite you to read the works of Sam Harris. What can I say? Can’t force anyone to see the obvious. We are better today than biblical morality. We shun slavery, we celebrate woman’s rights, and we would so anything to stop genocide. More that what the old Jah would do.
Well then you have nothing to worry about do you? If you are wrong However then I suppose the lack of attempt and opposition are a real concern for you…Either way, this would be the wrong place for you so sit back and shut your mouth or leave! This is not your issue any more than posting these same comments on a forum for foot fungus or endometriosis or the issues of unemployed circus performers…(???)
“May I answer myself?” ~ You did!…”But I kept on studying hard, deep. I came to the conclusion” ~ You understand the definition and root? To conclude? Now you move on to other things and by the way, it’s 30 years for me and since I didn’t invite you this makes it spurious and undesired so stop! I don’t believe you anyway or you wouldn’t be here..Next stop for this train is Harassmentville…Whoo! Whoo!
Yes. I conclusion is the results of what you have added up. It by no means the door is not open to further knowledge, that may even chance that conclusion. Who are you to invite me? Are you the administrator – if so – is this how you get rid of difficult questions and opinions? Have I been impolite? No. Never am. I do debate hard when needed – but are you telling me to scram because that the only answer you can give? If so, I will gladly leave this page. Otherwise, I was under the impression that the good Cedars was in charge here. I must have been wrong…
Sorry for the many self correcting typos.!
KtotheRAD, I will ask Cedars if I have been in any way harassing. I’ll let you know of his answer. If I have, I will leave. Sad, I thought I made some points worth answers, instead of showing me the door.
Hi KtotheRAD and Braincleaned. I welcome open discussion on this website, and I understand that things may get a little heated at times. Braincleaned – I feel you have overlooked the fact that this site is predominantly to help JWs and help them to see using their own bibles that their cherished beliefs make little sense in the cold light of day. You may personally hold the bible in contempt – I don’t hold that against you. But please understand that it is difficult to help or reason with JWs without using the bible, and THEIR interests always come first when I am writing my articles. People who are already out of the cult don’t really need my help. People who are still indoctrinated do. KtotheRAD, I understand things got a little heated, but I’m sure you didn’t really want Braincleaned to leave just because of a disagreement. Everyone is welcome here, and we don’t all have to have the same views. It is, however, nice if we are friendly and accommodating wherever possible. I hope that makes sense, and I value the involvement of both of you on this website. Warm regards, Cedars
Thank you Cedars. I apologize KtotheRAD, for having misunderstood the goal of this site. It’s true that I get passionate.
I like the fact that you mention that it is difficult to help or reason with JWs without using the bible. I use that way of reasoning with my family too – Bible in hand. I am still considered a JW (I know – eventually, they will catch up with me)!
I realize I was on the wrong tangent – again, I apologize.
I love this site – the information is stellar. Thank you.
Trying to make a point and no..I don’t have the authority and it’s not my site!
I can appreciate your feelings but when Jehovah has decided that he has heard enough the “crying and wailing” is prepared now to intercede on behalf of the weak and sick who are,have been begging and pleading even from the grave, are you going to tell him no? There is no guarantee that the legal entity “as known” will survive into the New World or ever was intended to. “Twofold accounting”, Watching over your souls with an accounting”, “Judgement begins with the House of God” , cold death dealing injustice and brutality “What is crooked cannot be made straight”
Hi,yes there are indeed many religions that teach wrong things. However in the JW organisation,they too have taught many wrong things. The big difference is that JWs have no choice but to obey what they are told by the imperfect governing body, if they want to stay part of the organisation
You seem to forget the reason the org changes things is because they have no choice. Their understanding of prophesies on the future have all proved totally wrong. 1914, 1925, 1942, 1975, The generation teaching, 1935, and now even the FADS apparantly does not refer to the remnant on earth of the 144000. They are now saying it is just the governing body. These changes are nothing to be proud of. They simply show how those men do not have a clue about the future.
Hi Konrad, every day that Jehovah lets go by means he will have to slaughter another 200,000 people. That is how many are born each day around the earth. Do you think maybe JWs have not got their doctrines completely right?
I get your point but I think you may want to reconsider the figures since that is more likely to be the daily global death rate…
Hi Konrad, I just checked online and the figure is that the actual world population rose by 1.1% in 2011. If you work through those figures it is as I said around 200,000 extra people on earth each day
Okay, I didn’t know for sure…
Geronimo: “And: tHE WO WITNESS rule cannot be a dogma in any case of sexual crime, everybody knows this.”
What on earth can you mean by this? The Candace Conti Case is all about this! Under the First Amendment (some) religion does not consider it the business of government to interfere with their so-called justice system. This is moot when government’s job is to care for it’s citizens. WT was taken to court because they KNOWINGLY withheld vital information from those who DESERVED TO KNOW (re: theocratic war strategy). California law requires MANDATORY reporting of criminal activity, in this case, sexual child abuse (not “alleged child abuse” as the WT put it in their official statement on their site – until recently).
Geronimo: “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.”
By “good advice,” do you mean impartial advice? Just listen to the Matthew Barrie Judicial case (and read the transcripts) to find out how ‘impartial’ such experts are.
Geronimo: “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.”
Several people have seen alien spaceships too. Do you have anything more than hearsay?
And as for elders’ letters. It’s easy closing stable doors.
I wonder who Genesis Matthew is… troll maybe?
In any case, bottom line, the official authorities are trained into making the call if it’s slander or outright pedophilia; the elders are not. The WTS should not impose this choice on the elders – nor trust their judgement on this.
Cedars has it right – Pedophilia, like murder, is a crime. It should not be treated like a sin. It is WAY off the range of just “missing the mark” – as is the meaning of sin.
It’s a CRIME. Period.
Genesis Matthew has been blacklisted. I don’t have time for people who stick up for the blatantly damaging teachings and policies of a human organization without being open to the possibility that these might be wrong and harmful.
If any visitors with JW sympathies would like to genuinely point out any factual errors in any of my articles, my email address is on the “Contact Us” page. If I feel you are genuine, I will respond and make any needed changes. Otherwise, I won’t give trolls a free platform on a website that is designed to help people escape the mental and emotional clutches of a damaging cult.
Also, I simply don’t have the time to argue with people who can’t be bothered to do objective research about their beliefs – especially when the information is freely available online. I’m sorry, I would love to be in a position to exercise more patience and tolerance of such ones, but that’s just how it is.
Cedars
The only answer to this ‘dilemma’ (it’s not, it’s just religious pride in their own ‘righteousness) is from now on that the Watchtower should instruct parents to go FIRST to the authorities and ONLY THEN to report the allegations/incidents to the elder body. Anything less is simply unacceptable; after all, has God’s blessing been evident so far in this issue?
So true. It is totally unacceptable for the organisation to say to the victim or the victims parents, ‘You have every right to report this to the police if you want to, but we will be looking into it ourselves’.
Clearly they should be telling the victim that they should report this to the police immediately as they alone are the ones who can investigate the allegation properly.
Under the present policy, if someone said to me, “How does the WT stand on the issue of child abuse?”‘ we would have to reply, “They abhor it, but they also reserve the right (First Amendment) not only to decide if someone is guilty (judicial committee) but also how a confessed criminal should be punished (removal of theocratic privileges).”
Stating that there will co-operation with state laws means little when the Conti case showed that the Californian mandatory reporting law was not followed.
When the official WT policy states that “anyone who has information of the allegations has the perfect right to report the allegations to the authorities,” would this include the elders who sat on the judicial committee as well?
“They abhor it…”, I have seen no evidence systemically of this or regarding abuse, criminal behavior or violence in general. They abhor accountability to civil authorities and relish their perceived ecclesiastical privileges to avoid having to do that but I can’t speak for individuals, of course…
Unfortunately, organised religion has rarely, if ever seen children and women as little more than collateral. It is pretty obvious then that any damage to a child will come off second-best against the reputation and perceived power of an organisation. That’s just the way it is. However, slowly as a race we’re waking up to the fact that if we allow damage to our young ones, we damage our own futures. Conti’s case could be the ‘Berlin Wall’ the world needs right now.
I understand Cedars. I also, in the past, have wasted precious time with trolls (or hardcore biased defenders of the WTS) of the sort.
Although I have turned to Atheism, I still feel the pain of my over 40 years in the so-called “truth”. Your site really helps – probably more than you think.
A couple of years ago, I survived a serious suicide attempt. If it wasn’t for a good neighbor and the cops that yanked me out of my house and brought me to the hospital, I would be dead. I have so many regrets and guilt that I attempted this, because I have two wonderful kids that I love SO much! I don’t even know how it went down precisely, suffice to say I was dumped from my ex-wife because of my drifting from the WTS, and a year later, my new promised to be, also a JW who knew who I was, decided I was not good for her spirituality. Both have shunned me, although my ex has been very good with open-communication for our children.
Anyway, just saying – keep up the good work. ;)
So sorry to hear about what you have gone through. You must have been so low to attempt that. I’m sure your kids are so pleased you are around for them. Leaving the org can be so difficult. Of course it is made like that to stop as many as possable from leaving. The whole thing about if you leave and then tell someone why you have left, then you could well be disassociated and therefore shunned. It truly is a horrible religion. It took me 25 years to get out of it and start enjoying life again. I am truly pleased you feel you can speak about it now. Good luck for the furure.
Thanks Braincleaned. I had no idea you have been through so much because of your JW experience. I do admire you for putting that behind you and rebuilding your life. I’m glad you find this site helpful. Cedars
Thank you Alan and Cedars!
It has indeed been a struggle to free myself, and I must admit, there are still some bitter back-tastes of it all, albeit very tame at this point. My ex who decided to stay in the cult noted that I am just as passionate for my atheism and ‘apostasy’ as I was when in the “truth”. I was one of those that would pioneer at every occasion, and very into my personal study.
It’s my deep personal study ironically helped make sense of what seemed to be so many conflicting thoughts, both in the Bible and the org.
I’m a internationally published cartoonist (no fame though), and I have a few projects in the works to teach children the beauty of natural selection, and the more complex issue of morality. But now I’m thinking about something that would help exJWs as well.
I realize there are two main reasons for leaving the cult, although at one point some, like me, end up embracing both those reasons:
• The personal conclusion that there is no biblical god, and that science is the best we have to support logic and reason thru evidence.
• Still believing in God, but concluding that the WTS is far from serving his purpose, and are the dangerous cult they are.
In my case, I left for the first reason, still feeling the WTS was sincere in their efforts. THEN, I realized the deception, and the mind-control they sneak onto their followers, being guilty of destroying families and giving pedophiles a free pass to commit further crimes.
I sometimes still overflow with excessive passion in my new found understanding, and I do apologize for having done that even here. I will be more careful. This site is essential to many, and I must remember that not all leave both the org and faith altogether. The real issue is to free ourselves from this horrid cult, that puts on the face of purity like a mask hiding a real dark cult honoring a few American blokes at the top that have self-appointed themselves between Christ and HIS followers. If there is a God, they will have to answer to him – and it will be a blessing to have no part with them.
Hi Braincleaned. On your point 2, Professor Stephen Law in England believes that from the Bible and present conditions we could just as much perceive an ‘evil God’ as we could a ‘good God.’ He believes not that there is such a being, but that each concept cancels out the other and ends up with there being no God.
For me, nowadays I try to be an open-minded agnostic about what I was taught as a JW. I asked the question, “Why does God execute the innocent along with the guilty?” I have been told that I shouldn’t ask that question as no Christian will attempt to find an answer.
For many, the WTS’s present indifference to the security of JW children is an exercise in Old Testament ethics. God ordered the death of Canaanite children – how are we to process such an military order? Why were humans with fragile emotionality and tendency towards racial hatred used to carry out such a deed? In reality a child who has committed no sin bringing forth death, who individually has had no time to decide whether to serve God or not, simply cannot be ‘executed.’ They can only be murdered!
It is only when we understand this, we can understand why modern religious fundamentalism sees children (and often women) as acceptable collateral damage up against the progress of an organisation. After all, religions prefer to think of themselves as collectives and not individuals.
I hope it turns out that the Bible isn’t inerrant. That way, at least I could believe that Israel’s history has not been conveyed correctly and that there is actually a good God we can trust.
So far I’ve drawn a blank.
I understand Frank. You bring up another good point as to the character of God.
I have come to the conclusion that even if I had enough evidence that YHWH exists, and he IS the God of Abraham – I would rather die than serve him. My conscious could not give allegiance to a god of that violent nature, demanding love and even worship.
Difficult subject, I concede.
Actually, Sam Harris is prescient on the subject of modern morality. His book The Moral Landscape makes good reference to that which you speak. Humanism, a non-religious philosophy, is based on minimising as much UNNECESSARY pain as possible and doing only what would only be for the best for mankind. Naturally, this leaves open personal and, obviously, religious, opinion as to what is ‘best’ for mankind. This is where Harris comes up trumps.
As to the WTS, how can they say they have an ‘aggressive’ policy to protect the children of JWs when the official policy honours the ‘two witness’ rule as if it’s a moral-absolute! The ethics are 2,000 (much older in the OT context) years old and should be interpreted, not only within the context of Romans 13:1, 2, but also in light of modern technology and psychology, neither of which are the possession of the WTS.
Absolutely! Sam Harris’ book “The Moral Landscape” blew my mind. One of those I had to go back repeatedly and think about. Great work.
I agree that the WTS is totally off by abiding to an old Law, obviously created in the historical context where women were crap and the massacre of babies was not an issue for god. Also when stoning was the standard for even rebellious teens (sic.)
We have evolved to a much better morality. We understand today that genocide and slavery is plain wrong. Even fundie JWs would agree on slavery and genocide. Ironic that their very conscience is better than that of the god they claim to worship. It is frustrating to hear the copout that He knows better than us. I never understood the logic in that. After all, not once in the whole Bible has even Satan been stated guilty of genocide or ethnic cleansing. Not once is he accused of personally killing even just one baby. YHWH has.
Satan did torture Job, but that was with YHWH’s blessing… since that was the deal – or part of the “bet”.
Troubling questions that got me backing up and leaving the whole thing. These Beliefs have hurt me (and my family) so much.
Thank goodness I discovered the beauty of the scientific method – granted, not perfect – but the best we have to test truth objectively.
I apologize if this sounds a little too bitter to religion in general. Fact is that the WTS does build on the Scriptures – even if ill-interpreted. It stays that the Bible is the source of the 2 witness rule, where even at the time, it could not seriously be expected as valid for a rape or child abuse.
While Harris gets it right as to modern morality, like others, he doesn’t quite grasp that stoning teenagers and sabbath-violators was done within the context of a system that was nomadic and free from prisons and taxes. Practical, granted, but today, such extremism still lives on within a modern context. Likewise, studied closely and within context, slavery to the ancient Israelites would have been the equivalent today of a welfare system.
The major problem is that fundamentalist thinking such as the “child protection policy” of the WTS is that it still reflects even in a residual way, the ancient attitudes of that 3,000 year set of laws.
I believe that modern morality (which appears to transcend Biblical ‘morality’) germinated in The Age of Enlightenment and grew, not BECAUSE of religion, but DESPITE it!
Children rightly hold a special place today BECAUSE we understand they are the future. Damage them and we damage our race.
One day I came across a news photograph by chance online, that, even in the instance I could glance at its gruesomeness, showed the body of (I assume) what looked like a thirteen-year-old girl who had been decapitated. Her body was laid out in a dignified way in a coffin which had what I assume was her grieving mother beside it.
The question occurred to me, not: What did this girl do? but: What COULD this girl do to have deserved this? To my mind, only a religious paradigm could have actioned this situation. I have no idea the circumstances surrounding the picture, but likely it wasn’t a car accident.
I am an agnostic because I can’t give up hope that ultimately there is a good God (I notice you use lower-case ‘g’ here) but, at times, I am flabbergasted how male-dominated organised religion has not been able to exegete the Bible against our modern world!
I hope you don’t give up on a good God too, Brain-cleaned.
Thank you for your interesting comment, Frank. Indeed, millenary old standards were barbaric at best. You also make a good point pointing out the welfare system of slavery.
However, it is important to remember that slavery was not just a system for protection – it was also encouraged by YHWH when invading other peoples – in those cases of sheer intended genocide, God’s people were allowed to take slaves for themselves, and even take women for their own sexual use, in other words, rape. Those legitimate slaves were not different from what we understand the practice to be today. You could even beat to a pulp your slave and get away with it if he/she survived after 3 days. I think it’s fair to state that we are far from a welfare arrangement there.
As for WTS standards, I totally agree with you.
I am open to creative intelligence in the universe. I avoid the word ‘god’ because it is a loaded word. But quantum mechanics is showing us the possibility that design may very well be organized naturally. I would never state that everything is reducible to matter. There is too much we don’t know.
As for the idea of a personal, more religious god – I feel quite strongly that it is very unlikely. He has not offered anyone today evidence of his existence, and all the miracles and supernatural occurrences in the past are just ‘hearsay’ – something unacceptable as hard evidence. They were hearsay even 2,000 years ago, so I feel it reasonable to suspend judgement, at the least, to make an assertion on the existence of such a deity, whatever the religious base.
But magnetism is an honest stand. I’m not sure I would call myself an agnostic atheist, because I have dismissed the possibility of any religious based god. However, I’m more than open to the new scientific paradigms. QM is an exciting science – my guess is that the Universe (and potential for the universe) may very well have an a natural intelligence after all.
I love Bertrand Russell’s words in his 1959 interview – addressing the question of hope hope being a good enough reason to believe:
“Well, there can’t be a practical reason for believing what isn’t true. That’s quite… at least, I rule it out as impossible. Either the thing is true, or it isn’t. If it is true, you should believe it, and if it isn’t, you shouldn’t. And if you can’t find out whether it’s true or whether it isn’t, you should suspend judgment. But you can’t… it seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it’s useful, and not because you think it’s true.”
Sorry for the auto correct – not “magnetism” but “agnosticism”! LOL!
I would never argue with your reasoning about ancient paradigms, Braincleaned. It is precisely because of the way the Canaanites and others who inhabited the ‘Promised Land’ were treated that I make the point that such ancient thinking leaches into the modern religious fundamentalist mind; re: the decapitated girl.
The welfare system was for “God’s People” and converts, not to be enjoyed by “pagans.” You clearly make the point that women and children (virgins, etc) were taken for breeding stock (as the Scriptures depicts it) and perhaps we can see why, like many modern religions, the WTS claims a ‘powerful’ child protection policy while implementing little or nothing that ‘powerfully’ demonstrates this. For instance, it advocates the Confronting your Perpetrator outdated form of justice. How would this work for a 5-year-old, even in the presence of his/her parents? Do the GB not understand anything about trauma?
Your comments on Quantum Mechanics is great too. I have seen film of what appears to be microscopic particles coming from nothing! Of course, not to be forgotten is that “nothing” is relative to what we see. In actual fact is that the origin is energy, the only truly infinite (but invisible) reality in the universe.
Richard Dawkins, often unreasonably maligned by territorial theists, posits that the universe would look quite different if it had a perfectly-loving God as its creator. One Bible-defender even once told me in a blog that we live in “fallen universe”! I though it was only mankind who had “fallen.” Simply throw back to these individuals that long before our sun runs out of hydrogen the human race will long be dead, and see what they say; usually: “God works in mysterious ways.”
Then there’s the matter that the fossil record clearly indicates that 99% of Earth’s species have been made extinct by nature, NOT MANKIND. So, are we dealing with a ‘divine tinkerer’ as Dawkins puts it? At best, Adam and Eve, evidentially were merely allegories. What alternative is there?
The WTS, by their writings show that they go by Divine Command Theory (which posits that whatever God commands is righteous) and believe that the Bible is inerrant. The number of religions mitigates against this and leaves only humanity’s ability to cherry-pick their own patterns that they see within its 66 books. Bart Ehrman, a Christian, turned agnostic wrote a book called God’s Problem: Why the Bible Fails to Answer Why Humans Suffer (or something similar).
One question I have is: why has God employed a purpose (plan) to redeem mankind that has meant the greatest cost to those whom he claims he has perfect love for?
Certainly he does work in mysterious ways.
“The God Delusion”, from Dawkins is definitely a book that got me coming out as an atheist – that and “God is not Great” from Hitchens. Plus a few more. I also love the clear reasoning in Sam Harris’ “A Letter to a Christian Nation” – powerful stuff.
But if God should indeed exist, it would be wonderful if he was indeed “Love” instead of this barbaric despot that ‘demands’ love and worship! (How can Love be forced?).
You may enjoy the following video (and all of QualiaSoup’s good work). It’s an exercise in logical thinking. Quite a good argument, I would say.
As to your question – like you – I would love an answer. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&list=PL85F1EE32A438AEB8