[All unattributed references in this document is following the format (P. n par. n.n) refer to the WT Submissions document under discussion.]
The Senior Counsel Assisting the Australia Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recently released its findings to the court. (Click here for Findings document.) In short order, the Counsel for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia & Others issued its responses to those findings. (Click here for WT Submissions document.) The WT has disagreed in whole or in part with the majority of the findings of Senior Counsel Assisting.
There is so much testimony and evidence to wade through that the task may seem too daunting. Each side is righteous in its own eyes and the arguments made may appear to be valid when viewed on their own. Trying to determine where the truth lies can seem overwhelming.
Most of us, myself included, have been so caught up with the stunning revelations that have resulted from the Commission’s investigation that we’ve fallen prey to the old adage of not seeing the forest for the trees. As fascinating and revealing as it might be, the issue shouldn’t be how well or poorly the WT Society is defending itself. The real question should be: What are they defending?
What rights are they fighting for? And why are they fighting for them?
A Look at the Forest
Regarding legal disputes, our Lord Jesus gave us this advice:
“Why do YOU not judge also for yourselves what is righteous? 58 For example, when you are going with your adversary at law to a ruler, get to work, while on the way, to rid yourself of the dispute with him, that he may never hale you before the judge, and the judge deliver you to the court officer, and the court officer throw you into prison. 59 I tell you, You will certainly not get out from there until you pay over the last small coin of very little value.”” (Lu 12:57-59)
His point is that true Christians do not need a secular judge tell them what is righteous. God’s word and the holy spirit are all we need to know right from wrong. In this instance, our “adversary at law” is the Royal Commission. How can we apply Jesus’ counsel in this case?
Another principle that comes into play is that given by Peter when facing the highest court in his land, the Jewish Sanhedrin. He said, “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)
So suing for peace is conditional on not transgressing the law of God. Our obedience to God is the only absolute obedience. All others are relative. Nevertheless, we obey the governments, the superior authorities, because Jehovah tells us to.
“Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. 3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience.” (Ro 13:1-5)
Let’s recap:
- Our Bible-trained sense of righteousness should make it unnecessary for us to use Caesar’s courts to settle disputes.
- We must obey the laws of the land in which we live unless they conflict with God’s laws.
- Opposing the secular authorities when they do not conflict with God’s laws amounts to taking a stand against Jehovah.
- God has appointed them to minister to (serve) us for our good.
- Our subjection to them is due to a well-trained conscience that recognizes right from wrong.
What is clear from a reading of Romans 13:1-5 together with the reasoning of Jesus found at Luke 12:57-59 is that our cooperation with the superior authorities is proactive. We do what is right because our conscience tells us what is right. We comply with laws willingly not begrudgingly. We do not obey because we are obliged to obey. We obey because we want to obey and the reason we want to obey is because we are righteous. That same righteousness is the reason that we do not obey when a law of the land conflicts with a law of God. Only then, do we disobey because only then is it righteous to disobey.
Given this, we must again ask: Why does the Watchtower work so hard to counter all the pivotal findings of the Court? If the only basis for disobeying Caesar is a conflict with one of Jehovah’s laws, then what law of God is the Commission asking us to break?
How would complying with the court’s findings amount to disobedience to God?
What the Court Is Asking
To answer that question, we need to distill down from all the testimony and evidence, the key elements defining the direction of the Commission. What the commission appears to be asking is that we:
- Report all known crimes of child sexual abuse within our membership.
- Report all credible allegations of child sexual abuse.
- Report promptly so as not to compromise the gathering of evidence.
- Do not add to the abuse which victims suffer by shunning those who choose to no longer associate with us.
- Facilitate reporting and the determination of guilt by utilizing qualified sisters in the investigation process and possibly the judgment process.
- Revisit the two-witness rule based on the application of Deut. 22:23-27.
What Is the Watchtower Society Defending?
In its opening submission, the Watchtower states:
“Jehovah’s Witnesses do not condone or cover up the abhorrent sin and crime of child sexual abuse.” (p. 5 par. 1.1)
By our own admission, we show that we consider it unrighteous to condone or cover up the sin and crime of child sexual abuse. We are therefore claiming that Jesus' words at Luke 12:57 apply to us as an organization. The Organization is able to “judge righteousness for [itself].” We know that covering up child abuse is unrighteous.
As to whether we are complying with Paul’s direction concerning the “superior authorities” at Romans 13:1-5, the WT Submissions document has this to say:
“Jehovahs’ Witnesses…are law-abiding citizens of the counties in which they live.” (p. 7 par. 3.3a)
Additionally, we state:
“…it would be wrong to conclude that the religious principles, procedures and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses applied in dealing with matters of sin within their congregations were intended to supplant the criminal law or to provide an alternative system for dealing with criminal conduct.” (p. 7 par. 3.3b
From this we can see that we do not take a position to “oppose the authority [of the government] thus taking a stand against the arrangement of God.” (Romans 13:2)
Just as is the case for individuals, so it must be for the Organization representing those individuals. If Jesus tells us to settle matters out of a sense of righteousness before they even get to court, and if Paul tells us to be ready to obey the superior authorities because our conscience tells us to, there can be only one acceptable reason for not readily complying with Caesar: Caesar must be asking us to disobey Jehovah. Is that the case?
What Is Jehovah Telling Us to Do?
The law of Australia already requires citizens to report crimes.
316 Concealing serious indictable offence
(1) If a person has committed a serious indictable offence and another person who knows or believes that the offence has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the Police Force or other appropriate authority, that other person is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.
So what objection do we have to reporting known incidents of child sexual abuse within our ranks? What is our Scriptural basis for arguing against enforcement of this law as we do on page 25 of the Submissions document?
Of the 1006 documented cases in Australia, hundreds were judged by the elders as actual incidents (i.e., actual crimes) of child sexual abuse. The Legal Desk is informed of all such cases so Society lawyers, who are Officers of the Court, knew and yet failed to comply with this law. Why?
These men were working under the direction of the Governing Body. They are foremost, those “taking the lead” among us whose conduct we are to watch so as to imitate their faith. (He 13:7) So the example set by those taking the lead is to not report, to disobey the superior authority when there is no issue of integrity involved. Again, why?
Is it because we feel the requirement to report is unreasonable? Is it because we feel that it is better to leave it up to the discretion of the victim or his/her parents—as stated in the WT Submissions document?
“…The approach taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses is that the decision whether or not to report belongs to the victim and his/her parents, rather than the congregation.” (p. 86 par. 9.295)
Since when are we allowed to disobey a law because we think it isn’t reasonable? I may feel that a speed limit of 30 miles per hour on an isolated stretch of road is unreasonable, but will that get me out of a speeding ticket? If the government restricts public assembly after 7 PM, will not the Organization instruct us to change our meeting times to comply, or will they tell us to disobey because an earlier meeting time is inconvenient and therefore unreasonable? Does Romans 13:1-5 have an escape clause wherein we don’t have to obey the superior authorities because we think they’re being unreasonable?
Our position becomes even more untenable when we realize we are practicing the very thing we are objecting to.
In the congregation, we are taught that, should we be aware of a sin, we are to report it to the elders.
Should not the desire to keep the congregation clean move us to report any knowledge of gross immorality to Christian elders? (w04 8/1 p. 27 par. 4)
The fact that we are to report “any knowledge” indicates that we don’t have to be sure a sin has been committed, but only that we have seen what appears to be a sin. For example, being aware a brother has stayed overnight alone with a sister is cause for a report to the elders. (See w85 11/15 “Do Not Share in the Sins of Others”, p. 19 pars. 8-21)
We view this as the Bible’s standard of justice. We are taught that we are acting morally when we follow this direction. Based on the November 15, 1985 Watchtower, if you knew of a case of child abuse, and yet failed to report it to the elders, you would be considered as having a share in the sin, and of covering it up. There would likely be disciplinary action, especially if you held a position of oversight in the congregation. If you said that you thought the requirement was unreasonable and that you felt that it should be left up to the victim to report, you’d be accused of rebelling against the direction of the Faithful and Discreet Slave.
In light of this, our position before the Royal Commission is completely indefensible. What it demonstrates is that we have one moral code for ourselves and another for infidels—literally, those outside the faith. We acknowledge the legitimacy of the Royal Commission’s argument by enforcing it within the congregation and make it part of our internal law, but when asked to apply the same standard outside the congregation, we have another law.
Applying Acts 5:29
At this point, we should pause for fear we again get lost in the trees and forget about the forest itself.
Let us assume that every finding of the Royal Commission is unreasonable. Does that give us as Christians the right to ignore them and disobey? We have already established from Romans 13:1-5 that we are to obey the governments which Jehovah has put in place as his ministers. The only basis for disobedience is the principle found at Acts 5:29. Therefore, would compliance with any of the courts findings violate that principle?
- Report all known crimes of child sexual abuse within our membership.
- Report all reasonable allegations of child sexual abuse.
- Report promptly so as not to compromise the gathering of evidence.
- Do not add to the abuse which victims suffer by shunning those who disassociate.
- Facilitate reporting and the determination of guilt by utilizing qualified sisters in the investigation process and possibly the judgment process.
- Revisit the two-witness rule based on the application of Deut. 22:23-27
Point 1: In Australia, the law makes it mandatory to report the crime of child abuse, so Romans 13:1-5 requires us to obey.
Point 2: The same law requires one to report if one believes a criminal offense has been committed, so again the Bible requires us to act.
Point 3: There is no Bible law which allows us to hinder a police investigation by compromising evidence or testimony, so again, why would our sense of right and wrong not move us to cooperate?
Point 4: Love should move us to do this. Love trumps rules every time. There is no Scriptural basis for the Organization’s practice of shunning (disfellowshipping = disassociation = shunning) a person as it would an apostate for merely resigning from the Organization. A person who resigns may continue to believe in Jesus and worship Jehovah, but merely wants no official membership in the Organization, so 2 John 10, 11 simply does not apply.
Point 5: There is no Bible injunction prohibiting sisters from acting in these roles. Deborah, a woman, was a judge of all Israel. (Judges 4:4)
Point 6: Why do we apply the two-witness rule as stated in the law to Israel, but ignore the mitigating Israelite law that is found at Deut. 22:23-27? No Scriptural reasoning was presented during the hearing nor in the Submissions document. Our reasoning seems to be we do this because this is what we do.
Intentions Manifested
Christians are to be holy, set apart from the world and its practices. Duplicity is not a quality that identifies a heart filled with holy spirit.
Revisiting the Watchtower’s objection to finding F53 of Senior Counsel that “…it is the policy or practice of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation not to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police…,” we can see how duplicity that borders on a lie is evident in the WT response which states: “…Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have such a policy or practice. The approach taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses is that the decision whether or not to report belongs to the victim and his/her parents, rather than the congregation.” (p. 86 par. 9.295)
Note that Senior Counsel is careful to specify that the policy or practice in question is not of Jehovah’s Witnesses (the members or individuals) but of the “Jehovah’s Witness organization.” Yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses are allowed to report child abuse, or any other crime for that matter, but the Organization never has reported it, not even once in 1006 incidents.
So if the Organization does not have either a policy or practice of not reporting, how can they explain a perfect record of “not reporting” for over 65 years?
Such a duplicitous statement is intended for the worldwide brotherhood more than the court which will not be fooled by it.
“The Commission’s report will be read by many…around the world as it would seem to be both the largest and most thorough inquiry of its type anywhere in the world. Its views will no doubt influence future generations of Australian legislators and others.” (p. 31 par. 8.2)
The “others” are bound to include many of the eight million Jehovah’s Witnesses around the globe. Knowing this, the Organization is engaging in a process whereby they can appear to be innocent, and thereby claim persecution if and when the ruling does not go in their favor.
Most Witnesses reading the Submissions document will not notice the duplicitous or misleading nature of much of the Watchtower’s reasoning.
Take for example, the statements contradicting Senior Counsel’s finding (F70) that “The Jehovah’s Witness organization’s policy [of shunning]…is adopted and enforced in order to prevent people from leaving the organisation and thereby to maintain its membership.”
The Watchtower Submission is, in part, “it is not true as a matter of fact – Jehovah’s Witnesses are a voluntary faith-based organization that persons are free to join and leave” and “it is an unfounded, unfair and unnecessary attack upon a voluntary faith-based organization….” (p. 105 par. 9.384)
Most of the brothers will blindly buy into this falsehood. However, we know this to be untrue. Or is it that we on this site maintain our anonymity because we are suffering from delusional paranoia?
It is evident that the groundwork is being laid for the Society to claim that they are law-abiding citizens who are being punished and persecuted due to misrepresentations made by opposers.
What Are They Fighting For?
“If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.”” (Joh 18:36)
“...and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”” (John 11:48)
If the Governing Body had directed the Australia Branch to follow Jesus’ counsel at Luke 12:57-59, could not all of this have been avoided? If the branch office had submitted to the Commission a document stating that the policy had been adjusted so that now each and every allegation of child abuse would be promptly reported to the relevant authorities in accordance with the law, think of the positive press that would have resulted. They would have taken the wind out of the Royal Commission’s sails.
Why fight so doggedly for the right to not report a crime?
It makes no sense if we think that is what they are fighting for. Apparently, something more fundamental is at work here. It would appear there are two intertwined factors at play: They are fighting for their own self-preservation and the right for self-determination.
Our Governing Body rules over a vast nation.
“Jehovah’s Witnesses have increased in number to the point that they outnumber the population of scores of individual nations.” (jv chap. 17 p. 278 Conventions Proof of Our Brotherhood)
Our nation numbers 8 million. Now another nation of 23 million is seeking to impose its laws on us. It has even had the effrontery to use our own law book to try to change our laws. To this we strongly object.
“To the extent that there was debate about whether Jehovah’s Witnesses views or interpretation of Scripture was wrong, such debate went beyond what was necessary, and will, in our view, not ultimately prove to be helpful to the commission.” (P. 12 par. 3.22)
“… In the absence of evidence one way or the other, the choice of the gender of the persons involved in the decision-making process is an aspect of the free exercise of religion, which means that a person is entitled to believe and act in accordance with their beliefs, even if those beliefs mean the congregation elders (men) determine the sinner’s guilt.” (P. 12 par. 3.23)
“Jehovah’s Witnesses consider that the requirement for two witnesses is not a matter for debate as it is based on scriptural requirements found in the Mosaic Law and reiterated by Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul.” (P. 21 par. 5.18)
“The outcome of an investigation into the causes of child sexual abuse and into institutional responses to the same need not, nor should it, depend upon whether a person’s interpretation of a particular passage in Scripture is correct or not. The interpretation, right or wrong, is what it is. The correctness of scriptural interpretation is not within the terms of reference of this commission.” (P. 13 par. 3.24)
All this reasoning is valid only—ONLY—if it is based on Scripture; that is, if the authority truly comes from Jehovah God. The average Jehovah's Witness believes that the dictates coming from the Governing Body are truly from Jehovah. I have actually heard of Jehovah's Witnesses supporting the claim that we should only use the new grey Bible – the silver sword as it is called – because it is the only translation that is "from Jehovah".
What then would happen if the Governing Body were to accept, without a fight, the reasoning of the Royal Commission? Might it undercut the faith of 8 million Jehovah's Witnesses to know that the Governing Body willingly allowed itself to be corrected by a secular court? Suddenly brother Geoffrey Jackson's words make sense when he said that the court would be 'doing them a favor' by making it mandatory to report all allegations of child sexual abuse. In such a case, the Governing Body could still claim they were right all along. They would be merely complying because they are obeying God's command to submit to the superior authorities. That is a scenario that they can sell to the rank and file. But acknowledging that they were wrong, acknowledging that the position on shunning, or the two-witness rule, or the role of women in these proceedings should change, as the Royal Commission requests, is tantamount to admitting that the Governing Body does not have divine direction.
That would simply never do.
Evidently, the Governing Body views this as a challenge to its authority to govern its own mighty nation. This is very much an issue of sovereignty; but it is not the sovereignty of God, it is the sovereignty of men. If the Governing Body does not fight tooth and nail on every point, they could be seen as admitting that the Royal commission has a valid case. Further, should the Governing Body concede to any of the Commission's recommendations, they would be admitting that a secular authority knew better than they who speak for Jehovah himself. Can you imagine the backlash?
Their best course of action, they apparently feel, is to stand fast, stubbornly contesting every point, even to the point of antagonizing the court. Indeed, should they anger the court sufficiently that it act harshly toward them, it will only strengthen their position with the rank and file of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Setting the Stage for Persecution
It would appear the Governing Body through its counsel has already started to lay the foundation to turn an adverse judgment to their favor.
“The High Court of Australia has often emphasized the need to protect minorities from the misuse of power. Unpopular views do not necessarily equate to unlawful or illegal conduct.” (P.9 par. 3.10)
Given the kindly, even imploring, manner that his Honor has used in addressing the various representatives of the Watchtower Society, the mere suggestion of a misuse of power seems out of place and unnecessarily provocative. Nevertheless, that is likely to be the way an unfavorable verdict from the Royal Commission will be presented to the faithful. It will be painted as an encroachment on religious freedom and just further evidence that we are Jehovah's chosen people because we are once again enduring persecution from the world.
It shall be interesting to stand on the sidelines and watch how this all plays out.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-12 19:07:38
Actually Roman 16:1-2 also talks about a woman named Phoebe who is a Minister or Greek word use Deacon in the Church. The Apostle Paul wrote Romans. Some more evidence a sister can possibly used in a judicial capacity. One other point, at one point during the hearings, The GB Member was asked if they were the sole channel for spiritual food on earth. The response was rather eye opening "That would be presumptuous for us to make this statement". Any Witness should examine this statement seriously, because this is not what is taught in all of the publications. Or to put it another way, if a JW were to make this statement of their own, I am sure they would be label an apostate.
Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-12 19:53:06
One of the things that struck me about these proceedings (after I picked up my jaw off the floor, that is) was how WT unquestionably lied under oath. The realization that this actually took place, and that being a matter of public record it is undeniable, I finding both stunning and shocking.
Here we have the WT saying to the court that the passage in Deuteronomy 22 does not override the "two witness rule" because "the circumstances are a witness". That is, WT asserted that in Deuteronomy, the circumstantial evidence would effectively act as a second witness. In theory, while discussing theological interpretations, this sounds great. In practice, it doesn't work that way at all.
How do we know? From the Royal Commission hearings, we know that one of the victims was being abused by her father. Was this a mere matter of hearsay - a one-witness-only case that regrettably could not be reported? No. Not only did the victim come forward, but SO DID the victim's two younger sisters that were also being abused, AND the victim's mother. And, if that were not enough, the father HIMSELF as the perpetrator CONFESSED to the elders. SO, WAS THAT ENOUGH TO PROMPT THE ELDERS TO REPORT THIS, WHEN THEY HAD NOT ONE WITNESS, BUT FIVE? NO!
There is only one way I can think of to describe this: It's despicable. Even when they have multiple witnesses, all they know how to do is cover it up. And for WT to get on the stand and testify under oath that they don't, when the facts show otherwise, makes them both lawbreakers and liars, and they are enabling these immoral predators to destroy innocent lives just to protect their own names, reputations and positions of authority, no matter who gets hurt.
THIS is the religion you defend (I say this rhetorically, to those that still do) ? THIS is the organization you won't leave? Why?
By the way, Meleti, I appreciated how you noted, "mere suggestion of a misuse of power seems out of place and unnecessarily provocative. "
Angus Stewart, Senior Counsel for the Australian government, struck me as being extraordinarily polite and respectful. I listened to and read much of these proceedings (though not all). Mr. Stewart could hardly be painted as being abusive, except in the mind of another lawyer determined to find a controversy in Mr. Stewart's demeanor when none existed. If anything, Mr. Stewart's questioning was calm and well-considered, and he demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of Watchtower procedures, practices and terminology that was both detailed and very accurate.
Where is the abuse of authority, except in the minds of WT? Is it abusive because the Australian government had the audacity to actually ASK QUESTIONS of WT officials, and expected them to answer honestly, without evasiveness? IMHO, audacity is when a person holds themselves up on a pedestal as the sole channel of communication from God, as a "mature elder", as "qualified to teach", as a person taking the lead over millions of followers, and then reply to nearly every question with "I don't know", "It's not my area of expertise", "I don't remember", "I don't handle such matters", "I am not certain but that is my understanding", etc. or similar responses that don't answer the question, or are so vague they are without meaning and useless.
Tell me, how does one get to hold a position of such vast power and influence over millions of people and be so utterly incompetent? In a worldly organization, such a person would have been fired on the spot long ago. Too bad they are not similarly held accountable.
So, some people think that the WT is facing, or is going to face, "persecution" from the fallout of the Royal Commission? And we are supposed to feel sorry for them or something? Balderdash.
Consider 1 Peter 2:18-20: "Let house servants be in subjection to their owners with all due fear, not only to the good and reasonable, but also to those hard to please [like, for instance, the Royal Commission]. For if someone, because of conscience toward God, bears up under grievous things and suffers unjustly, this is an agreeable thing. For what merit is there in it if, when YOU are sinning and being slapped [or in the case of WT, you are held accountable by the government for your organizational mismanagement], YOU endure it? But if, when YOU are doing good and YOU suffer, YOU endure it, this is a thing agreeable with God."
Persecution? Nonsense. If they are now getting their organization placed under a microscope and are chafing at the ordeal, it is simply them getting their just reward - one of harsh scrutiny - since the greater responsibility one has, the more will be expected of them. I think I read that somewhere ...
Comment by Humiliore on 2015-12-12 20:35:56
Excellent article, but let us not forget the hundreds of young lives ruined by abusers, and that untold suffering has taken place to get us to this point.
In typical watchtower form, preserving their reputation takes precedence over solving the actual problem.
If the humility to make meaningful change cannot be mustered, they earned every ounce of legal punishment they get.
Comment by Beverly on 2015-12-12 21:16:52
Meleti, I thank you for your courageous coverage of this article.
It is sad that fear of men may keep many of JWs from ever reading the transcript. When I was an active JW, I did not read such "Worldly" things due to fear of becoming possessed by demons or being tricked and led off into apostasy but mainly, because we were instructed not to.
Even if they do read it, I have no doubt many may not even notice such small details as Geoffrey Jackson's assertion that the GB only "hopes to be Jesus disciples" and that "they are not God's only spokesman on earth." "14.... When asked if the Governing Body members saw themselves as disciples of Jesus, Mr Jackson did not answer in the affirmative but told the Royal Commission that the members of the Governing Body ‘hope to be [Jesus’s] disciples’. (fn 20) 15 Similarly, when asked if the Governing Body members saw themselves as ‘Jehovah God’s spokespeople on earth’, Mr Jackson did not answer, instead telling the Royal Commission that it ‘would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using’." Page 11, items 14 and 15 of the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Sexual Abuse.
That statement is far different from the GB's own claims and surely must shock even the most hardcore members of JW.
I do pray that some of Jehovah's Witnesses even if only one, will get a glimpse of the truth about the truth and will open their hearts to hear Our Saviour Jesus calling out to them; and, that they beg Jesus to send them the Comfort of Holy Spirit. John 14:26 " But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." NIV
Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-12 22:05:32
We could just admit we were wrong and want to take on board suggestions from the Commission. What's that? Not gonna happen? Guess I will just have to stock up on popcorn and enjoy the show then :-)
Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-12-13 12:24:52
I've met a few brothers over the years who couldn't figure out that the respect and cooperation they received would increase if they were to humbly admit they made a mistake. They seemed to feel that their leadership would best prosper behind a boldly inerrant façade. Seems the GB has a firm grasp on the wrong end of the humility stick.
Comment by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-13 07:42:48
Thank you Meleti for devoting much time to providing this overview. It is a labor of love. Reading through mounds of paperwork is tiring and we may sometimes lose sight of the ball. Having the forest pointed out to us in the painting before diving in helps us focus, so that we do not miss seeing the elephant in the room.
I have many thoughts to share but want to point out only one initially, namely, the statement of Geoffry Jackson made when under oath. His response is in direct conflict with the official position provided in our publications. We each need to memorialize his response and hang the note on our refrigerator, it may at some point prove highly beneficial.
His statement was in response to the question of Angus Stewart: "Do you see yourselves [the Governing Body] as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?"
Bro Jackson's response: "Ah, that I think would seem to be quite presumptuous, to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using."
His response directly contradicts our official position:
"All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the 'greatly diversified wisdom of God' can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave." (wt 10/1/94 p.8)
When there is suspicion (by elders) that a brother (or sister) may be leaning toward apostasy a meeting will be arranged. The opening question will likely be: "Do you believe the faithful and discreet slave (Governing Body) is the exclusive channel God is using today to direct his organization?"
This is the "checkmate" question for elders and CO's. If one answers no, he is apostate, close the books. Bro Jackson's recent statement now provides a tactical response to effectively move out of check. Thanks to the probing of the Royal Commission we can now respond as follows:
"I believe it would seem quite presumptuous to say that the Governing Body is the only spokesperson that God is using."
When the elders close their notebooks and charge you with apostasy, we can advise that our response precisely mirrors the words of Bro Jackson, an active member of the faithful and discreet slave. They will be shocked.
We can then ask the elders: "On what basis are you charging me with apostasy when I am merely repeating the words of Bro Jackson? Must you not also make the same charge against him?"
We can then ask the elders if they feel that Bro Jackson was directed by God's spirit when he responded as he did? Their eyes will look like deer in the headlights. We can then quote Bro Jackson's further comment:
"The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregation."
In remaining within the context of the question of Mr. Stewart, and bearing in mind that Bro Jackson is answering honestly under oath, Bro Jackson believes that others (outside of the faithful and discreet slave) can act as God's spokespersons in the congregation.
I would then respectfully move to adjourn the meeting, stating that we should all wait on Jehovah and for the Governing Body to sort this out with Bro Jackson before jumping to any conclusions. Perhaps there is "new light" on the way!
Phileo,
SopaterReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-13 09:28:01
Excellent Sopater,
Rather than the checkmate they are expecting, they will end up with a draw.Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-13 10:49:43
Meleti,
I agree it would be a draw. In such case, it would be interesting to see what happened if one drafted a simple letter quoting Bro Jackson's comments under oath (and nothing more) and signed it in agreement with his position.
Elders (and the CO) would have to consult with the service desk for direction. Here we have a member of the faithful slave going on record stating that "others" in the congregation are used as spokespersons of God. Push would no doubt come to shove in time, and the service desk order the brother be DF'd under the charge of apostasy.
My what a ugly can of worms they would open.
SopaterReply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-13 11:40:17
This is an awesome idea. PLEASE, someone out there, try doing it. If they had the audacity to DF someone who did that, they should go straight to the media and say, "WT expelled me for agreeing with their leaders". That would make some interesting press.
Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-12-13 12:12:30
I notice you're not volunteering:)
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-13 13:41:06
Can't really go back and resign from a job you already quit :-)
Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-13 14:43:15
TRA,
I think someone will try it soon enough. If they're among us, they can tell us how it played out. For the person considering DA, it could prove very interesting to throw this curve ball before jumping off the Titanic.
Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-12-13 12:14:43
Don't you guys mean "stalemate"? Or did you shift from chess to poker because the stakes are so high?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-13 13:30:17
Actually, a stalemate is a type of draw in chess. It is "a position counting as a draw, in which a player is not in check but cannot move except into check." I've saved my bacon more than once by working a lost position into a stalemate by maneuvering my king to a square that is safe but from which he cannot move without being in mate. Here are some examples. Draws in chess can also result from repeating the same position three times or most often because both sides agree that there is no winable position. For example, one side is left with a king and the other with a king and a knight or a bishop. And that is probably a lot more than you wanted to know about chess today.
Reply by Sheryl Jeanne Bogolin on 2018-11-10 19:02:18
Loved the reasoning! It actually made me laugh.
Comment by The Way on 2015-12-13 08:48:57
Following scriptures came to my mind regarding the 'fatherless boy.'
We can very well substitute the proverbial 'fatherless boy' of ancient times with '(sexually) abused child' in modern times.
(Psalm 82:3, 4)
Be judges for the lowly one and the fatherless boy [and the abused child].
To the afflicted one and the one of little means do justice.
Provide escape for the lowly one and the poor one;
Out of the hand of the wicked ones [like sexual predators] deliver them.
(Isaiah 1:17, 23)
Learn to do good; search for justice; set right the oppressor; render judgment for the fatherless boy; plead the cause of the widow.
. . . For a fatherless boy they do not render judgment; and even the legal case of a widow does not get admittance to them.
(Jeremiah 5:28)
No legal case have they pleaded, even the legal case of the fatherless boy [or the abused child], that they may gain success; and the judgment of the poor ones they have not taken up.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-13 09:26:55
Excellent Scriptures, especially since the Society loves to quote from the Hebrew Scriptures to set standards for Christians.
Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-13 14:41:58
As Meleti noted, these documents are very detailed, tedious and long-winded. However, I have to say, reading the words of the WT lawyers in their Submission document is downright creepy. I feel like I need a shower after reading it.
Here are a couple of relevant passages I found of interest:
Pg. 9: "3.10 The High Court of Australia has often emphasised the need to protect minorities from the misuse of power.8 Unpopular views do not necessarily equate to unlawful or illegal conduct. From an uninformed point of view, it is easy to say that a crime should always be reported to the authorities, but the legal system is not that simple. A number of factors may be involved, for example: What does the law require? What does the victim or his/her parents want to be done about the matter? What is the morally right thing to do? What do the Scriptures say about the matter? Ignoring any of these questions oversimplifies relevant considerations and results in positing a simplistic, untenable solution."
Pg. 11: "3.17 In the universe of religious discourse, belief and reality are two central distinctions that it is important to observe. A person is entitled to have a belief in the existence of a thing or an event even if someone else does not share that belief. Our laws proceed upon the assumption that, for the most part, a person is entitled to have his/her beliefs respected even if those beliefs do not apparently conform with that which is perceived to be someone else’s “reality”. 3.18 The fact that not all share the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses (such as the belief in the existence of God and that the Bible is the Word of God) does not mean that the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong, misguided, or unworthy of respect. Whether they are approved by secular authorities is a different question, involving different considerations."
Pg. 13: "The correct interpretation of Scripture is not relevant in this context. 3.24 The outcome of an investigation into the causes of child sexual abuse and into institutional responses to the same need not, nor should it, depend upon whether a person’s interpretation of a particular passage in Scripture is correct or not. The interpretation, right or wrong, is what it is."
Let me get this straight. According to the Watchtower Society's own words,
1. Ignoring the Scriptures is simplistic and untenable.
2. The correct interpretation of Scripture is irrelevant.
3. The interpretation, right or wrong, is what it is.
4. The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses do not conform to reality.
5. The foregoing does NOT mean that the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong, misguided, or unworthy of respect.
Did I get that right?
And, THESE people are the sole channel of communication from God ??Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-13 16:17:04
You most certainly did, and you picked out the same paragraphs that bothered me.
Take the questions from 3.10 for instance:
First they impute that the view held by Senior Counsel and the Royal Commission and the law of the land that a crime should be reported is "uninformed". Apparently, things are not quite as simply as these uniformed authorities would have us believe. Why? Well, because there are factors complicating the issue, you see, such as:
1. What does the law require? What just a minute! The law requires that a crime be reported. How does that complicate the decision as to whether to report a crime. I guess I'm just uninformed.
2. What does the victim or his/her parents want to be done about the matter? This is not a complicating factor because it is irrelevant since the law require a crime be reported. Nevertheless, even if it didn't, there were occasions in the 1,006 cases before them when the safety of the congregation and of the community required the crime be reported despite the feelings of the family. Yet, not once did they do so.
3. What is the morally right thing to do? and 4. What do the Scriptures say about the matter?
One would assume that question 3 is redundant since the Scriptures would never tell us to do something that wasn't moral. I would submit that the fact the writer saw fit to treat these as separate issues indicates a shocking lack of understanding about what the Scriptures really do say about the matter. In fact, the Governing Body through its representative, Geoffrey Jackson, as well as Branch counsel and overseers has failed to show the court what the Scriptures actually say about the issue of reporting crimes. All they can testify to is what they say about the issue of reporting crimes.
The real message from these three paragraphs is that the Governing Body as the Guardians of Doctrine for Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to teach anything they wish, and the Government should just back off.Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-13 18:29:19
One point that WT always tries to make is that "it's complicated". It's just SO complicated, that mere mortals, or those not tasked with being Guardians of Doctrine, simply couldn't understand. That eliminates the need to answer straight-forward questions, agree with any reasonable request from the authorities or experts in this difficult area, or much less obey the law. They are saying that this is their belief system, so it has nothing to do with reality and thus outside the bounds and purview of the law.
For example, they throw out the red herring that "it's complicated, because not all abuse victims want to report this". It is a complication only in the minds of WT and in the minds of others that WT wants to confuse by obfuscating the issue.
Personal feelings and preferences don't supersede a nation's laws, no matter how much we might wish it to be otherwise. Personally, I would prefer not to pay taxes, but for some strange reason, the IRS is not interested in my preferences, nor does it accept my preferences as grounds for disobeying the law.
But, for some reason, WT thinks that ITS preferences are good enough to supersede the law of Australia.
Tell me again, just HOW does this act to be in subjection to the superior authorities? I thought so.
Reply by 1984 on 2015-12-13 17:55:40
Actually, when you follow their reasoning through to it's logical conclusion, they are effectively arguing that a belief system justifies anything, regardless of the impact that has on people's real lives, and regardless of whether that belief system contradicts it's own central tenets. Of course people have a right to their beliefs, but you have to draw a line somewhere, and I think protecting children would be a good place to start if you haven't already - that's a no brainer.
Comment by Rosie Temple on 2015-12-13 16:40:10
Bethells' Overall Options: In the big picture, it might as well be covered here, the possible options Bethel can take, overall, in this development that will go international in time. Right now it is a bottom up strategy by the Caesar based authorities, that is set the groundwork to make congregations and elders liable first, which would proceed in time to the corporate "peeling of the onion", (the corporate Australian Bethel system, and the WTBTS, repeat as needed in many countries).
The RC is WARNING Bethel, that they HAVE THE DIRT ON THEM, and now there were two possibilities Bethel could have possibly taken:
1. Stubbornly refuse to improve the policy;
Drawback: get more heat from higher levels, internationally.
The other option:
2. Humbly admit policy is endangering children;
Drawback: Public guilt admission will bring on a tsunami of mitigating litigations in many nations with GUARANTEED victory for plaintiffs and mega-class action lawsuits ad infinitum armed with RC precedents: until the whole Bethel corporate onion is peeled.
So Bethel is between the rock and the hard place.
=======
BUT NOW, with this horrid WTBTS dodging response, Bethell has taken the exact WORST REACTION strategy, which some have considered in the possibilities of responses Bethell could take.
This Bethel "head butt" will only bring more heat on the WTBTS, and the eventual target will be the ILLEGAL Bethel "corporate legal system" and corporate run "judicial system", who are the architects of this lawlessness.
And once they look more DEEPLY into Bethell, the more they will find, such as rackets and laundering evidence, because that is what Bethel has been doing for decades, in reality.
The RC has laid it all on the line for public perusal and international awareness at the same time. Either way, a storm is brewing to the tune of a couple billion dollars LIABILITY, conservative estimate, and Bethel having to scrap their "private sovereignty" where it overrides civil law. So Bethel is taking the head butting stalling route of denial's, inspite of a full time week of examined Bethel dirt. (Zech3:3)
Can you see what kind of STORM is building up here by Bethel's own stubborn tack?
===
NOW STOP RIGHT THERE FOR A MOMENT!
What is Bethel telling JWs, at the same time?
*** Watchtower 7/15/2015 "Your Deliverance is Getting Near" par 1-2 ***
""1-2 Imagine that you are a Christian living in Jerusalem in 66 C.E. ... The soldiers... entered the suburbs of Jerusalem... Panic is spreading throughout the city... you...wonder, ‘How can I obey...? ...Roman troops start to retreat!...attack is being “cut short.”... you have the opportunity to obey... Immediately you flee... your life is spared because you obeyed Jesus’ instructions.""
Thus the simple formula is an "attack" is coming ON BETHEL—SOON, VERY SOON, and it will be "cut short" so Jehovah's witnesses can flee to wherever the JW organization directs them to be "saved". (recall WT 11/15/13; pg.20, par. 17, #3?)
*** Watchtower 7/15/2015 "Your Deliverance is Getting Near" par 3 ***
"Soon" Salvation is Involved, "Very Soon"
""3 Soon, very soon, each of us will face a similar situation. Jesus...used...first-century events to parallel what will occur when the “great tribulation” suddenly breaks out...our very salvation is involved...these future events will affect us personally.""
Since the impression of "the end of the world" is the main JW delusion that Bethel promotes (2Thess2:1-2), we are seeing Bethel themselves, taking a stubborn tack to a great LEGAL WARNING from the RC, that WILL only bring on more serious "requests" for change, that will be legally binding by force of national legal courts, that WILL isolate and castigate the Bethel rival "legal system" who has now decided to BUTT HEADS with Caesar, rather than admit sins, humbly submit, repent, and change policy.
So, in effect, we are seeing Bethel themselves, setting up the context of their own future "attack" "soon, very soon", by the Caesar based legal authorities, as if fulfilling their own premature prophecy expectation, AND not for good reasons, but to hide and justify great lawlessness, as we the very warning of the "house judgment" NOW REPEATING at Bethel, prior to their own judgment:
(1 Peter 4:15-17) However, let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a busybody in other people’s matters. 16 But if [he suffers] as a Christian, let him not feel shame, but let him keep on glorifying God in this name. 17 For it is the appointed time for the judgment to start with the house of God.
Now all Bethel has to do, is sell their PROSECUTIONS "soon, very soon", to JWs, as if "persecution brothers!", because now prosecution is the only route the Caesar system can take, to FORCE Bethel to submit.
But, imo, it will escalate well beynd just pedophilia, it will now verge into the Bethel Rackets, because that will accelerate the power and severity of the GUARANTEED prosecutions coming, no matter how they may arise. A storm is coming for Bethel's corporate rival legal system. (Matt24:15)
Give it a little time, give it a little more "terror events" in the West, give it a world war. And in time Bethel will find themselves in their own "self fulfilling prophecy" intensified context, "soon, very soon". But it is a hoax, the apostate Bethel main false prophecy. (2Thess2:1-4)
Rather, "the end", is the judgment of Lawless Apostate Bethell. It will be "the end" of the Bethel apostasy, NOT "the end of the world". That was just the JW smokescreen.
This is NOT just a bunch of mere coincidences brothers and sisters. Bethel is escalating their own disasters to come, by their own unrepentant self righteous dodging tack strategies.
Comment by 1984 on 2015-12-13 17:48:40
I want to share with you all a group email I received from a sister last week who sent me a link to the Watchtower’s submission, and ONLY the watchtower submission. It is one of the best examples I have seen of the captive cult mentality the ARC is trying to break through. Even still, it absolutely floored me when I got it:
“The below is a must read for anyone interested in the findings of the Royal Commission. It’s long, but we read whole books/novels on other matters. It really clarifies things and puts even the most minor worries into perspective.
Any logical and deep thinker in the truth would remove ANY negativity even if fleeting after reading this comprehensive analysis. But, most don’t care enough to go that deep. Easier to criticise and dismiss. It’s a bit like the masses that wanted to hear Jesus stories but didn’t want to bother to delve deeper and get the full meaning.
This is from a worldly top legal person putting a submission in response to the findings or criticisms that came from the RC on child abuse. Wow how different we are to the world’s organisations!
For eg, it’s so telling that the ex witness who was abused and now criticises the way the elders handled it, had given a more favorable (re the elder’s response at the time) rendition to the secular hearing in 2001. Now it was so colored against the bros.
Thought I’d share....[link to] Submissions on behalf of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia & Others
2.1 MB”
You will notice that the only person she denigrates is the abuse survivor. She clearly missed the point the ARC made that the JW judicial process is so flawed that it makes it very difficult (almost impossible) for abuse victims to speak up and report the full details of their abuse. Not only is this process traumatic, it is effectively a form of abuse in itself. And then what of Dino Ali's handwritten records from the time which, in many ways, were more damming than the survivor's testimony!
What sort of person ignores all the evidence presented to the ARC, on the subject of CHILD ABUSE no less, and only accepts one point of view? I have had several emails from this sister (who is married to an Elder btw) on this subject, and they all amount to the same thing - that the abuse victims should just shut up. Now that's "mentally diseased"!
Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-13 19:58:32
I am sorry, but at the risk of getting as long-winded as a lawyer, there's something about these hearings I have to bring out.
Did anyone else notice this? When these hearings were being conducted, the WT representatives were asked whether they had read the transcripts of the victims, BCB and BCG I believe they are termed. To the last man, they each replied, No.
I must tell you, I found this incredibly callous. These abused persons had gone through terrible ordeals. What is more, every WT representative was notified in advance that their presence was required, they knew the proceedings and their testimony would be recorded and televised, and all of these materials were made available for their advance review. Yet not a single one could be bothered to lift a finger or spare a few moments to review their testimony? Why?
Was this at the coaching of the WT legal department, so they could 'honestly' claim 'plausible deniability' or something? Do the Guardians of Doctrine have such a lofty position to maintain that they can't be bothered with trifles like the lives of people beneath them that have been destroyed by this organizational negligence? Are they so accustomed to privilege and the esteem of men that the anguish of mere underlings doesn't register? Or, are they simply too bored to care?
I am having an extremely hard time imagining the rationale behind their indifference and inaction. Perhaps one of you readers who is more imaginative that I am can explain this, because I am at a total loss to understand it.
Where is their compassion? Where is their fellow-feeling that they are supposed to exemplify and demonstrate?
Consider Hebrews 13:17: "Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among YOU and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over YOUR souls as those who will render an account; that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to YOU."
It would seem that, for the GB, they are neither watching over anyone's souls, nor do they see themselves as accountable. But it sure is damaging.
Please forgive my rant, but this really makes me angry.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-13 23:02:53
I don't believe they were told not to read the testimony. I don't think they had to be so instructed. I think they instinctively knew it would be "wrong" to read the testimony because these women were viewed as enemies, apostates who left the faith, turned their back on Jehovah. They were therefore beneath contempt. Their abusers, if they returned to the faith, I believe one did if memory serves were better in the eyes of these brothers. This is the warped mentality we are trained to have. As the Pharisees viewed the lower people with contempt, we do the same for the world, and the lowest of the low are those who turn their backs on us.
Reply by Billy on 2015-12-15 14:34:08
I was amazed that they hadn't read the the testimonies too and concluded that they were proberbly disfellowshipped
Reply by Claudelle on 2015-12-16 08:25:17
However the uniformity of all those giving testimony, in relation to "not reading" the victims statements has a distinct feel to me that this is exactly what they were advised.
In this way, they could sound legitimately "vague" Meleti. And we all know that this is a useful "Tool" in avoidance.
There were wonderful moments when the actual hand written notes were produced to those in the hot seat. What could they say to that? They grudgingly said "yes, that appears to be my hand writing".
The RC are not fooled. Not one little bit and this is going to lead to court cases that will have the society delightfully screaming "persecution". We all know this. For the record I gave my testimony this week to the RC, with Helen Millroy (sorry if I have spelled her surname incorrectly) other commissioners were present. She is the one next to Justice McClellan during the case 29 process.
They are not through with this by an incredibly long shot. Trust the process. Court hearings are going to emerge from this.
Reply by Susan on 2015-12-14 11:57:00
Yes, I had thought the same thing, like "Who doesn't familiarize themselves with the allegations/accusations at their own trial?!!!" I guess Meleti answers that below.
Reply by 1984 on 2015-12-14 15:27:49
It's curious also that Geoffrey Jackson claimed that he hadn't had time to familiarise himself with any of the details of the ARC, or the testimony of the abuse survivors and Watchtower officials involved, but then repeatedly referred to the testimony of those same Watchtower officials showing that he clearly WAS familiar with the specific details of their testimony, and had at least made time to listen to the Watchtower testimony (but not the abuse survivors apparently.) Yet another example of him being caught out lying. This is either incredible stupidity of the greatest magnitude, or outright deceit. IMHO, I believe it is both.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-14 16:19:45
It was also obvious that he was well briefed by the way he was prepared for a number of counsel's questions. Matthew 10:19 doesn't apply to situations where one is defending unscriptural positions, so he was wise--from a worldly point of view--to prepare himself.
Comment by David Merrill on 2015-12-13 20:26:49
I watched much of the Case 29 proceedings. The saddest exchange was when Angus Stewart asked Terrence O'Brien 'How do we know you are telling the truth' concerning the state of Geoffrey Jackson's father's health. This came after it had become painfully obvious that both O'Brien and Vincent Toole had been less than truthful (aka lied) in their testimony. If that had been me I would have hung my head in shame at being exposed to the world as being so duplicitous. Instead O'Brien replied that a doctor's note could be supplied. Was he so clueless as to miss the irony of that question?
It made me ashamed to be a Witness.Reply by 1984 on 2015-12-13 21:05:34
Yes, I agree. I thought you might all be interested know also, a family member of mine is in Terry O’Brien’s congregation. Apparently he has been as sick as a dog these past few months, and his wife has had shingles. He has had a knee operation recently, which no doubt contributed, but my family member mentioned that they had both looked “very stressed” all this year. I’m not surprised - trying to defending the indefensible, and then being caught out deliberately misleading the court. I wonder if cognitive dissonance is setting in? One can only hope so.
I want to say for the record that I have met Terry twice and he is a genuinely warm and caring person. It saddened me to see him respond the way he did to the ARC, but also demonstrates the conflict of loyalty such men are suddenly confronted with in these situations. At the end of the day, he is captive too. Unfortunately, history has shown time and time again that good people do bad things when they are held captive to a false belief system and being controlled by an elite ruling class which cannot be contradicted or challenged, especially in public. History has also shown that the defence “I was only following orders” is not good enough.
At the end of the day, we are talking about child abuse here. The stakes might not be so high if weren't for that and the fact that this organisation claims (in it's publications anyway) to be the sole channel of communication for God today, being directed exclusively by holy spirit, with the only god-approved interpretation of scripture, aka "THE Truth." I really hope there will be some criminal convictions and massive fines, enough to break through their tight grip and set more captives free. And I hope that the ARC sets a precedent other governments, legal systems and commissions follow and build on, enough to bring the organisation to it's knees. What I would really like is for them to come clean and reform all of their unchristian practices and pharisaical behaviour, but then you would be talking about a different religion anyway.Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-14 16:03:10
So terry o brien is stressed . You can imagine the pressure the guys under he has been placed in a very difficult situation . If he tells the truth he will implicate the hierarchy of the organisation . He stands to lose an awful lot perhaps a place to live his standing in the congregation , his job with the org is it . He may well even be branded an apostate and be kicked out of the religion withthe loss of family and friends if he does not protect the name of the organisation . Hes put all his eggs in one basket it looks like to me .
Comment by Gogetter on 2015-12-13 23:18:55
I have been following the child abuse situations since the the Conti court case in California and I am not surprised at the findings or the organization's response.
You're summary of the 132 pg report of findings by the Royal Commission is spot on and appreciated by those who don't have the time or the where with all to connect all the dots.
Out of all the things that has contributed to my awakening the last 5 years,this is by far the worst of the bunch.
The GB can do all the scriptural dancing they want and yes the majority of the R&F will join in lockstep with whatever they put forth.
After all the GB are "the guardians of the JW doctrine" and the "sole channel of communication between Jehovah and men"
To demonstrate how the JW vs Worldly mindset is so imbedded I recently had an experience with a case of suspected child abuse.
This came from a pioneer's bible study that my wife was
attending on a regular basis.
The mother (bible study) of a 4 yr. old girl had been confiding in the pioneer that she suspected her boyfriend (father of the child) of molesting their daughter. She gave the pioneer some red flags over a period of several studies.
I will spare you all the disgusting details that eventually disturbed my wife so much that she felt compelled to bring it to my attention.
I instructed her along with the pioneer to immediately have the mother report her suspicions to the authorities or you would need to.
They did suggest this to the mother but for the typical reasons this never happened. (Fear of the father and loosing her daughter )
This conversation again came up when my wife showed me a txt picture she received from the study that the mother had found on her boyfriend's phone. It wasn't the kind of picture you would ever have or share with anyone of your 4 yr. old daughter.
I was totally shocked and met with the pioneer and had another long discussion with her about her responsibility to report this if the mother refused to, reminding her there is a 4 yr old in possible peril.
Needless to say it did not go over well she stated "well brother I don't have any proof" (uh how about the "mother's" suspicions? ) Frustrated I approached one of the elders and he scheduled himself to go on the study with the pioneer. I asked my wife to not attend this study again until this was resolved.
I followed up with the elder,much to his dismay my suggestion to turn this over to child services fell on deaf ears!
The elders response was......wait for it!
"She's not a member of the congregation and we can't get the congregation involved"
I was very upset and asks him what does that have to do with anything we are talking about a 4 yr. old girl!
The elder asked me to back off leave it in Jehovah's hands
I then read Lev. 5:1
“‘If someone sins because he has heard a public call to testify and he is a witness or has seen or learned about it and he does not report it, then he will answer for his error."
He stated that he informed the pioneer to encourage the mother to go to the authorities if she suspects her child was being abused and then not to bring up the subject again.
There are many details I can't go into, but needless to say this has caused a ruckus with me and all concerned and is ongoing.
My point of relating this is to show how the mindset of most JW's work
When it comes to this subject and is certainly displayed with the testimony given by the elders and even a member of the GB.
To the ARC.
They all have ignored their God given gift of reason when it comes to child abuse, it's simple "Every accusation of child abuse wether in or out of the congregation should be reported to the authorities Period!
Pray Christ returns soon!
Comment by life2come on 2015-12-14 09:14:42
I submit to you, Meleti Vivlon, that you would have made an excellent trial lawyer! :-)
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-14 09:16:57
Since Paul was one before his conversion, I take that as the compliment it was intended as. Thank you.
Comment by Father jack on 2015-12-14 14:12:55
Isnt it interesting that they seem to be arguing against reporting these crimes to the governmental authorities but openly encourage a squealing system on the inside of the congregation . They speak of support of the 2 witness rule when it comes to reporting such serious crimes like this , but on the inside of the congregation ive seen cases where they have held thier own investigations based on just the hearsay of a single person . Like they did with one of my sons even telling him he had to prove to them that he had done no wrong . They tried to force a confession out of him even when he had done no wrong . That was just based on one person just seeing something that was just circumstantial . So here they are speaking out of support of a rule that they themselves have no intentions of keeping . In actual fact they can make this submission as complicated as they want as they try to blind people with thier jargon and confuse people . Regardless of the rules they they have come up with true christianity only really has one rule and its the rule of love and its not the loving thing to do to allow innocent children to be abused and the abusers just to get away with it scott free . In fact just to add to it i even know of a case where a brother had made a mistake of touching a teenage girl . And even wanted to go to the authorities to get it sorted out and confess his crime . But was told by an elder whom i know also quite well that he should not because of the reproach it would bring on gods name and the congregation . So wheres the 2 witness rule there .
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-14 16:24:12
There is obviously a double standard. One law for them, one law for us. In fact, there is also a double standard when it comes to the meaning of words. Take "practice" for instance. Instructions to the elders are that they should view a sin committed only once (like fornication) differently than one committed two or three times. If the sinner has returned a second or third time to commit the same sin, he is considered as engaging in a "practice" of sin. However, when the Organization systematically avoids reporting crimes over a thousand times, they can still say that they "do not have a policy or practice of not reporting crimes."
We have all been taught that we speak a theocratic language. Well, this is a good example of it.
Comment by Father jack on 2015-12-15 03:09:25
The other thing is this how is it that the 2 witness rule can be used to discourage the REPORTING of an ALLEGATION Of an offence . Surely the point being made by the verse has to do with JUDGING and CONVICTION of an offence so its not saying an ivestigation should not be held , but is saying that after the investigation if there is not enough evidence then a person could be innocent and conviction may be quashed . Yet again it seems to be to be a case of a missapplication of scripture used as an excuse this time because they do not want to hang the dirty washing out in public as people say . Its always the case with serious crimes they want to keep it under wraps and try to deal with it internally but in doing so have become guilty of some serious miscarraiges of justice and have become judges rendering wicked decisions , but if you do something thats minimal they are down on you like a ton of bricks . The truth is that they should not be judging others in the first place . Matthew 7
Comment by Billy on 2015-12-15 15:34:59
The GB will surely use the "theocratic strategy " line if questioned about their untruthful answers in the RC -
I hear comments by jw's criticing the Catholic Church for their child abuse policies but don't seem to know what's going on in their own religion - at least the Catholic Church has submitted ways of changing their policies to the RC- these have been revealed on the mainstream news - it's not going to go down well if the mainstream news decides to reveal that the JW organization refuses to change its policies and allow child abuse to continue in its organization and that they don't care if non witness children are being abused
It's interesting to see similar strategies by the islamic religions - they also feel they can lie to any non believers - I noticed this religion hasn't been put on the RC list - surely there must be a big problem in their religion as Muhammad is described in their religious writings as having sex with a 9 year old - and they are told to follow everything he did!
Comment by Claudelle on 2015-12-16 08:38:01
I have read the WT and others submissions right through and mark, edit, compare and obsess over the self contradictions. One moment it is a crime and a sin, the next? We are now talking about this particular matter as "sin". The transition is not smooth; it is not clever and I doubt a lawyer wrote it. If it was a lawyer, then he is poorly informed, and ever so bloody humble to the org. The language is strange and convoluted at best and incredibly!!! There is a philosophical attempt to introduce the two universes of thought. (why not just say " parallel worlds and be done with it)
Since 1900 Australia has a law that translates into this. Anyone concealing a crime, stands to suffer the anger of the courts. This is a scary thing for such awful and cold people as the O'Toole and his cronies. It's even more worrisome for the GB as they have so much material stating what not to do and how to keep the org clean. It is self condemning.
Comment by Claudelle on 2015-12-16 08:39:04
Poor spelling, very sorry as I am tired.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-16 09:00:26
We'll forgive you, but only this once. :) :)
Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-07 23:12:57
My poor soelling also because i cant see ..... But am beginning to see that i have been betrayed by an organisation i believed to have the Truth ..... I have denied my children so much in the name of Jehovah what i was doing was following men .... Jow do we recover from this trauma?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-08 08:14:12
Anon, you have inspired me to write a piece I've been putting off for some time. It is my hope that it will provide you with some of the answers you seek.
Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-07 22:52:04
Am so confused by all of this .... Cannot belueve what I am reading .... Have an enormous feelingbif sadness of guilt of betrayal but i am nit betraying Jehovah am i? We are not apistates for questioning. .. Are we? I have asked for help from Elders and get platitudes of wait on Jehovah trustvin Jehovah .... Well i do i just dont know about his .... Is it his? Organidation anymore ..... where do we go who do we turn to ? I am lost
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-08 08:13:10
We are there for you, Anon. Do not give up hope. View this very traumatic time as an opportunity. Our Lord has called you out. If you respond to that call, the glorious freedom of the children of God awaits, and that will make all the wasted years amount to no more than a pile of garbage by comparison with what lies ahead.
"What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ." (Phil 3:8)Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-08 18:34:25
Thank you so much for your kind words Meleti ... It is a very lonely feeling when still a Witness but cannot bring myself to enter my Kingdom Hall ... May I ask .. Are you still a Witness?
Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-08 18:39:10
I look forward to reading your next article ...... I do not wantvto be anonymous anymore .... My name is Karen .... I am one of Jehivahs Witnesses ... Albeit inactive ...... However feel as if I have lost my home and family and do not know where to find them .... Thanks again ...... You write beautifully .....
Reply by Karen on 2016-01-08 18:53:16
Sorry still having trouble seeing .... Spelling atrocious .... Sorry Jehivah ....oops Jehovah hope YOU haven't lost your sense of humour throughout this disgusting slur upon your name??
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-08 22:11:29
I cannot bring myself to go door to door with the brothers because it means representing an organization that I know is teaching falsehoods. Even if I do not preach or find anyone at home, people will see me and identify me as one who preaches about 1914 and worse, that people have no hope of being God's children. So I go to meetings from time to time to maintain contact, but it doesn't go beyond that.
Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-08 22:38:16
How many of us are out there lile you? All very sad xx
Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-08 22:38:56
Sorry like you spelling again ugh
Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-09 02:07:27
Thank you Colette you will indeed be hearing from me soon ... Many thanks xx
Reply by Out of Africa on 2016-01-09 02:16:34
:-) Great! I'd love to help you through the darkness.
x
Reply by Out of Africa on 2016-01-09 00:29:32
Hello my name is Colette. Our family has gone through the same turmoil as yourself over the last few months. Would you like to email me at outofafrica456@gmail.com? I'd like to encourage you.
Reply by Andres on 2017-05-19 08:50:29
españolHello dear brother. I am from Bogota, Colombia. I tell you that three years ago I heard all this "dirty laundry that washes at home" and was very hard, very disappointing, I have cried a lot, I have felt a lot of hate, I have felt abused my confidence. At first he did not know what to believe; I moved away from the organization, and even came to consider myself an atheist, everyone who asked me came to say that I did not believe in God. I hated the men in whom I have entrusted all my life and decisions. I thought I would change my religion, but I could not bear false teachings like the hell of fire or the Trinity. He was very confused; Why jehova had boarded me? (Jeremiah 20: 7) I think I came to understand for the first time in my life the feelings of this young prophet. I started to find out on the Internet and the more I looked, the more I was disappointed. Until I found a brother that I have to say: He gave me hope and faith back in Jehova, I came to see that God's people have twisted the scriptures to accommodate their own interests and to control the people of God. They have sat in God's wrath and deceived us, but jehova will not remain silent for ever. I wanted to tell you a little of my feelings so that you know that many and perhaps thousands have gone through the same thing. Pages like those of Brother Mike help us and strengthen the faith ... do not turn away from jehova and may always bless you. With love since. ...Colombia! ;)
Comment by 2017, March 20-26 – Our Christian Life and Ministry | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2017-03-20 18:05:09
[…] of the United Nations for 10 years until they were discovered? Are we proud that the stigma of hiding paedophiles from the secular authorities that we condemned the Catholic Church for is now something we are […]
Comment by Redemptive Son on 2019-05-25 16:44:24
Very well written and excellent conclusion. I would add I think perhaps there is one more reason the Branch refuses to comply with the law.
For a certain admitting wrong has proved to be a challenge for the Governing Body. It’s seems even more so for the ‘New Generation’ Governing Body.
It seems to me a key factor in the refusal is liability. If the Branch allows the Elders to report child abuse or if the Branch directly reports the wrong doing, they will become Party to Litigation.
Historically, the Branch has always been adverse to Legal Liability. So much so, Circuit Overseers now have complete discretion in the appointment of Elders. This gives an arms length between the crime and the liability. This gives the Branch plausible deniability.
I do not think we can expect the GB to admit they are wrong, nor will they adjust their view on matters.
Comment by We Will Go With You - Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2020-03-31 09:53:09
[…] The shameful mishandling of child abuse cases within the Organization worldwide. (here) […]