Jump to content

TrueTomHarley

The Reproach of Child Sexual Abuse Falls on the Abuser

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

TrueTomHarley -
Space Merchant -
116
2373

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

. I thought I had friends, but they were just 'brothers and sisters', not friends. I would never trust any of them again. And I never trusted the Elderes anyway. I don't trust any policemen in the Org or out of it. 

Yes, but it means nothing. You have frankly said that you don’t trust anybody in any capacity, anywhere, at all. Everyone has some whom they they trust. You have admitted to having no one. It long pre-dates any association with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It’s very sad and you are taking no actions to fix that situation here.

Moreover, you do not perceive that such a tragedy may just have resulted in warped judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yes, but it means nothing. You have frankly said that you don’t trust anybody in any capacity, anywhere, at all. Everyone has some whom they they trust. You have admitted to having no one. It long pre-dates any association with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It’s very sad and you are taking no actions to fix that situation here.

Moreover, you do not perceive that such a tragedy may just have resulted in warped judgement.

Actually Tom i do agree with you about warped judgement.

Because all humans are mentally unbalanced. Because we are all imperfect. Any one that thinks he/she is mentally all good, is only deceiving themselves. It's one reason we cannot judge ourselves correctly. Because we only see what we want to see or judge by what we ourselves know. I've long since given up on trying to figure myself out. 

However i haven't given up on trying to warn other people about things that i have personal experience with. I might not trust anyone but it does not mean i hate everyone. It just means that i have no warm feelings toward anyone. I could never love anyone. There is a neutral point, a non feeling. Some of us have to have that to survive Tom. 

So my happiness comes from small things, like seeing birds in the garden, driving one of my cars, walking on the beach in the sunshine, exercising, the list is endless. I don't need people to make me happy. I do wonder however, 1. If  i will get a resurrection, and 2. how i will cope with people in the New World'.  If 1. doesn't happen then 2. won't be a problem. And the KId tells me I'm beyond hope. 

But, just a question Tom. How many people do you think have been sexually abused within the JW Org Earthwide in the last 50 years? 

Because most of them will now have a 'warped judgement' about life. 

And they will have been sexually abused by a JW that had a warped judgement about their right to abuse another human. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

So, forgive me for not buying what your selling. 🤔

It’s quite all right, Billy. We’re on the same team, and both out in a strange realm where conventional tactics may or may not be the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2019 at 2:09 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

And I keep coming back to that November 20th, 2011 Democratic and Chronicle article (which unfortunately is now behind a paywall - if anyone has access, I would appreciate if a pertinent line or two was fair-use quoted) that two thirds of all professionals who ARE mandated by law to report child sexual abuse fail to do it.

A research package I have through a university alumni account only provides the basic subscription to NEWSPAPERS.COM but does not include the "Publisher Extra Newspapers" unless I travel a couple hundred miles and access it from on the premises. But it does tell me that it's here: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/137512481/ and that this is page 19 of the 11/20/2011 Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, NY).

I can't get all the text from it without paying, but I can tell you that you will also find the identical quote you are looking for below, where anyone can access it for free. (It matches the quote as found in your book.)

http://www.naasca.org/2011-CrimeNews/110111-5-RecentCrime.htm

Reporting abuse

It is a mistake to think that the failure of Penn State authorities to report abuse is a rarity, child abuse educators, prosecutors and investigators say.

Studies across the country over the past two decades have consistently shown that nearly two-thirds of professionals required to report all cases of suspected abuse fail to do so. That is because they are uncertain of whether abuse occurred, are fearful of making false accusations or are unsure of their obligation.

"Mandated reporting of abuse only works as well as the people it's reported to," said Dan Gleason, a retired Rochester Police Department investigator who is now a private investigator.

"People sometimes try to be judge and jury when the victim discloses. If they don't believe it, they don't report it."

Every state has a law that requires professionals to report all suspected cases of child abuse or maltreatment they encounter professionally.

Under New York's law, enacted in 1973, mandatory reporters include physicians, nurses, teachers and school officials, social workers, police officers, daycare and social service workers, and therapists.

Lawmakers in Albany have proposed closing what they see as a loophole in the state's mandated reporting statute that, unlike the law in Pennsylvania, excludes college coaches and administrators in the belief that colleges have little contact with children.

Meanwhile, watching what has been happening at Penn State and Syracuse leaves Scuteri angry and exasperated.

"Who's in charge, and who's doing what?" he said. "What's going on?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

You know, you could be right

Thanks.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe the theme here is also consistent, that the Watchtower has NEVER made any recommendations toward child abuse.

That's certainly not a theme I would agree with. It's inconsistent with the facts. One of the earliest mentions of child sexual abuse was in a 5/15/1970 Watchtower, and there was a previous mention in the 1960's, I forget just where it was now.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

On May 6, 1970, the congregation committee of the ___Unit, New York N.Y. , congregation, met to review the charges and the admittance of ____to indecent exposure of his sexual parts before____, the 15 year old daughter of his wife, ___. After hearing this matter in the presence of_____, the decision of the committee was as follows:

I had a feeling that this was case you intended. If you read it carefully, of course, you can see that this was not the case that Brother Knorr got involved with.

During his tenure as president, Brother Knorr became involved in every case where a Bethelite had to be dismissed. The rest of the Bethel family would often hear the reasons why at breakfast, no matter how distasteful. But it was a good reminder that the organization should be kept clean, and that it was good to stay alert to the fact that persons at all levels of responsibility within the organization could become involved in immoral, illegal, and even criminal behavior. This indecent exposure case, however, was not about a Bethelite and we read nothing about N.H.Knorr getting involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree that it is all very difficult to deal with, for the Org and for the victims. Do i know any answers, no I don't. 

It's just such a shame that the JW Org is in such a mess. 

And like you say Billy it seems the lawyers are just using the victims as a way of earning more cash for themselves. 

Yes the sun is shining here, I'm in a better frame of mind. :) Have a good day all. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The problem with everything legal, people don’t see the downside of the government’s action. It’s always the victim and the perpetrator.

It's very true that government (police, investigators, prosecutors, judges, child protection services, etc.) often fails to do their job correctly. 

15 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Then, vultures disguised as lawyer’s go after an institution without giving the failures of the government, and the responsibility they had to a certain situation any thought of their role and accountability.

True again. It's so typical of lawyers to go after an institution when it's not even the fault of an institution, just because that's where the money is. As you know, this goes for a lot of legal issues, even those unrelated to child sexual abuse. Of course, if it can be shown that an institution had hidden the abuse to protect their own assets (coach, priest, cardinal, bank account) or to protect their institution's reputation (a college, a football team, a diocese, a religion) then there should be culpability. In some few cases these vultures swoop in to exact a kind of punishment where the "system" failed, but there is no real justice for all, because this very much a 'hit and miss' process. 

There are cases against the Watchtower that really have absolutely nothing to do with the Watchtower, and should focus just on getting justice for the victim from the abuser. And there may be cases where congregation elders have made a mistake that has nothing to do with their training as elders and they should have known better. Some of these cases should have nothing to do with the Watchtower Society or the organization.

37 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Although Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare had investigated the claim in 1998, as in 2002 nothing of consequence was done about it.

True. Powerful and monied interests can be leveraged on behalf of both persons and institutions, and that can make even good police investigative work meaningless. Victims are typically poorer and abusers can use their own power and influence to buy attorneys that can bully those victims. Victims can be talked into exonerating the abuser, or settling cases with a sack of money and a gag order.  I have a feeling that the HBO documentary on Michael Jackson which may be aired next month will show how money can buy the kind of lawyers and threats that protect abusers. Acosta/Epstein is another case in point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

game.jpg

I was really steamed at how Joe Paterno took the primary hit on this for fulfilling his legal duty but failing “to go beyond the law.” The man’s lifelong reputation had been sterling. He was to become villain of the year, fired from his decades-long career where he had garnered nothing but praise , and he was dead in two years.

A similar scandal broke a short time later with regards to SU coach Jim Boeheim. He initially said a very perilous thing, but he quickly did an about face and managed to redeem himself.

I posted about both these events:

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/12/jim-boeheim-and-joe-paterno.html

I even have a personal anecdote about Boeheim. I was once a part of a student news production team that rotated positions weekly. When it was my turn as ‘sportscaster’ I interviewed the coach in the stands with the team practicing below as a backdrop. I didn’t know the first thing about basketball, yet he patiently answered all my ‘questions.’ He may have even suggestd a few.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BillyTheKid46 Another problem is that the powers that be are covering their own even though they know who is the abuser. They will allow those at the bottom to seek out and go after a whole institution for the actions of a few, which we see today in schools and churches. Something of which I was adamant about is to teach people, to prevent abuse and or harm.

Abuse of this nature, by any means, cannot cease from the face of thee earth, only God can wipe that all away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2019 at 3:37 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

But, just a question Tom. How many people do you think have been sexually abused within the JW Org Earthwide in the last 50 years? 

I would think quite a few. That is not contested. Anthony Morris has stated that at one time, we were all a little naive over the magnitude of the problem. By “we,” he may mean society in general or Witness society in general. Either one fits.

On 2/24/2019 at 3:37 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Because most of them will now have a 'warped judgement' about life. 

You know, I want to be careful on this. I certainly don’t want to minimize it. But neither do I want to pronounce it the certain kiss of death to ever again being a complete person. 

Maybe it is like certain things that frequently result in cancer. Many succumb to the cancer. Yet many overcome it. And many don’t get it in the first place. 

I mean, there appears to be nothing more common than CSA. And it is not particularly new. Ancient Greece is embraced as a pillar of Western civilization. Nothing then was more common there than pedastery. It was an entrenched value of that society, a universal practice never condemned. Some considered it the highest form of love. So, bad as it may be, it cannot be THAT much the unrecoverable kiss of death.

To be sure, Richard Dawkins was speaking of non-penetrative abuse, but he has written in his book The God Delusion that he thinks the whole impact of CSA is vastly overstated. It happened to him and he got over it. Is he right? Who knows? At the very least, his remarks shed light on the prevalent thinking of a time not too long ago, that we now try to adjudicate based upon today’s standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    61,680
    Total Topics
    114,509
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,507
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    AliciaBarbosa
    Newest Member
    AliciaBarbosa
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine. I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )
    • I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again.  Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though.  There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.  On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death.  The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
    • If only you would stop quoting outside sources, and just be more basic with your comments, then i may understand them . Yes I understand 'if your throw out all the good, only the bad is left.  But the reverse is, if you only see the good, you are not being honest with yourself or others.  @Arauna is a case in point.  
    • @JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. " That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say.  However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs.  However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself.  doctrine a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.     Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom -  Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "   Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine.    Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.   (This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?)    Matthew 22 v 44    ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ?    As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures.    What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ?    And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?    
    • I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer. If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here.  I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.” Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.
    • Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this: Jude 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness." (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels? It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.