Jump to content

Baruq JW

Open letter to Daro Weilburg

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Baruq JW -
Shiwiii -
26
232

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

Open letter to Daro Weilburg

Dear Daro,

I must ask you first of all to forgive my boldness, since, although almost fifteen years younger than you, I have to reproach you. Do not think I mean to disrespect. But having as a predecessor Elihu, who, in spite of his youth, did not refrain from rebuking the venerable Job I believe that I can in good conscience follow the example of this wise figure of antiquity.

I watched some of your videos on the internet. I answer here because you have blocked all comments on your page, so it is impossible to reach you. I have no doubt that you are a sincere person, but beware! in the darkest days of modern history, sincere men have exterminated hundreds of thousands of others. Sincerity does not imply being right or excusable for any of our actions or statements.

With this preamble in mind, I hope you will understand that I may have found two of your videos that you have posted online shocking, videos in which you discuss the topic of child abuse within the Jehovah's Witnesses Organisation, taking as a basis the highly publicised case of Candace Conti.


You find it unlikely that a woman could have waited years before revealing the aggression she was the victim of and you call her a liar. But what do you know about the feelings of a girl-child who has complete confidence in adults and who can not imagine that one of them can hurt her, especially if he is a relative, a close family member, a brother of the congregation, or even an elder? These young girls probably had no idea what was happening to them. Some were threatened or blackmailed if they said anything. That's the way things work with paedophiles. Within the Catholic Church, as well as within the Jehovah's Witnesses organisation, or within all institutions where adults are in contact with children.

You will notice that the Watchtower of May 2019, although it does not provide any solutions to the victims, does not say anything else:

It is all too easy for devious abusers to deceive children. Abusers teach children dangerous lies, such as the idea that the child is to blame, that the abuse must be kept secret, that no one will listen or care if the child reports the abuse, or that sexual acts between an adult and a child are actually normal expressions of sincere love. Such lies can distort a child’s thinking ability and perception of truth for many years. Such a child may grow up thinking of herself or himself as damaged, defiled, and unworthy of love or comfort.

And you would you like to condemn these innocent lives? You would like to deny them the right to justice, because many years have passed? You support the two witnesses rule imposed by the Governing Body, when it is the very nature of the paedophiles to act in secret? You are talking about forensics when it is already difficult for a woman to gain recognition of a rape she just suffered as an adult? How can this be inflicted on a child? How cruel you are!

From what you're saying, it seems that Candace Conti woke up one fine day and that she went on the internet, found a picture of a man she did not even know and decided to accuse him, all this for personal gain. Does this seem plausible to you? For me, it seems difficult. Given that you have experienced it, you can understand the feelings of a person facing a court and his lot of judges, prosecutors, lawyers, usually men, often incredulous, perplexed or skeptical, sometimes hostile. In your case, it was your own mistakes that led you in the dock. But you can not put yourself in the shoes of a woman who humbles herself by confessing that she has been raped while feeling the shame for what she suffered, constantly repeating, again and again, the same story. One would need to have a surprising strength of character to build such a lie. I can believe that some have done it, perfidy is not the prerogative of either sex, but here we are speaking of thousands of cases. Thousands of liars?

You claimed:

That doesn’t happen in any Kingdom Hall. Anywhere in the world. There is no way that an elder or a parent of a child would allow a man to take a small young child out in the ministry alone. That’s a lie. It’s not gonna happen. Not in any Kingdom Hall, 120,000 in the entire world, it’s not gonna happen. It’s a lie. (“Is Candace Conti lying about being molested by A JW elder at 9?” on Youtube)

Dear Daro, please let me tell you that you are absolutely wrong, because here is the reality: in more than fifty years, I attended about a dozen congregations in three different lands. I can therefore confirm that leaving a child alone with an adult is a common thing in all congregations! After all, are we not supposed to live in a spiritual paradise in which everyone is beautiful and kind? Who can hurt us? Because, if that's the case, then where is the paradise? For some, it would rather be hell.

Perhaps things have changed recently, as the Governing Body has revised its policy to protect themselves from the ever-increasing claims for having done nothing to protect the weakest among its flock, preferring to put responsibility on the parents and the elders if something should happen to a child in the congregation. But the harm that has been done in the past cannot be changed.

Finally, the words you use about Barbara Anderson are not worthy of someone who calls himself a disciple and a member of the self-proclaimed only true religion gathering the people of God (you will notice that I avoided using the term “Christian”, the latter being able to qualify only the one who follows Christ and not an organisation). This woman has been the voice of thousands of silent victims who have found, thanks to her, the courage to emerge from their mess. So out of respect for a person who has given years of her life to this fight and paid a heavy price, I think you should measure your words.

Dear Daro, I know you will have a hard time accepting my comments, but it is a matter between God and you. As for me, I think I have done my duty.

With Christian love,

Baruq

    Hello guest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Baruq JW said:

From what you're saying, it seems that Candace Conti woke up one fine day and that she went on the internet, found a picture of a man she did not even know and decided to accuse him, all this for personal gain.

Well no, Candace Conti was in her early 20's when she was browsing a sexual predator registry and found a picture of a man who had molested her when she was about 9 years old. She had found out that he had molested another little girl some years after her. Candace had been living in a dysfunctional family with a mother and father who were emotionally absent and who had little time for her. No one in the congregation was aware that the perpetrator had been molesting her.

Forward wind more than a decade, she had long left the JW's. Had she been an active JW she would have most probably gone about this completely differently. Instead, she claims she had a pang of conscience because she hadn't told anyone what had happened to her, and consequently another child had been molested. So she goes to ex- Witness and silentlambs founder William Bowen who urges her to follow the #metoo route, and jump on the litigation band wagon, apparently because she didn't want the perpetrator to molest anymore children (despite the fact that he had already served a prison sentence for that crime, and therefor was on the sexual predator registry as a warning for everyone in the community).

How did the perpetrator end up on that registry? Obviously because he had been reported to the police, was tried, and found guilty. What more did Candace want to do, but to get monetary compensation for her traumatic experience. It's understandable since she no longer had any ties to the JWs, and the organization had money, so why cloak it in anything else?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol this reminds me of a comment during this weekend meeting where a sister is so obiblious of all the child sex abuse within JW organization that she made the comment that all so Christians religions are full of problems and specially regarding child sex abuses where that would never happen within our lovely Christian organization of brothers and sisters.... Yeah right in what world she lives in and that's how many millions of other JWs have no idea. Obviously she didn't watch our Australian Royal Commission.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Baruq JW said:

Do you want to say that she should not have complained about being raped?

That's how I understood the comment too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, some spoke to me about abuse in catholicism to prove that JW have the truth. You need to grit your teeth to stay silent and not responding violently.

My brother (an elder) told me that we couldn't trust the Royal Commission in Australia because they don't have God's spirit.

Well, does the governing body have God's spirit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Baruq JW said:

Do you want to say that she should not have complained about being raped?

I don't know where you get that idea.  In fact I said it's understandable that she was seeking financial compensation for the trauma she suffered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baruq Apparently is only "understandable" because she is fighting to get compensated as she is not a JWs. What about all JWs that were abused and are still in the organisation they should get compensated too... but hard as we are not supposed to talk about it or to know anything about it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monetary compensation is the only "Justice" one can hope for under the current secular laws for civil injuries.   I would be quite happy if a person so convicted would be surgically modified to be considerably shorter, or that dueling was allowed.  It used to be that Fathers, relatives or even the victims would shoot the criminals, and juries would show extreme leeway in considering the justifiably of it.

Under the current system monetary awards are the ONLY way to get justice in a civil lawsuit for injuries suffered.

Unfortunately .... torture is not allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be interesting if the REAL reason Jeffrey Epstein died in jail was that one of his victims had a relative that worked as a jailer in the New York Department of Corrections?

Bill Clinton's criminal mistreatment of scores of women were all made to go away with monetary settlements.

Somehow, its just not the same.

I have a feeling that will change in the next year, as more information is uncovered in the Epstein case, if there are any survivors left to testify.

Some people do work outside the "system" where money equals justice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anna I’m glad she sued watchtower.  I’m glad it’s public.  You are right, she probably would have been like many of us has she still had ties to the .org.   

 

She would have been another silent victim.    What would you prefer to have happened?

This org is much too permissive of pedophiles.  Won’t even let the congregation know- yet will give a local needs part about turning in field service time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JayDubya said:

Won’t even let the congregation know- yet will give a local needs part about turning in field service time.  

Excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jay Iza said:

Baruq Apparently is only "understandable" because she is fighting to get compensated as she is not a JWs. What about all JWs that were abused and are still in the organisation they should get compensated too... but hard as we are not supposed to talk about it or to know anything about it...

That's what I thought I understood from Anna's message. A person "of the World " may ask for compensation, but not those who have the misfortune to be Jehovah's Witnesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Anna said:

Obviously because he had been reported to the police, was tried, and found guilty.

You know it wasn't an elder who reported it, right ? Because it would have NEVER happened if it was left up to the elders to report. There in lies the crux of the problem and EXACTLY why Candice won. I do not feel that she was out for the money, but rather to stick it to the jw where it hurts them most. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JayDubya said:

@Anna I’m glad she sued watchtower.  I’m glad it’s public.  You are right, she probably would have been like many of us has she still had ties to the .org.   

 

She would have been another silent victim.    What would you prefer to have happened?

This org is much too permissive of pedophiles.  Won’t even let the congregation know- yet will give a local needs part about turning in field service time.  

You only sue those you view as your enemy. With that in mind, those who are still active JWs might sue the perpetrator, but they will not sue the organization. This doesn't mean they have been silent. In the case of Candace's molester for example, somebody must have reported him to the police for him to have been convicted in the first place.

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

You know it wasn't an elder who reported it, right ?

Do you know it wasn't an elder who reported him?

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Because it would have NEVER happened if it was left up to the elders to report.

What difference does it make who reports? It should not be left only up to the elders to report. If someone molested my child it would be my prerogative to report and I would hope every parent felt the same. If I was an adult who had been victimized as a a child, and was finally able to speak out, I would report, hoping that the statute of limitations had not run out. 

Incidentally, Candace's perpetrator was reported to the police by his then wife (for molesting his step daughter) even before he allegedly molested Candace. There was ALREADY a police report about him. It didn't help Candace though.

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

There in lies the crux of the problem and EXACTLY why Candice won.

She did not win in the way she wanted to, and the problem wasn't because the elders did not report. They couldn't report because they didn't know about Candace, and the perpetrator had already been reported during the first incident with his step daughter as mentioned above. The court reversed punitive damages because they found WT had no duty to warn (if it did, the same could have been said for the Police who knew about the first incident, and social services who knew about Candace).

Eventually the whole case rested on whether the perpetrator was allowed to go in service with Candace unsupervised. Ultimately it was her word against the elders words who claimed that Candace never went in service with the perpetrator on her own.

Extract from the final decision of the court:

 We hold that defendants had no duty to warn the Congregation or Conti’s parents that Kendrick had molested a child, but that defendants can be held liable for failing to limit and supervise Kendrick’s “field service,” a church-sponsored activity where members go door-to-door preaching in the community.  Kendrick had unsupervised access to Conti during field service that he used as opportunities to molest her.Because breach of the alleged duty to warn was the sole basis for imposition of punitive damages on Watchtower, we reverse that portion of the judgment, with directions to enter judgment for Watchtower on the punitive damage claim.  The compensatory damage award is affirmed".

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I do not feel that she was out for the money,

That's a good job because in the end there was an out of court settlement and Candace probably didn't end up with much after paying her lawyers fees.....

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

but rather to stick it to the jw where it hurts them most.

Yes, that may have been her biggest motive, revenge on a religion she came to hate. Although unfortunately, even that is disputed because there is no real proof that her story is true with regard to the molestation while out in service. (Had the perpetrator molested her outside of church sponsored activity, she would have not been able to ask the org. for money). If that were the case, then her motive for winning would have been money. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe Candace was molested only once, on a Amtrak trip she went on with her father and the perpetrator. Candace had been shown to have lied at least once in her deposition, where her story didn't match up with facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Anna said:

Do you know it wasn't an elder who reported him?

It couldn't have been. Why you ask? because it would make "Jehovah" sad.......(

15 hours ago, Anna said:

What difference does it make who reports? It should not be left only up to the elders to report. If someone molested my child it would be my prerogative to report and I would hope every parent felt the same. If I was an adult who had been victimized as a a child, and was finally able to speak out, I would report, hoping that the statute of limitations had not run out. 

Incidentally, Candace's perpetrator was reported to the police by his then wife (for molesting his step daughter) even before he allegedly molested Candace. There was ALREADY a police report about him. It didn't help Candace though.

It makes a huge difference as seen in the many many court cases going on right now against the wt. Lots of money is being taken from the wt because of their failure to report when they are aware of the abuse happening. 

Your prerogative, yes, however you've been trained not to because it would bring reproach on the name "Jehovah" aka. the wt. 

It didn't help Candice because the wt didn't warn the cong.  Again, it is all because it would make "Jehovah" sad. 

16 hours ago, Anna said:

She did not win in the way she wanted to, and the problem wasn't because the elders did not report. They couldn't report because they didn't know about Candace, and the perpetrator had already been reported during the first incident with his step daughter as mentioned above. The court reversed punitive damages because they found WT had no duty to warn (if it did, the same could have been said for the Police who knew about the first incident, and social services who knew about Candace).

Eventually the whole case rested on whether the perpetrator was allowed to go in service with Candace unsupervised. Ultimately it was her word against the elders words who claimed that Candace never went in service with the perpetrator on her own.

Extract from the final decision of the court:

 We hold that defendants had no duty to warn the Congregation or Conti’s parents that Kendrick had molested a child, but that defendants can be held liable for failing to limit and supervise Kendrick’s “field service,” a church-sponsored activity where members go door-to-door preaching in the community.  Kendrick had unsupervised access to Conti during field service that he used as opportunities to molest her.Because breach of the alleged duty to warn was the sole basis for imposition of punitive damages on Watchtower, we reverse that portion of the judgment, with directions to enter judgment for Watchtower on the punitive damage claim.  The compensatory damage award is affirmed".

She won, period.  

There is no law about letting the cong know, I get that, but I would hardly say that the elders were "protecting the flock". 
 

Let me ask you something:

Did they (edlers/wt) act in a Christ like way in the way that they handled Kendrick and his potential to harm more children? 

 

16 hours ago, Anna said:

That's a good job because in the end there was an out of court settlement and Candace probably didn't end up with much after paying her lawyers fees.....

Maybe, maybe not. But you know what she did get? Publicity! That right there opened the flood gates to give courage to others who were abused, to stand up and do something about it. it was the leak in the dam, and when the wt lost, others saw that it was possible to make the wt pay for their crimes! 

 

16 hours ago, Anna said:

Yes, that may have been her biggest motive, revenge on a religion she came to hate. Although unfortunately, even that is disputed because there is no real proof that her story is true with regard to the molestation while out in service. (Had the perpetrator molested her outside of church sponsored activity, she would have not been able to ask the org. for money). If that were the case, then her motive for winning would have been money. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe Candace was molested only once, on a Amtrak trip she went on with her father and the perpetrator. Candace had been shown to have lied at least once in her deposition, where her story didn't match up with facts. 

you can claim that she is a hater or a seeker of money, but that is what you have been told she is, but it doesn't make it so. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes ... a desire for revenge will motivate a person to seek Justice against overwhelming adversity... and a problem will be solved.

They are two sides to the same coin.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941 the desire for revenge by the United States was nationally palpable ... and the destruction of the Japanese Empire was the BEST thing that ever happened to their society as a whole, in a thousand years of tyranny and civil war.

.... and better for Japan's neighbors, too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
21 hours ago, Anna said:

Do you know it wasn't an elder who reported him?

It couldn't have been. Why you ask? because it would make "Jehovah" sad.......(

I was asking because you made the claim that it wasn't an elder when in fact you do not know. It makes your other arguments lose effect because one cannot be sure if you are just guessing.

5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Lots of money is being taken from the wt because of their failure to report when they are aware of the abuse happening. 

Not necessarily. Just because there is a lawsuit doesn't mean the plaintiff will win. It all depends on whether the court recognizes the law's self made problem, that of making clergy exempt from reporting. If it does, then elders cannot be blamed for not reporting. Of course this does not stop anyone else from reporting, which as has been seen, has been the case.

5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Let me ask you something:

Did they (edlers/wt) act in a Christ like way in the way that they handled Kendrick and his potential to harm more children? 

I don't know. It's their word against Candace's. The elders claimed they were watching Kendrick, and that he did not go in service alone with any child.

As for potential,  then all members of the congregation should be watched as anyone has the potential to harm children.

5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Your prerogative, yes, however you've been trained not to because it would bring reproach on the name "Jehovah" aka. the wt. 

I don't remember being trained not to report a member of the congregation if I suspect them of committing a crime.

5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

But you know what she did get? Publicity! That right there opened the flood gates to give courage to others who were abused, to stand up and do something about it.

I would like to make one thing clear, I personally welcome any change that helps to make children safer. I also have no doubts that all Jehovah’s Witnesses feel the same. If it means lawsuits is the way to go, then so be it, I am not against that at all. I believe the Australian Royal Commission helped in making JW child protection policies more transparent, and helped in some necessary changes and adjustments. The lawsuits are also helping in avoiding ‘mistakes’ and ‘oversight’ and are promoting extra vigilance in protecting children. If along the road there are ‘casualties’, since no court of justice always metes out justice, so be it if it helps a child. My arguments with the Candace Conti case was not to defend child molesters, (obviously!) but to fairly asses the case as far as it was possible for an amateur (me) (I have read all the hundreds of pages of the court transcript) and I have my own opinion on the Conti case.  No one will really know the true story, however, I agree with you, that if it has helped others to come forward, then it is a good thing.

And even IF some of those judgements end up wrong, it adds to the motive to protect children as far as humanly possible. And if it means that it restricts the freedom of adults (one elder told me that if he is using the rest room, and a young brother walks in, the elder leaves, and waits for the young brother to be done, before he walks back in, just so that there can never be any accusation) then so be it. And if it means a father cannot be alone with his own children then so be it. And if it means a mother cannot be alone with her own children so be it. Every adult and every relative, parent or step parent can be a potential child molester and a danger to their own children, step children and their children’s friends and should be watched so they are never alone with any child. After all, the ultimate goal is that no child is sexually molested in the first place, not just that a survivor gets compensated for the harm they have suffered.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Anna said:

I was asking because you made the claim that it wasn't an elder when in fact you do not know. It makes your other arguments lose effect because one cannot be sure if you are just guessing.

Court transcripts:

In February 1994, Evelyn and Andrea reported Kendrick's July 1993 sexual abuse of Andrea to the Fremont Police Department ("Fremont Police") and to Child Protective Services---Conti-Watchtower_North_Freemont_Cong._appellate_brief.pdf

 

9 minutes ago, Anna said:

Not necessarily. Just because there is a lawsuit doesn't mean the plaintiff will win. It all depends on whether the court recognizes the law's self made problem, that of making clergy exempt from reporting. If it does, then elders cannot be blamed for not reporting. Of course this does not stop anyone else from reporting, which as has been seen, has been the case.

$35 million in Montana

Fessler settlement 

Conti

Campos

16 cases handled by Love & Norris law firm and a pay out of over $13 million

just to name a few and I am sure there will be plenty more to come. 

And again I ask:   

Did they (edlers/wt) act in a Christ like way in the way that they handled any of these cases? 

17 minutes ago, Anna said:

I don't remember being trained not to report a member of the congregation if I suspect them of committing a crime.

Of course you don't. It doesn't work that way. 

18 minutes ago, Anna said:

I would like to make one thing clear, I personally welcome any change that helps to make children safer. I also have no doubts that all Jehovah’s Witnesses feel the same. If it means lawsuits is the way to go, then so be it, I am not against that at all. I believe the Australian Royal Commission helped in making JW child protection policies more transparent, and helped in some necessary changes and adjustments. The lawsuits are also helping in avoiding ‘mistakes’ and ‘oversight’ and are promoting extra vigilance in protecting children. If along the road there are ‘casualties’, since no court of justice always metes out justice, so be it if it helps a child. 

I am glad to hear you say these things. I think we all want this. 

19 minutes ago, Anna said:

My arguments with the Candace Conti case was not to defend child molesters, (obviously!) but to fairly asses the case as far as it was possible for an amateur (me) (I have read all the hundreds of pages of the court transcript) and I have my own opinion on the Conti case.  No one will really know the true story, however, I agree with you, that if it has helped others to come forward, then it is a good thing.

if it helps others , I agree. 

 

20 minutes ago, Anna said:

And even IF some of those judgements end up wrong, it adds to the motive to protect children as far as humanly possible. And if it means that it restricts the freedom of adults (one elder told me that if he is using the rest room, and a young brother walks in, the elder leaves, and waits for the young brother to be done, before he walks back in, just so that there can never be any accusation) then so be it. And if it means a father cannot be alone with his own children then so be it. And if it means a mother cannot be alone with her own children so be it. Every adult and every relative, parent or step parent can be a potential child molester and a danger to their own children, step children and their children’s friends and should be watched so they are never alone with any child. After all, the ultimate goal is that no child is sexually molested in the first place, not just that a survivor gets compensated for the harm they have suffered.   

I think some of what you said in this paragraph is a little extreme, but I get the gist of what you are saying. Restricting people shouldn't be the answer, reporting it to those who are trained to handle such cases is.

I really want to know your opinion on this, Do YOU think it is right that elders are to contact the legal dept and not the police? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    60,441
    Total Topics
    110,655
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,272
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Ruben Jimenez
    Newest Member
    Ruben Jimenez
    Joined




×
×
  • 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.