Ann O'Maly

"7.3 The so-called ‘two-witness’ rule only applies to the issue of whether an individual may continue to be a member of the congregation. Jehovah’s Witnesses are prohibited by Scripture from altering the application of the so-called ‘two-witness rule’.32 [Footnote 32] "The so-called “two witness rule” refers to a Scriptural rule of evidence that, absent a confession or other evidence, must be satisfied before the elders can form a judicial committee for an accused sinner (Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16)." - p. 14, Watchtower Australia’s response to the Royal Commission’s letter dated 4 November 2016 Definition is not the problem. They have a definition. The problem is their belief that they must apply it to instances of child abuse allegations, despite the fact that there is scriptural precedent for accepting only one witness, under certain circumstances, for rape allegations (Deut. 22:25-27). Their belief that they correctly apply the 'two-witness rule' prohibits them from changing it and so, coupled with JWs' long-standing culture of not reporting the allegation to the authorities but to handle it only within the congregation, child abuse has been allowed to continue. Naivety - partly. But the JW culture and mindset have been contributory too: not taking a 'brother' to court; not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name by airing congregation members' dirty linen before outsiders; mistrust and even contempt of outsiders; viewing child abuse as a sin yet forgetting it's a crime (this is slowly changing too); over-confidence that scriptural counsel and/or comfort is the answer; etc. I also think organizational pride has a lot to do with it as well. To borrow Angus Stewart's question to the Watchtower Australia representatives: "... why do you legalise it all the time and rely always on what the law provides? Why do you as an organisation not just adopt the policy, as many other organisations do, of reporting as a matter of course if there are still children who might be in harm's way?" - p. 26521, Transcript of ARC Case 54 Indeed it would. But society has to move together in this. That there were or are inadequacies elsewhere doesn't give the Org a free pass not to bother improving its own policies and procedures to come up to current governmental safeguarding standards. For heaven's sake, JW Org, as God's own favored people, is supposed to be the shining beacon that all the world should look up to, is it not?

OK. It is a fair assessment. There has been a long-standing culture for JWs to handle child abuse internally rather than report to or at least consult with outside agencies (this is slowly changing, but only due to outside pressure). It has been a long-standing belief that allegations of child abuse can only be acted upon when there are at least two witnesses to the abuse. Both these mindsets serve to increase the likelihood of abuse occurring.

Why would any responsible, caring person want to do that? I don't know why you'd suggest this. By depicting scary boogeymen predators? You think that's an improvement on the more levelheaded Fight Child Abuse video? Smh. Thank you. It only works if families actually do practice good ethics, and love and care for their children. Abusers are often great performers and hide what they are - JW or otherwise. Child abuse is prevalent everywhere, and some institutions' culture and beliefs serve to increase the likelihood of abuse occurring - JWs included.

No. Yes. Don't be obtuse. The Caleb and Sophia video is still aimed at children. If Mommy and/or Daddy are the abusers, does the video give the child other options on who to tell? It doesn't, does it. This is why the video is, to me, another example of how behind-the-times the Org is with how to handle the child abuse issue. I know you will disagree, but there it is. Yes. That is why I brought them to your attention. Just wow. Anyway, at least you've been Googling those 'big words.' Well done.

Agreed. Portraying abusers as sinister cartoonish boogeymen plants a preconceived idea of what predators are supposed to look like. I mentioned why this was unhelpful and misleading before. The cartoon is aimed at children. What if Mommy and/or Daddy are the abusers? What does the cartoon advise the child to do then? Well now, I see the scaffolding of a straw man forming in your imagining what kind of cartoon I would make. However, you have highlighted another unhelpful part in the cartoon that primes the child to think of the outside world as a scary place, when for abused children it's usually the home that's the scary place. Better qualified people than I have already done so. Compare the well-thought-out Fight Child Abuse YouTube channel, for example. Here's one of their videos: Notice that they specify what 'safe' and 'unsafe' touches are, and who might give the child 'unsafe touches' ("someone you know or someone in your family") and that, rather than limit the disclosure to 'mommy or daddy' as with the Caleb and Sophia cartoon, they widen the child's options ("tell your teacher, or another family member"). There are no monster figures to confuse (or amuse) the child in this video. More could be said about how this cartoon differs in approach to the Caleb and Sophia one, but I'll leave it there. Of course, I'm posting for the benefit of any interested readers. Naturally, I do not expect a calmly reasoned-out response from you @TrueTomHarley, although I live in hope.

It's a big word and I'm not sure what it means. Possibly JTR knows. Not sure which 'big' word you're referring to. 'Rational'? For definitions of 'big' words, Google is your friend

And it would be nice not to be subject to ad hominem rants by those who'd rather not engage in rational discussion.

Another world famous Catholic who suffered doubts ... ... in a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, that is only now being made public, she wrote with weary familiarity of a different Christ, an absent one. "Jesus has a very special love for you," she assured Van der Peet. "[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see,--Listen and do not hear--the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me--that I let Him have [a] free hand." [...] The letters, many of them preserved against her wishes (she had requested that they be destroyed but was overruled by her church), reveal that for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever--or, as the book's compiler and editor, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, writes, "neither in her heart or in the eucharist." That absence seems to have started at almost precisely the time she began tending the poor and dying in Calcutta, and--except for a five-week break in 1959--never abated. Although perpetually cheery in public, the Teresa of the letters lived in a state of deep and abiding spiritual pain. In more than 40 communications, many of which have never before been published, she bemoans the "dryness," "darkness," "loneliness" and "torture" she is undergoing. She compares the experience to hell and at one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God. ... http://time.com/4126238/mother-teresas-crisis-of-faith/

It's more like 'forensic evidence' that counts as a 'second witness.' However, where is that documented in the elder guidelines?

I'm simply asking you questions, based on your long experience in the Organization. If you have first-hand knowledge of how child abuse allegations have been handled in your local congregation(s) over the past 65 years that gives a different picture from the findings of judicial courts and royal commissions, I'd like to know. @TrueTomHarley I see that you have no suggestions to improve responses to child abuse allegations and to protect the victims from further harm. M'OK.

OK, @John Clarke, I take it you are or have been a serving elder. I'm curious. How many child abuse allegations have your bodies of elders dealt with in your 65 years' membership as a JW? How many of those were reported to the police or child protection bodies by the elders? How many abusers were disfellowshipped because of their abuse? How are JWs, who have been guilty of child abuse but not disfellowshipped, monitored in their interactions with young congregants and in the public preaching work? Do you reject the findings of the ARC which evidences a very different standard practice to the one you claim? @TrueTomHarley - I can't make much sense of all your ranting, but I think it's basically jabbing fingers everywhere else but home. Seeing as this thread is centering on child abuse within the JW community, what measures do you think should be put in place to improve responses to child abuse allegations and to protect the victims from further harm?

... especially when it's the 7 year old's mother(s) being talked about. Whatever one's personal beliefs are about same-sex relationships, you don't dump your misgivings or condemnation on the child! Smh.

I know you mean well, but I saw the JW Broadcasting segment when it first came out. He skirted around the core issue (the Org's responses when there is a disclosure about a JW abuser), proudly held up an old Awake! which scapegoated the gay community as pedophiles (silly, untrue and offensive), and showed a cartoon which taught little children that abusers look like scary boogeymen (very misleading, as abusers are often 'nice' people they personally know or are related to, and who spend considerable time grooming their victims first so that they feel trapped and can't do or say anything to stop them! E.g., what should the child do when the abuser is their 'beloved' parent? Is there a cartoon on that?). And as far as the Org's response to disclosures go, the ARC findings and numerous court cases all over the world have shown that your idealized view of how they are/have been handled in the congregation is, in the main, nothing like the reality. Even if the abuse is proven, the guilty one isn't necessarily disfellowshipped. If they are judged to be repentant by the elders, they stay as congregation members. Moreover (and this is important), the protocol you've outlined above is all backwards. If there is disclosure, the secular authorities should be informed FIRST. It's an allegation of a CRIME. The authorities can conduct an investigation to confirm the truth (or otherwise) of that disclosure and take any necessary steps to protect the child. Based on what the authorities discover, the elders can act accordingly. @TrueTomHarley Nobody's twisting your arm up your back to comment, you know? It is voluntary. You can walk away and leave the 'stupid' people to slug it out between themselves, you know?

@TrueTomHarley 1. A search for your (non-journalistic) quote bounced back to you as the source. 2. You haven't given a specific reference to your alleged source so how is one supposed to verify the information? April 2009 edition? Which article? Link? 3. We have been discussing the reporting of child abuse and protecting an abused child and other children from further harm, rather than all the varieties of sex offenders that end up on registers.

What does "Caesar" consider the Org's elders to be? Tweet him and find out? Now you're just trolling me. Not going to take the bait.

So God's Org emphatically denies its elders are clergy while Caesar's law considers the Org's elders to be clergy. Who to believe, hey? 

No. In response to Geoffrey Jackson alluding to a 'top-down' approach to governing the congregation by selecting the seven in Acts (likening it to appointing 30 helpers to the GB), Angus Stewart was trying to make the point that the apostles granted the "multitude of disciples" to select the seven for themselves, i.e. a 'grass roots-up' approach. A. I would like to turn to Matthew, chapter 24. Now, 33 Mr Stewart, perhaps I could give you the page number to 34 make it a little quicker. 35 36 MR STEWART: Q. I am on it already, Mr Jackson. 37 A. Very good. So Matthew 24, verses 45 and 46. This is 38 how the Governing Body views their role, what they try to 39 do. It says: 40 41 “Who really is the faithful and discreet 42 slave whom his master appointed over his 43 domestics, to give them their food at the 44 proper time? Happy is that slave if his 45 master on coming finds him doing so! 46 47 So the goal of the Governing Body as custodians of our doctrine is to publish literature that helps people in 2 everyday life using what the Bible says. And if I may just 3 add a second scripture, which I feel is very important, it 4 is the one found in the book of Acts, chapter 6. It's 5 page 1468, Mr Stewart, Acts chapter 6. Here we have 6 perhaps something that the Commission is more interested 7 in, rather than just our overall spiritual teachings. We 8 had a situation in the first century where there was 9 a practical problem where the Greek‐speaking widows were 10 not receiving food from the arrangement that was in place. 11 So the apostles at that point were asked to try to sort out 12 this problem, and you notice there, in verses 3 and 4, it 13 says: 14 15 “So, brothers, select for yourselves seven 16 reputable men from among you, full of 17 spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them 18 over this necessary matter; but we will 19 devote ourselves to prayer and to the 20 ministry of the word.” 21 22 So verse 4 describes the role of the Governing Body as we 23 see it, to devote ourselves to prayer and the word of God, 24 and that's why 30 helpers have been assigned that are 25 involved more with the practical side of policy and 26 implementation. 27 28 Q. Do correct me, Mr Jackson, if I misunderstand this, 29 but this does seem to me to suggest, in the use of the 30 words "brothers select for yourselves seven reputable men", 31 that a broader congregation of believers would make the 32 selection, rather than the seven themselves? 33 A. Well, this is one of the difficulties we have when 34 a secular Commission is trying to analyse a religious 35 subject. I humbly would like to mention that point. Our 36 understanding of the scriptures is these ones were 37 appointed by means of the apostles. Your point is well 38 taken. Let's assume, hypothetically, that others selected 39 these seven men, but it was at the direction of the 40 apostles.

My personal opinion, huh? g 8/10 p. 9 What Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe? 10. The clergy-laity distinction “All you are brothers,” said Jesus to his followers. (Matthew 23:8) The early Christians, including the Bible writers, had no clergy class. This Biblical pattern is the one that Jehovah’s Witnesses follow. g 1/11 p. 9 Will Religion Ever Be a Force for Peace? The following are some of the things that make Jehovah’s Witnesses unique: ... ... ● They have no clergy class. https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/no-paid-clergy/ Following the model of first-century Christianity, Jehovah’s Witnesses have no clergy-laity division. All baptized members are ordained ministers ... If JWs have no clergy class but all baptized members are "ministers," and there are no one-on-one confessionals, they cannot claim clergy-penitential privilege.

It's you. Lol. Valid legal points about JWs and claims to clergy-penitential privilege have already been thrashed out in recent court cases.

She didn't disclose because she was a scared little girl. She was too scared to tell anyone (mandated reporter or not) while the abuse was happening. She didn't feel able to tell her parents because of all the problems already going on in their lives. She was still too scared to tell when she was attending family therapy sessions. She finally told another mandated reporter - a doctor - when she was 16. So I think it's overly simplistic to say that knowing a person is a mandatory reporter will put some off disclosing. Reasons for not disclosing are far more involved than that (and JWInsider cited an interesting statistic about when victims feel ready to tell). This doesn't apply to JWs, though, does it? JWs don't have confessionals where one clergy-person listens to one penitent and what is discussed goes no further. JWs have a panel of elders who then report to the Service Committee and fill out forms and tell other elders, COs, wives, etc. And JWs don't have clergy ... or do they?

Which? The problem of abuse happening in the first place or responses to it. The responses are gradually getting better, on the whole. Still a long, long way to go.

Good. We agree. They could ask, "Why do you have suspicions?" Then they would advise the parents to report those suspicions to the police or the elders themselves would do so, after having informed them that they were obligated to as either members of the clergy (legally speaking) or as ordinary individuals, and having carefully documented what the parents disclosed and the circumstances of that disclosure. Then they would do the 'spiritual' stuff, which would include suspending an alleged abuser from any congregational privileges s/he might have while the police investigation is ongoing. Yes it would be right and responsible to report every allegation - at the very least to consult the authorities for their advice if there was any doubt. The reporting elder would be wise to document for himself when he reported, who he spoke to and what was advised. Mandatory reporting of child abuse in some form has been enshrined in law since the 1960s and '70s. The debates have been centered on widening the scope of mandatory reporting to include more people, or everyone. The reasons in favor of legislating extended or universal mandatory reporting have tended to occur in response to public and media pressure in the wake of massive exposés and scandals that have hit the headlines and that have highlighted how damaging under-reporting or no reporting has been to child victims. (See L. G. Brown III & K. Gallagher, 'Mandatory Reporting of Abuse: A Historical Perspective...,' Villanova Law Review, Vol. 59, Iss. 6 [2015], Art. 5.) I agree there has to be a balanced approach and some common sense needed by those who report and the agencies who respond, but it is still a community responsibility to flag up known and suspected child abuse. Either the policies need reworking, and an institution ought to be humble and honest enough to reappraise and improve them, or legislation ought to enforce it; Or the policies are sound but are not followed, in which case the institution ought to be brought to account when further injury to a child results because of not following them. I'm going to bring in TrueTom's and Eion's comments: So what's the argument here? Is it, 'worldly protocols don't work so don't bother reporting child abuse to worldly agencies'? Flawed protocols don't absolve us of our responsibility to report to those agencies. Anyway, the Org's protocols haven't exactly been working, hence all the damaged individuals speaking out, hence the Org being in the spotlight, hence the countless court cases. In any event, reporting abuse doesn't mean the endemic rate of child abuse necessarily diminishes. After all, a report is made when abuse has already happened. The point of reporting is to prevent further abuse to that particular child or other children by that individual perpetrator, to call the abuser to account, to penalize him/her, and for him/her to be publicly registered to alert the community to the potential danger to other children.

You'll have to apply to the court. But there are some documents online for purchase. https://fjdefile.phila.gov/efsfjd/zk_fjd_public_qry_03.zp_dktrpt_frames Case ID: 130901293

No, that's not how it should work. As part of the training for my job working with young people, it is drummed into us that we NEVER try to ascertain the truth or otherwise of child abuse allegations. This kind of questioning is to be left solely to those specially trained to do so. I have not had that specialist training. Elders have not had that specialist training. The following are standard protocols, and have been for some time in institutions (TrueTom, please take note - it is certainly NOT the case that "Most churches get around these problems by not having any standards. There are no investigatory committees for misconduct at churches where the daily text every day is 'Anything Goes.'"): Protocol • If you suspect that a crime has been committed or the suspected victim is in imminent danger: Call 911 or local law enforcement authorities and report the incident immediately. • If a child voluntarily discloses abuse: Control your emotions and do not look shocked or disgusted. Listen: Let the child talk at his/her own pace. Reassure: Let the child know it's not his/her fault and that you are going to help them. Document: Write down the date, time and specific circumstances of the disclosure including who was present and what prompted the child to reveal the abuse. D o N o t : Force the child to talk. Let the child know that you are concerned and that you are available if they need to talk to someone. Ask the child to disclose abuse separately to different staff members. Keep asking questions because you want to prove child abuse. Touch the child without their permission. Prohibit the child from returning to their home. • Report the suspected abuse as outlined above: First, call ChildLine (1-800-932-0313) immediately. Then, advise the person in charge of the Church/ School. • For additional questions or concerns, contact: ... This excerpt is from the policy document of Roman Catholic Diosese of Pittsburg, p. 7-8. Also see the policies of, e.g., The Evangelical Lutheran churches - http://www.elca.org/Our-Work/Leadership/Vocation-Become-a-Leader/Report-Misconduct The Episcopal churches' model policy - https://www.cpg.org/linkservid/3F743B4C-06F1-5DFF-86FFB64C8B79DE07/showMeta/0/, p. 9-10. Google other church child abuse policies. You will find that JW policies are nowhere near as robust - even now! First, the secular authorities are notified. Even now, this instruction is not included in the BOE letters or Shepherd book. Of course, the elders can provide spiritual and pastoral assistance to the families concerned, but they should not be 'forensically' investigating the matter. Leave that part to the authorities and then act in a congregational manner in light of what the authorities establish. Segueing into the mandatory reporting issue ... Why does it have to be that a law needs to be passed to make 'Jehovah's Earthly Organization' do the right and responsible thing?

There's plenty of testimony already recorded during the 4 days of trial to give us a picture of what really happened.