Ann O'Maly
-
Posts
839 -
Joined
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by Ann O'Maly
-
-
11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Definition of witness is the problem - procedural inadequacy
"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.
11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:Definite error of judgement this - evidence of naivety.
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.
11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:Pressure definitely exists, but probably sensible, clear, consistent legislation and enforcement would be a better instrument for change.
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
12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:And wouldn't it be helpful if outside "consultants" could be relied upon to have children's interests at heart?
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?
-
19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
I would say always rather than often.
OK.
19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:This is not a fair assessment. This is not about culture and belief with JWs. This is about procedural inadequacy due to naivety. You should know better @Ann O'Maly.
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.
-
On 3/14/2017 at 11:08 PM, TrueTomHarley said:
Well - how do you persuade a four year old, whose every instinct is to trust adults, that nobody, but nobody is to be trusted,, that at any time, any one of them might prove to be their worst nightmare come true - a nightmare that they cannot possibly envision?
Why would any responsible, caring person want to do that? I don't know why you'd suggest this.
On 3/14/2017 at 11:08 PM, TrueTomHarley said:How do you do that without terrifying the child, their generation already being far more anxious than ones preceding. I think our video does it better than yours.
By depicting scary boogeymen predators? You think that's an improvement on the more levelheaded Fight Child Abuse video? Smh.
On 3/14/2017 at 11:08 PM, TrueTomHarley said:. You are correct that ours makes no allowance for mommy or daddy being the abuser.
Thank you.
On 3/14/2017 at 11:08 PM, TrueTomHarley said:Everything about JW training and life serves to strengthen families ties, lessening chances of such abuse. Many things promoted in the greater world are destructive to families, increasing the chances of abuse.
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.
-
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:5 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:
The cartoon is aimed at children.
No.
Yes. Don't be obtuse.
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:Our video has the added bonus, completely lacking in yours, of instructing parents on how to teach their children and encouraging them to do so.
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.
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:Nonetheless, the Barbara Sinatra videos are well-done, and to be sure, 'mommy or daddy' have sometimes proved to be the abusers, particularly in step families. The Barbara Sinatra agency receives high marks from reviews I read on Yelp.
Yes. That is why I brought them to your attention.
3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:Hey, watch those ad hominem attacks, will you? When did I ever do that to you?
Just wow.
Anyway, at least you've been Googling those 'big words.' Well done.
-
11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:
The trick is to protect children without terrifying them.
Agreed.
QuoteMost adults are decent. Ann would portray them all as submerged predators. The deed is monstrous. Therefore it is portrayed as a monster.
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.
QuoteThe cartoon is a teaching tool for parents.
The cartoon is aimed at children.
Quote"Mommy' specifically says 'even if it is someone you know or trust." And immediately "tell Mommy or Daddy." Any Witness parent is going to ensure that point stands out when discussing the cartoon with their child.
What if Mommy and/or Daddy are the abusers? What does the cartoon advise the child to do then?
Quote"The world can be a scary place. But you are never alone with Jehovah," Daddy says. But Ann's cartoon would say: "The world can be a scary place. Watch your back every minute. Any grown-up, no matter how nice they look, might be ready to pounce on you and do you harm. Watch out!"
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.
QuoteTell us in detail the cartoon you would produce, Ann. One that will work with four-year-olds.
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.
-
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:
And it would be nice not to be subject to ad hominem rants by those who'd rather not engage in rational discussion.
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
-
15 hours ago, The Librarian said:
@TrueTomHarley let's not impute bad motives on the part of others.
honey rather than vinegar.....
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/
-
51 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Doesn't a professional opinion count as a second witness??
It's more like 'forensic evidence' that counts as a 'second witness.'
However, where is that documented in the elder guidelines?
-
23 hours ago, John Clarke said:
Ann O'Maly. It seems to me that you just want to argue, If you have any Questions, go to the local Congregation and ask the Elders the same Questions. unless you Turned Apostate & are just looking to justify your actions, that's what it sounds like to me !Don't bother me any more, ! and to answer your Question True TomHarley, ARMAGEDDON,
End of discussion ;
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.
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?
-
17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
the topic is certainly inappropriate for discussion between a 7 yr old and an unrelated adult.
... 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.
-
19 hours ago, John Clarke said:
When there is a case of proven child abuse. the guilty one is removed from the Christian Congregation ( Disfellowshiped) and announced to the entire congregation that the guilty Party is no longer a member of the congregation, and the proper Legal authorities are informed, as well as other Congregations where the Wrongdoer may have had former contact, Look at the video on jw.org jwbroadcasting under the title , we protect our children, evidentally you may not have seen it, sincerely john (jack) Clarke.
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?
-
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.
-
18 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:19 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:
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?
What does "Caesar" consider the Org's elders to be?
Tweet him and find out?
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:Almost everyone on the public sex offender register is harmless or of minimal risk.
Now you're just trolling me.
Not
going
to
take
the
bait.
-
1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:
Yes well, you're dealing with your emphatic definition of what clergy is. However, it would be a delusional proposition since I'm referring to what the law considers clergy.
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?
-
2 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:
So he doesn't imply an understanding that the seven reputable men selected themselves?
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 ourdoctrine 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. -
21 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:
Well, that's your personal opinion.The good thing people can see for themselves your failure to see the clergy penitential privilege to be a factor for witnesses as well.
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.
-
53 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Is it me or does this question demonstrate an ignorance of how the process of selecting the "seven reputable men" is described at Acts 6:3-6?
It's you.
1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:So in effect, the body of elders are required to keep that same type of privilege. Only ignorance does not discern that privilege communication also runs outside any religious organization. With all your blustering you might want to consider making a valid legal point.
Lol. Valid legal points about JWs and claims to clergy-penitential privilege have already been thrashed out in recent court cases.
-
On 3/3/2017 at 9:14 PM, Anna said:
I can think of one problem immediately; (as I am sure you can) will the knowledge that whatever disclosure regarding child sexual abuse, will immediately be made known to the authorities, prevent some from disclosing? I know for a fact it will. Social workers are obligated (in the US) to tell their clients that if the client decides to disclose things of that nature, the social worker is mandated to report to the authorities. This has prevented many from making that disclosure. Candace Conti was one of them. She only disclosed everything many years later when she filed a lawsuit against WT and the congregation. ...
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).
38 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:... clergy-penitent privilege ...
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?
-
44 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:
No argument from my standpoint. Just an observation on the truly pathetic attempts of society in general, "lay" or "professional", religious or secular, to effectively address the problem thus far.
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.
-
On 3/2/2017 at 9:19 PM, Anna said:
You misunderstood me. I did say (reporting child abuse) "will free the elders to concentrate more on helping the victim spiritually, and leave the rest to the authorities".
Good. We agree.
On 3/2/2017 at 9:19 PM, Anna said:I did not mean elders would investigate the crime. If, lets say a parent, suspicious of their child being sexually abused by someone, approaches an elder with that concern, it is logical that the elders should ask some questions.
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.
On 3/2/2017 at 9:19 PM, Anna said:It wouldn't be right for the elders to contact the authorities with every allegation of child abuse ...
... the right and responsible thing might not necessarily be to report every allegation of child sexual abuse. Why do you think it has taken states this long to make reporting mandatory? Think about it.
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.
On 3/2/2017 at 9:19 PM, Anna said:Policies are no good if they don't work in practice. Read this interesting report (first posted by CMP)
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:
On 3/3/2017 at 11:56 AM, TrueTomHarley said:I might feel differently if such outside protocols worked, but abundant evidence has been given in this thread that they do not work in the sense of making any appreciable dent in the endemic rate of child abuse.
On 3/4/2017 at 0:30 AM, Eoin Joyce said:Seems such bumbling is not the sole province of lay people either.....
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.
-
On 3/2/2017 at 6:38 PM, Anna said:
Where can one get a hold of it?
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
-
On 2/27/2017 at 11:50 PM, Anna said:
Allegations disclosed to the elders are disclosed to the elders for a reason. If it's an allegation against a congregation member, by a congregation member, then it is expected to be handled at congregation level. Elders do not claim to be substitutes for secular authorities. The elders job is to keep the congregation clean spiritually and morally. In order to be able to do that, the elders need information, I am sure you will agree with that. However, how much and what kind of information is required is different to what secular authorities require and something that will probably change. With mandatory reporting any disclosure will immediately be reported to the police. This will free the elders to concentrate more on helping the victim spiritually, and leave the rest to the authorities. Right?
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 ...
On 2/28/2017 at 6:04 AM, TrueTomHarley said:It could be so simple and straightforward. Brother Jackson apparently pleaded for it to be so. It's obvious he wants to eliminate sources of confusion or ambiguity. He wants it straightforward. There is no reason it should not be, as he and any other person of common sense asks.
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?
Just wow.
The 'Reasoning' book's discussion of the 'Cross'
in Topics
Posted
I already discussed in my OP how Vine's and the Companion Bible is outdated and flawed. The Companion Bible's conclusion ("The evidence is thus complete that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake...") is an erroneous one due to the author having both incomplete evidence (e.g. not accounting for the Oxyrhyncus discoveries) and relying on faulty scholarship (e.g. Hislop).
As pointed out in the OP, the WTS and its anointed have used poor source material or ignored key information to form their conclusions. False premises result in false conclusions, i.e. error.
At least they finally corrected their long-held misconception that Jesus was impaled, so that's a tiny bit of progress.