JW Insider

Thanks for collecting so many of the salient points in a single post. Most people in the United States who feel that they are getting the truth through true freedom of the press, speech, etc., believe the major networks that only pretend to be showing two sides of an issue. I caught a very lucid piece of questioning by Tucker Carlson on FoxNews, who asked a Republican Senator why the US would be so anxious to attack Syria without attempting an investigation into the so-called chemical attack in Douma. The Senator's response was that he must be a supporter of Putin to even ask such a question. White Helmet propaganda videos are still very sloppy and full of contradictions, and individuals among them have been caught in blatant lies and acts of terror of their own. Fortunately, Trump appears to be backing down on his own rhetoric today, and the White House admits that they realize the fight would quickly escalate into something "messy." The US still has limited proxy control over large parts of Syria where most of the oil fields are, but is accidentally tipping its hand in some of the recent admissions to this effect.

Matthew 8:14 14 And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. 1 Cor 9:5 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Timothy 3:2 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,

I just noticed that I said this without a proper qualification. Most of us know that there is no reward for good works, such as preaching, pioneering, giving excellent talks, going to Bethel, serving as a missionary, ministerial servant, or elder, or Governing Body member, etc. Jehovah rewards his servants, not for the good they do, but for the proper loving motivation in the heart. But, true proper motivation will result in actions. If we truly love God (faith) and our neighbor we cannot help but act upon that love. We will show our fellow human neighbors and brothers mercy, patience, love, empathy, kindness -- all fruits (outgrowths) of the proper spirit in our hearts. To the extent possible in our own circumstances, that automatically translates to action (good works). True faith cannot exist, therefore, without good actions that follow. Not everyone can do the same amount however (the widow's "mite," workers who arrive at the 11th hour, etc.). But if those who put in more work are jealous or disturbed by the lesser work others have done, then they don't understand that it was not the work that was rewarded, but the proper motivation. They don't understand what this means: "I want mercy, not sacrifice"

Back to the purposely misinterpreted question of "How Christ-like is Superman?" Many stories with a hero will have Christ-like elements. There was the book "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell for some evidence of this historically. Kal-El in Hebrew would appear to mean the "Word of God" (Voice of God) or the "demigod" or the "fast god." Also, as Moses was put into a basket and sent down the river to be discovered by adoptive Egyptian parents, Kal-El, this "greater Moses" is put in a space "basket" to be discovered by adoptive earth parents. There was another picture of Jesus in our publications around 1978 where he had the front hair curl on his forehead that was even closer to Superman style than the December 15 1979 Watchtower cover, but I don't remember which month it ran in. If I run across it, I'll post it.

This is really awful. I didn't want to just ignore this. It's all the more tragic for you, it evidently being so close to home, and so recent. I don't want to trivialize it by mixing the topic of drug addiction into a conversation about child abuse statistics, but you already know that this is a huge problem in parts of the world, and we can be thankful for the protections among Jehovah's people that leave us relatively immune from so many of such problems. I see your point, and in spite of the interpretation people have imputed onto this conversation, I don't agree that our problem with child abuse is nearly as bad as is generally found on the outside. I have only disagreed with using a flawed set of numbers and apple-and-orange ratio comparisons to make the claim. And I am concerned that after being associated (in several major legal systems) with a flawed process, we might appear to be defending the flawed process. Our numbers may actually be 10 times better, or 6 times better, but we attract unnecessary negative attention by appearing to defend a process that has been used in the way it has, especially in our own organization's recent history. My wife started a Bible study with a woman, now a sister, who had a drug abuse problem, not an addiction problem. I was asked to study with this woman's brother, who did have an on-and-off drug addiction problem. He was getting treatment, but it was a long process for him and he never managed to get to a point where he thought he was ready for baptism. If he had been baptized, he might have still struggled. But I would agree with calling the organization a "lifeline" for this type of person. Learning to rely on Jehovah to help overcome major issues with wrong desires becomes a positive habit in itself. I think he had a desire to get to a point where he could feel proud of his life, feel a purpose in life, and to some extent feel that he had a social structure and network to fall back upon in time of need. Part of what held him back, he said, is that he didn't feel worthy of association with a group of people who appeared to be ready to love him as he is and take him in as a friend. It's something I've seen in the prison work, too. Even after a baptism, some prisoners don't feel worthy of associating with the class of person that Witnesses represent to them. (For cases like this, I like the experiences such as the brother on the monthly broadcast a few months back who had been a true-to-life criminal, but speaks with joy and obvious acceptance of his past, present and future.) Even in the context of writing a book that could use a "study" or two for more credibility, I still don't see why you are looking for a specific number. The point is that we have made progress beyond most religions on most issues, but we always look to use the Bible as our guiding set of principles. Sometimes this makes us look a bit backward, but we stand on our record in dealing with all the issues that plague the world today. We don't dig our heels in to hang onto traditional ways of doing things, but we look to the Bible for the wisdom and counsel to meet all challenges, old and new.

I don't know. The hair is similar, but the cape is different.

I'm guessing that there is a 98.4572% chance that DefenderOTT actually is AllenSmith. (Do you ever go to that part of the forum that shows who is logged in at a given time and therefore, indirectly, who just logged out, and what post they are currently looking at at any given time?)

I do see a reason not to run with it. Even if it turns out to be correct, there is no 6.3 figure from any study or anything like a study, just as there was no 10-times-better or 18-times-worse figure. Imagine just a couple of tweaks to account for what are currently unknowns. And, most importantly, you can't draw any conclusions that are based on the 12-13% CPS figure without some idea of how many of the JW cases would have also been "confirmed" using the same criteria that the Australian CPS uses for confirmation. (Which as was said before, should never come into the calculation for any reason, because all of the JW reports were already filtered for sexual abuse, and the Australian CPS only reports the 12-13% after all types have been confirmed or non-confirmed.) Remember that we can only compare the number of children confirmed to be sexually abused in the CPS data with the number of children that would have been confirmed to be abused based on the JW cases. For example, lets look at 1 possibility out of thousands of possibilities based on what a confirmation might look like from the "17 cases." (I'll use all 17 cases here based on the likelihood that these cases actually run from a report on the period from about September 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016, or 11 months, although I am rounding to 12 months.) 8 out 17 cases: dismissed as false or unsubstantiated claims against these 8 perpetrators. That's about half. 1 out of 17 cases: the JW only molested non-JWs, which has been true of known cases elsewhere. (effectively making JW children safer, at least around this predator) 1 out of 17 cases: 2 JW children were molested in a public school setting, through no fault of any Watchtower process or negligence. 2 out of 17 cases: confirmed to involve only one child each 2 out of 17 cases: confirmed to involve two children each 2 out of 17 cases: confirmed to involve three children each 1 of 17 cases: confirmed to involve 7 children. Remember, that this does NOT include an unknown additional number of cases that slipped through the cracks, where molestors are no longer JWs, having left or been disfellowshipped in the past but who molested JW children, unreported, while they were in the congregation but whose activities continue to add to the CPS numbers. I say this because of JW "turnover." While currently one out every 352 Australians is a JW, it is probably true that one out of every 140 Australians either is now, or has been a Witness. But, for simplicity, we are ignoring any kind of old or new numbers from JWs already included in the CPS data. So, even after dismissing 10 of the 17 cases as having no effect on the safety of JW children, we still could potentially have 19 children confirmed to have been sexually abused. Of course, more JW cases would be dismissed for non-confirmation because they are probably based on reports, accusations, or confessions that are probably 10 years after the crime, on average. On average, we are therefore measuring how many 10 year old cases might come to light against a time when public awareness and new civil laws for teachers, hospital workers, etc, require every potential or suspected case to be reported. We will not even attempt to account for that, but it would clearly skew the JW numbers to appear much better than they would be in actuality. Also, we should keep in mind that CPS must count children who did not wish to report, and whose parents may have wished not to report. But the process works much quicker with CPS, and helps to confirm more cases because they were usually much more recent. Remember that since we should only be comparing the number of "confirmed" children abused, we can now compare our 19 confirmed children (out of 68,000) to the 5,559 confirmed children (out of 24,000,000). That alone would create a comparison of .0279% for JWs and .02313%. which would mean you would be 20% less safe as a JW than you would be in the general Australian population. Of course, another person might think that 0 of the 17 cases would be confirmed. And using CPS methods on such old cases this might even be true. Or you might think that only 5 of the cases would be dismissed, and the remaining 12 would confirm sexual abuse on a mix of one, two and three children each (averaging 2), for a total of 24 confirmed cases. That small difference from 19 to 24 would result in a calculation that says you are 54% less safe as a JW. Because we still have those intent only on creating contentions among brothers, I will add again that I do not believe these numbers mean anything. I'm just showing what could likely happen if there were a real study based on apples to apples numbers. There is no study, and I still believe children are safer among JWs than the average population, and much safer as JWs than among many other religious groups and institutions. And, as I've said before the changes the Watchtower has been making to the process is 100% better now than it was. (But I don't believe that the 100% is a real statistic.)

I hope you don't feel you are being blamed in any way. I know that you used the original "study" in good faith and for a good motive and purpose. It was a major one, but not the only one. My response to it was intentionally simplified, so that such a discussion as this could deal with some of these facts incrementally. Otherwise it could seem too overwhelming to someone who hadn't yet looked at it carefully. As I said just prior to getting into the details . . . Here are some other points that make it difficult to compare "apples to apples." The 12% number, which will vary slightly from year to year does not refer to a percentage of notifications about child sexual abuse. It can only be tallied after all the investigations are completed into every type of child abuse complaint, and only refers to a percent of confirmed cases. It can't be used directly as a percent of not-yet-confirmed cases. In the cases reported by the Witness congregations these have already been identified as child abuse cases requiring reporting. They start out as already identified allegations of sexual abuse, but not confirmed. But in the case of the reports from the congregations, we don't know how many children were involved. A single report could be about a person accused of abusing 10 different children, for all we know. Or it could be a false claim altogether. Of course, it is also foolish to try to create a comparison with such a small sample provided by the congregations. A difference of only one case out of such as small number creates a huge difference in the comparison. CPS (Child Protective Services) take reports of accusations, bruises and emotional trauma (etd) from the perspective of teachers, social workers, law enforcement, neighbors, etc. Most of the congregation reports are not from children, but are more concerned with the adult. You can start to see this from a review of the Australian cases and many of the anecdotal cases about Witnesses coming in from around the world. The average time it takes for an abused child to report is several years. The Australian CPS numbers do include persons who have been abused in the past, but are expected to mostly focus on those who are (or might be) in current danger. A real study could be done if Australia's CPS numbers had accurately kept track of religion both of perpetrators and victims. A better study could be done if there were numbers from the congregations broken down by year, at least since 2011. But even here we are comparing apples and oranges again. Typically old cases come to the attention of the congregation. If they are new cases, then it is likely that they are already baked into the CPS numbers. CPS focuses on new cases. CPS looks at it mostly from the danger posed to a specific child. The congregations' cases focus on the guilt of an alleged perpetrator who may have victimized anywhere from 0 to 20 children, or perhaps 1 or 2 children 20 times each. (Most familial sexual abuse cases seem to go this way.) And then again, we have the problem that the Australian ARC data is proof that the congregations never themselves would report cases to law enforcement or social services even when a perpetrator might be victimizing more people inside and outside the congregation. We also know from the interviews that elders involved in the cases did not encourage reporting by victims. ARC went ahead and reported hundreds of these cases to law enforcement for investigation. I read a few of these cases as reported in newspapers and they are horrendous. So the biggest problem is that we are comparing against a system that evidently OVER-reports (CPS) based on the evidence from its own investigations. The congregations have a long history of UNDER-reporting and hiding. So even a study that goes back many years, based on congregational data, would be worthless for comparison purposes. I'm sure we do better than most institutions with respect to the propensity for criminal perpetrators to associate with us -- just for the purpose of access to children, and the fact that they are often punished and socially ostracized if caught, and that the nature of the congregation allows for very few interactions with the outside world. (For example, non-JW perpetrators have less access to JW children, as they are less likely to join boy scouts, sleep-away camps, etc.) These things don't stop determined criminals, but they must surely give them some concern. There are more issues than these, but it's enough for now.

Part of it is the "invisibility" of children. They were so much less important to the discussion in prior years, especially - not just among Witnesses. Elders were almost by definition patriarchal and patronizing to children. Children's claims of abuse were always considered serious, but due mostly to the extent that it was an older baptized person who was now in trouble for acting on their sinful thoughts. But it was rarely ever considered how dangerous this was to children through their later life. This is the main reason it is now considered a crime on par with rape. Not every child reacts in the same way, of course, but for a very high percentage as you know, it can completely ruin their life for the next 70+ years. Not meaning to rehash, but we had a grope-y old 65 year old special pioneer in our congregation who managed to get a room in the large house of a sister who had two daughters. He constantly "accidentally" brushed against many young females. I pioneered with him and caught him doing the same "accidental" brushing getting in and out of the back car seat of a two-door car. And he never wanted to ride in front if there was chance to sit next to a sister in the back. The regular pioneer sisters (about 19, 19 and 22) wouldn't complain, but would just try their best to avoid his touches. When I noticed, they didn't want me to complain for them. No one wanted to get him in trouble. I learned that he had a couple of complaints that went to the elders from the sister he stayed with, but never lost his special pioneer status. She also kicked him out, I assume for the sake of her two daughters. But I remember it also took me a year of noticing before I complained to an elder (my father) and he told me they knew of his problem, and were "keeping an eye on him." Of the three pioneer sisters who worked with him, one has drifted away, one was DF'd and never bothered to come back, and one got married and probably still laughs it off as she did then. I saw her at an assembly 3 years ago and she seemed happy. Perhaps these are typical odds and have nothing to do with his treatment of them. This reminds me of a statistical point that almost came up in this topic. If the Branch in Australia reported that there were 1006 perpetrators going back in the records as far as 1950, and only 1,800 reported victims, then I hoped this might reflect something good about the judicial system, or the moral reminders, and daily spiritual food that all of us receive as Witnesses. The reason I say that is that the average abuser makes regular repeated attempts to find victims, and often finds many of additional victims, many of whom will never report the abuse. Some will report it only after learning that the abuser has additional victims -- because their own story is corroborated, because they are helping to corroborate another victim they can sympathize with, and because they realize that they could have helped others had they tried to report it earlier. I know that the claim of a report of 5,000 victims or even 5,000 cases of abuse is not supported in the ARC statistics. But we have learned that abusers can victimize multiple (sometimes dozens) of persons in a lifetime, and can victimize one person multiple times (sometimes dozens of times per person). So I don't really doubt that the 1,006 alleged abusers probably could represent at least 5,000 victims, and I don't really doubt that the 1800 alleged victims could represent at least 5,000 instances of abuse. But here is also where I think this problem is more limited in the congregational setting, compared to how it would be in many other settings. I include the way Witnesses (should) learn to handle themselves at school as part of the "congregational" setting. I believe our own congregational setting already fares better, and will continue to improve, especially after appropriate training by elders, appropriate awareness of the issue by children, and appropriate protection and watchfulness by parents. I believe that the congregational setting, and the usual congregational activities, and social activities provide a safety measure rather than a "pedophile paradise" as I have heard an ex-JWs call it. We don't have the priest/altarboy situations in the congregation. We don't have only single elders and ms. We don't have children-only activities where older brothers spend hours at a time alone with children. We have a lot of watchful (some would say judgmental) brothers and sisters watching each other even a bit too close for comfort. We have constant moral and spiritual reminders. We are voluntarily putting ourselves in an environment that condemns such sins and crimes. The few problems remaining in our process are being counterbalanced by positive counsel and, recently at least, continually improving processes.

Finally, you are back on track with this question. For me, the answer is that I don't know. I've said before that I think Witnesses fare better than the general population in all categories of child sexual abuse, but I don't know by how much. I think Witnesses fare much, much better in some categories of child sexual abuse. If I had to guess, I'd say Witnesses are generally two or three times as safe as the rest of the population, whether or not I have found any statistics to bear this out very well. My opinion is that the Watchtower's track record is much better now, especially in the last year or two, but that it still has a couple of necessary adjustments to align its procedures with the spirit of justice, rather than try to dig in its heels on a specific letter of the law. My opinion is that procedure has been poor in the past, and was once very slow to improve, but is still not as bad as several other churches and institutions. Certain men in leadership positions have been protected, some inadvertently, through a policy that is partly Biblical, but not consistent with the way we handle some other sins. (Circumstantial evidence has been OK for adultery, for example.) It's probably because this is an easy crime/sin to dismiss as not provable in many cases. And it's something we really hope isn't true, and we really hope it doesn't have to cause a scandal in the congregation and community. And we hate to see something that might have been handled within the congregation to be handed over to Caesar, whom we have several reasons not to always trust. In the last two weeks, I finally asked my uncle, a former and now-substitute circuit overseer, his opinion on the improvements in this area. He agreed that in a judicial setting, there is always a possibility that we would judge a case wrongly, in favor of the claim of either party, and none of us would want to make decisions with such far-reaching effects on people's lives. There is a subliminal wish to avoid it if possible. So, for years, brothers who obviously had a problem in this regard, even if they admitted some level of "wrongdoing," were typically given strong counsel, told to stay away from situations where such a problem could occur again, and every effort was made within reason to keep the police and community out of it. This was often the same wish of the parents of an abused child, and this wish to avoid scandal was encouraged, sometimes overtly. You probably remember a line in the earliest "Flock" books where elders could get a "free pass" on certain types of sin, and these sins were never specified. This came out of a time when certain "embarrassing" or "scandalous" sins would have a long-term effect on the ability of the elder to be respected, so the elder could take his "slap on the wrist" from the rest of the elder body and he would come out of it unscathed as to his reputation in the congregation. I knew of a situation where this principle was invoked for a wife-beating case. But, my uncle pointed out that it is obvious that it could apply to a wide range of sins or crimes that were thought to be in the same category. (I think he assumed I knew what he meant, but he didn't make this clear enough.) He said that he was humbled by the change in the procedure of contacting the civil authorities. His explanation was ironic. He said that "it finally puts the fear of God in these pedophiles."

It is far from a simple proportion based upon straightforward facts. It is a terribly sloppy calculation. You should look at it again. I won't get into all the potential problems that could bring the final number one way or the other, but I will point out some things that must have been missed. First of all, you can find the argument over at: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/TI5JLVKMB8LO0SE7C/arc-proves-that-jw-children-are-10-times-safer I point to that because it might be the original source of the "study," although I can't be too sure. I will try to highlight everything from the original in blue text, and then mark my own inserted comments in red text: Thanks to the ARC (Australian Royal Commission) we now have an apples to apples comparison with a pool size large enough to be significant.According to Australian Institute of Family Studies [1], there were 320,169 notifications of child abuse (2014 - 2015). Further the studies show that of these 13% is sexual abuse which provides us with a number of 41,622 notifications of child abuse. Further the total population of Australia for 2015 is 23,968,973 [2].This give us a ratio of 41,622 / 23,968,973. No it doesn't. In fact, if you read the source material here, [listed at the end of this post] you will see that the figures were taken from 2014-2015, back in March 2017, and that, as of June 2017, the figures were updated for 2015-2016. The number 320,169 (2015) becomes 355,935 (2016) which you might expect would be better for the overall original argument anyway. But notice that these are multiple notifications about 42,457 children (96% investigations complete). Here's the relevant quote from the source material. In 2015-16, of the total number of notifications (355,935), 164,987 cases (involving 115,024 children) of child abuse were investigated or were in the process of being investigated. Of these investigations, 133,329 (96%) were finalised by 31 August 20163 and 60,989 cases were substantiated (AIHW, 2017). . . . The 60,989 substantiations recorded nationally involved 45,714 children, which was a 7.7% increase from the 42,457 children found to be harmed or at risk of harm from abuse and/or neglect in 2014-15 (AIHW, 2016). Then we still need to look at how many of these 45,714 children were believed to have been abused sexually. The 13% figure in 2015 is closer to 12.2% in 2016, and the final number of children was determined to be 5,559 as you can see in the chart. Table 3: Primary substantiated harm types in Australian states and territories, 2015-16 Harm type NSW Vic. Qld WA a SA Tas. ACT NT b Australia Emotional abuse 5,961 9.133 2,123 1,558 414 376 225 549 20,339 Neglect 5,677 583 2,217 1,168 691 255 136 676 11,403 Physical abuse 2,776 2,975 1.014 750 383 104 64 295 8,361 Sexual abuse 2,868 1,463 267 696 152 35 24 54 5,559 Not stated 0 0 0 26 1 25 0 0 52 Total 17,282 14,154 5,621 4,198 1,641 795 449 1,574 45,714 This means that the ratio is not really 41,622 / 23,968,973 but should be much closer to 5559 / 23,968,973 = 0.02%As was reported to the ARC [3][4], since August 2015 - Janurary 2017 the service desk received 17 reports of child abuse. Nine were historical cases and none involved an elder. They all occurred in a familial setting. Of the 17, 2 refused to report as they were adult survivors and was their right not to report. That is a period of 17 months. Therfore the rate is 1 per month.The total number of witnesses (publishers) in Australia is 67,418 [5].This give us a ratio of 12 / 67,418 per year. Unfortunately, the reference for [3] is missing in topix, but reference [4] appears to be the place where the original "study" got the number "17" from. (See page 13, paragraph 34.) It's possible that these run from August 2015 to January 2017, but the context of the entire section suggests that it was part of a response from Watchtower Australia dated much closer to August 1, 2016, which included the August 1, 2016 Watchtower letter to all Bodies of Elders, new guidelines submitted in "Child Protection Guidelines for Branch Office Service Desks," also dated August 1, 2016, (page 8, paragraph 21). In fact, even the beginning date of August 2015 might not be correct. Of course, it is also dangerous to work from such a small sample even if it's over a 12 to 17 month period, especially if it is a time of unprecedented scrutiny. But we will give the "study" the benefit of the doubt, here, and say that these 17 cases represent only one case per month during the period, and that these are "predictive" of what can be expected, even without a year-to-year comparison as was done in the Australian CPS source material. If this is so, it gives us a ratio, as stated above of 12/ 67,418 per year which is: 12/67,418= 0.02% Notice that this is the same as the general population of Australia noted above, not 10 times better. 5,559 / 23,968,973 = 0.0002 12 / 67,418 = 0.0002 References...[1] https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/child-a... [2] http://www.worldometers.info/world-population... [4] http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/d...

It is more likely to be repeated out of a desire to make a defence for the faith, which I have never imagined was a bad thing. Defending the faith is never a bad thing. But it doesn't mean that it would be right, for example, to keep saying that we are the fastest growing religion when the statistics no longer support that idea. Yet this was once recommended from the platform as a good point to make in our door-to-door ministry.

Allen, It has become obvious that you are only on this topic to cause contentions, divisions, obfuscate, and create diversions. This does not mean that all the information you provide is false. But it appears that your overall intent is always to mislead and I think your contentiousness is designed to be part of your approach. As to statistics, you should also look at http://www.invisiblechildren.org/2017/12/29/child-abuse-statistics-the-best-resources/ Of course they are looking for donations and may have therefore cherry-picked from exaggerated sources, but most of the numbers align with reasonable sources. These are just a few from the page: 37% of American children are reported to Child Protective Services by their 18th birthday (African American children are reported at 54%) 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old.13 34% of people who sexually abuse a child are family members. 3% of girls were age 10 or younger at the time of their first rape/victimization, and 30% of girls were between the ages of 11 and 17. 96% of people who sexually abuse children are male, and 76.8% of people who sexually abuse children are adults. 325,000 children are at risk of becoming victims of commercial child sexual exploitation each year. The average age at which girls first become victims of prostitution is 12 to 14 years old, and the average age for boys is 11 to 13 years old. 80% of child fatalitiesinvolve at least one parent. Estimated that between 50-60% of maltreatment fatalities are not recorded on death certificates. More than 90% of juvenile sexual abuse victims know their perpetrator. Child abuse crosses all socioeconomic and educational levels, religions, ethnic and cultural groups. Terrible but reasonable statistics also appear here at http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/child-sexual-abuse-statistics ---------beginning of quotations from site-------- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau report Child Maltreatment 2010 found that 9.2% of victimized children were sexually assaulted (page 24). Studies by David Finkelhor, Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center, show that: 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse; Self-report studies show that 20% of adult females and 5-10% of adult males recall a childhood sexual assault or sexual abuse incident; During a one-year period in the U.S., 16% of youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized; Over the course of their lifetime, 28% of U.S. youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized; Children are most vulnerable to CSA between the ages of 7 and 13. According to a 2003 National Institute of Justice report, 3 out of 4 adolescents who have been sexually assaulted were victimized by someone they knew well (page 5). A Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows 1.6 % (sixteen out of one thousand) of children between the ages of 12-17 were victims of rape/sexual assault (page 18). A study conducted in 1986 found that 63% of women who had suffered sexual abuse by a family member also reported a rape or attempted rape after the age of 14. Recent studies in 2000, 2002, and 2005 have all concluded similar results (page 8). Children who had an experience of rape or attempted rape in their adolescent years were 13.7 times more likely to experience rape or attempted rape in their first year of college (page 9). A child who is the victim of prolonged sexual abuse usually develops low self-esteem, a feeling of worthlessness and an abnormal or distorted view of sex. The child may become withdrawn and mistrustful of adults, and can become suicidal (page 1) Children who do not live with both parents as well as children living in homes marked by parental discord, divorce, or domestic violence, have a higher risk of being sexually abused (page 171). In the vast majority of cases where there is credible evidence that a child has been penetrated, only between 5 and 15% of those children will have genital injuries consistent with sexual abuse (page 2). Child sexual abuse is not solely restricted to physical contact; such abuse could include noncontact abuse, such as exposure, voyeurism, and child pornography (page 1). According to the study published online and in the June print issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health. Compared to those with no history of sexual abuse, young males who were sexually abused were five times more likely to cause teen pregnancy, three times more likely to have multiple sexual partners and two times more likely to have unprotected sex, ------end of quotes from site----- Note added by JWI: My apologies for blatant copying of the page. I began to reformat but left all the information as it was. Will remove if there is any complaint.

There are plenty of reasons to think it is not 10 times superior, if based on ARC numbers.There are plenty of reasons to dismiss the so-called "study" as non-sense. The numbers actually do point to the possibility that the problem is 5 to 20 times worse with JWs, but don't get the idea that I think the numbers from the ARC produce any kind of definitive statistic. It's hard to compare record-keeping practices, reporting practices, recidivism rates, sensitivity to publicity, thresholds for dismissal or re-admission of membership, and a whole host of "unknown unknowns." Personally, I don't think a statistic is important. But I do think that honesty is important. We might be 10 times worse, or 10 times better. And either statistic is meaningless if our process is just and righteous. If our message attracted all of the worse sinners of the world who wanted to see if they could overcome their wicked desires just by association with worldwide brotherhood known for morality, then we could shouldn't be ashamed if we have attracted a large number of pedophiles into our number. But if our judicial process is flawed and is inadvertently "lenient" toward child abusers, or helps to hide them from law enforcement, or perverts justice toward children somehow, then we should focus on that. I''m concerned about the repetition of a statistic that came from flawed and perhaps less-than-honest reasoning. Quoting such a statistic known to be flawed might also be dishonest. But it also could be harmful if it makes someone think that we are 10 times better if we are perhaps 20 times worse. It might be repeated out of a false pride or presumptuousness. It might reduce the incentive to look for further improvements even if it is correct. Statistics are flawed by nature, and they are usually employed for purposes that are even more flawed. I speak from experience here. After I left Bethel I went directly into college to get a degree in Computer Science. (My Bethel roommate from my home state and our next door neighbor there, one of my best friends also from my home state, both went straight into college after high school to get a computer science degree and were assigned to the computer department at Bethel.) My first job in my last two years of college was working for the Bureau of Labor Statistics on housing data which turned into a job after graduation for a consulting firm (A.D.Little, Cambridge) through which I worked for the Trump Organization account in NYC. You can imagine what kind of lies, dam* lies, and statistics were being employed. It got so bad I moved into IT for a financial corporation, which probably did bad things, too, but I didn't have to see it up close.

I don't know. The point of this topic was to see if there was enough information to try to get a better idea. I know it's tempting to consider this idea of 10% to be from a legitimate "study" just because it made use of numbers. But there is a huge range of conclusions one could make from those numbers if one were to treat them as sloppily as the initial so-called "study" (that concluded with the claim that we are 90% better). So moving from 10% to 2% by assuming the so-called study as a basis is not valid. For example, a study could look at the fact that 1,006 different alleged child abusers were reported among JWs over a period of years that was similar to the time period covered when 4,445 instances were reported in the Catholic church. Wikipedia says there are about 5.44 million Catholics in Australian 2016, and our Yearbook says there were about 68,000 JWs. So, using the same type of assumptions used in the "90% better" claim, we could just as easily say that the problem among JWs is nearly 18.5 times worse than among Catholics. The ratio of Catholic "instances" to their total number is 0.08 out of 100. The ratio of JW "instances" to the total number is 1.48 out of a 100. 4,445/5,439,268 = 0.08% 1006/68,000 = 1.48% 1.48/.08= 18.5 While the ARC numbers would imply that we are 18.5 times worse than the Catholic church, we would only be about 5.1 times worse than the Uniting Church, using their census numbers, but would be only about 1.4 times worse if we use the most recent number of members reported by the Uniting church. It has evidently lost members in record numbers over the last 5 to 7 years.

Several of the cases were brought to secular authorities. The problem was that there was no evidence that the elders in any congregation or anyone from the branch organization ever brought even one of the allegations to the authorities. Also, it wasn't just "1,006 cases." There were 1,006 alleged child abusers, and about 1,800 alleged victims recorded. There were also abusers who abused the same victim several times, which is typical.

Yikes! I said nothing about "proof" in either a situation of nations slinging accusations, nor did I even say that sexual abuse can be proven by hidden info that only trained experts can recognize. Proof (and by that I suppose you mean incontrovertible or overwhelming evidence) is rarely a part of sexual abuse allegations, except in extreme circumstances (multiple eyewitnesses, rape kits, video, DNA). Usually, a predator leaves only victims who he (or she) believes will never come forward to complain. (Most young victims don't complain until many years later -- based on fear, threat, "guilt," lack of understanding, lack of trust in any confidants.) But he often leaves circumstantial evidence based on patterns of grooming the victim(s), patterns of characteristics among the types of victims chosen, patterns of controlling the victims, patterns in the methods to gain time alone with victims. These become things to watch out for when trying to protect our children from suspected predators, too. But predators evolve their methods and may try dozens of "patterns." There is nothing that can re-define child abuse "proof." No. They need to understand such situations better for nearly the opposite reason. So they can understand the complexities, and know why they are not relying upon themselves to make legal and criminal determinations. Also, they can have more empathy for all involved, and realize that the perpetrator is going to be an expert liar, and will appear completely innocent. They should also realize that the victim will, more often than not, appear to be a complete liar, appear "guilty" of something, with inconsistencies in the story, his or her memories, timelines, etc. They may appear hateful and spiteful and unchristian, while the perpetrator may appear godly and humble and caring and concerned. They should realize what I said above about the unlikelihood of "proof" of any kind.

I already mentioned this to you Allen, that you should tell the truth when making an accusation. You indicate that I defended JTR for saying things like there were "1006 perpetrators in over 5,000 instances." This is another falsehood from you. I have never defended those numbers. In fact, I saw them before on this forum and more than once, I corrected them. In fact there were 1,006 perpetrators who were Jehovah's Witnesses at the time of the the accusations of their crimes. There were more instances than just 1,006 of course. But the number of instances reported in the documentation was not 5,000. Here are some quotes from the ARC's website and documentation. Mostly from: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case Study 29 - Findings Report - Jehovahs Witnesses.pdf As at 16 September 2016, the Royal Commission has held 5,925 private sessions and more than 1,687 people were waiting to attend one. Many accounts from these sessions will be recounted in later Royal Commission reports in a de-identified form. The 5,925 "instances" probably referred to many from Catholic, Unified, JWs, and many other institutions and organizations. Page 11 says: The evidence before the Royal Commission is that it is not the practice of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to report child sexual abuse to authorities unless it is required by law to do so. At the time of the public hearing, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in Australia had recorded allegations, reports or complaints of child sexual abuse made against 1,006 members of the organisation. There is no evidence before the Royal Commission that the organisation reported any of those allegations to police or any other secular authority. Other statistics that might be of relevance in answering the question about the "90% claim" were also included in the document. It said that the total number of JWs in Australia was 68,000 as of October 2016 (7,000 of them were elders and m.s.) and that it had been 53,000 in 1990, increasing only 29% while the population had increased 38% in the same period. (The worldwide JW membership was reported as 8.2 million at the time.) Also, of interest, is the fact that branch rules for handing child abuse cases began to specifically reference child abuse in 1988, and the rule to call the legal department of the branch for any such case started in 1992. (See also the 1991 "Flock" book.) This might help explain why so few cases were recorded prior to 1988, even though the earliest case references the 1950's. Page 58 of the October 2016 pdf document states: In response to the Royal Commission’s summons, Watchtower Australia produced some 5,000 documents comprising, among other things, case files relating to 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950. Royal Commission staff analysed those files and produced data which was for the most part uncontested by Watchtower Australia. Perhaps someone got the idea that there were 5,000 instances from a statement like the above. But that isn't what is says, or means. Other statistics in the findings show that 579 of the 1006 admitted their guilt, and that 199 of the 1006 had been involved in child abuse or an accusation of the same before becoming JWs, although it was admitted (by Mr. Spinks, a JW on the stand) that these probably were also involved in such accusations again after becoming Witnesses (which would be the explanation as to why they were included on the list). Page 58 also clarified that the number being thrown around as 5,000 alleged victims, according to the data provided, is really about 1,800: the allegations, reports or complaints that the organisation received relate to at least 1,800 alleged victims of child sexual abuse I will quote the additional statistical points from page 58 which included the point above: the allegations, reports or complaints that the organisation received relate to at least 1,800 alleged victims of child sexual abuse 579 of those against whom allegations were made confessed to having committed child sexual abuse of the 1,006 members against whom allegations of child sexual abuse were made, 108 were elders or ministerial servants at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse 28 alleged perpetrators were appointed as elders or ministerial servants after an allegation of child sexual abuse was made against them 401 alleged perpetrators were disfellowshipped as a result of an allegation of child sexual abuse and 230 of those alleged perpetrators were later reinstated of those disfellowshipped, 78 were disfellowshipped on more than one occasion as a result of an allegation of child sexual abuse.

I understand that you yourself are a victim, and I am very sorry about this. I hope that you have been able to throw your burden upon Jehovah, and that time, prayer, positive activities, and the love of others around you has helped you heal. It is true, that the elders are not policemen. They don't have to be, although they should continue to learn how to be better judges. 1 Corinthians 6:3 reminded especially elders in the first-century Corinthian congregation: "Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! " (NIV) But sometimes elders have been known to protect their own in the same way that policemen will often try to protect their own when one of them is caught doing something wrong. A policeman who has been on the force for 20 years has done much good over that time and fellow policemen might feel it's worth overlooking or hiding some terrible mistake or corruption. The police "organization" thinks about what it would take to replace such an experienced officer, think of all the training and money that was invested in this person. If they can get away with a cover-up, then often they will. But the elders should be trained to focus on Jehovah's style of justice. All of us are replaceable. No one is indispensable. Elders could use more focus and training on child welfare issues. They should even be trained to recognize some of the psychological tell-tale signs of abuse. There are even patterns of denial by perpetrators that will often fool an untrained or person but which are evidences of an abuser. There are also children who falsely accuse, or who are mistaken in their perceptions. The elders should be trained in all types of situations, and be aware of patterns that are known to emerge. But they should also know that they are not the trained experts who deal with such things very often. There are secular experts who do have this training. Those experts might do a terrible job. Trained elders might do a better job. But that doesn't change the fact that crimes should be handled by the secular authorities, per Romans 13:1-5 1Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

I see the same thing, and it's usually overkill. It's often not limited to just wanting to have a serious discussion about process and practice and doctrinal issues. Some is out of anger at the organization, obviously, and therefore includes typical spite from ex-JWs. Some is out of the iconoclastic desire to tear down something that is essentially good but they perceive it as claiming itself to be "perfect." But there is little chance of this being discussed thoroughly among JWs in a congregational setting, or in a monthly broadcast. There is little chance that JW.ORG will ever include a comments section. So this is still about as good a place as any I know to discuss it with others who might wish to put some depth and thought into fixing it. Perhaps it does. And perhaps your point is true. But a scale can balance rotten fish with rotten vegetables. It would still be good to know if the counterpoint is valid.

Allen, Your point should be the same as mine, and it would be a shame (literally) if it is isn't. I understand as well as anyone why you think that a knee-jerk reaction to protect the reputation of the organization is so important. I've been there myself. And sometimes that reaction is correct and on-track. But there are times when justice is more important than protecting a reputation. When we put ourselves on the side of justice we are defending Jehovah's reputation, and this is better for the organization, too, in the long run. There are times when unrighteousness should be exposed. It is short-sighted to think that we are defending Jehovah's name by covering up what is bad. So, my point is that the problem is bad, because every instance of child abuse is bad -- even if our statistics are better than someone else's. If you don't think the problem is bad, then I don't trust that you are are doing everything you can to reduce the problem. We should advocate for children. We should advocate for justice. And we need to do more about this reputation we have earned, as an organization, for trying to hide the extent of the problem. It makes us look like we would prefer ignoring or hiding the problem rather than admit that the problem is bad. I don't think your insult has any basis. You say that people like me threw incorrect information out there without first understanding secular law. I can't speak for what others know or don't know about secular law, but I saw no instances where your insult applied to anything I said on the subject. I don't recall anything JTR said on this subject, but I do recall several of the things Anna said, and I don't think either of us stated anything incorrect or conflicting with respect to secular law. Both of us, as I recall, discussed the value of Brother Jackson requesting a legal change with respect to a consistent requirement for reporting, in all cases, which would resolve a large portion of the inconsistencies. As I recall, we both discussed this long before you yourself mentioned that you also agree with Brother Jackson's recommendation as a resolution for many issues. If you really think I said something incorrect, I welcome the correction. But with you it's usually just bluster, obfuscation, vagueness, and braggadocio. I hope this isn't more of the same. I don't condemn the Watchtower for inaction. I have long stated that the Watchtower Society has made many excellent changes with respect to these crimes in the past decade especially, and even some good changes to policy and procedure in the last two years. Perhaps you think you are trying to impress an audience who doesn't know any better when you make up false things about people you don't seem to want to get along with. If you have facts, that's great, but please leave aside all the acting and histrionics. There are not many way to make sense of that statement of yours. The trouble seems to lie in your attempt to fit too many untruths in a single sentence without thinking clearly about the issue. To be clear I am not excusing anything. I am "blatantly" trying to get to truth of the "90% claim." If you have any facts to add, great! As you can see, you probably weren't thinking clearly at all when you said I was "condemning the use of other religious statistics." I was the one who just recommended the use of other religious statistics for comparison. If you don't like this topic, Allen, you are free to avoid it, but please don't fill it with untruths for your own purposes.

Under another topic which was unrelated to child abuse issues, the claim was put forward (again) that JWs may have only a tenth of the problem that others have with child abuse. As TTH put it recently: TTH has stated this multiple times and in various ways now, also stating that JWs have found "a solution that cuts occurrences by 90%." TTH didn't start this idea, it was in another persons post, which may have based it on some very questionable numbers that came out of the Australian Royal Commission. I don't know if anyone can give an accurate accounting statistically, but if we are going to make such statements it's a good idea to start somewhere to see why they are being used. I will first present some numbers which appear to contradict the claim, and anyone who has anything different should, of course, join in if they think it's important to figure it out more accurately. In past months, I reported on the outrageous numbers that have been reported against the Catholic Church institutions, including their schools, where 7% of all Catholic priests have been accused of child abuse. Of course this represents an average in various diocese and institutions, where it might run as low as 0% in some, and as high as 25% in others. Even a high percentage of Catholic nuns in one institution had been accused of child sexual abuse. The nuns had a relatively small percentage when compared to another institution where the rate of accused priests and "Brothers" reached nearly 40%. It was a Catholic institution that was set up to care for children with mental disabilities. [The term "Brothers" in this context is a title which doesn't have the generic meaning it has among JWs.] The BBC interviewed several people who seriously stated that the Catholic Church should be charged with running a "criminal" organization. I think it is probably obvious to all of us that such levels of child abuse among the highest levels of church institutional leaders cannot be compared with the Witnesses, where the problem is not nearly so bad. There are also issues of comparing Catholic leaders such as bishops, priests and deacons and the counting of all problems among the entire congregations of JWs, not just elders and ministerial servants ("deacons"). But this doesn't mean the problem is not bad. I'll start throwing out some quotes I've read about what the ARC reported about JWs, the Uniting Church, and the Catholic Church. [The Uniting Church is a kind of conglomerate of Presbyterian/Methodist/Congregationalist churches in Australia.] You may need a subscription to this Australian paper "The Australian" or an account with a university or newspapers.com to see the entire content of the article that shows up in Google as follows for MEDIA WATCH DOG Friday March 17, 2017 : ----quotation------- Here’s some news which the ABC and Fairfax Media do not regard as fit-to-print. Over the past four decades, a child in Australia was much more likely to suffer sexual abuse at a school or institution run by the Uniting Church than at a school or institution run by the Catholic Church. The ABC and Fairfax Media – along with The Guardian and The Saturday Paper – have given extensive coverage to allegations against the Catholic Church made at the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The ABC’s Samantha Donovan and Philippa McDonald and Louise Milligan along with Fairfax Media’s Rachel Browne and Joanne McCarthy have been perhaps the most outspoken of the journalists regularly reporting the Royal Commission in so far as the crimes of pedophile Catholic priests and brothers have been concerned. The ABC and Fairfax Media gave considerable coverage to the statement by Counsel Assisting Gail Furness SC on 6 February 2017 that 4445 people alleged instances of child sexual abuse within Catholic schools or institutions up until 2015. Most media focused on the statement by Ms Furness that “7 per cent of priests were alleged perpetrators”. However, virtually no media attention was given to Ms Furness’s subsequent clarification on 16 February 2017, with reference to the Catholic Church: Between January 1980 and February 2015, 4,445 people alleged incidents of child sexual abuse in 4,765 claims. The vast majority of claims alleged abuse that started in the period 1950 to 1989 inclusive. The largest proportion of first alleged incidents of child sexual abuse, 29 per cent, occurred in the 1970s. In other words, within the Catholic Church the vast majority of allegations of pedophilia were made with respect to alleged crimes in the period 1950 to 1989 with close to a third of all allegations relating to the decade of the 1970s. That is, most of the allegations relate to instances of close to four decades ago and are historical crimes. In what was called the “Catholic Wrap”, Royal Commission chairman Justice Peter McClellan devoted 15 entire days to examining the Catholic Church. Hearings were held between 6 February 2017 and 26 February 2017. On Friday 10 March 2017, the Royal Commission devoted only half a day each to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Uniting Church of Australia. Yet the evidence suggests that, on a per capita basis, there were more pedophiles in each church combined than in the Catholic Church – especially in the 1990s and subsequent decades. . . . The statistics available to the Royal Commission with respect to the Uniting Church cover the period from 1977 to the present. That is, unlike the Catholic Church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the allegations do not relate to a period going back to 1950. There were 2504 instances or allegations of child sexual abuse made in the Uniting Church in the period 1977 to 2017 compared with 4445 instances in the Catholic Church covering the period 1950 to 2015. Yet the Uniting Church is about a fifth of the size of the Catholic Church. And its data covers four decades whereas the Catholic Church’s data covers over six decades. Moreover, evidence available to the Royal Commission indicates that virtually all offending by Catholic priests took place before 1990. Not so, apparently, with the Uniting Church. On this evidence, child sexual assaults in the Uniting Church have been more prevalent than in the Catholic Church – especially in the years since 1990. This despite the fact that the Uniting Church has married male priests and female priests. There is no celibacy requirement within the Uniting Church and no sacrament of confession (in which the Royal Commission has taken a special interest concerning the Catholic Church). Yet you would not be aware of any of this if you followed only the reporting of the Royal Commission by the ABC, Fairfax Media, The Guardian and The Saturday Paper. It seems the likes of Samantha Donovan, Philippa McDonald, Louise Milligan, Joanne McCarthy and Rachel Browne did not come back from lunch on Friday 10 February and simply missed the coverage of sexual child abuse in the Uniting Church in the four decades since 1977. ---end of quotation----- I downloaded that Excel spreadsheet from the ARC (once posted here) that gave limited information about each of the JW cases, and should note that even cases that went back to the 1970's were evidently not there because there was any regular record-keeping by JWs going back that far. They could have been included when a case recorded decades later was found to be applicable to an instance or accusation from a much earlier date.

Russia is a bad player among the world's states. UK and USA are also bad players. There is still no evidence that Russia was involved. Even the supposed proof that this is similar to Russia sponsored poisonings in the past is based only on "Western" claims that Putin and Company were behind those past poisonings. Allies of UK saying that "they trust the UK" is the same response of allies during the fake WMD-style talk. It's all for the same purpose, too. If you follow the money, it's going to defense contractors and the states that profit from (or are "propped" from) those weapon sales. The entire Western drumbeat against Russia, especially since the recent US presidential elections, has included more nonsensical rhetoric than sensible rhetoric. Sometimes it even approaches bipartisan nonsense.

I don't like to draw the line at just well loved and "special" animals. I can't wait for all the roaches and spiders and ticks and fleas who have ever died to also come back. After all, there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.