Jehovah's Witnesses to face abuse inquiry

[Evacuated]

5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

What should be done if the “victim” and the “guardian” plea to the Elders NOT to contact the local authorities, as was the case in Australia?

Valid points made in AllenSmith's posting. 

The inconsistency and complexity of legal requirements in Australia was recognised by the ARC and the Society's affirming a desire for something consistent and simple was invited.

Compare the confusion in Australia:  

https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect 

with that in the US: 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/manda/ 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/clergymandated/

where definition on who constitutes "clergy" is inconsistent or vague with only Guam making any sense, and where "clergy-penitent" privilege is abrogated or permitted depending on constantly changing state law.

This is compounded immeasurably when considered on a global scale. For Jehovah's people who aim to transcend the fragmentation of nations, operating in a united way in such a Babel-like confusion is an enormous challenge. Rom 13:1 demands respect for Caesar, but today there are many Caesars. Applying a global policy is impossible, hence region-specific instruction and the Branch contact requirement. 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The average time between the abuse and the time of reporting that abuse is still about 30 years. So the kinds of forensics are quite different from a car accident, or what can be found in a "rape kit" for example.

Quite true, but no reason for a weak policy as some abuse comes to light considerably earlier. And surely the aim in part is to promote this?

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Also disappointed to see so many "holes" in our own document

Agreed. Left hand and right hand comparisons tempting here.

To be fair though, the intense scrutiny levelled against Jehovah's Witnesses in this situation would probably mean that anything submitted would be crticised unless virtually worded by the the ARC themselves. It was prudent to wait for the ARC comments before distributing the policy doc even if the proclaiming of the wisdom of doing so came across as a little self-promoting.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

three openings

The fudged discussion on defining "inactivity" and "disassociation" was embarrasing. Is that included?

 

 

[Shiwiii]

On 3/10/2017 at 9:51 PM, JW Insider said:

It was fortunate that Stewart didn't realize that this places the age back to as young as 8 years old.

If you realize this, then you know that it is not right. An 8 year old cannot fathom the consequences of many decisions an adult makes, but yet they are held to the same requirements as an adult. I have no doubt that Mr. Stewart did realize this fact, but the trial was more about the actions taken since the inquiry. 

Posting this from another thread: 

 I'm curious as to what the average jw thought. Was it a good representation of the wt?

Did the testimony make you proud to be a part of the organization?

Do you feel that there was places in wt doctrine that could be adjusted or improved on?

Was it succinct and complete?

Do you feel that Mr. Spinks and Mr. O'Brian were in cooperation with the courts requests? 

Were the statements from the court and counselors "apostate lies"? 

On 3/10/2017 at 6:38 PM, AllenSmith said:

That in itself has made many claims here and elsewhere overreaching without the proper facts. That suggestion that Elders have a strict code when it comes to delicate matters would, therefore, be false. Since NOT all Elders handle a case the same way. You also have to weigh in secular laws.

Isn't this what the Elders handbook is for? To direct the elders in handling these types of matters? Hasn't there been letters to all congregations directing elders on how to handle these situations? Is there not a procedure in place for elders to follow? There is, so if there are elders who deviate from the direction given on handling such matters, they are rogue and not following the standard procedure, the standard procedure which is under investigation. 

 

On 3/10/2017 at 6:38 PM, AllenSmith said:

That's Why Bro Jackson suggested to the ARC to make the AU laws clear-cut so there wouldn't be any confusion when it came to priorities.

The law was "clear-cut" in Pennsylvania, but Stephanie Fessler was not protected.

 

On 3/10/2017 at 6:38 PM, AllenSmith said:

None here are lawyers.

 Assumptions are never good at providing facts. 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

[1] I'm curious as to what the average jw thought. Was it a good representation of the wt?

[2] Did the testimony make you proud to be a part of the organization?

[3] Do you feel that there was places in wt doctrine that could be adjusted or improved on?

[4] Was it succinct and complete?

[5] Do you feel that Mr. Spinks and Mr. O'Brian were in cooperation with the courts requests? 

[6] Were the statements from the court and counselors "apostate lies"? 

This is what I think, along with some speculation.

QUESTION #1: I thought it was an awkward representation of the WT. They could have done better with better spokespeople. But Toole was apparently fired from the Branch after the last performance and for getting Brother Jackson involved. And O'Brien had been exiled to New Guinea for the same reasons. A better spokesperson took his place within the Branch but the court either was not aware or wanted continuity. A couple of the other spokespersons from the Branch could not be used because of conflicts of interest related to some of the individual cases themselves. 

QUESTION #2: Not particularly. I am proud that we have the courage not to participate in war and other divisive political issues. I am proud that we have a reputation for preaching the good news of the Kingdom in all the inhabited earth. I am proud that we promote Bible reading, Bible study, and more than 100 meetings and conventions every year for this noble purpose. I am proud that we search the Bible for improved teachings that do not depend on traditional teachings, and that even if we might still be wrong on some, we keep making adjustments and improvements. I'm proud that we can come together humbly, putting our own interests aside and get along with persons of different languages, nationalities and races. I'm proud of the way we trust one another, look out for one another. I won't bore you with 100 other things I'm proud of. But the point I just mentioned  about trust  is taken advantage of by some, and perhaps this makes us more vulnerable than some other institutions to the crime of child abuse. We are clearly not the only ones affected, so I don't mean to limit the many factors at play.

QUESTION #3: Yes. And they are 100% Biblical.

QUESTION #4: It was succinct and complete from the ARC's perspective. This had the sound of a pending ultimatum.

QUESTION #5: No. They continually had opportunities to show where they could have been pro-active, and they almost made a point to highlight how they had only been re-active on some points and even in-active on some. This was primarily O'Brien's big mistake, which is bound to cost the Society a lot more than would have been necessary in the area of redress. Spinks played into the trap of not realizing what this kind of hearing was about. Whether sincere or not, other institutions figured it out and made pro-active amends. 

QUESTION #6: Of course not. But they were no doubt helped along by ex-JWs with an inside knowledge of the Society's weaknesses in Australia and elsewhere. 

 

[Shiwiii]

Thank you first and foremost for genuinely answering. I really do appreciate the feedback. It helps me understand where some jws place their opinions and why. 

 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

QUESTION #3: Yes. And they are 100% Biblical.

Can you elaborate on this a little? I mean, if we are to go strictly from the Bible, then there are plenty of changes that can be made. 

I agree with your assessment on question #4, it does seem to be building to an ultimatum, I just wonder what. 

I agree with you on #5 as well, I just feel it is a shame that it takes a secular gov't to bring this to light and force some sort of change. Shouldn't (we) be proactive in protecting not just our children, but the rest of society if there is a person preying on others criminally.? 

#6:  Why should a society that claims God's backing have any weakness in which the courts or laws could leverage against? That is a complete side note, I just wanted to make that statement. I do understand that every group has its faults, but not every group is claiming sole ownership as "God's people", some do and some don't. 

I don't think that its fair to assume that this was mostly from the assistance of ex-jw's. That is just playing into the theory that "all ex-jw's" are "bitter" or haters or "mentally diseased", I thought it was compelling that Justice McClellan brought up the fact that there are going to be some who just cannot continue to associate with jws, based on how unfairly they were treated by the organization, and will have their whole social structure ripped out from under them. There are many cases where someone does not want to lose their family and friends, but cannot continue to adhere to wt policy. His point was that it was cruel. I'm not too sure this will have any impact, as groups can and do have their own rules, but it is still a human decency issue.  

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

es, well don’t start confusing Australian laws with that of the United States. Stephanie Fesslers case which was settled prompted a question with how the USA laws are written. That why Candace Conti case that was awarded a huge amount in, punitive damages, was overturned by the California Supreme Court. that’s why Bro Jackson suggested a clear-cut legislation that everyone can understand without confusion.

was the law not clear cut in Pennsylvania? 

 

As far as clergy goes, I believe that the wt has stated many times that they do not have clergy, if need be I can dig up sources from the pubs if you like, only to claim this privilege in the Fessler case?  Which is it? Do they or do they not? Does it only matter when in court? Or is it the amount of money they stand to lose if they choose not to use it? 

Also, if the support for the "elders" in the Fessler case was the use of clergy, then why did they settle instead of taking the full trial and seeing how the cards would fall? I mean a settlement is used as a way to save face if you know you are going to lose in the end. 

[JW Insider]

36 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

Can you elaborate on this a little? I mean, if we are to go strictly from the Bible, then there are plenty of changes that can be made.

I agree, but what I would propose would still be incomplete in terms of encompassing so many different possible circumstances, and I don't really want to think about all these possible circumstances. Also, the ideas I would incorporate have mostly been discussed already, in a general way at least, and have mostly already been recommended by the courts in some form, too. If I have some time to fill some of the gaps, I might join a separate discussion about this. The gap I still have is in the nearly arbitrary age definitions that one might start out with. There is no Biblical definition of what defines a child vs young adult vs adult. But there are some common sense ideas, which will always be subject to exceptions. A congregation or any church institution should choose elders who have common sense, and therefore have the ability to make sensible exceptions when necessary. That's one of the reasons for the intended level of qualifications and life experience and other requirements for elders that is suggested in the Bible (Timothy, Titus, etc). We should never expect the Christian congregation to start forming legalistic procedures, but we should expect the Christian congregation to continue looking for ways to deal with every problem in the most loving and efficient way possible.

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

I agree with you on #5 as well, I just feel it is a shame that it takes a secular gov't to bring this to light and force some sort of change. Shouldn't (we) be proactive in protecting not just our children, but the rest of society if there is a person preying on others criminally.? 

I'm not surprised, though. The sons of darkness may know more about taking care of such problems than the sons of light do.

(Luke 16:8) 8 And his master commended the steward, though unrighteous, because he acted with practical wisdom; for the sons of this system of things are wiser in a practical way toward their own generation than the sons of the light are.

In general, JWs are not lawyers, so we don't meet up with as many related cases as certain types of lawyers would. Even if we try to collect info on a lot of cases and put it in one place, we can't always have the expertise to make proper inferences about them. In general, JWs also do not work in law enforcement, social work, psychology, or other professional medical fields. So we don't necessarily have enough of those kinds of experts to call together into one place for the purpose of combining expertise through discussion in order to come to some helpful conclusions. Besides, among JWs, some of these persons would be women, and we are a patriarchal organization. There are people in authority in other places who have the power and resources to bring a lot more minds together. I have even heard that Barbara Anderson was asked to go to the Vatican because the Vatican was interested in what processes could be implemented to protect more victims.

Because of their experience, the ARC, for example, was able to point out several clear flaws in our sets of documents. Of course, finding fault is a lot easier than coming up with a comprehensive solution. And even a supposed comprehensive process solution doesn't mean it will really work all that well when imperfect people implement it.

And, yes, of course we should be more proactive in looking for ways to protect all persons, in all parts of society, even showing that we love our enemies.

4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

#6:  Why should a society that claims God's backing have any weakness in which the courts or laws could leverage against? That is a complete side note, I just wanted to make that statement. I do understand that every group has its faults, but not every group is claiming sole ownership as "God's people", some do and some don't. 

I think the principle from Luke 16:8 might answer a portion of that question. I can also think of lots of other ways in which people who are "babes as to badness" might find themselves out-leveraged and shown up as weak in courts of law. It happens all the time. This is not a direct defense of the current problem however.

(1 Corinthians 14:20) 20 Brothers, do not become young children in your understanding, but be young children as to badness; and become full-grown in your understanding.

It's true that we want to represent ourselves in a manner worthy of calling ourselves "God's people." But it has never been true that "God's people" did not have weaknesses and faults.

4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I don't think that its fair to assume that this was mostly from the assistance of ex-jw's.

I didn't assume it was mostly from the assistance of ex-JWs. I do sense some participation however.

4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

His point was that it was cruel. I'm not too sure this will have any impact, as groups can and do have their own rules, but it is still a human decency issue.

He made some powerful and relevant points. But you are right. Shunning is practiced by some religions much more strictly than in ours. I don't see a Biblical requirement for shunning in the way many JWs still practice it. I think that, except for a few rare cases, the Biblical reasons given for shunning don't really apply to the types of persons that JWs tend to shun.

[JW Insider]

50 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I could go on, but since your “spiritually rounded” hypocritical world, doesn’t recognize simple script like 1 Corinthians 6:9? I’ll leave it at that.

Hard to tell what all that was really about. But if it was intended as a response to the end of my last post, then I think you may have unwittingly helped to make my point.

[JW Insider]

6 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

That your delusional to think certain things can't be applied scripturally, only in your tiny world that doesn't constitute God's vision entered in scripture. Yet you are advocating child safety and unscriptural "shunning" that is an apostate misleading word for distancing ourselves from the very circumstances your hypocrisy is attempting to convey, it must be nice to eat your cake and have it too.

No comment. I just had to save this in case your original got edited or disappeared. Classic!

[admin]

@AllenSmith enough is enough with you guys here in JW land.... cease and desist.

I've warned you before to stick to the issues and leave the personal attacks elsewhere.

 

[admin]

@AllenSmith I am not defending ANY religion on here. All I am asking is that you refrain from attacking others based on their beliefs. I don't care if they worship a cow in India with purple earrings... You have a right to your opinion just like others do. State your opinion and move on. 

 

[Shiwiii]

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In general, JWs also do not work in law enforcement, social work, psychology, or other professional medical fields.

Then why act as though they do? 

 

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't see a Biblical requirement for shunning in the way many JWs still practice it. I think that, except for a few rare cases, the Biblical reasons given for shunning don't really apply to the types of persons that JWs tend to shun.

I'm glad you feel that way, I hope others do as well. There is of course a significant difference between a serial unrepentant murderer and someone who just doesn't feel that the wt is God's org. 

[Anna]

Just piping in here. I have a question. It seemed to bother the ARC that the WT side was not represented by a member of the Governing Body, and that is quite understandable. To quote them:

"Given that the Governing Body is based in the United States, the Royal Commission does not have the power to compel a member of the Governing Body to give evidence in this hearing. Nevertheless, on 16 January 2017, the Royal Commission wrote to Watchtower Australia requesting that a member of the Governing Body be available to give evidence at this hearing whether in person or by video link. On 31 January 2017, Watchtower Australia informed the Royal Commission that a member of the Governing Body would not be available to give evidence.  That is a matter of considerable regret given the degree to which the Australia Branch is subject to the control of the Governing Body on matters of policy, procedure and practice". - page 4 of the OPENING ADDRESS BY SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTING.

The only possible reason I could come up with for a member of the GB desisting from participation is that one member cannot act on behalf of the other members in that capacity. But they could all be present by video link surely? So does anyone know what the reason could be?

And why did the GB think it was OK to have Tool and O'Brien again, if, as JWI mentions, their last performance was evidently not appreciated by the GB. It indeed seemed an awkward representation of the WT. If a member of the GB could not give evidence, then surely one of the GB helpers could have? With something this important.

[JW Insider]

30 minutes ago, Anna said:

And why did the GB think it was OK to have Tool and O'Brien again, if, as JWI mentions, their last performance was evidently not appreciated by the GB. It indeed seemed an awkward representation of the WT. If a member of the GB could not give evidence, then surely one of the GB helpers could have? With something this important.

The following contains opinion, of course:

I know this might sound cynical because it echoes the 'follow the money' line of thinking. But unfortunately, this was the reason that all branches moved as much of their money as possible to New York, and moved toward trustee arrangements for property ownership. (My guess is that this arrangement will also come into play when redress is defined.) The next step to reach the same goal is to cut the legal ties between the HQ and the branches and even the branches and the congregations. In spite of the need to call up a centralized legal department for serious cases, the legal arguments in court tend to push liability as far away from branches and HQ as possible. I was told that some court arguments by WTS lawyers have treated the WTS as just a service that "congregations and their circuit overseers" subscribe to. A place from which to order publications, training and distribution materials.

Therefore, it will always be necessary to keep GB members (or anyone from "HQ") away from these types of court proceedings at all costs. Even if it looks like the local legal teams are being left to hang out to dry, or be "thrown under the bus" that's much safer than allowing some court to tie liability directly to the WTS HQ. The Vatican is able to do this, too, which is why you hear of local diocese having to sell buildings to pay redress for victims, rather than money coming from central Vatican coffers. You might have noticed in the hearing that the WT in Australia changed their legal team since the previous hearing. That's partly because there was a shakeup of the local WT legal team. I've heard that the same thing happened in UK and Canada.

Although that might sound cynical, the brothers at HQ are also doing their best to protect the assets of the organization so that they may be put to the kind of use that fits both the expectations of the brotherhood and the corporate charter. It's fiduciary responsibility.