Why John Butler Left Jehovah's Witnesses

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Strange that the GB should keep so much info' but keep it all to themselves. 

The vast majority of Witnesses have the expectation that the WTS will always try to do what is right, no matter what the topic. But like all institutions, reputation is paramount. The WTS is full of people who want to enhance the reputation of the WTS. This is a problem, but also natural --almost expected-- if we are also sure that we have the most life-saving message, and that this message will likely be rejected if our reputation is sullied. A college or sports organization will be just as guilty of protecting their reputation through maneuvering, or even more so, when the motive is as mundane as staying in business.

We've been through these ideas before, but it's quite possible that TTH is correct in assuming that the WTS/JWs have made great strides in protecting young ones from abuse. I notice that the media has tended to move from "Catholics only" to "Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses." But part of that perception is the fact that we Witnesses have our ears "tuned" to listen to anything the media says about JWs. We will sometimes think we are being bashed when we are actually being treated fairly, just because we perceive we are being ganged up on. It could just as easily be true that only a small percent of our own sexual abuse issues make the news, but the exposure of Catholic clergy and institutions has made Catholics might be highly overexposed by the media.

I was Googling, "Barbara Anderson" and also picked up a short booklet on Amazon that she had written (or it looks like someone wrote for her). But I noticed that she has also said that the problem is not something for which the media should focus on just Catholics and JWs. I found a quote where she said that Billy Graham's son, a well-known Protestant preacher, said that the problem of child sexual abuse is greater in the Protestant religions, especially the mega-churches. I noticed that some Catholics in Australia had no problem finding numbers from the "Commission" (ARC) that proved that the problem among JWs and another set of religions was shown to be much bigger among these non-Catholic religions. 

But another couple quotes from Barbara Anderson also said something about seeing a court document, not shared publicly, that could explain why the "GB should keep so much info . . . all to themselves." For one thing she says that many of these cases involve incest and an exposure of the names of either victims or perpetrators when combined with the crime could bring another level of public hurt upon the victim. Also I saw a quote from her that said that it really was true that quite a number of persons for which the WTS admitted that their pedophile status was known was through our prison outreach program. When persons locked up for child sexual abuse are baptized and then released, or released and then baptized, this inflates the number of persons listed in the WTS records even if they have not ever been known to commit a sexual abuse crime after leaving becoming a JW.

Another point that I sensed from combining a few ideas she wrote about is this. The WTS lists contain a wide range of abuse crimes, and some of them truly are those from which a sensible person would not think right to expose to the court and law enforcement (risking also the leaks to the media). A 17 year old, for example, might have done things in high school that have truly not been a problem for the last 40 years. Of course these same lists have been shown now to have contained heinous crimes that were covered up and should obviously be exposed to law enforcement. But starting this process creates a slippery slope to a decision-making process where the WTS can't trust itself to always "redact" correctly, and the WTS has never trusted the world to handle anything correctly, especially where it relates to protecting their own reputation. So, it's the old dilemmas: "between a rock and a hard place" / "between the Devil and the deep blue sea" / "between the Pharoah and the deep Red Sea."

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

What if we said that ALL accusations would be reported directly to the Police and secular authorities. Wouldn't that make accusers think twice about making false accusations ?

This is probably true. Even here no system is without potential loopholes in justice. But it's back to the idea that the WTS would potentially give up control of its reputation to "the world." In these cases its something that should absolutely be done. It's not perfect, but it's much better, and a culture in which this is expected will result in a much better sense among all of us that it should have been done this way all along. I referenced a website which TTH has quoted from, and noticed that the general point of this entire website is that reporting ALL accusations is a culture change that all institutions need to begin, religious and non-religious.

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Is that what they are Tom, the Victims. Just 'dirty laundry'.

Don't be silly. I said nothing of the sort.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It has ruined my life,

The prime object, therefore, ought to be to unruin it to the extent possible. If I or others here do not accede to your every point, you must not conclude that nobody here is Christian. Call it 'tough love' if you will - a desire to help you in unruining the life you say is ruined. 

Seeing perpetrators properly punished allows for unruining to a degree, but only to a relatively small degree. It still doesn't mean that the abuse did not happen.

Society has long denied loved ones of murder victims the justice they seek. For taking a life, a perpetrator might receive a 20 year prison term and there are many circumstances that can reduce this sentence to as much as zero. Even the harshest sentence will not afford healing to the loved one. He or she usually wants that manslayer D-E-A-D, a reality that was accommodated in Bible times.

Many were the Holocaust survivors, and that was a trauma most would agree is worse than child sexual abuse. Jehovah's Witnesses and others emerging from that system weighed 90 pounds or less. Many were worked to death. Some persecutors were brought to justice in the Nuremburg trials. Others escaped and were never heard from again. You can believe that the punishment or non-punishment of villains was not the factor that enabled Witness prisoners to recover, the victims that I am most familiar with. 

It must be the same with you. Healing must come first. Atrocities are unfortunately not uncommon today and people have to move on from them as best they can. PTSD for no end of causes is frequent. They have to heal as best they can and find strength to move on. Sometimes counseling helps and/or support groups. Witnesses would say that 'throwing one's burden on Jehovah helps. Whatever happened to you happened long ago and it is not happening any more. It is you who are afflicting yourself with continual memories of the abuse.

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The vast majority of Witnesses have the expectation that the WTS will always try to do what is right, no matter what the topic. But like all institutions, reputation is paramount. The WTS is full of people who want to enhance the reputation of the WTS. This is a problem, but also natural --almost expected-- if we are also sure that we have the most life-saving message, and that this message will likely be rejected if our reputation is sullied. A college or sports organization will be just as guilty of protecting their reputation through maneuvering, or even more so, when the motive is as mundane as staying in business.

We've been through these ideas before, but it's quite possible that TTH is correct in assuming that the WTS/JWs have made great strides in protecting young ones from abuse. I notice that the media has tended to move from Catholics only to "Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses." But part of that perception is the fact that we Witnesses have our ears "tuned" to listen to anything the media says about JWs. We will sometimes think we are being bashed when we are actually being treated fairly, just because we perceive we are being ganged up on. It could just as easily be true that only a small percent of our own sexual abuse issues make the news, but the exposure of Catholic clergy and institutions has made Catholics might be highly overexposed by the media.

I was Googling, "Barbara Anderson" and also picked up a short booklet on Amazon that she had written (or it looks like someone wrote for her). But I noticed that she has also said that the problem is not something for which the media should focus on just Catholics and JWs. I found a quote where she said that Billy Graham's son, a well-known Protestant preacher, said that the problem of child sexual abuse is greater in the Protestant religions, especially the mega-churches. I noticed that some Catholics in Australia had no problem finding numbers from the "Commission" (ARC) that proved that the problem among JWs and another set of religions was shown to be much bigger among these non-Catholic religions. 

But another couple quotes from Barbara Anderson also said something about seeing a court document, not shared publicly, that could explain why the "GB should keep so much info . . . all to themselves." For one thing she says that many of these cases involve incest and an exposure of the names of either victims or perpetrators when combined with the crime could bring another level of public hurt upon the victim. Also I saw a quote from her that said that it really was true that quite a number of persons for which the WTS admitted that their pedophile status was known was through our prison outreach program. When persons locked up for child sexual abuse are baptized and then released, or released and then baptized, this inflates the number of persons listed in the WTS records even if they have not ever been known to commit a sexual abuse crime after leaving becoming a JW.

Another point that I sensed from combining a few ideas she wrote about is this. The WTS lists contain a wide range of abuse crimes, and some of them truly are those from which a sensible person would not think right to expose to the court and law enforcement (risking also the leaks to the media). A 17 year old, for example, might have done things in high school that have truly not been a problem for the last 40 years. Of course these same lists have been shown now to have contained heinous crimes that were covered up and should obviously be exposed to law enforcement. But starting this process creates a slippery slope to a decision-making process where the WTS can't trust itself to always "redact" correctly, and the WTS has never trusted the world to handle anything correctly, especially where it relates to protecting their own reputation. So, it's the old dilemmas: "between a rock and a hard place" / "between the Devil and the deep blue sea" / "between the Pharoah and the deep Red Sea."

This is probably true. Even here no system is without potential loopholes in justice. But it's back to the idea that the WTS would potentially give up control of its reputation to "the world." In these cases its something that should absolutely be done. It's not perfect, but it's much better, and a culture in which this is expected will result in a much better sense among all of us that it should have been done this way all along. I referenced a website which TTH has quoted from, and noticed that the general point of this entire website is that reporting ALL accusations is a culture change that all institutions need to begin, religious and non-religious.

Fantastic, sensible comment. You see i do consider both sides. 

However to quote you, . "But like all institutions, reputation is paramount. The WTS is full of people who want to enhance the reputation of the WTS"

It seems Jesus didn't suffer in this way of thinking. Jesus seemed not to care what people thought of Him. In fact :  Luke 22 v 37

³⁶  Then he said to them: “But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. ³⁷  For I tell you that what is written must be accomplished in me, namely, ‘He was counted with lawless ones.’p For this is being fulfilled concerning me.”q ³⁸  Then they said: “Lord, look! here are two swords.” He said to them: “It is enough.”

Jesus seemed here to make sure that he was counted with lawless ones.  

However one of my points is that the JW Org / W/t  seemed more concerned with reputation than with Victims of Sexual Abuse, hence the victims became collateral damage. I.M.O. it has become an American inbred thing, collateral damage, so I'm wondering if me being 'British' makes me more sensitive to such. 

Quote you again : "and that this message will likely be rejected if our reputation is sullied. A college or sports organization will be just as guilty of protecting their reputation through maneuvering, or even more so, when the motive is as mundane as staying in business."

So are the GB worried about the JW Org 'staying in business' ?  

Of course the message has been sullied. BUT what is of far moe importance is that Jehovah's name has been sullied, disgraced in fact. To the wall with the reputation of the GB and the JW Org, think about what impact it has had and is having on Jehovah God.

I have two more points then I'll end this comment. 

1. The reason i only pick out the JW Org is because 'we' all know that the 'other religions' basically serve the Devil, teaching the trinity, hellfire etc.  But I've always, until now, trusted the GB and the Org. 

2. Apart from the emotional hurt and life lasting trauma of Child Sexual Abuse, there is also the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases. Can you imagine not only being raped  by a Pedophile but also being infected with HIV / Aids or other diseases. 

[Evacuated]

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

What if we said that ALL accusations would be reported directly to the Police and secular authorities. Wouldn't that make accusers think twice about making false accusations ? 

Might do for some, although looking at the calibre of some accusations, it seems unlikely that some of the (false) accusers would necessarily think much about the consequences. However I think I proposed that already as the logical process, but this is NOT what currently happens. Is this a recommendation of the secular authorities (in which i include police) currently? I think not if the NSPCC statement of intent is anything to go by. They say "if necessary", whatever that means. May well be that reporting direct to police would actually put some off. and of course confidentiality is of very high importance to victims.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And your point about  'incompetence in secular handling' is almost funny.

I am not sure what you mean by "almost funny". Nothing to do with child abuse is "almost funny", particularly the incompetence of secular authorities in handling abuse. As an example:    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse.

In fact, the prevalence and escalation of this crime generally is clear evidence of the failure of secular authorities (of any kind) to protect children. The IICSA you mention would not be necessary otherwise. The inquiry is working with a current (conservative) estimate of 2 million victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in the UK alone (According to the 2015–16 Crime Survey for England and Wales, 7% of people aged between 16 and 59). They acknowledge that no-one will ever know the true scale of this problem.

The media continues to rebound with reports such as:  http://www.theweek.co.uk/96222/uk-child-abuse-the-shocking-statistics-revealed. None of this is even approaching or "almost funny" in the slightest.

In the final analysis, the primary protectors of children are....parents. The principal place of safety for children is...the family. That is the starting point.

[JOHN BUTLER]

And your point about  'incompetence in secular handling' is almost funny. Haven't the JW Org used the excuse of the 'incompetence of Elders not trained for such work ? 

Just thought I'd put the 'almost funny' comment back in context for you G.A. 

'incompetence in secular handling ' is almost funny in comparison to 'incompetent elders'.  But of course, once again you knew exactly what I meant. You were /are just being a JW that tries to twist things to his own advantage. 

I wonder what you will twist next ?

[Evacuated]

3 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

'incompetence in secular handling ' is almost funny in comparison to 'incompetent elders'.

Sorry mate, you can't get away with that one. There is nothing anywhere in the appaling secular or religious incompetence demonstrated in the handling of child abuse matters that even approaches "almost funny". And I'm afraid an appeal to "context" doesn't cover up this indiscreet use of language.

Your take on this runs the risk of appearing cynical, a base attempt to make some sort of debating capital at the expense of abused children. I am sure that is not the case. I can see your emotions run high on this matter so I'll just put it down to "shooting from the hip" .

Might be better in future to wait a bit longer than 10 minutes to respond to something that boils your blood.

Actually, I will admit that I forgot that this topic is quite specific. I was triggered by some earlier comments and was addressing the  problem of the enormous mishandling of child abuse generally in society today. This topic is of course is  about "why John Butler left Jehovah's Witnesses" which has very much narrower focus, even though we are 27 pages in. I'll keep that in mind.  ☺️

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It seems Jesus didn't suffer in this way of thinking. Jesus seemed not to care what people thought of Him. 

Well....he does have the advantage of being perfect and thus has no bloopers to deal with.

He also said of his followers that they would do works greater than his. Obviously, you will not top Jesus in quality, but you will top him in quantity and range, so that must be what he was referring to. Thus, for his work to expand, people will be drawn in who are not immune to bloopers. The treasure is carried in earthen vessels.

Also, for @The Librarian. The note that Brother Covington could sass back the Supreme Court Justices and get away with it I read in a Look Magazine article prior to 1970. I never forgot the factoid, but I also never kept the article. Do you have it or know where it might be found?

[Evacuated]

16 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

How would you justify the comments being offered, when governments themselves don’t wish to hear the alternatives that support their mission?

Not sure I understand your question fully. I do not justify calling the police where there is no provision for proper handling of child abuse allegations.

I agree that mandatory required reporting to secular authorities would shift the burden from individual decision to standard process. This is the best case scenario. Until that happens, then the reporter, unless fully trained in the professional handling of child abuse cases , HAS to seek advice. By "professional handling" I mean fully aware of the physical and psychological aspects for the victim, AND the specific, local legal requirements.

The NSPCC which, in the UK , invites confidential disclosure of such matters will involve secular authorities "if necessary". To that end they are empowered to apply for care and supervision orders for children at risk. This means they are equipped to make "assessments". They seem to act as a buffer zone between the victim, those involved, and the rather heavier hand of the law 

Parents at all times have the right to involve the police regardless of evidence/witnesses etc if their child is alleging abuse. This becomes highly problematic if the abuser is part of the family.They can also call the NSPCC.

If elders become aware of such allegations, there are complex issues involved. The immediate physical and psychological safety of the victim, the local legal responsibilities, confidentiality issues, spiritual/judicial aspects. Unless they are fully trained in the professional handling of child abuse cases, they will HAVE to seek advice. Who from?  Some one fully cognizant in the professional handling of child abuse cases. If who they call is not, then a can of worms is opened and , voila, today's scenarios with organisational reputation too high on the list of priorities.

[JOHN BUTLER]

35 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

Sorry mate, you can't get away with that one. There is nothing anywhere in the appaling secular or religious incompetence demonstrated in the handling of child abuse matters that even approaches "almost funny". And I'm afraid an appeal to "context" doesn't cover up this indiscreet use of language.

Your take on this runs the risk of appearing cynical, a base attempt to make some sort of debating capital at the expense of abused children. I am sure that is not the case. I can see your emotions run high on this matter so I'll just put it down to "shooting from the hip" .

Might be better in future to wait a bit longer than 10 minutes to respond to something that boils your blood.

Actually, I will admit that I forgot that this topic is quite specific. I was triggered by some earlier comments and was addressing the  problem of the enormous mishandling of child abuse generally in society today. This topic is of course is  about "why John Butler left Jehovah's Witnesses" which has very much narrower focus, even though we are 27 pages in. I'll keep that in mind.  ☺️

!. I am not your mate. 

2. I knew what i meant and so did you.

3. Like i said 'What will you twist next ?' and here it is for all to see. 

G A. You are funny, get over it. 

And it's not me that started this topic, nor am I interested in continuing it. But as I've said before, I'm not running from it either. 

It's you guys that keep it going. 

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

When Brother Jackson offered a solution of the allegation once brought before a judicial committee, it would automatically be routed to secular authorities. This option was declined by the Australian Parliament.

Oddly enough, Brother Jackson came very close to implying it, but still didn't say elders themselves would always comply even if it the state produced a consistent mandatory reporting law. Brother Jackson danced around the actual response expected from elders. You can see this on page 36 to 40 of the official transcript: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case Study 29 - Transcript - Jehovahs Witnesses - Day 155 - 14082015.pdf

For example, Bro. Jackson said it would make it easier, but that the elder would still have to consider whether he got the information confidentially and quoted Proverbs 25:8 (importance of confidentiality) in the same breath in which he suggested consistent mandatory reporting laws. He said that none of these principles necessarily takes precedence, but that the elders need to consider it. (p.37) Then Jackson went on to quote 1 Peter 5:3 to show that the elder himself could be lording it over the flock if he took it upon himself to report something when it could be seen as the responsibility of a family head to report it. And he again repeated that the decision will be "easier for us" but did not make a statement that the elder himself should be the one who complies with a mandatory reporting law. He repeated again that, for the elder, there would still be no "clear cut or quick decision on the matter" even if it were obvious that other children in the same family were still at risk. (p.38) As seen at the top of page 39, these "dances" were seen by Stewart as reasons for potentially "overriding mandatory reporting" even if and where it did exist. And Jackson was very accepting of the idea that this was, indeed, his goal by clarifying that he, Jackson, still prefers that the elders only be required to "encourage the guardian of the child, or whoever is in that family arrangement who is not the perpetrator, to notify the authorities." (p.40). .

Also, I didn't follow how the Australian Parliament might have responded to any such recommendations for consistent mandatory reporting. Can you point me to a place that shows exactly what they rejected? 

[JOHN BUTLER]

6 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

Not sure I understand your question fully. I do not justify calling the police where there is no provision for proper handling of child abuse allegations.

I agree that mandatory required reporting to secular authorities would shift the burden from individual decision to standard process. This is the best case scenario. Until that happens, then the reporter, unless fully trained in the professional handling of child abuse cases , HAS to seek advice. By "professional handling" I mean fully aware of the physical and psychological aspects for the victim, AND the specific, local legal requirements.

The NSPCC which, in the UK , invites confidential disclosure of such matters will involve secular authorities "if necessary". To that end they are empowered to apply for care and supervision orders for children at risk. This means they are equipped to make "assessments". They seem to act as a buffer zone between the victim, those involved, and the rather heavier hand of the law 

Parents at all times have the right to involve the police regardless of evidence/witnesses etc if their child is alleging abuse. This becomes highly problematic if the abuser is part of the family.They can also call the NSPCC.

If elders become aware of such allegations, there are complex issues involved. The immediate physical and psychological safety of the victim, the local legal responsibilities, confidentiality issues, spiritual/judicial aspects. Unless they are fully trained in the professional handling of child abuse cases, they will HAVE to seek advice. Who from?  Some one fully cognizant in the professional handling of child abuse cases. If who they call is not, then a can of worms is opened and , voila, today's scenarios with organisational reputation too high on the list of priorities.

And it is because of shouting from people like me, and many many others before me, that something is now being done in more countries than ever. 

If left to the GB of JW Org it would have remained 'in the closet' forever. 

I know I'm not perfect, I don't mind being counted as a sinner. I don't even mind what you all say to me ot about me. It's all worth it. 

All I'm looking for is a clean Organisation that serves God properly. And in my opinion God is sorting it.  All in good time. 

 

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It's you guys that keep it going.  

I for one, thank you for sticking around for this discussion. Yes, I remember how unfair it seemed that someone started a thread with your name in it, just to make it clear that they didn't trust your own stated reasons. But, of course, forums are full of opinions sprinkled with a few facts sometimes, but just to bolster opinions. People rightly treat most of this like YouTube comments, or some other "worst" example of the way people's opinions can cloud out anything useful. But I stll think that what you have provided here is a first hand experience (prior to JW association) and a subsequent reaction to WTS policies that is very important for most of us to reflect on, even if it's different from the way most of think we would react.