REPROOF FROM THE PLATFORM

[JOHN BUTLER]

Do you believe that any of the Elders that did continuously abuse children in the JW Org were known to be doing so

This may have been a reality, but not because the elders were known to be doing so, but rather because no one believed they really were doing it. If it was a victims word against an elder, the elder's denial may have been believed over the victim. Big difference.

Thank you @Anna  I rest my case. 

[JOHN BUTLER]

Quote @Anna Most churches separate kids from the parents. It is JW kids who stay with their parents all the time.

Your JW 'world' must be totally different to the JW 'world' I knew.  Children were always sitting with different people, in fact if a family had lots of children then their children could be spread all round the KH, each child with a different person. It was seen as being helpful to the parents, so that the parents 'could actually get some spiritual food from the meeting'.  The parents had to gather up their children at the end of the meeting, which was never easy as the children used to 'go a bit wild' in the hall after the meeting was finished. Must have been around 30 to 40 children in my ex congregation. One family had seven children and they never all sat with their parents through public talk and W/t.   

 

•  

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, Anna said:

No one gives private bible studies to children anymore unless they are the parents.

Hate to say it, but there are a lot of single parents, especially sisters, who ask for elders/ms to study with their young children for them. And it still ends up as part of the process for making sure a youngster is ready for baptism. The "rule" is to always have a second person along or have the parent sit in. But this doesn't always happen. But it doesn't even raise the slightest concern for most brothers and parents because we trust one another and can't imagine that anything wrong might be going on. So the sister/parent who is supposed to sit in will go off to the kitchen and make dinner or take an important phone call. (Seen it happen personally.) The adult brother (or sister) who was supposed to join the study will cancel at the last minute. (Seen it happen personally.)

But the perpetrators of these crimes end up being people we would trust with our lives, persons we could never imagine doing anything like this. In fact, TRUST and confidence is a necessary part of the equation. This is one of the reasons I don't think any of us should hold back in letting parents and other children know the horror stories that have happened in the next congregation in our circuit, or among persons at some of the highest levels of organizational responsibility. We don't censor "adult" parts of the Bible for our young ones, so why should we "censor" practical warnings of real lurking dangers that could be around them?

9 hours ago, Anna said:

Being protected from scandal surely does not include remaining an Elder despite clear evidence that they have been guilty of child abuse,  since that is what John was mainly talking about. I cannot see that happening in view of 1Timothy 3:2. A person like that would clearly not qualify, even if the accusation was not true, but there was notoriety.

I know of no current cases, but you would evidently be surprised at some of the terrible things that have been known to happen. In the past, where the "notoriety" had been thought to be limited to the victim, victim's immediate family, and fellow elders (or fellow circuit overseers, or higher) there have been cases (I now know of two, but wouldn't be surprised at greater numbers) where the perpetrator was simply moved to a place, new circuit, or new country, where that elder was no long in contact with the victim or victim's family. Elders in the new congregation were sometimes not told at all. In fact, the person might have simply risen in the ranks again from circuit to district overseer, for example.

I believe that it is now extremely unlikely for this to happen again.

[Witness]

10 hours ago, Anna said:

Most churches separate kids from the parents. It is JW kids who stay with their parents all the time.

It is true, that there are churches with "Sunday school" for children, happening while the parents are attending services.  Although, as a Catholic that was never the case for my years growing up in the religion.  However, even though children remain with their parents in the kingdom hall, abuse has taken place during the meeting, in the restroom.  

[Witness]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But the perpetrators of these crimes end up being people we would trust with our lives, persons we could never imagine doing anything like this. In fact, TRUST and confidence is a necessary part of the equation. This is one of the reasons I don't think any of us should hold back in letting parents and other children know the horror stories that have happened in the next congregation in our circuit, or among persons at some of the highest levels of organizational responsibility. We don't censor "adult" parts of the Bible for our young ones, so why should we "censor" practical warnings of real lurking dangers that could be around them?

This is really a profound statement.  All JWs should read it.  There is an appropriate way for a parent to relate "horror stories", as is already accomplished in a loving way by responsible parents or in a structured school setting.  Yet, as you brought out, the parent needs to be aware of the story in order to relate it in the right way.    

But...We don't censor "adult" parts of the Bible for our young ones, so why should we "censor" practical warnings of real lurking dangers that could be around them?  

Anyone blatantly magnifying violence and evil before such little ones, is hiding the evil within themselves.    Luke 6:45

[JW Insider]

5 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Your statement is giving the impression that all Elders or MS are a danger to children.

You were probably the only one to create that assumption from what I said. And I don't actually believe that even you really got that impression from what I said.

8 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Meanwhile, how dare you make such a sick and provoking statement.

Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely) you were the only one to make such a sick and provoking statement out of what I said.

[JOHN BUTLER]

Billy showing true colours i see. He says he's the 'only one in a den of thieves to speak out' yet he still hides behind his cowboy image. I thought Billy the Kid was a thief actually  

But more importantly it seems that after twelve months (well it seems that long) I'm actually reading some sensible balanced comments about 'my main issue' (as TTH loves to call it) .

Thank you @JW Insider for opening up the can of worms that most JW's want to keep shut. 

And if anyone thinks I'm rubbing my hands with glee, no I'm just a little relieved that some truth is now coming out. 

 

[Anna]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Hate to say it, but there are a lot of single parents, especially sisters, who ask for elders/ms to study with their young children for them.

I've had different experience. I know it was definitely like that in the past, I agree, but in recent years I've noticed that elders are very reluctant to step in, even when asked, and if they do, then as you say, they ask the parent to sit in.

[Anna]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In the past, where the "notoriety" had been thought to be limited to the victim, victim's immediate family, and fellow elders (or fellow circuit overseers, or higher) there have been cases (I now know of two, but wouldn't be surprised at greater numbers) where the perpetrator was simply moved to a place, new circuit, or new country, where that elder was no long in contact with the victim or victim's family.

I don't know of any cases like that, but I do know (personally) of one prominent, influential elder (no longer living) who was removed as elder because of notoriety, but remained a pioneer. I don't think today he would be pioneering.

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

We don't censor "adult" parts of the Bible for our young ones, so why should we "censor" practical warnings of real lurking dangers that could be around them?

I don't think we do that anymore do we?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

5 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I've always shown my true colors here.

Not unless you use your REAL name .... you have not.

Hiding behind a Billy the KId avatar is, when you brag about showing "true colors", is flying a false flag.

The HYPOCRISY is why you get called on it, and others do not.

I am interested in WHY you chose such a despicable character as your Avatar?

Unless of course you really ARE like Henry McCarty, AKA William H. Bonney,  who was a murderer and a thief, and an amoral person.

... and the false flag you fly hides the "Jolly Roger".

(?)

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Is this the best reply you can manage, Billy?

 

ANOTHER false flag?