Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:22, 13 September 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sexual abuse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Christianity: Witnesses Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance).

Crime and Criminal Biography Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

'When required by law'

The article previously said:

elders are directed to report abuse to authorities when there is evidence of abuse, and when required to by law.

The statement incorrectly implied that JW elders report abuse to authorities where there is evidence, and (also) when required to by law. However, the actual policy is to report to authorities (only) where required by law, if there is evidence of abuse. I initially re-worded the misleading statement (as indicated by my edit summary). However, I subsequently deleted it altogether, because it is restated in the sentence that immediately followed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ratio for sex abuse cases

I reverted Jeffro77's revert, as it is obvious it is about ratio. The quote from the source states: "Organisasjonen tar sterk avstand fra overgrep, og det er ikke dokumentert at det forekommer flere overgrep hos Jehovas vitner enn andre steder i samfunnet" (Translated: Jehovah's Witnesses strongly denounce sexual abuse, and there are no evidence that it occurs more abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses than elsewhere in society.) It is a pointless statement unless it is about ratio. Anyway, there are nothing in the source supporting a statement as "is similar to that in general society", as suggested from Jeffro77. "No more documented cases" support "equal or less", without clarifying where on a scale from zero to equal. What about looking into if there are other independent, American or Australian, studies mentioning an excact ratio? Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The preachy statement about 'denouncing abuse' regarding something that most people would obviously 'denounce' is redundant and has again been removed. As the source does not specifically indicate that the rate is either similar to or less than the rate in general society, I have reworded the statement to better reflect the source's statement that the ratio is not more than the general rate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Jehovah's Witnesses" obviously doesn't appear twice in the original statement. A better translation would be "The organization deplores abuse, and there is no evidence that more abuse occurs among Jehovah's Witnesses than elsewhere in society". (However, the obvious statement about 'deploring/denouncing abuse' remains redundant, with an unnecessary POV tone, since 'deploring abuse' is reasonably considered the default position.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Tar sterk avstand fra" is better translated as "strongly denounce", as User:Jeffro77 fail to notice the use of the word "sterk" (an adverb, may best translated strongly). Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Deplore is already a stronger term than denounce, encompassing the idea of to 'strongly denounce'. But the minor point of grammar is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the fact that the original statement clearly didn't name JWs twice. Aside from that, you have provided no reasonable basis for including a redundant statement with an apologetic tone that JWs 'denounce abuse' (whether 'strongly' or not). Firstly, it is the default position among reasonable people to 'strongly denounce' child abuse, so it does not need to be explicitly stated as if it is in some way 'remarkable' that JWs do. Additionally, your wording (not supported by the source) implies that members of JWs have a particular view of child abuse, but the article should not attempt to state the view of all JWs, a very small proportion of whom are themselves abusers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The chapter starts out like this: "Overgrep er et av de temaene som kommer opp når Jehovas vitner fokuseres (sic!) i media. Organsisajonen tar sterk avstand fra overgrep, og det er ikke dokumentert at det forekommer flere overgrep hos Jehovas vitner enn andre steder i samfunnet. (Translated: buse is one of the topics popping up when when Jehovah's Witnesses is being in scope of media. The organisasation strongly denounce sexual abuse, and there are no evidence that it occurs more abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses than elsewhere in society.") I agree to the use of description of ratio is may more useful for the article, though I've used a more direct translation here at the talkpage. I agree on the use of "deplore", but it have to include the term "strongly" or simmilar, as it is used in the original source ("tar sterk avstand", a very strong wording, almost as "abhors"). Out of the context there are no doubt "organisasjonen" (the Organisation) is used synonymious as Jehovah's Witnesses. It does perfectly explain this as an official standing for Jehovah's Witnesses' opinion, though a tiny minority of the individual members may secretly have another standing, pretty much in the same manner as some policemen are secretly doing criminal acts, while the police is fighting crime). The use of "organisation" is very likely used for variation, to make the text readable. The article makes use of sources and suggestings that Jehovah's Witnesses is not taking the issue seriously, so I think it is necessary for balancing og the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed unhelpful that the denomination insists on using the same terminology in reference to both the name of the denomination and the plural form of its members. That ambiguity is quite likely why the source uses a different term.

Deplore is a stronger term than denounce, hence "strongly deplore" is redundant as a practical translation of the source. Your change to 'strongly deplore' is not what I suggested at all. I stated that deplore is a suitable replacement for strongly denounce. I also stated that that minor grammatical point was not the primary objection. Further, a qualifier such as strongly is not necessary in stating the official view of the organisation, and excluding it conveys a more encyclopedic tone. (To illustrate the point, see this short clip from A Few Good Men.)

However, I note your point about balance, so I have included the element that the official position of the organisation is to denounce abuse, without implying (or denying) any view held by individual members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Extremely biased intro

The first section of this article describes the rate of child abuse by Jehovah's Witness members, but only references statistics from internal biased investigations. Stinks of manicuring by the Jehovah's Witness Church. I suggest removal of these statements from a Non neutral point of view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.88.230 (talk) 28 July 2015

The statement is clearly attributed to the Watch Tower Society, so it doesn't express an editorial point of view and therefore the POV tag is unwarranted. It may be difficult to gain a complete picture of the incidence of child sexual abuse within its ranks, though the current Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Australia has already revealed that in the past 65 years 1006 alleged perpetrators have been identified among the JWs in that country alone. That's an average of 15 a year, or more than one a month, including years when the JW population would have been reasonably small. I therefore suggest "rare" is not accurate. See and the link to the opening address at . BlackCab (TALK) 06:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess it really comes down to the source. The source for the statement by the JW's does indeed say rare. And while I agree that "rare" is not accurate, we can't change what the source states as the JW's beliefs. However, the final few words "incidence of this crime among Jehovah’s Witnesses is rare." is a direct quote from the source, so I would recommend adding "" to those words to reiterate that it is a direct quote, and stance, of the JW's. Vyselink (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It might be helpful to briefly explain what the Watchtower Society is, since the name could easily be mistaken for something more generic to someone unfamiliar with the denomination. Maybe something like "The Watchtower Society (the administrative body of the Jehovah's Witnesses) states that..." The wikilink makes that clear, and normally that would be good enough, but since it's the second sentence of the article, it might be worth spelling out in detail. The lead is missing some other info as well. It mentions one lawsuit in almost as much detail as the body of the article, but doesn't mention the other suits. Grayfell (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of this article is biased towards the Watchtower Society and Jehovah's Witnesses. While I am no expert on Jehovah's Witnesses and pedophile abuse, it is my understanding that Bethel will not oppose any Witness willing to go to law enforcement authorities or when clery are required by state law to report pedophile cases. Many Witnesses fear authorites. Within WT culture, there is tremendous disrespect for governmental power and authority. While I doubt that Witness lawyers would ever tell a Witness not to go to law enforcement if the person insisted on going, local elders are usually poorly educated and not well trained in this area. Also, Witnesses believe in theological warfare. Leaders have lied in open court under oath under the doctrine. Law enforcement is often viewed as part of a wordly government New Order that will be destroyed by Jehovah. The difference between the Roman Catholic pedophile cases and the Witness problem is immense. Witnesses have no profession clergy. This makes it hard to impose liability or to enforce Watchtower decrees at a local Kingdom Hall level. Many elders go beyond what the WT requires in their zeal to never cause disrepute on Jehovah's Witness organizations. Further, only law enforcement has the training and education to interview child victims or child liars. Not reporting directly to the police may result in tainted testimony. The "rare" qoute annoys me. Rape and pedophile abuse is very underreported because of its secretive nature and the stigma victims face. Many Witnesses would be ashamed to discuss such abuse with anyone. The culture is very authoritarian and very male oriented. The Witnesses fail to understand that investigation and adjudication of abuse is a matter for civil authority while religous authorites have the burden of policing their respective faiths. I am not a seasoned Wikpedia editor. Certainly, there must be a relatively straightforward way to report both sides of this controversy. If pedophile behavior were rare, the headlines would not be present. Pope Benedict would still be pope, and there would be no movement to stop pedophiles in churches.75Janice (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)75Janice

I'm sorry @75Janice:, but do you have anything constructive to add, or were you simply here to rant? Vyselink (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything I've said is available from neutral, secular sources. In fact, existing wikipedia pages reference theological warfare and Rutherford and Franz lying under oath to a NY state trial court. This is known as perjury. The Conti case was covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, and ABC News at a minimum. The more recent fine concerning discovery violations is reported in legal news. To point out where an article could be strengthened is not a rant. Lawyers before the U.S. Supreme Court do not rant. You must state facts or one can be fined for misleading the court. A discussion of KH culture at the local level and the lack of education and standards for elders, both in the matter of theology and child sexual abuse, has been mentioned in netural articles. My concern is that someone not familiar with this matter will only see self serving statements from the WT Society. The Vatican curia is protected, too. Few cases involving higher level church officials have been been successful. I strongly feel that this is a neutral assessment. People need to know the sources of legal liability and how a hierarchical distinction in the church can show few law suits against the WTBTS. I suspect that many elders would be sued, if they had the financial resources to make such suits worthwhile at a economic level. This is not a rant but sober legal analysis. The economics of law dictate whether certain people are sued. It is easier to establish liability in the Roman Catholic Church because priests are employees of the Diocese. Obviously, my view reflects my legal research and training. To mention certain avenues for research or to state that in my view, this article is biased towards the Watchtower, is a service to wikpedia. The Pew Research Center may have cultural data on different religious faiths.

My point is that pedophile abuse occurs in every denomination. What makes it difficult to prove and redress in certain denominations more than others is a valid avenue for this article. One of the major neutral points when contrasting the pedophile scandals of other religions and religiions that do not educate and employ clergy is that such religions are hard to sue. It presents real challenges when dealing with pedophile. My professors would be proud of me for raising these facts and questions. This article could use more careful writing. It is often difficult for nonlawyers to understand complex legal issues and concerns. Frankly, I don't know what else to say. Raising concerns properly is not ranting. Suggesting ways an article could be improve is not destructive. Using one's knowledge to focus on certain issues does not make one a partisan. If you doubt me, please read what I included on the Talk page for Silent Lambs. Neither hand in this dispute is clean. Wikpedia is not to here to judge which side is correct. It should report both sides in an accurate fashion. The Encylcopedia Brittianica would do the same. Most Witnesses do not live at Bethel. They live their lives at the local Kingdom Hall level. WT policy may be hard to enforce at such a level. 75Janice (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to explain this.

First, I'm not arguing that the points you bring up may be useful for inclusion. But as you have provided no sources, no reliable information that can be added to the page, what you have done is a rant. It's essentially WP:NotSoapbox. "Everything I've said is available from neutral, secular sources". Fantastic! Find them, add them, and contribute. Your comments are riddled with phrases like " it is my understanding", "While I doubt", "annoys me", "I suspect", "my view" etc. Those are not useful here.

Second, your education, while admirable, is pointless to mention, as is your professors being proud of you. You don't see me posting that I'm a PhD student whose dissertation is specifically on the JW's to prove my point. What's important, just like in a court of law, is what evidence I can bring. You SAY that there is evidence out there, but provide none. Provide it. If you have all of this at your fingertips, add it.

Third, out of your most recent post, here are the truly salient points that you make: "My concern is that someone not familiar with this matter will only see self serving statements from the WT Society...The more recent fine concerning discovery violations is reported in legal news...People need to know the sources of legal liability and how a hierarchical distinction in the church can show few law suits against the WTBTS". Literally everything else you have written has no point to it in regards to this article. Help us fix it instead of writing 533 words, of which only 56 bring up valid issues for this article. What the Catholic Church does is irrelevant in THIS article. Your OPINION that "many elders would be sued if" is irrelevant w/out evidence. For this article, the fact that Rutherford and Franz lied is irrelevant, as they have both been dead for decades and have nothing to do with THIS page.

On a side note. Your point that that "The difference between the Roman Catholic pedophile cases and the Witness problem is immense" is an interesting one. I recommend finding an article where that could be discussed. If there isn't one, create it. Vyselink (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing investigation in Australia

The current public hearings in Australia are still missing from the article. Here are some sources that may be relevant:

• http://www.smh.com.au/national/jehovahs-witnesses-did-not-report-1006-alleged-sex-abusers-to-police-royal-commission-told-20150727-gil1u7.html
• http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/27/jehovahs-witnesses-destroyed-notes-about-child-sex-abuse-inquiry-told
• http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/child-abuse-royal-commission-jehovahs-witnesses-reveals-fathers-abuse/story-fngburq5-1227460242035?nk=7493ae2ad2f719a1e7ea05752593e5e8-1438085098
• http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/royal-commission-jehovahs-witness-sex-predator-reinstated-20150728-gilug6.html

Xanipnip (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree to include some points here. I read through commission proceedings and I would wait until the commission publishes its findings. So does the proverb says, "the first to speak in court sounds right, until the cross-examination begins". The news reports that "1006 people where unreported to police" doesn't mention that not even one of them includes mandatory reporting cases. This is in accordance with the church policy that only when mandated or for extreme cases they will report to authorities, otherwise they will let the victim to decide whether to report, respecting victim's privacy. Fazilfazil (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The news report does not specify whether mandatory reporting was required or not. It's not clear where you get the idea that "not even one" includes mandatory reporting. It also would not be neutral to stipulate 'respecting victim's privacy' as the reason for not reporting as anything other than a stated view of a primary source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I read an article where a news report did say that they are not sure if any of them is a failure to report when its mandatory. But I lost the source. We will wait and see, I am sure the commission would mention that as a serious offense if indeed they found so. I personally don't think the WTS with a strong legal team in every country, would won't report when its legally required. Especially because they have no problem with it. Also most countries don't even have that requirement, I am sure some locations in Australia still don't have mandatory reporting. In united states currently almost all states have mandatory reporting. I read through the proceeding for past four days, and it looks like the commission is concerned about the requirement for victim to meet the abuser than anything else. WTS stated at the end of the 4th day that their policy have evolved and currently victims have choice to not approach the abuser (implied in the defense statement that some victims like to approach and others don't), for which commission asked for a documentation.Fazilfazil (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The United States does not have mandatory reporting in most states. Also, concerning the reputation of the innocent. Law enforcement authorities must investigate claims and protect confidential matters as much as possible. In the United States, and I suspect other nations whose laws derive from British common law, there is a qualified exemption from liability for libel to report matters to law enforcement officials and public officials. In fact, few states in the United States have mandatory reporting requirements for clergy. I feel that an important issue for this article is that Witnesses assert clergy/pentinet confidentality for confession. Privilege is being narrowly construed these days. The only place where courts still recognize strong privilege is in lawyer/client relationships. Clery/pentinet confidentiality law is not appropriately used when there is more than one clergy present and other hallmakrs are missing. Besides, Witnesses have no confession. One of the reasons that clergy mandatory reporting was enacted in the few states that do have mandatory reporting is to make this matter clear. Statutes place churches on notice that past conduct in not reporting can not be excused by the privilege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if that source is located, 'not sure' is not the same as "not even one of them includes mandatory reporting cases". And even if reporting is not mandatory, it does not prevent a moral obligation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Again we will see if 'any one of them' was even a case of mandatory reporting once the commission publishes its findings. Regarding your claim on moral obligation, why would anyone go and confess to elders if they know that next day it will be informed to police? It would undoubtedly discourage them to approach elders for help. On the other hand if the elders reported to cops and what if an allegation by a single witness proved to be false after investigated by police? Elders will definitely regret for what they did, the damage caused to innocent individual. In many lands adultery is illegal. So should that be reported to police as well, even when they have a single witness? The victim is free to approach police if church says no internal action can be taken. WTS never told to the elders that don't report when its not mandatory. Rather they inform that its not legally required, but some elders may chose to report when its not mandatory. The bottom-line is that threat perception gives moral obligation for elders to report to authorities. Church is for spiritual assistance and internal discipline, and ultimately its up to the member to decide to report a crime or not. Fazilfazil (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sexual assault of a minor is significantly worse than 'adultery' involving consenting adults, and should be investigated. I suppose if someone is accused of murder the police shouldn't investigate either, just in case it's not true.

The victim is hardly 'free' to approach police. JWs are 'discouraged' from 'taking a brother to court' and 'bringing reproach on the organisation'. There is a great deal of pressure on JWs to not report abuse or other criminal activities commmitted by other JWs to the police. On top of that existing stigma, elders do not even suggest to victims that they report to the police. And they do not generally suggest counseling by professional psychologists either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I never seen any case where a murder was not reported at-least by the victim. If your logic is right then why did the victim took him to court? Of course we are encouraged to follow law of the land. The problem is how child abuse is viewed by the victim or his/her family, whether it is as serious as murder is? It depends on a lot of factors, for example the culture and the country they live. If the victim chose to forgive and solve amicably then elders are there to arbitrate. what if it was incest and so they don't want to take it forward? Majority of child abuse cases are incest. A lot of awareness we have now and many victims view it as a serious crime now. And I agree elders who are not familiar with the policy or some who are overzealous may have rarely discouraged victim to not go to the court. But things have changed and I would report if I handle a case today. Fazilfazil (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sexual abuse of a child is something that very significantly affects the psycho-sexual development of a person, and it is extremely unusual that you do not understand how such a traumatic event might result in court action even despite the social pressure imposed by the JW stigmatisation of external reporting. Your attitude toward the seriousness of sexual abuse of children is deplorable and I am not comfortable continuing to discuss the subject with you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Did I say I think its less serious as murder is? No. Bible in fact categorizes sexual immorality as serious as murder. What I am saying is that many people and in many countries they don't consider it as serious as murder. So victims may not decide to report, especially if its within their family. It has nothing to do with the organization, scoffers and media would love to color it that way. Just like they complained about Jesus, stating "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!'. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' But wisdom is proved right by her deeds." JWs consider child abuse serious and that's why they take judicial action. Its up to the victim/family to decide if they want to pursue secular action. And our policies are refining over time, seeking the best for its members. Opposers would take delight in finding faults, like all their other complaints "Russel abandoned his wife, Rutherford was a drunkard, Franz can't read Hebrew, they changed dates, they changed teachings, WTS is autocratic" and so on. They are interested in finding faults, and we know what happened to the ultimate fault finder. Right hearted people are not shaken by all these and can see through all these, that the intention of the organization is pure. I have read all these material online, about every sort of ex-witness stuff, and it haven't even cast any doubt in the organization and the Bible. Rather it have helped me to strengthen my faith. You are welcome to stop the conversation. Fazilfazil (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And therein lies your problem Fazil. You can't even be remotely objective on this issue, and your changes tend to reflect this. Vyselink (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bible categorizes picking up sticks on a Saturday as serious as murder. It is not a reliable guideline. (However, your objection about murder was misdirection because I actually referred to your characterisation of child abuse being comparable to adultery.) The policies are clearly not seeking the best for members, as is clearly evident from the JW-related depositions to the Royal Commission ongoing in Australia and various other cases worldwide. The policies are seeking the best for the organisation.

The latter part of your comments about "opposers" (JW jargon) is nothing but irrelevant preachy rhetoric.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I still stand on the point that the organization is doing the best for children. Anyone can go to police if they want to report, although many don't chose to. On the contrary, if the organization have to report all allegations when its not mandatory, then its less likely anyone who don't want to go to police will ever get any help. As I understood you are an atheist, then sure I have no point on preaching anything from Bible. Because there is no God, so we humans have to set the laws. In 1950s human standard said homosexuality is bad. And today human standards say homosexuality is okay, and tomorrow they may ask to legalize incest (Some Germans are on track already) or even legalize child pornography (which was in Japan). Satisfy all our desires for tomorrow we will die right. At least I have a strong purpose and hope about future, which no one can take away. Fazilfazil (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow... So many idiotic statements in such a short paragraph...

Emotions can overtake your reasoning. Nothing else to say. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. The organisation clearly isn't doing enough. It expressly refused to do enough when their database of abusers was subpoenaed by the US courts and the Watch Tower Society refused to co-operate. Not only does the policy not tell elders to report all abuse, but it also does not instruct elders to recommend that victims report abuse to authorities. The policy still requires for victims (usually young women) to testify in explicit detail to a group of (usually old) unqualified men (who are also often friends of the abuser), and victims can also be expected to face their abuser in meetings with the elders. Victims are also considered to be potential 'sinners', being asked questions such as whether they enjoyed the abuse. Terrible, terrible policy. In Australia, the Royal Commission has identified over 1000 individual abusers (more than the number of congregations in the country) who were not reported by JW elders to authorities.

The reason why they refused to do so, is because a lot of things are confidential and victims have the right for privacy. Have you ever heard the legal term Phishing Expedition? Read it if not. In the Candace Conti case, the court itself said that churches don't need to inform things to anyone else unless required by law. Its an age old practice where people trust church for advice and counsel. I would say in her case at the end she probably got nothing other than her legal cost, since its SHE who gave up after WT proceeded to supreme court with an opening brief. Read that discussion reply #8 if you want to know. There is nothing called clergy malpractice. Its up to the state do decide if they should make mandatory reporting. That's because elders' job is not to decide if the abuser should be put to jail, their job is to comfort victim, protect the congregation from immoral influences and apply internal discipline. The very fact that we keep 1006 records show that we take all allegations seriously, and take appropriate action when necessary. Our policy have refined over time, and so we are not perfect. You will see that on the 1st and 4th day proceedings, according to current policy the victims don't need to meet the accuser, they will take a letter from victim deemed sufficient. Elders are also specifically instructed to NOT ask intimate questions. Current policy even let the elders make the parents in the congregation aware of abuser if they see their kids are in absolute danger (see 1st day proceeding p.76 of royal commission) . In united states recently two young children aged 11-13 were sent to jail for killing their dad's girlfriend. So your implied claim that children's testimony is always absolutely true is not substantiated. Though all these are only for the sake of church discipline, victim can still go to police. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's called obstruction of justice when refusing to provide such information to law enforcement. Also, was not referring to the Conti case—strawman. Additionally, any claim of JW elders relying on 'clergy-penitent privilege' is already breached when elders reveal that information to other elders, including the branch office.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. The primary reasons that many JWs don't 'choose' to report is because they are indoctrinated to believe that they 'shouldn't take a 'brother' to court', that they should not 'bring reproach on the organisation' and should not trust 'worldy' authorities and professionals.

Do we have a statistic report on how many of those 1006 never went to police by means of victim? Did they ask all those people why they didn't went to police if not. Why didn't they publish that with the same vigor? Because its prosecutions natural legal tactic to present its initial claims in the most favorable way for their advantage. Its notable that the report said only ONE individual was discouraged by an elder, contrary to official policy. We are discouraged to not go to court for civil cases primarily (like dispute for land), not when its a criminal crime of the land. Like murder. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Strawman. Behaviour of private individuals out of scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. If you acknowledge that elders should report where it is mandatory, it's not at all clear why you imagine there should be some double standard of not reporting when they don't have to report to secular authorities. Unless you think it shouldn't be mandatory to report anywhere.

My stand is that elders would report only if they think its a situation where the child is in absolute danger. It all depends on the situation as directed by service department. For example if both parents are abusing the child. I have at least one media report where an elder handed over an abuser to police. If every report is send to police then, many cases will go unreported out of fear of facing legal sanctions. For example if the father is the abuser and he confessed and asked forgiveness to the child, then its up to the family to report, why we overstep that trust the family has on elders? --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion of hypothetical situations is not relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Even in the absence of elders reporting the abuse, elders should specifically encourage victims to report abuse to secular authorities rather than deluding themselves into thinking it is suitable to just 'not discourage' reporting. They won't do this because it contradicts the impression they want to give that their 'organisation' is 'superior' to 'the world'.

We make it absolutely clear that the victim have the right to go to police. What if we encourage them and then it was proved that the claim was a lie. How will elders bring back the lost reputation of the innocent.--Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that the more likely outcome in a scenario of a false report would be for the person to admit it's a lie rather than follow through with a frivolous official report to police. "We"? Asserting yourself as a primary source suggests a conflict of interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. The religious laws that you follow were also developed by humans, and the anthropological development of such systems that regulate behaviour in societies is not a mystery. My religious beliefs are not relevant to the discussion.

Ya. But I want to make a point that you can claim that your belief is superior to others. But I won't buy it, just like you wont buy mine --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You can believe what you like, but there is no evidence in support of your position.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. The claim that "In 1950s human standard said homosexuality is bad" is idiotically simplistic, does not reflect all societies, and falsely implies that homosexuality was universally condemned in all societies throughout human history prior to that time. Aside from that, it's irrelevant anyway.

In ancient Rome men would lay down with young boys. It was not universally condemned, so its okay right? Only because Christianity had a big influence on politics that practice changed. Then I don't see why the day will come when man made standards will say, okay young boys can sleep with men. Only wait and watch, things are getting so better each day --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Strawman. There are many cultures throughout history that have had no problems with consensual homosexual activity among adults.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. It is a frequent tactic of religious fundamentalists to conflate consensual homosexual activity with situations where consent is not possible such as pedophilia (including incest) or bestiality.Entirely irrelevant and bombastically stupid. (This idiocy was attempted in a recent 'JW Broadcasting' video that promotes a 1982 Awake! article that incorrectly associated homosexuality with child sexual abuse, completely ignoring the fact that girls are most frequently the victims of abuse. The false information in the JW video may even be your reason for drawing the false connection.)

We never said rape/child sexual abuse is always consensual. Like fundamentalists not all atheist are so good. Some convince themselves as atheists just to don't feel guilty when they commit adultery, homosexuality or sexual immorality.--Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Response is nonsensical, and again conflates consensual and nonconsensual behaviours as 'sin'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Consensual incest among adults (which is the subject of the current discussion in Germany), whilst not something I like the sound of personally, would be an entirely separate issue, and is irrelevant to a discussion about child sex abuse. There are also several instances in the Bible where incest is endorsed.

Bible doesn't endorse incest between siblings anyway.--Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Genesis 20:12.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

After your misguided rant, you finish by spouting about the satisfaction your religious beliefs bring you, again falsely suggesting that anyone without your religious beliefs can't possibly have 'hope' or 'purpose'. This too is not at all relevant to the subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you may have a hope. Though I have no hope human governments will ever solve our problems. I quit, its just an exhausting conversation. I got other things to do man. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I really hope you have quit making these irrational statements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Man, I have a full-time career. I have personal projects in addition to congregation responsibilities and more goals for full-time Bethel service. Misplaced Pages is not one of my hobby like yours. I feel like what Jesus' said at times "wisdom is proved righteous by its deeds", we can go on an on. For some things all you have to do is let it go. That's why I don't want to do edit wars like I used to do before. I only show up when I see an absolute need to clarify misstatements. User:Vyselink have commented that I am being irrational with my edits, he doesn't know that many of my past changes in JWs article have been significant in terms of keeping a balance and they are still there Fazilfazil (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

All of us have other responsibilities. For the purposes of Misplaced Pages, your "congregation responsibilities" and "goals for full-time Bethel service" are no more important than any other editor's obligations; however, they do intensify a perception of a conflict of interest on the subject at hand.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with improving the article and is a misuse of the article talk page. Either get back on track or take your discussion to a forum somewhere else. BlackCab (TALK) 11:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion relates directly to a POV that Fazilfazil would like the article to present.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

However, Fazilfazil has now made a complete mess of the structure of the discussion. There are clearly so many problems with Fazilfazil's interleaved responses that it is not worth continuing to rebut him here. However, any attempt to add the inappropriate ideas to the article will result in removal of the inappropriate material, with reference to the relevant reasons already provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Fazil, your past edits are irrelevant in this context. The ones you are making here are simply wrong. I must also agree with BlackCab however, and state that this debate has gotten off track. Vyselink (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A suitable subsection should be added at Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. I have added the JW case study to the table at that article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Previously, citations relating to a number of letters and internal books used by the Watch Tower Society regarding policies relating to Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sexual abuse have been removed from Misplaced Pages articles by some editors, on the basis that 'leaked' copies of the letters were "questionable" and could not be regarded as "published". The relevant letters and other material have since been published as part of the Australian Royal Commission, and can therefore be cited and linked.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Shunning disaffected victims

A point brought out in the Australian Royal Commission is that victims who leave the religion as a result of circumstances related to JW handling of abuse are shunned. For example:

• where the process of questioning the victim within the rules imposed by the religion has been distressing to the victim;
• where the victim's abuser has been allowed to remain in the congregation due to 'only one witness' or is deemed 'repentant' by elders;
• where a 'faded' victim is learned to have later committed some 'sin' and does not comply with arrangements for a 'judicial meeting'.

The painfully tedious extraction of Geoffrey Jackson's acknowledgement that those who formally leave are shunned and that those who 'fade' are considered by elders to remain subject to JW policies is found in the testimony of day 155.

This should probably be mentioned in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on the points you've raised, I'm not convinced it's a good fit. Those situations are hypothetical rather than actual policy and that would need to be made clear in the article. Jackson was hardly forthcoming on any of this and it's not a very strong basis for stating those possibilities as encyclopedic fact. BlackCab (TALK) 12:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that it warrants its own section, nor did I suggest that it is a 'policy'. However, it is "an encyclopedic fact" that this was raised as a concern during the Royal Commission.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like wait until the commission publishes its findings, rather than including hypothetical raised for the sake of investigation. Your first concern is not universal. For example in United States its perfectly legal to use corporal punishment as long as child does not get handicapped. Similarly, their is no limit on questioning the victim. Secular male lawyers would ask intimate questions, like "what object did he put into your vagina" in the case of candice conti. In Australia it may be illegal. Elders are instructed to not ask intimate question when talking to child victims regardless, and now they are analyzing the possibility of using women/letter in conveying the evidence from victim. Your second concern is disputable, especially because church discipline is based on religious beliefs. If the victim is not happy with ecclesiastical tribunal they should go to secular authorities, rather than expecting church to go to police. In fact they should first call the police for criminal offenses instead of calling elders. Similarly I don't agree that the possibility of expulsion for being critical would silence the victim from reporting to authorities, especially when church says that they are free to approach police. From a secular standpoint shunning may be emotionally destructive, but members have a commitment and they made an informed choice when they are being vociferously critical. I don't think even any secular organizations would allow someone to continue if they are publicly critical of their management. This is also true in the case of other policies for example blood transfusions. Personal religious beliefs cannot be changed just because secular authorities think its cruel or stupid. Roller958 (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comments don't address Jeffro's point and instead seem aimed at justifying the processes of the JWs. You also seem to be unaware that JWs are commonly disfellowshipped and shunned even after just "fading" and then living a quiet lifestyle free of the restrictions and prohibitions imposed at the whim of the religion's leaders. Many have been disfellowshipped and shunned without any hint of "vociferous" criticism. And while you're correct that many organisations may not tolerate continued membership by an individual who is "publicly critical", I am aware of none that subsequently instruct that no member of the organisation, including family, ever speak or write to them again, or greet them. That conduct is limited to cults such as Scientology, Unification Church, Exclusive Brethren and Peoples Temple. A royal commission has every right to draw attention to such "cruel" practices particularly when the fear of shunning might lead to victims of sexual abuse remaining silent. BlackCab (TALK) 23:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

JWs don't disfellowship individuals who fade. They disfellowship, if an individual is going against Bible principles. You said "whims" of leaders, its actually based on "whims" of Bible. The so called leaders themselves are following the "whims" of the Bible. Hey if a member don't want to submit to the constitution of Bible, then he fundamentally got it wrong by joining the religion. That is the question of Universal Sovereignty, according to JW theology. Royal commission can reinterpret Bible and force witnesses to socialize with disfellowshipped individuals. Or they can force the religion to not shun individuals who are being critical. However, anyone with a half brain in the legal system won't do that, because of ecclesiastical abstinence doctrine in democratic countries. Even if they did so nobody in JWs will ever socialize with former members/apostates. Because they would follow what the Bible says, especially when their is a conflict with secular law. GB cannot and will not create a teaching fundamentally contrary to Bible according to the "whims" and "fantasies" of some critics. Think about Satan the devil, he is said to be shunned "kept in darkness" by faithful angels, very cruel isn't it? In ancient Israel the penalty for apostasy/leaving Jehovah was death by stone, at-least Christians have a better policy. The breathless efforts by critics to destroy the organization have so far a big zero impact on ground, and so nowadays they take comfort/gnashing teeth by predicting the failure of the organization in near future. haha Roller958 (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not essential to wait until the Commission publishes its findings. It would be good to wait until the idea I've raised has been mentioned in news sources (although cases of former victims being shunned in similar circumstances probably are already available in other sources). Even then, I'm only suggesting that the concept warrants a sentence or two.

I never said anything about 'corporal punishment', and a lot of the other stuff you said that is completely unrelated and therefore warrants no reply. It doesn't matter how justified you or anyone else believes the shunning to be. It is simply a statement of fact that it can happen, and one that was raised as a specific concern of the Royal Commission.

I did not say that JWs disfellowship people who 'fade' just because they have 'faded'. The point (raised by Angus Stewart and repeated by me) was that JW elders consider people who have 'faded' to still be subject to JW rules and in the event that a 'faded' person (who might still have contact with their JW relatives and/or JW friends) is considered by the elders or other JWs to have committed some 'sin' (which is not limited to 'vociferous criticism' but could apply to celebrating Christmas, accepting a blood transfusion, attending another church, expressing political opinions or a bunch of other entirely normal things) may then be disfellowshipped (or 'considered to have disassociated by their actions) and shunned. It is a complete misrepresentation of what I said (and more importantly, of what Angus Stewart said) to imply that this is merely about faded JWs being shunned (even though that also sometimes does happen).

The claim about 'whims of the Bible' rather than 'whims of the leaders' is also misleading, since the 'sins' are based on the Governing Body's interpretations of the Bible, with various degrees of vagueness for different issues, and some that aren't mentioned in the Bible at all. And the 'rules' that existed at the time a person 'joined' (which may have been the actions of a coerced child who felt they had no other choice) may not even be the same 'rules' that exist at a later time.

The claim that the Royal Commission could "force witnesses to socialize with disfellowshipped individuals" is just stupid. The claim that no JW ever socialises with someone who is disfellowshipped/disassociated is also an ignorant blanket statement. But that also is entirely irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You can add whatever you want, expect rebuttals. I don't want to continue a lengthy rebuttal in talk. My primary focus is that JWs see GB as a part of authority structure, not as tyrannical rulers. Members know the genuineness/sacrifice of the people in the HQ. GB cannot interpret scriptures differently in things that are openly mentioned in the Bible like shunning. If they did so, nobody will follow the organization. Its like a democratic country, people are supposed to be obedient to the countries constitution willingly out of patriotism, at the same time they also needs to be obedient to the interpretation of the constitution which is done by elite few judges of supreme court. Those who cannot follow the law will be punished according to the law. Similarly JWs follow Bible as a constitution, somethings mentioned directly in constitution cannot be changed even by the GB, but in other matters the decision by GB is expected to be followed. GB themselves are abiding by their teaching. As simple as that is. Shunning is such a fundamental thing in Bible, like God's name is Jehovah. Not a royal commission, not anyone can change that belief. Roller958 (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The way JWs 'regard the Governing Body' is not relevant to the subject at hand. Nor are your continued attempts to 'justify' shunning, including the implied claim that the scriptures that JWs use to support shunning cannot be interpreted any other way.

You felt it necessary to explicitly state in the article that disfellowshipped offenders are shunned (with no thought of reporting the individual to authorities, leaving them free to re-offend in the wider community—another concern raised by the Royal Commission), but you seem opposed to having the article acknowledge that the organisation's procedures can also result in shunning of victims, even though this concern has been specifically raised by the Royal Commission.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The specific issue in question has already been reported in the media.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"Shunning is such a fundamental thing in Bible, like God's name is Jehovah". This will be why shunning was so much of the focus of Jesus' teachings, and why other Christian denominations identify shunning and the name "Jehovah" as their primary doctrines. Apart from the manipulative cults I identified earlier, I can't think of any religion that is so fixated with "disciplining" members, nor so enthusiastic about a biblical interpretation in which billions of people who either (a) choose not to join or (b) have never heard of a certain minority religion will be slaughtered by an angry and jealous god. Pleasure comes in many strange forms, I guess. BlackCab (TALK) 02:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

True Christians are ought to be distinct, and will strive to follow Christ closely. They don't practice war, display love to one another, are united and they will worship the only true God. Nowadays the name Jesus is identical to "forgiveness", and preachers become millionaires by "tickling the ears" of people. Selfish people not only want to continue enjoying the "temporary pleasure of sin" but also want to go to heaven. Others are too proud to be submissive to authority or discipline, which they think as a burden. They lean on their "own wisdom" as if their own wisdom is superior to that of God's, by doing so promoting the original independent thinker Satan the devil himself. To the contrary Jesus is said to be coming to execute vengeance (far worse than shunning). In revelation he is described as a warrior killing people. He is the one who asked us to consider unrepentant one to be "a man of nations". As JWs we don't want our members to be executed directly by Jesus for practicing sin that would cause them permanent death. So in that sense disfellowshipping is a loving arrangement, much better than punishments under law covenant, further evidenced by the fact that many chose to comeback (Except those "who are not our sort"). Roller958 (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The counsel assisting the royal commission did an excellent job of highlighting how the Governing Body arbitrarily choose which parts of the old and new testaments should apply to the modern day. If the GB did decide that stoning adulterers was actually still required by God, or that it was permissible for an inebriated man to have sex with his daughters or for pregnant "rebellious" woman to be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16) I'm sure you'd be able to justify that as well. BlackCab (TALK) 04:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Roller958, there are plenty of denominations who believe just as strongly that "They don't practice war, display love to one another, are united and they will worship the only true God". It's entirely irrelevant. And the tenuous attempt at trying to make shunning sound like "a loving arrangement" is laughable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Blackcab You know clearly that we are not under Mosaic law, and we only follow the principles involved there. Overall I feel the GB member and service department elder did a very good job, and finally commission was forced to focus on minor issues. (like using only men, redress scheme etc). The thing is JWs don't have any programs that separate children from parents, which is the primary cause of abuse in churches. @Jeffro77 I didn't attempt, I just said what I believe. For me Jehovah does not provide answers to every sort of questions, I can see with my eyes the difference among JWs. Other things are a matter of faith, without faith its not possible to please God. He is giving a fair ground for Satan to prove his point, so he doesn't give point by point rebuttals or convincing signs in heaven. So my choice is the best I have in this world, others are free to think other way. We cannot make everyone happy, its even true in the case of any democratic country. There is always some who oppose certain laws or fight against interpretations. Roller958 (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if JWs don't have the truth, I would rather associate with group of people who are genuine and had it right in most doctrines of Bible. I feel Bible is far superior than other religious books. On the other side science is not going to answer my questions. I recently met an ex-JW while on service by myself who said I am young, so he felt compassion, and wanted to convince me that preaching is not necessary and its not necessary to follow "everything" what the GB says. He said he don't like to be controlled by anybody. He build his theory based on the premise that I was forced to follow the religion by my parents. For me knocking door-to-door and following Bible laws is a pleasure, not a burden. I don't serve God expecting a reward of paradise, I serve him because of the gift of life I enjoy, even in this imperfect world. Have to end the conversation with him after an hour of unproductive talk. The thing is everyone in the Universe except Jehovah is under some form of control by an authority, and you can never evade that authority/discipline. True happiness belongs to those who are willingly being obedient to God, and Jehovah has given enough freedom to enjoy life. Ex-JWs often misunderstand that we are forced or coerced, if anything I am forced by is what I read in the Bible not by the GB/WTS/Elders/Family. Roller958 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Start-Class Christianity articles
• High-importance Christianity articles
• Start-Class Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• Top-importance Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles