Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Bible-Based Child Protection Packet Released


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 1830 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Lance said:

No other organization has guidelines and requirements for parishioners.These have been practiced and published for decades

Very true. However, paragraphs 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11 are clearly an adjustment to how some cases of child abuse were handled in the past according to the findings of law courts, and commissions in Australia and Great Britain. This was evidently because there were no such clear guidelines for elders, such as "the victims right to report to authorities" and disclosure to elders with the "support of confidante of either gender" and the disclosure of the actual name of a perpetrator to a family with children or "The elders’ handling of an accusation of child abuse is not being a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes in some cases ...

I have been an elder for 30 plus years ..

I can honestly say all of the points laid out in this document.. I have practiced and the bodies that I have been on have also practiced...  

But it is good for All to be on the same page and All to know the expectations and guidelines ..it protects everyone..

Zeph 3:17 Jehovah your God is in the midst of you. As a mighty One, he will save. He will exult over you with rejoicing. He will become silent in his love. He will be joyful over you with happy cries....... Love it....a beautiful word picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lance said:

 No other organization has guidelines and requirements for parishioners.

Yeah they only have guidelines for leaders so to limit their liability (aka, to avoid lawsuits). They don’t care what the membership does or what kind of lives they live. 

 

But the “downside” (if there is one) of having guildlines for parishioners is that authorities have tried to hold the organization responsible for what members do outside of congregational actIvities. 

 

Employers have guidelines for their employees as well. Does that mean that my boss should be sued because I decided to rob a bank on my off time?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, annakot said:

Very true. However, paragraphs 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11 are clearly an adjustment to how some cases of child abuse were handled in the past according to the findings of law courts, and commissions in Australia and Great Britain. This was evidently because there were no such clear guidelines for elders, such as "the victims right to report to authorities" and disclosure to elders with the "support of confidante of either gender" and the disclosure of the actual name of a perpetrator to a family with children or "The elders’ handling of an accusation of child abuse is not being a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter".

Good post. Opposers have lived in the cracks of our policy for years, latching on to any real or perceived ambiguity they could find. Now since things have been improved and made clear, spotting lies is easier now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that some posted on here about how most religious organizations don't have guidelines for their members if they have guidelines it's for those in leadership positions.  This is very true.  Our organization was already unusual in that the elders are expected to investigate complaints against any baptized member.  Also even more so that they must take disciplinary action if the person is found guilty or confesses.  I believe that there are certain other denominations that may do this for child abuse, but most don't and ours does so consistently and has done so for many many years. 

 

Yet, some including former Jehovah's Witnesses and Non-Witnesses have complained that they don't do enough to discipline individuals known to be guilty that don't have responsible positions.  I've heard complaints about them publically reproving individuals instead of disfellowshipping and for reinstating an individual too soon even though they made him wait the longest they can make a person wait after a person starts doing what he or she needs to do to get reinstated, at least the maximum amount of time at that time, I don't know about now especially for child abuse.  Even though these individuals  face temporary and permanent restrictions including permanently being prohibited from having a responsible position or special privileges.  

 

Also, on our previous www.jw-media.org website it was made clear as early as 2003 at least, that victims and their parents have the right to report the matter to authorities and that the elders are expected to report it when the law requires even when the accusations are unproven.  Also it was made clear that the two witness requirement did not have to be to one and the same incident.  Later before we had our current website they stated anyone had the right to report it to the authorities even without a child abuse reporting law and the elders had to follow child abuse reporting laws. 

 

This was before the inquiries in Australia and Britain.  I remember reading them multiple times on www.jw-media.org not www.watchtower.org  It was clear that they had already made refinements to strengthen the policy and procedures before in the past which they stated and that they were continuing to make refinements.  So even if the Australian Commission helped it would not take them to get our organization to make refinements.

 

A woman that I found out used to be a Witness I did not realize it in the beginning.  She stated that in the 1960's Jehovah's Witnesses did not ever investigate the abuse of women and children at all committed by any member especially if it was a man.  I knew that this wasn't true one reason being my mom's Bible teacher was molested in the early 1960's by someone with a responsible position when she was younger before my mom knew her when my mom was a child.  There was an investigation and the brothers found out that she wasn't the only one and he was removed from his position and he got into a lot of trouble besides that.  My mom can't remember whether or not he was disfellowshipped for certain.  It would not surprise us if he was, he may very well have been she just doesn't remember and doesn't want to say without remembering.  But, he did get into a lot of trouble and he lost his position.

 

Also, I mentioned what the woman said to a close friend of mine and she mentioned it to an elder in her congregation because he was a brother in the 1960's and the truth has been in his family since the 1890's.  He said what the woman said is absolutely not true.  He knows of two cases (Not cases  he was involved in) one was in 1960 and the other was before that.  Those cases involved what my friend was talking about and in both cases it involved an abusive brother and the cases were investigated and the brothers were both disfellowshipped.  In one of the cases the responsible brothers called the police and turned everything over to the courts and the abusive man went to prison.  I thought after my friend told me about this that back then the elders would not have been legally required to do that but they did anyway in that case.  

 

This elder reminded my best friend about the two witness requirement and mentioned some verses on the subject and he said that was the requirement back then also.

 

Also, before this change I know of some elders in my State I heard about them from a sister in their congregation that I met once about two years ago.  She said that several years earlier the elders in her congregation called the police when they found out from an adult that an elder in their congregation had been molesting his grandson.  That was before they heard it from the boy because the elder had admitted to a relative of his.  So the elders called the police before they confirmed it and without being legally required to.  In this case they decided to do so before the policy required elders to report if a child is still in danger even if there is no legal requirement.  Shortly after that the accusations were confirmed with two separate witnesses and after the elder was removed which wasn't long after the allegations were made.  Well, within weeks after he was removed he was expelled.  

 

I also know  elders personally who reported complaints back in 2000 to Child Services in two States concerning the same case because our Legal Department in New York told them to because they said that they were mandatory reporters in their State.  They actually went beyond what they had to do. 

 

So this shows that our organization, especially our headquarters and branch offices have never tried to cover up abuse especially  not child abuse.  Of course I know that people on here know that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by JW2017
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, JW2017 said:

Yet, some including former Jehovah's Witnesses and Non-Witnesses have complained that they don't do enough to discipline individuals known to be guilty that don't have responsible positions.  I've heard complaints about them publically reproving individuals instead of disfellowshipping and for reinstating an individual too soon even though they made him wait the longest they can make a person wait after a person starts doing what he or she needs to do to get reinstated, at least the maximum amount of time at that time, I don't know about now especially for child abuse.  Even though these individuals  face temporary and permanent restrictions including permanently being prohibited from having a responsible position or special privileges.  

Well, what I say about that is that all a religious organization can do is educate and expel. We are not an arm of the government nor law enforcement. People who complain about that generally are the same fault-finders that really care nothing about someone being "disciplined", because just like Agnus Stewart did, they call disfellowshipping and shunning "cruel", yet, complain that we don't do it enough.

 

They cannot really have it both ways -- its either "cruel", or acceptable.

 

Its the epitome of hypocrisy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, JW2017 said:

...for reinstating an individual too soon even though they made him wait the longest they can make a person wait after a person starts doing what he or she needs to do to get reinstated, at least the maximum amount of time at that time,

1

Sister Whitney, thank you for your post above. Like many that have been around for years, we have seen some things take place for which we do not know all the circumstances. As you point out this causes some to complain about what they do not understand. It is a heavy burden placed on elders to keep the congregation clean and as you testify you have seen it down through many years.

Regarding the excerpt that I bolded above. For those that might read your post and come to a misunderstanding, there is no maximum or minimum period of time before one can be considered for reinstatement. Like in all things we are to be reasonable, continuing to show love for all the sheep, returning or otherwise.

It may appear to family members that the elders respond too slow and to others it may appear they are acting hastily. Occasionally there has been intervention on the part of the Branch when they receive a plea in this regard, but very seldom are the local brothers second-guessed. Even with prayer, there will always be imperfection, we strive hard to keep our organization clean. When it comes to protecting ones from child abuse we strive for a zero tolerance, that is a Godly standard. 

 I am not sying I am Superman, I am only saying that nobody has ever seen Superman  and me in a room together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Old said:

Sister Whitney, thank you for your post above. Like many that have been around for years, we have seen some things take place for which we do not know all the circumstances. As you point out this causes some to complain about what they do not understand. It is a heavy burden placed on elders to keep the congregation clean and as you testify you have seen it down through many years.

Regarding the excerpt that I bolded above. For those that might read your post and come to a misunderstanding, there is no maximum or minimum period of time before one can be considered for reinstatement. Like in all things we are to be reasonable, continuing to show love for all the sheep, returning or otherwise.

It may appear to family members that the elders respond too slow and to others it may appear they are acting hastily. Occasionally there has been intervention on the part of the Branch when they receive a plea in this regard, but very seldom are the local brothers second-guessed. Even with prayer, there will always be imperfection, we strive hard to keep our organization clean. When it comes to protecting ones from child abuse we strive for a zero tolerance, that is a Godly standard. 

Well, I still think they made him wait longer than they make a lot people that haven't abused a child.  At least from what I've noticed, I haven't noticed most people waiting that long  I don't mean he waited longer than everyone else.  But, Thank You.


Edited by JW2017
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lance said:

Yes in some cases ...

I have been an elder for 30 plus years ..

I can honestly say all of the points laid out in this document.. I have practiced and the bodies that I have been on have also practiced...  

But it is good for All to be on the same page and All to know the expectations and guidelines ..it protects everyone..

I think this problem of not following guidelines was only an issue for a minority of elders, and unfortunately they are the ones that got us into trouble. 

But as you say, and I forgot to mention this so thank you for bringing it up, that the big difference with this document is that now not only the elders have it, but it is available to anyone, so it is this transparency that will be a protection for all. That's the biggest difference and that is why I said sometimes the superior authorities are needed to make Jehovah's people do the right thing. I know many on here have criticized the Australian Royal Commission, but without it, would we have made this change in transparency I wonder....Just my thoughts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JW2017 said:

Well, I still think they made him wait longer than they make a lot people that haven't abused a child.  At least from what I've noticed, I haven't noticed most people waiting that long  I don't mean he waited longer than everyone else.  But, Thank You.

Sister Whitney I love your comments. You are missing my point. Yes, almost without a doubt, he would wait longer. I was making the point that there is no maximum and no minimum. A rule of thumb is, the more serious the offense, the more harm, the more deceit, the more effort the repentant one would need to demonstrate in an effort to return to the congregation. :)


Edited by Old

 I am not sying I am Superman, I am only saying that nobody has ever seen Superman  and me in a room together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, annakot said:

I think this problem of not following guidelines was only an issue for a minority of elders, and unfortunately they are the ones that got us into trouble. 

But as you say, and I forgot to mention this so thank you for bringing it up, that the big difference with this document is that now not only the elders have it, but it is available to anyone, so it is this transparency that will be a protection for all. That's the biggest difference and that is why I said sometimes the superior authorities are needed to make Jehovah's people do the right thing. I know many on here have criticized the Australian Royal Commission, but without it, would we have made this change in transparency I wonder....Just my thoughts...

Well, the ARC as I recall only included JWs because they didn't want to be viewed as singling out the RCC. And what right thing weren't we doing that the ARC had to make us do?

 

If anything, history is littered with examples that shows how WE have had to force the superior authorities to do the right thing. I agree that many criticize the ARC, but it has little to do with the fact they were conducting an investigation in and of itself. The facts are, they focused on our beliefs, not the prevention and response to child abuse, and disagreed with almost everything we believe, and even suggested the we abandon the Bible. When they parroted obvious apostate lies, all bets of a fair hearing were off. The only thing the ARC suggested that made sense was to place our child abuse prevention policy in a single document and to make it available. That made sense. We did that.

 

Other than that, I don't know what the ARC suggested that we didn't have written down somewhere, or that we were not already doing.  


Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just look at the some of the more ridiculous things the ARC asked about that had NOTHING to do with preventing child sex abuse:

 

How old are members when they are baptized

Does the GB make decision by majority vote

What is an "inactive" Witness

Are inactive members shunned if they are caught celebrating Christmas

Women are told to "remain silent" during the meetings

How old was brother Jackson when he was baptized

Does brother Jackson work in translation

How are GB members selected

How many GB members are there

 

..and those are just off the top of my head. This is why I criticized the ARC personally. They spent more time bashing our beliefs than they did talking about protecting children.

 

 

 


Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, annakot said:

I think this problem of not following guidelines was only an issue for a minority of elders, and unfortunately they are the ones that got us into trouble. 

But as you say, and I forgot to mention this so thank you for bringing it up, that the big difference with this document is that now not only the elders have it, but it is available to anyone, so it is this transparency that will be a protection for all. That's the biggest difference and that is why I said sometimes the superior authorities are needed to make Jehovah's people do the right thing. I know many on here have criticized the Australian Royal Commission, but without it, would we have made this change in transparency I wonder....Just my thoughts...

There's no doubt that everyone in Jehovah's people hates child abuse, what kind of monsters would not? The elders, the GB, the branch, parents, everyone did their best. There was a time when there were no guidelines because child abuse was not a subject that was ever mentioned. But even then I'm sure the elders handled correctly most of the few cases that were brought up to them.

 

Then came awareness and the organization began preparing policies and proceedings. Most of the points you mention have been included in our directions for several decades. Most of the time those instructions were followed and things went well. In the few cases some elders, due to either ignorance or pride, followed their own opinion instead of reading and applying the directions, they screwed up.

 

Instructions that a victim of a crime (including rape and child abuse of course) had all the right to report the wrongdoer to the authorities indifferently of the congregational action were published as far back as 1962 in The Watchtower. Of course, we were always open to improve those policies and they have become better and better as more information has been published by experts. Of course, the point where the organization insists the most is prevention.

 

The ARC could have been a useful tool but they turned it instead in a JW-bashing circus. Its members never really tried to understand the way we do things and why. And to be honest, after all the ado and the lies, how many useful suggestions did the ARC provide? Their conclusion was basically that we should stop disfellowshipping wrongdoers because that's cruel and at the same time that we should disfellowship anyone accused of child abuse even if there's no proof to support the accusation. So damn if you do and damn if you don't.

 

We already had some similar policy published some 15 years ago, so no, it was not the ARC that forced this. But this policy is the best we've ever had so if the ARC had anything to do with that, blessed be Jah for the ARC! If anything, the organization has been made aware that not all elders were up-to-date with the proceedings, so all elders have received specific training in the last few years on how to handle child abuse. Training is always a good thing, as is transparency. I have to agree with you on this. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, carlos said:

The ARC could have been a useful tool but they turned it instead in a JW-bashing circus. Its members never really tried to understand the way we do things and why. And to be honest, after all the ado and the lies, how many useful suggestions did the ARC provide? Their conclusion was basically that we should stop disfellowshipping wrongdoers because that's cruel and at the same time that we should disfellowship anyone accused of child abuse even if there's no proof to support the accusation. So damn if you do and damn if you don't.

 

Y'know, there is something I noticed over the last couple years, and this is a very general comment, but those who say the ARC was some sort of "corrective" tool used by Jehovah to "correct" his people are usually those who believe the accusations made in the media. So they reason that since Jehovah used the nations in the past to correct his people, why can't he do it now? But that logic is really flawed for one reason: Jehovah did use the nations to correct his people, but that because they were DISOBEDIENT.

 

I don't believe any faithful Witness would say that the organization has a practice of disobeying God to the point of Him needing to employ the ARC to "correct" them, or any other secular authority. If anything, we have endured criticism and abuse world wide because we obey God. It just doesn't hold water.

 

This just demonstrates the power the media has to influence emotions and limit rational thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bob said:

 

Y'know, there is something I noticed over the last couple years, and this is a very general comment, but those who say the ARC was some sort of "corrective" tool used by Jehovah to "correct" his people are usually those who believe the accusations made in the media. So they reason that since Jehovah used the nations in the past to correct his people, why can't he do it now? But that logic is really flawed for one reason: Jehovah did use the nations to correct his people, but that because they were DISOBEDIENT.

 

I don't believe any faithful Witness would say that the organization has a practice of disobeying God to the point of Him needing to employ the ARC to "correct" them, or any other secular authority. If anything, we have endured criticism and abuse world wide because we obey God. It just doesn't hold water.

 

This just demonstrates the power the media has to influence emotions and limit rational thought.

Thank You.  This makes a lot of sense.  Very True.  Our Organization had already made it clear, that they had made refinements to their policy in the past and already planned on making adjustments to make it stronger if necessary.  They had already made it clear that we all have the right to report child abuse and other serious crimes to the authorities.  

 

Also the ARC continued to criticize aspects of the policy that haven't changed that are scriptural to the very end and they never changed.  They also made accusations that were clearly without basis such as;  The idea that we believe that children become adults at the age of 13 because they thought that the Bible says that in the Old Testament.  When they were corrected they even insisted on it.  That was something that I noticed.


Edited by JW2017
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some information that appeared in our publications in the past on reporting serious crime  including of fellow believers to the authorities which can still be found on our website:

 

 

The following appeared in a Watchtower article in 2005 which mentioned the right of victims and the rights parent's of victims that are minor's to report the matter to the police. 

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005563#h=13:0-13:263

 

The following appeared in the Keep Yourselves in God's Love Book Published in 2008

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102008089?q=serious+crime&p=par

 

The Current God's Love Book Which Specifically Mentions Child Abuse:

 

 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102017578?q=serious+crime&p=par

 

There is a Non-Witness site which has the older documents that the brothers published on Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Protection that used to appear on www.jw-media.org. Although I remember those documents when they appeared.   I don't know if I just post those links I am reluctant. So I'll post these for now.  

Those documents clearly stated the rights of congregation members to report child abuse to authorities even without a child abuse reporting law and even if the accusations were unproven in the congregation and the elders had to follow child abuse reporting laws.

 

Speaking of child abuse reporting laws, the last time I checked, clergy which legally includes the elders are mandatory child abuse reporters in 28 States in the United States and in some States everyone is a mandatory reporter so that would include the elders although they are not specifically mentioned.  But the law still does not require the elders to report it in every State and the number of States where they have to now is more than in the past.  Because of more States that specifically mention them and because of more States that have made everyone a mandatory reporter. 

 

However, the way that I understood it unless something has changed, in most States those that legally qualify as clergy do not have to report confessions of child abuse at least under some circumstances.  The law can be confusing and varies from State to State.  It's helpful that the elders have the Legal Department to call. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by JW2017
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JW2017 said:

Speaking of child abuse reporting laws, the last time I checked, clergy which legally includes the elders are mandatory child abuse reporters in 28 States in the United States and in some States everyone is a mandatory reporter so that would include the elders although they are not specifically mentioned.  But the law still does not require the elders to report it in every State and the number of States where they have to now is more than in the past.  Because of more States that specifically mention them and because of more States that have made everyone a mandatory reporter. 

Yes, that's because mandatory reporting is not always such a good idea as it may seem at first sight.

 

Some victims may not want the police involved or may be afraid of having to declare before the authorities, especially if the abuser is another member of the family, so they won't reach out to the elders if they know they are legally forced to report it.

 

This is a disgusting crime with lots of ramifications and unfortunately there is no perfect approach to it. The best we can do is working on prevention. We definitely need the kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, carlos said:

Yes, that's because mandatory reporting is not always such a good idea as it may seem at first sight.

 

Some victims may not want the police involved or may be afraid of having to declare before the authorities, especially if the abuser is another member of the family, so they won't reach out to the elders if they know they are legally forced to report it.

 

This is a disgusting crime with lots of ramifications and unfortunately there is no perfect approach to it. The best we can do is working on prevention. We definitely need the kingdom.

I understand what you are saying and it is true that some victims won't want to say something to a mandatory reporter or will be reluctant.  I do feel that it's good to mention, that victims of child abuse and adults of serious crimes such as sexual assault in the United States are not legally obligated to testify in court.  I don't know how things work in other countries.  


Edited by JW2017
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong.  I understand the reasons for having mandatory reporting and I do believe that it is often necessary for some professions including Doctors/Physicians, Nurses, Teachers and others.  I also understand why in some countries and some regions within some countries that they added representatives of a religious organization or group.


Edited by JW2017
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following shows how States can be different with mandatory reporting requirements for child abuse.   In some ways they are similar but in other ways they are different.  Notice the following information published on the Department of Social and Health Services Website for the State of Washington on Mandatory Reporting and then the Department of Human Services for the State of Oregon's website. 

 

They both publish information online about mandatory reporting for child abuse and vulnerable adults which can be different within the same State. Notice that clergy is included for the State of Oregon which has been the case for a number of years, but not in Washington State which is a neighboring State in the Pacific North West USA.  

 

It is good to note that at least in Washington State, that an adult living with the child who has been severely abused is a mandatory reporter.

 

https://www.dshs.wa.gov/ca/child-safety-and-protection/who-required-report-child-abuse-and-neglect

 

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ABUSE/Pages/mandatory_report.aspx

 

You can check these and other States on the Child Welfare Information Gateway.  

 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/state/?CWIGFunctionsaction=statestatutes:main.getResults


Edited by JW2017
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention that when I said clergy are included in Oregon State I was referring to Child Abuse not to the abuse of Vulnerable Adults.  Unless something has changed, they are not included on that list in Oregon State.

 

I mention this in this post because I brought up the lists on those websites concerning the abuse of vulnerable adults in another post.


Edited by JW2017
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had evidence of a child being molested, I would absolutely notify the authorities - no matter who it was and whether they were a member of a congregation or not.

 

Honest question here -- was there really a time when Witnesses would NOT report a molester to the police??  Was that ever advised against by the elders?  I can't imagine not reporting such a thing or even seeking permission from anyone to do so.

 

Then... for people to get mad because the elders didn't report to the police???  Doesn't make sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 23.8.11 (changelog)