Do Jehovahs Witnesses shun Child Victims of Sexual Abuse

[INTREPID TRAVELLER]

On the 10th of this month, the Australia Royal Commission held Case 54 which was a review of the responses of Jehovah’s Witnesses to the Commission’s findings.  The representatives from the Australia branch swore on the Bible “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.  Did they comply with this solemn oath before God?  You be the judge after watching this video:

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Yeah ... I also caught those lies ...  I am particularly sensitive to such things .. because as a JW Newbie, over a half century ago ... I did the very same thing ... to my everlasting shame.

.

[Bible Speaks]

[Mike Forrest]

So, so, so, so SAD!!!!!

[Evacuated]

The basic problem here is a confusion on all sides about how to explain/understand the difference between a person's action when they formally disassociate or renounce their dedication to Jehovah as opposed to a decision to stop attending Christian meetings and participation in field service.

[INTREPID TRAVELLER]

How about applying the Law of Reason and the Law of Love ..........?

" you have been badly hurt in body and mind .. you are angry and confused ....you no longer feel comfortable in being around people who did not defend you in your most desperate time of need and you loathe walking into the Hall ..with its vivid reminders of your abuse ...so you want to be out....that's ok ....we understand..   but we still love you and we are here for you......."

Contrasted by: " you have chosen to disfellowship Jehovah's Organization ....how dare you......take her out to the city gate and stone her "

You just don't understand LOVE at all some of you! Christ-like love! You have never comprehended the Lesson of the meeting with the woman at the well that Jesus had.

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, INTREPID TRAVELLER said:

How about applying the Law of Reason and the Law of Love ..........?

You're included in the confusion it appears............

[Anna]

The context here is making a decision to disassociate or not disassociate as an ADULT, therefor making an informed dcision about disassociation and knowing the implications will be shunning. As regards baptism, he was saying that this applies to baptised persons, who know that once baptised, you can get disfellowshipped or disassociate (for whatever reason) on the contrary, those who are not baptised cannot get disfellowshipped or disassociate regardless of age. So as a (baptised) ADULT person (regardless of when you got baptised) and a victim of child sexual abuse, you will know that "the consequences of disassociating yourself will be shunning". THAT was the point being made. It had nothing to do with WHEN one gets baptised.

Notice this was omitted from thesubtitles which would have given the context of what he was talking about: "here is somebody, who as an adult, or approaching adulthoid is making that decission" (what decission? The decission to get baptised? NO we are talking about disassociation here, so the decision about disassociation, and being aware the consequences will be shunning) As he goes on: "that the consequences of disassociation will be shunning". 

Omitting pertinent information which gives context is typical for those who want you to misunderstand.

[Evacuated]

Risking accusations of semantic quibbling, I have to say that disassociation is just not the same as non-association (or formerly associated).

The term disassociate, or more commonly, dissociate, when applied to one's former affiliation to a group, seems to imply a formal separating or severing of a relationship formerly held, rather like a divorce. This might include publicly severing one's former connection with that group, perhaps going as far as formally renouncing aims and objectives once held in common. Or, perhaps, engaging in a practice so diametrically opposed to those aims and objectives as to indicate what may not have been verbally stated.

To drift away from association with a group, for whatever reason, be it cooling of common interest, personal preference, time contraints, or a particular unresolved grievance involving other group members, carries a far less antagonistic stance toward the group as a whole.

In any event, the former action, that of disassociation, whilst possibly preceded by the latter action, drifting away, has far more consideration and deliberation involved, a rejection of fundemental tenets perhaps once held dear, perhaps a militant stand against activity once zealously engaged in, an awareness of the dramatic change in relationship to the group subject to this action, and a recognition of consequences effecting the relationship the disassociatee might have formely enjoyed with those who choose to remain group members.

The latter, drifting away, is more focussed on one's personal preferences or activity schedule, and whilst there may be personality issues involved, the group as a whole is not "tarred with the same brush" as it were. Also, a denial of the groups validity does not take place. In fact, there may sometimes be expressions like " It just wasn't for me, I couldn't keep up with such and such (requirement or activity)", or "I know it is a good organisation on the whole but I just couldn't accept this or that (practice or person or experience)"

Thus it can be seen that the deliberate action of "disassociation" carries far more weighty and considered commitment than the shifting of goals and interests accompanying the process of "drifting away". Although both result in state of separation from former associates, the relationship resulting from either is entirely dissimilar. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Eoin Joyce:

It is SO refreshing  every once in a great while to hear a well reasoned, coherent thought.

Thank You!

.

 

[Ann O'Maly]

The full statement from the transcript:

MR O'BRIEN: Because that is the policy. But again, as
I think I pointed out in my evidence, and I think
Mr Jackson did as well, here we're talking about somebody
who is of an age where they have qualified for baptism, so
they are somebody who is either approaching adulthood or an
adult, making that decision, understanding the implications
of choosing either to disassociate themselves, knowing the
consequences will be shunning, or simply ceasing activity
with the congregation but not taking the stand of
disassociation. So it is a choice on the part of the
person. - Transcript, Day 259, p. 26539

O'Brien lumps together the age for having been qualified for baptism with someone who is an adult or approaching adulthood and then making the decision to disassociate. It does give the impression that he is referring to an adult or near-adult who qualifies for baptism. If that isn't what he meant, he worded it poorly. However, to qualify for baptism a person studies the Organized book which would include the part about 'Disassociation.' But would a naive, true-believer 10-year old really absorb the implications of how the 'disassociation rules' would affect them personally once they were dunked? I wonder.

And the question asked at the ARC remains a good one: 

"Why is it necessary, when
someone feels that they can no longer abide the
organisation and has to disassociate - why is it necessary
to shun them? Why can't they keep having social contact
with those people who happen to remain in the organisation?"

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

8 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

And the question asked at the ARC remains a good one: 

"Why is it necessary, when
someone feels that they can no longer abide the
organisation and has to disassociate - why is it necessary
to shun them? Why can't they keep having social contact
with those people who happen to remain in the organisation?"

The reason is quite simple, ... the consolidation of  ecclesiastical POWER.

Can you imagine Jesus, who ate with sinners and tax collectors ( who had a reputation for corrupt collections to line their own pockets, as well as brutality in their methods), treating someone who was baptized at 10 years of age who is a victim of child sexual abuse having to defend himself to Jesus?  Or, having been brutalized by the inquisitional Elders ( ... in the nicest possible way ...), NEVER receiving Justice from those with the very BEST of intentions .. but who have no training  in this area, and who in fact are clueless incompetents ... being disfellowshipped, and shunned, and banished .... by Jesus?

I cannot.

The reason is quite simple, ... the consolidation and enforcement of  ecclesiastical POWER.

Once ANY religion reaches a certain size, and has accumulated buildings, assets, a steady stream of LOTS of money .. greed takes over, and they will pervert Justice to maintain possession of their ecclesiastical power and therefore their money, stuff, and high profile jobs.'

Except for the Apostles ... all church leadership is SELF APPOINTED ... and they LIKE THEIR JOBS!

Take for example, Governing Body Member Bro. Samuel Herd ... he told how he was a poor gardener for some rich woman, and maintained her lawn and grounds at pitiful pay ... and he resented being treated so shabbily for such hard work.  NOW he lives in a magnificent complex, is highly respected,... even adored in actual practice as a GB member ... wears the best clothes... has not missed any meals, has all his travel and all other expenses paid.

As best they can manage it, so do Priests, Ministers of Christendom, and even Shamans,  Witch Doctors, and criminally oriented Televangelists

.Except for the Apostles ... all church leadership is SELF APPOINTED ... and they LIKE THEIR JOBS!

When Governing Body Member Ray Franz got sick and left Bethel to go home and recuperate, he got $10,000 severance pay ... a pitifully small transitional allowance for a lifetime of serving the Society's interests ,,, and certainly no "Golden Parachute". ... but if you are in a lower "rank" you get NOTHING to get back into "civilian" life, as the 2015 October Meltdown and layoff of 83,000 Bethelites and Special Pioneers proved.

"Thank you for your years of sacrifice and service .... here is a map to the door, please be out by 5PM tomorrow..."

FEAR is one of the BEST methods of  consolidation of  ecclesiastical POWER.. and if you can instill FEAR of arbitrary and capricious treatment ... and MAKE THAT THE STANDARD ... then your position of "Boss" is assured.

This is NOTHING NEW ... this is what ALWAYS happens ... and in the history of the world, there has NEVER been any exceptions ... except Jesus Christ ... who had no place to lay his head, and to the best of knowledge, did not even have a change of clothes, and who talked and ate with people of HIS SAME RELIGION (at the time) who were universally recognized by the Pharisees .. the Shamans and Witch Doctors of his time ...  as despicable.

.We shun people today because it is NECESSARY for the consolidation of  ecclesiastical POWER, by those who have self appointed themselves to positions of ULTIMATE Earthly authority,

If you generate ENOUGH FEAR .. people will STOP asking questions .. and will learn to LOVE the "Big Brothers", as a matter of personal survival.

In  an article in the 1947 AWAKE! this principle was clearly understood, as a second World War made MANY issues concerning tyranny crystal clear ... for a while.