Can JW Television (digital news) be trusted?

[JW Insider]

7 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

You did not provide any information about the number of victims that amount to 1766 and 1857.

That is correct. All I said from the start was 1700+, then 1732+. Even now the number is really 1,857+ alleged perpetrators.

10 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

Can we confirm if all the allegations have been proven to be true? The word alleged appears to undermine the gravity of the situation, and doesn't account for the potential truth of the accusation.

Exactly! We can't know the truth of any of them. If these were the number we learned about the Catholic Church in Australia, we probably would have argued that the "real" numbers probably go much higher. Since these were numbers and data evidently provided by the Watchtower Society, we have seen many arguments that they probably go much lower. We just don't know specific numbers for sure. The data can only give us an idea of the magnitude of the problem.

13 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

One needs to be careful about making too much of these "NON-WITNESS CASES." In actuality, those cases come from a column called "ROLE IN CHURCH AT TIME OF FIRST ABUSE." It does not mean that were not Witnesses at the time of their second or third (or more) accusations.

This would be an unwise view. We are dealing with circumstances out of the Org's control.

Or one could say that the advice about being careful could be a wise view. Because the Organization DOES have control over who should meet with a judicial committee, who is disfellowshipped, reproved, reinstated, "demoted," "re-promoted" to their responsibilities as an Elder or MS, etc. Some of these so-called "non-Witnesses" were definitely under the Org's control as far as those kinds of procedures and policies were concerned. And, I also agree that some of the circumstances were outside the Org's control. Best to be vigilant as you said before.

18 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

Here you have confusion between a publisher, a non-publisher, an attendee, or an acquaintance.

I understand why some might still have some confusion here. It would be tempting to try to dismiss all the cases as meaningless just because the first accusation happened when they were "not Witnesses." But the very fact that some of these same people had become publishers, ministerial servants and elders, is a good indication that they were JWs at the time that judicial committees had to decide whether to disfellowship them or reinstate them or demote them. After all, can you really disfellowship a non-JW?

24 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

It is important that we do not make unfounded claims in order to inflate our position.

Exactly right!!

24 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

We must reject speculation. 

Exactly.

Looks like we are pretty much in agreement again on the more important things.

[Pudgy]

The hard data, and all of the information known about specific cases CAME FROM THE RECORDS ARCHIVED AT THE KINGDOM HALLS     OR BRANCH.

All the “apostates” did was give the ARC insight on how to determine whether or not the Elders or Branch officials were lying to them.

Please correct me if I missed something. I watched every minute of both inquiry’s. 

It’s just like in Finland where the Society gave copies of the “Shepherding the Flock of God”   Elders’ Handbook to the Finnish Minister of Education, and one other, but Jehovah’s Witnesses were SPECIFICALLY not allowed to see it or know of its existence.

“Insight On The News” …..?

Gimmee a break … this was GLOBAL NEWS …. never once mentioned or explained to rank-and-file JWs. by the GB.

My guess is 85% are still as ignorant as a deer in the headlights.

Ask them about the ARC, and what they recall is geometry.

 

[JW Insider]

31 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

The recent controversy surrounding the ‘alleged’ cases of misconduct involving Jehovah’s Witnesses has been a hot topic of discussion. There has been a lot of speculation as to what actually happened and why it was allowed to go on for so long.

I asked ChatGPT how one could go about defending Jehovah's Witnesses' response to the ARC and got the following. The rest of this post is the response:

It's important to note that the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse held hearings in 2015-2016, where it examined the responses of various institutions, including religious organizations, to allegations of child sexual abuse. During these hearings, there were criticisms and concerns raised regarding the way Jehovah's Witnesses handled cases of child abuse within their community.

Here are some points that individuals might raise in defense of Jehovah's Witnesses:

1. Autonomy of Congregations: Jehovah's Witnesses operate under a decentralized structure, where each congregation is responsible for handling matters internally. Some defenders argue that this structure might have led to inconsistencies in how cases of child abuse were handled and that improvements can be made in terms of reporting abuse to the authorities.

2. Cooperation with Authorities: While some criticisms were raised about the Jehovah's Witnesses' response to child abuse allegations, defenders may highlight instances where the organization did cooperate with law enforcement and child protection authorities. They may argue that efforts have been made to improve cooperation and compliance with mandatory reporting laws.

3. Child Protection Policies: Jehovah's Witnesses have developed policies and guidelines aimed at addressing child abuse within their organization. Defenders might emphasize that these policies aim to protect children and promote awareness of the issue. However, critics have argued that these policies have been insufficient and that there is room for improvement.

4. Internal Disciplinary Process: Supporters may assert that Jehovah's Witnesses have an internal judicial system to address allegations of child abuse. They might argue that this system is intended to maintain the religious integrity of the congregation but acknowledge that reforms could be implemented to ensure that the safety and well-being of victims are given priority.

5. Ongoing Reforms: In response to the Australian Royal Commission and other similar inquiries around the world, some defenders may point out that the Jehovah's Witnesses have taken steps to address the concerns raised. They may argue that ongoing reforms within the organization are being implemented to improve child protection policies, reporting mechanisms, and cooperation with the authorities.

It's important to note that these points represent potential defenses that individuals might raise in support of the Jehovah's Witnesses. However, it's crucial to examine various perspectives, including the concerns and criticisms that have been raised, to form a comprehensive understanding of the issue.

[JW Insider]

I also what it knew about the number of perpetrators:

During the Australian Royal Commission hearings in 2015-2016, the Jehovah's Witnesses provided data on child sexual abuse allegations within their organization. According to the information presented, it was reported that there were 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse within the Jehovah's Witnesses organization in Australia from 1950 to 2014. These allegations were made by 1,659 alleged victims.

It's important to note that these figures reflect the data provided specifically for Australia and cover a span of over six decades. The information disclosed to the Royal Commission pertained to allegations of abuse and not necessarily proven cases. Additionally, it's worth mentioning that these figures are specific to the Jehovah's Witnesses organization in Australia and may not represent the situation in other countries.

For more detailed and up-to-date information regarding the specific findings and recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission, it is recommended to refer to the official reports and publications released by the commission itself or reliable sources reporting on its outcomes.

[Pudgy]

A male Ostrich was chasing a female Ostrich  across the fruited plains and the female Ostrich was getting tired. So, she stuck her head in the sand, reasoning that if she couldn’t see him, he couldn’t see her.

Suddenly, the male Ostrich screeches to a halt, and exclaims out loud to himself “Where did she go?, Where did she go?”.

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

44 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

After all, can you really disfellowship a non-JW?

Through the shunning institute, JW elders can do whatever they want. A speech or notice of an undesirable person may be given at the meeting, regardless of whether it is done to a non-JW, an unbaptized or baptized publisher, or a child of JW parents.

[Srecko Sostar]

47 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Additionally, it's worth mentioning that these figures are specific to the Jehovah's Witnesses organization in Australia and may not represent the situation in other countries.

This assumption requires further clarification. Are JWs Australians more prone to CSA than JWs from other nations?

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Fausto Hoover said:

Were some of the figures correct?

Yes. All of them are correct according to the spreadsheet. 1700+ means 1700 or more. If the actual number was 2,222 then 1700-plus is correct. We KNOW that the spreadsheet represents investigations that resulted in a total of at least 1,857 alleged victims. So 1,857+ is also correct.

3 hours ago, Fausto Hoover said:

All we know is there is 1006 in the Australian case file. If law enforcement was unable to find legal means to charge a person within those 1006 cases, the number would be significantly reduced.

I think that's completely false, according to everything I've read including what the Watchtower publications have said about CSA. I think that if there were 1,006 cases in the case file and law enforcement had not been able to charge any one of the persons within those case files, the number of alleged perpetrators would still be 1,006. In fact, if all 1,006 alleged perpetrators were investigated by law enforcement, and they were unable to find legal means to charge any one of those persons, there would still be 1,006 alleged perpetrators. There is a huge difference between being unable to charge and being able to fully exonerate someone who was falsely accused.

But the truth is that it is very hard to charge someone with such a crime because such crimes are notoriously difficult to find prosecutable evidence for, except when the victim went to authorities immediately after the crime, and children do not typically do this. It's not found among these cases (I hope) but even cases where the girl claims rape and ends up pregnant have been dropped as unprosecutable. 

3 hours ago, Fausto Hoover said:

I fail to comprehend the possibility of an unbaptized publisher being disfellowshipped, given that they haven't undergone the process of baptism.

Perhaps you can explain your position biblically?

I agree. That was exactly my point. It's why I just asked you the same question about how one might go about disfellowshipping a non-Witness. You can't DIS-fellowship someone who was not "fellowshipped" to begin with. This is why no one can make a big deal out of the fact that several persons on the list were listed as NON-Witnesses at the time of their first accusation of CSA. These persons could NOT have been NON-Witnesses at the time of their disfellowshipping. Therefore, these persons (some of them) were Witnesses at the time they were listed on this sheet as elders and ministerial servants, for example, but NOT Witnesses at the time of their first CSA accusation.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Fausto Hoover said:

I don't see your numbers in the original spreadsheet.

Whether you see them or not depends on how perceptive you are. For example, look at the totals at the bottom of each column of this sample spreadsheet which you could enter yourself in Excel or even in a free spreadsheet program like Google Sheets:

You see a four as the sum of the first column. But if you are perceptive you will see that the total is really higher. The second column would show that it was really just treating the text "10+" and the text "Unclear" as if they were the same as 0 (zero).

That's exactly what's happening in the ARC spreadsheet.

If you assume that every instance of "Unclear" could refer to 1 (one) alleged victim, then you could change the word "Unclear" to the number 1 and the total would show up as 5. In the next column, it shows that you could change the "10+" into the number 10 and the total of that fourth column is now corrected to 15. The next column with the yellow cells, shows what would happen if someone either edited or corrected the spreadsheet when the formula in F5 was turned off. They corrected the 1 to a 3 in the top cell of that column but the number at the bottom stayed at 15. If you put the formula back in at the bottom, then the total corrects itself to 17.

Technically you don't even need to fix the formula to see the more accurate numbers in this sheet. You can see it just by looking. If you had the time and ability, it would be the same in the larger ARC spreadsheet. You could manually add up all all 1,006 rows in the "victim" column, and realize that you needed to add 1 (one) every time you see the text-string "Unclear." And you need to add 10 every time you see the text-string: 10+. You might discover reasons to put a number higher than 1 in the "Unclear" cells, or a number higher than 10 in the 10+ cells. But since it would be a matter of speculation to put higher numbers in those cells, I have left them at the minimum possible number.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 6/8/2023 at 12:44 PM, Space Merchant said:

Or possible the bombshell that is Facebook/Instagram (which was mentioned to Butler as a forwarning) that has recently taken place, and or some diabolical stuff regarding CSA that is associated with other media, even the schools; hence why I believe people such as Mel Gibson, will eventually be a media focus in the coming days or weeks.

Among other things, there is the Non-Institutional stuff that is taking place, which, compared to schools and churches, can often times be as complex to deal with like the social media stuff.

This pic was included in the June 7th WSJ article that broke the Instagram story:

Imagine. After a sober warning of the “extreme harm” such sexual imagery causes children, coupled with an appeal to visit the Help Center so as to “get resources,” still there is an option, if one wishes, to “See results anyway.”

Get caught with the stuff on your computer and you’re in serious hot water. In fact, that’s the first thing I-gram warns about, as though the ‘extreme harm to children’ is but an afterthought.

No wonder the next morning it was #Pedogram

[Pudgy]

All of this arguing about nothing reminds me of two Japanese Samurai arguing about how many traffic accidents were avoidable on August 6, 1945, in downtown Hiroshima.

[Pudgy]

1 hour ago, Fausto Hoover said:

Perhaps those with special interest should now consider withdrawing to the exclusive private session for a more thorough evaluation. We should expect apostates to concur with unverified statements.

That’s probably the chain of logic that lead from doing public Judicial Hearings and Trials in full view of everyone in the open gates of a city in ancient Israel, to holding trials in secret behind closed doors where witnesses could not hear each other’s testimony or the reasoning and deliberations of the tribunal, in complete violation of specific instructions in Matthew 18th Chapter.

No advocates allowed.

No cross examination allowed.

No recordings allowed.

No right to face your accuser allowed. (… see Matthew 18:15.)