Did you Jehovah's Witnesses know about the Gag orders that the Watchtower Boys put on victims?

Your story or claims have empty spaces. First I don't believe that children have to sign "gag orders" because of them being "under-age", that don't qualify to stick. Under-age are not held accountable to hold such agreements. Now you will want to say that the parents must sign along with the child. That will sound incredulous to me because IF the parents have to sign a "gag order" along with the child; that is a "red flag" (danger) waving high that there is solid facts that its "true". Another solid fact that there's a cover-up that IS unlawful. No. No parent would betray their child like that, and cause hurtful damage on their child's life. I made this post in another answer similar to this question: "Why does the parents need to go to the Elder's for permission to report such abuse?" Can you answer this? The other asker chose not to answer me. Why?

To Creg, ".......disappeared, never to be seen again. Just think about all their silent voices." That is horrific and we should not go down that route. Leave that discriptions in the news, not here.

Unsilenced Lamb, what I am asking is "Why must the parents (adult) go to the Elder's to "get" permission to report child sexual abuse to authorities? Also on another answer I stated that the first thing that the parents should do is to bring their child to the doctor or hospital immediately. This is the second question I came across on pedophile in this church and both question and answer's from members of this church have NOT mentioned "Medical Attention" for the child. A medical exam will disclose the true nature of what happened to the child who was abused. Do you agree?

PFSHJ, with that kind of report, I am thinking I should stay the way I am. Not baptized, not to be called a Christian and that way I will be safe and free of the sin of "hypocrisy" and "defiled blasphermer of the faith". A believer that holds faith in the one and only true God YHWH, and His begotten son Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

JR, I have a question for you. The law you are talking about concerning child sexual abuse; did it change recently or was this law always enforced? The asker is saying when she was a child that law was not enforced. Clarify this mix-up that we can understand this situation.

"There are claims here that the Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower organization has never settled with a victim because of a cover up of abuse...."

Not true! The statement was made that Jehovah's Witnesses have never LOST in court, not that there has never been any settlements.

"The WBTS makes victims sign a gag order to silence them and thus the WBTS can claim that they have never settled with abuse victims, and no one can correct their lies."

Since it is usually a standard clause in ANY settlement, what is your problem?

"A gag order not only prevents the plaintiffs from disclosing the exact sum they received but, most noteworthy, it disallows them from further discussing the crimes committed against them or the negligence on the part of their adversary at law.

The "gag" order works both ways doesn't it? It also bars the other side from talking about the case as well.

Since there is a settlement with no admission of guilt or responsibility it seems a reasonable condition.

Wow, thanks for delivering extra understanding in this. It's first-rate relatively. They, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower Society requests a gag order to the pass judgement on, and to the opposing celebration to be able to drive the sufferer to settle with no need to visit courtroom and inform their deplorable, sickening tale once more, re-dwelling the filthy occasion. I have witnessed the sexual abuse first hand however elders who had been even on the scene refused to get out of the automobile to step in and take motion. When I first began attending the dominion corridor within the town in which I am now, an elder (F _ _ _ _ _ ) consistently greeted me via kissing me useless in my mouth till the 3rd try led to a bashing of Jehovah's disapproval all over the place his face, because it had been. Needless to mention, I used to be/am an grownup in order that sexual deviancy stopped. Just feel if I used to be a bit lady... there'd be one other lawsuit and a few how a way, I might have found out the phrases to any person and allow them to reveal it to the media. There's consistently a approach to get matters out whilst there's a gag order carried out. Jehovah's Witlessness proclaim to be in the only and most effective precise faith, however this kind of scandal renders them liars to their possess religion. That's why they consistently ask for GAG orders; like that is going to quit the reality from getting out. I do not feel so.

What I still wonder, is why is it that a person can blame an entire doctrine- (which you know is the truth, just look around and study the tripe that other churches teach as truth), for what some people do.

I too, have seen some pretty bad behavior, but the Bible clearly warned each and every one of us to beware of the wolves in sheep's clothes.

I can not convict any entire organization on the conduct of the minority, logic directs that a belief system stands or falls upon it's own merits.

You need to end your hatred of the whole organization based upon the horrible things your dad did to you. It is unfair, and unjust to cast every one of Jehovah's Witnesses into the fire just because of of your personal experience. For that matter, I know of mant witnesses who have been and done nothing but acts of kindness for me and others, who would never have stood by a molester. Please tell me you can see the logic in what I am saying?

For months now I have seen your anger and hatred for the organization, yet, I used to attend an an black congregation in L.A., and I could see the good that is done when people turn over their lives to God. If I had stepped one foot into a black AME church, do you think I would have been welcome? Look at my picture?

I can understand the pain, but what I can not understand is the misplaced focus.

Many religious organizations seem to be in a conundrum because of what their religious beliefs are about forgiveness of sins. Obviously, along with the liability with class action law suits; such as what happened to the Catholic church could potentially bankrupt many religious organizations.

Imagine how many sexually abused children are also placed in foster or group homes and suffer even more abuse and neglect. Many sexually abused and physically abused children have probably disappeared, never to be seen again. Just think about all of their silenced voices. Law suits should be about changing "habits" not just monetary rewards and prison sentences. Tell us how you think justice should be served.

Don't believe her because she cannot find much information other than whats on silentlambs site. Bill Bowen who is ahead of the site is a ex-elder, and didn't know anything about the Child Abuse Policy.

Note what the Policy states below..

1. It is reported to the WTS.

The policy continues: "However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit."

Opposers critisize the fact that the WTS stresses the importance of reporting the allegations to the headquarters. But there is a very good reason why. The WTS wants to make sure that each case is handled correctly. They want to make sure that the body of elders do not disregard their policy and thus cause problems for all involved. As WT attorney Mario Moreno bluntly put it: "Once in a while, in a small minority cases, elders screw up. They screw up because they don't call here (the Watch Tower legal department). When they call here, they don't screw up." Really, can you imagine the criticism that would be heaped upon the Society if they said please do not call Bethel in cases of child molesting? Elders should handle it themselves.

Some critics argue that elders should not waste time calling the headquarters of the WTS. They should go straight to the police. They make it appear that both cannot be done or that calling the WTS will somehow prolong their reporting it to the police. But really both can be done in the same day. Calling the WTS does not take much time at all. Perhaps an hour or two at the most. This argument of course is really an absurd argument. One that is used in an attempt to discredit JWs and our policy but really it has no merit whatsover.

But there is another reason why it is reported to the headquarters of JWs. The name of the accused is put into the database and kept by the WTS. Should he ever be accused again then the matter would be established at the mouth of two witnesses and judicial action could be taken.

2. If there is a mandatory reporting law it is reported to the authorities.

Continuing with the policy: "In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply." If their is a mandatory reporting law it is reported to the authorities regardless of the age of the victim or whether the allegations are true or not.

3. If a child is in possible danger it is reported to the authorities.

A 1988 letter states: "There is a duty to report when one has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is abuse or a substantial risk of abuse and parents have failed to protect the child."

4. Elders offer to go with the child to the authorities.

December 1, 2000 letter: "If the complainant is a child the elder might offer to accompany him or her to discuss the situation with a parent (but not the alleged abuser) or to one of the above authorities."

5. The victim or family can report it to the authorities without sanctions.

The policy continues: "Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so." And a February 15, 2002 letter states: "Never suggest to anyone that they should not report an allegation of child abuse to the police or other authorities. If you are asked, make it clear that whether to report the matter to the authorities or not is a personal decision for each individual to make and that there are no congregation sanctions for either decision. That is, no elder will criticize anyone who reports such an allegation to the authorities."

6. All in the congregation have a responsibility to report it to the authorities.

A 1992 letter states: "As members or the community in which Caesar still acts as God's minister and hence still has a certain authority, ALL in the Christian congregation would want to consider their personal and moral responsibility to alert the appropriate authorities in cases where there has been committed or there exists a risk that there might be committed a serious criminal offence of this type (see ks91, page 138) In child abuse cases such authorities might include the family doctor, the Social Services, the NSPCC, or the police."

7. Elders are to encourage those who are aware of abuse to handle their responsibility to report child abuse.

A December 1, 2000 letter also offers the same comments as the 1992 letter stating: "all in the Christian congregation will want to consider their personal and moral responsibility to alert the appropriate authorities..." But it further states: "His (the elder's) counsel should always include advising the complainant that the congregation cannot take over the God-given responsibility of the ‘superior authorities’ in dealing with crime. Accordingly, the complainant should consider his or her responsibility to report the matter to the authorities without delay. (Compare Romans 13:4, James 4:17)" The cited scripture James 4:17 says, "Therefore, if one knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him." Accordingly, the elders are to encourage others to report child abuse when a person knows of it. To do otherwise would be shirking his responsibility.

8. The accused is likely removed from all assignments until the matter is cleared up.

December 1, 2000 letter: "Likely it will be advisable for a brother who has been accused not to be used for assignments until the matter is resolved." Jan 30, 1992 letter: "It may be advisable for the brother who has been accused not to be used for assignments until the matter is resolved."

9. The accused is watched more closely.

The December 1, 2000 letter tells elders the importance of protecting children even if there are only 'allegations' against a brother. It states: "When an elder receives an allegation that a child has been abused the first essential is to listen." Later on, when addressing the way in which elders should respond to these 'allegations' the letter states: "The elders should not lose sight of the fact that victims urgently need to be protected from further abuse and abusers need to be prevented from finding additional victims."

A June 1, 2001 letter verifies the need to keep close watch in these situations where only 'allegations' are made: "... there may be just one eyewitness, and the brother denies the allegation.... Or, he may be under active investigation by the secular authorities for alleged child abuse though the matter has not yet been established. Then again, a young child might be abused by someone who himself is a minor, perhaps in his pre- or early-teens. What should be done in these instances?

The letter continues: " Keeping information relating to child abuse in a sealed envelope in the congregation’s confidential file: Only a brief note should be kept. This would show the name of the molester or alleged molester. If known, the following information should also be recorded: The name(s) of the victim(s) or alleged victim(s), the relationship of the offender to the victim(s), and how the matter was brought to the attention of the elders. The date the matter came to light, and the names of all the elders who were involved in some way or another would be noted. Facts such as when the alleged offence(s) took place, the period of time involved, and the ages of the alleged molester and victim(s) at the time of the incidents can be recorded." From all indications then as shown by the detailed records kept, it is apparent that the WT policy calls for a closer eye to be kept on even those who are only accused of child abuse by one witness but who have not confessed.

General counsel for the WT, Mario Moreno, confirms this to be the WT policy. The Paducah Sun, January 28, 2001, states of Moreno: "...if there is only one witness and the accused denies the charge, he (Moreno) said elders have the responsibility to watch the accused more closely. He added that elders sometimes advise the accused to not put himself or herself in suspicious situations."

10. In some cases the elders may give a warning to the congregation.

The November 1, 1995 Watchtower, on page 27-28, under the subheading "What of the Alleged Abuser?" states: "A person who actually abuses a child sexually is a rapist and should be viewed as such. Anyone victimized in this way has the right to accuse his abuser." From this quote and from a reading of the entire article we can clearly see that the WT is addressing cases where there is only one accuser. Now notice what may be done in some cases even when there is only one accuser. The WT continues: "If there is some valid reason to suspect that the alleged perpetrator is still abusing children, a warning may have to be given. The congregation elders can help in such a case."

You will take note of the term 'alleged perpetrator'. He is an alleged perpetrator because there is no confession and there is only one witness to the abuse. Even so, if there are valid reasons to suspect abuse, the alleged victim, with the elders help, can give a warning. This coincides with what the Pay Attention to the Flock book says on page 93, "Elders should always do what they reasonably can to protect children from further abuse;" Thus elders take reasonable steps to protect children which may indeed mean giving a warning to the congregation if the need exists to do so even though the accused is still an 'alleged perpetrator' or abuser.

11. If the court provides further evidence then the two witness rule is met.

Jan 30 1992 letter: "Also, should further wrongdoing come to light during the trial it would be necessary for the matter to be re-examined, as is true of any judicial matter when additional wrongdoing is discovered."

From the above information it is quite obvious that the statement that the elders and the WTS do NOTHING if there is only one witness is another falsehood put forth by opposers of JWs. The elders and the WTS, even when there is only one witness, take many reasonable and needed steps to protect the children. But when there is only one witness must the accuser meet with the accused face to face? Wouldn't this be both unloving and unnecessary, even traumatic, especially if the accuser is a child?

God doesn't punish,he just loves and forgives everyone,so that they can love each other...not hate.wherever you're both coming from,please,remember the true depth of forgiveness.Seems like you both could use some words of comfort,catch up on what god wants for today,for all of us.The books in the source space just about turned my life around.I'm not religious,though now I know god's in everything,all the time.JW's brainwash folk into following men,not god..I truly feel for you both xx

The Watchtower is not God's organization. My entire family was victimized by these people. They get you involved in your sect only to victimize you when you realize every single thing that they teach is false.Why would they pay for a policy that they condone? They claim that you need 2 witnesses in order to prove rape/molestation... Please see Silentlamns.org, E-watchman among others.

This is another good example why it is so important to follow the Truth, Lord God Jesus!

Fact: To date, Watchtower has NEVER paid a dime in judgment from ANY abuse case ANYWHERE.

Suggestion: If thats a lie, all you have to do is list one (just one) abuse case where Watchtower paid money in judgment. There are none to date.

Legal expenses can be tens of thousands of dollars. When Watchtower can settle for less than the anticipated legal expenses, then sure Watchtower has settled some cases.

The plaintiffs ("victims") must not have had much confidence in their cases, since it takes TWO PARTIES to settle out of court. Does EACH AND EVERY plaintiff care more about a few thousand dollars than they do about "justice"?

A "gag order" works both ways. In some of these cases, the PLAINTIFF's actions are transparently self-serving, frequently unethical, and sometimes even illegal. If details were made public, a plaintiff could ruin his own reputation, frighten potential employers, and complicate his future lawsuits against other "deep pockets". Some plaintiff's have real reason to fear perjury and other criminal charges if details of thier schemes are revealed.

http://thirdwitness.com/childabuse/default.html

The Watchtower Society hasn't ever been found negligent in any abuse case in any court of law. In one case an elder was found personally liable for his own mistakes so the elder was ordered to pay $5000 to the abused complainant, but the abused complainant (!) was ordered to pay Watchtower $137,000 for her frivolous case against it!

Again, Watchtower has paid exactly $0 in abuse judgments.

For a major religion, is that better than average or worse than average? Quotes from the news:

"A man, 28, who was recovering from epileptic seizures in his apartment when he was attacked, will receive $300,000 in damages from the Sierra Vista Baptist Church for the sexual assault by John Adams Marshall in April 1991. Marshall performed oral sex and fondled the weakened man while pinning him down. The jury found the church 40% liable for Marshall's assault and negligent in retaining him as minister. Marshall did not lose his ordination to be a minister elsewhere." (Inland Valley Daily Bulletin 1/15/94)

"Miami, FL. CHURCH TO PAY MILLIONS FOR MINISTER'S ABUSES. Wayside Baptist Church in Miami received a $6.7 million judgment for negligence in hiring and retaining Keith Geren as youth minister. The church did not do background or reference checks, nor did Geren even fill out a job application, though Geren did admit urges to molest boys. He sexually molested nearly a dozen teenage boys." (Sarasota Herald-Tribune 2/6/94)

"Denver, CO. Bohrer was awarded more than $700,000 in her civil suit in Denver District against former minister Daniel DeHart and the United Methodist Annual Conference (the equivalent of a diocese). She alleged DeHart seduced her into a sexual relationship when she was 13 and he was youth minister at First Methodist Church in Greeley." (Rocky Mountain News, 8/2,29/92)

"In a civil suit filed by three sisters, now 19,16,and 13; their mother and another 13 year-old girl a Kenai jury awarded nearly $430,000 in damages to the four girls sexually molested by Tickel. The jury also found that Trickel; his wife, Debbie; and the Salvation Army responsible for their abuse." (http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/4752362p-4698974c....

"...a Church of Christ church and & its former 59 year-old minister agreed to pay $300,000 to a man whom the former minister sexually assaulted during family counseling sessions. Earlier, a boy, now 17, was awarded $450,000 by a jury for similar charges." (The Rocky Mountain News)

"$450,000 jury award against UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF ILLINOIS upheld by Judge Stuart Shiffman involving REV. WILLIAM FYFFE, who molested 3 brothers in Macon, 1982. The church was held responsible because it knew Fyffe had molested boys at Taylor Ridge parish, 1975, but still ordained him, expunged records of counseling for molestation, and transferred him into a community unaware of the episodes." (Quad-City Times, 9/7/89; 10/18/89)

"One of the largest settlements to date in Protestant churches involved the case of former Lutheran minister Gerald Patrick Thomas Jr. in Texas, where a jury several years ago awarded the minister's victims nearly $37 million. Separate earlier settlements involving Thomas cost an additional $32 million." (Insurancejournal.com)

"Two college-age sisters have been awarded $4.2 million in a lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a judgment prompted partly by the way a bishop dealt with sexual abuse committed by their stepfather while they were children."

"John Charles Blome This civil case was filed in Montgomery County, Texas and went to jury trial. The case settled for $4 Million after the Mormons were found negligent. A 13 year old boy who was molested by a Mormon Church youth leader in Magnolia Ward was awarded more than his own lawyers sought October 8, 1998. Blome molested many other boys from the same area and in other areas. Sheriff's deputies were upset that the Mormon Bishop tipped Blome to the pending investigation, and he burned evidence before it could be seized. In an earlier case against Blome the Mormon Church was also found negligent." (Houston Chronicle)

"Michael Rex Shean This case arose in Santa Maria, California. Shean was an attorney and Mormon Church leader who used his position as coach, attorney, and religious teacher to groom boys for seduction. The Stake President in the case was an FBI agent, Nolan Phillips, who should have been much more alert to the problem of a predatory pedophile in his flock. The Mormon Church was found negligent and settled for an undisclosed amount." (Geocities.com)

In summary, as of October 2007 Watchtower has paid exactly $0 in abuse judgments.

http://thirdwitness.com/childabuse/default.html