Update 7/29/2016- due to the enormous amount of stupid comments here, I have disabled them!
I WANT TO MAKE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR AFTER SOME OF THE STUPID COMMENTS HERE-THIS VIDEO IS NOT USING A CHILD'S VOICE. IT WAS MADE BY A 19 YEAR OLD YOUNG LADY THAT SEEMS TO KNOW MORE THAN MOST OF YOU OUT THERE!
A down to earth view of "the jew" parasite! So far this morning (4/17/2016) I have received three separate "warnings" from three separate "jews" to take down this video within 48 hours!* It seems I/the person who made this video has struck a nerve with these parasites!
THEY JUST CAN'T HAVE US "GENTILES/GOYIM" ("ANIMALS IN HUMAN FORM"-ACCORDING TO THEIR TALMUD) LEARN THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE/HAVE BEEN DOING TO DESTROY WESTERN CIVILIZATION!
Oleg Gazmanov is a Russian pop singer, composer and poet, specializing in patriotic songs, as well as songs which cover more conventional themes. He was once an elite gymnast and well known for his acrobatics performed during live shows, especially at the beginning of his musical career in the 90's.
In 2014, the wholly American-owned vassal state of Latvia banned Gazmanov from entering Latvia because his "words and actions having contributed to the undermining of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity".
Gazmanov's latest hit, Forward, Russia!, is a fist-pumping war song whose lyrics and video send a clear psychological message to the Axis of Evil, namely: "You want some of this? Come and get it!" Clearly, Russia is whipping its people up into a patriotic fervor in advance of the coming showdown which NATO intends to force upon them.
The video for Forward, Russia gives your anti-Globalist reporter here goose-bumps. It is unabashedly super-nationalistic, pro-folk, pro-faith, pro-family, pro-children, pro-Putin, and has a damn catchy tune as well. The astute viewer will also notice that during the segment featuring the religious faiths of multi-ethnic Russia, a certain "religion" has been conspicuously omitted. But boy-oh-boy, there sure are a whole lot of clean, fit, happy and straight White people here, and Gazmanov's crucifix is very obvious too!
In short, everything that the degenerate Satanic "elites" of the Zio-Globalist West despise and wish to destroy is prominently and proudly featured in this video. Apart from the obligatory early scenes of the triumph over the Germans in 1945, this video is excellent; and it clearly represents that all hope is not lost for White Western Civilization.
Forward Russia indeed! For all of us.
Crank it up, vote it up, enjoy the show, and spread this.
Select lyrics: "A rule has existed in Russia for a long time: the higher the pressure, the stronger the concrete. And if danger threatens our sovereignty, our Motherland becomes a monolith" ... And if the enemy comes like flocks of crows, they will again be countered by my nation. Russia! Russia! In that word there is fire and force. In that word there is victory's flame. We raise the Russian flag."
*
COME, AND GET US, YOU PERVERTED COWARDS!
Aïshah Frémaux-Soormally (Photos removed at her request of 2.6.2019)
Kenji Frémaux-Soormally
Layana Frémaux-Soormally 2018
Muslims have been under repeated attacks since the Crusades and well before that, but, SADLY, they never LEARNED THE LESSON?
BAFS
MONSTER DADA VLAD DRACULA Manager of HOTEL WINDSOR, PARIS, and working there for 13 years, from 1975 to 1988, also as teacher of English, and starting as receptionnist. His French wife (they were religiously married) swore in an affidavit in which she stated that in 13 years the Manager never worked except "changing the odd light bulb"! There can be no better epitaph for that monster's tombstone!
From his photo album stolen from his son's study in his own home???
Her new Chevalier Servant, Christopher Dean Harrington, a "Jehovah Witness", testified in his affidavit that they never had sex in 7 years! In other words, they did not ZINGat all in 7 years! "Jehovah" must have whispered this in his ear(s)!
" Don't scream, you fools of bogus Gods!
The real God is right here in your heart if you have one and if you are sane of
mind! The truth is that I found nobody to tell me the whole Truth about God,
the Universal One and Only God for the whole of creation and humankind, a
concept that we can find best described only in Islam. The truth is that God
did not fool me, but I allowed myself to be fooled because of what
humankind taught us about God and Gods. The perfidious Albion destroyed or
considerably reduced all non White European way of life and we ended finding
ourselves at the mercy of Corporations that decided in what we should believe
or not and what should be our way of life until the end of time.
We
jumped from Christ to Victorian hegemony and to that of Satan (all the evil
forces that ruled our world with utter cruelty and mendacity) calling it
liberation, the most prominent aspects of which being the invention of Western
Democracy, the Sexual Revolution of the sixties, and the new religion of Might
is Right! All the military might is theirs and none for the others because they
might be provoked by the warmongers to defend themselves, in particular the
Muslim nations who have been disarmed, prevented from arming themselves ever by
order of the warmongers who own and control everything."
BAFS
Thursday
30th of July 2015
Jehovah’s Witnesses Cult Exposed - Documentary Film
Jehovah’s Witnesses Cult Exposed - Documentary Film
According
to August 2014 organizational data published in the 2015 Yearbook of
Jehovah's Witnesses, globally subscription surpassed 8.2 million
enthusiasts involved in evangelism, convention participation went beyond
15 million, as well as annual Memorial participation exceeded 19.9
million. Jehovah's Witnesses are routed by the Governing Body of
Jehovah's Witnesses, a team of elders in Brooklyn, New York, which
develops all doctrines based on its interpretations of the Bible; they
prefer to utilize their own translation, the New World Translation of
the Holy Scriptures.
The group arised from the Bible Student
motion, established in the late 1870s by Charles Taze Russell with the
development of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, with substantial
business and doctrinal modifications under the leadership of Joseph
Franklin Rutherford. The name Jehovah's witnesses was embraced in 1931
to differentiate themselves from other Bible Student teams and also
symbolize a break with the heritage of Russell's customs.
Enquête has discovered that the strict rules governing Jehovah's Witnesses work to protect members accused of pedophilia...more than their victims. Troubling stories from alleged victims have allowed us to expose the complex and detailed rules that exert complete control over the lives of members of the Jehovah's Witnesses - rules that often get in the way of justice.
But all over the world, the veil is starting to lift...
Reporter: Pasquale Turbide
Producer: Yanic Lapointe
Cameramen: Sylvain Bourque, Luc Delorme, Jean-Pierre Gandin, Pierre Mainville, Alfonse Mondello, Jean-Philippe Pelletier, Laurent Racine, Nicolas St-Germain
Audio technician: Martin R. Thibault
Editor: Hélène Morin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiAarl0gPcA
One or the main reasons why I decided at 51 not to give my son a STEP-MOTHER!
The modern Satanic religion is to give children STEP-FATHERS!
What used to be a
happy family in 1991 was shattered in 1996 by Zionist Freemasonic Jehovah
Witnesses and an unfaithful and treacherous wife!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hh57wm1hIE
HOW MY PARENTS DIVORCE AFFECTED ME: Brian Rose Speaks About The Emotional Impact Of A Divorce
IT WAS NEVER ABOUT ME, BUT ALWAYS ABOUT MY SON!
While I was holidaying in France in 1996 without my wife who had refused to accompany my son and me for unexplained reasons, I found out on my return that she had been cheating on me behind my back with our business partners the Harringtons, and in particular Christopher Dean Harrington, a "Jehovah Witness" of the Zionist Freemasonic Sect of Colchester, Essex.
My wife, Christopher and his wife Jayne swindled all my SON'S AND MY assets in our property development "Castle Homes" (22 flats at Westminister Court) where my wife, MY SON and I brought in 100% of the capital.
The land on which three blocks of flats was to be built was owned by Christopher, but heavily mortgaged, up to around £180,000 and he could not repay the bank back or find finances for his building project anywhere and a sign was on his home property for sale/repossession when I agreed to finance the flats when my friend Stanley Fox (another "Jehovah Witness" from Stanway, Essex who I saw regularly every week as a guest for Bible Studies and other matters at my home) told me about Chris' difficulties!
When I confronted Christopher at his home in December 1996, I received a letter from his solicitor on behalf of my wife giving me 30 days or so to leave my home and business premises.
The root of all evil is indeed the love of money,
and power, of course!
BAFS
THE MAIN REASON WHY I DID NOT FIGHT FOR MY RIGHTS (AND THOSE OF MY SON) AS A SOVEREIGN FREEMAN-ON-THE -LAND UNDER COMMON LAW WAS BECAUSE THE LAW COURTS ARE RACIST MARITIME AND STATUTORY COURTS OF COMMERCE RUN BY JUDAICS AND FREEMASONS FOR PROFIT THAT HAVE PLEDGED ALLEGIANCE NOT TO THE PEOPLE, BUT TO AN ILLEGITIMATE AND MURDEROUS QUEEN, AND WHERE JUSTICE IS ABSENT UNLESS I TOOK IT IN MY OWN HANDS! BUT, MY SON IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN ANYTHING ELSE!
Mel Gibson's stepmother requests restraining order
Claims he spat at her during argument
By Ben Arnold | Yahoo UK Movies News – 3 hours ago
Mel Gibson's stepmother has requested a restraining order against him, according to reports.
Teddy
Joye Hicks Gibson claims that the Aussie actor spat in her face during
an argument and has tried to sabotage her marriage to his father Hutton –
who she wed in 2001.
Mel Gibson... allegedly 'acted like a wild man' (Copyright: Rex)
78-year-old
Teddy says that both Gibson and his sister Maura manipulated Hutton,
93, into filing for a divorce from her, because she didn't approve of
controversial 'ozone treatments' that she believes Gibson was pressuring
him to undergo for various ailments.
During
one row, according to TMZ, she alleges: “Mel began yelling and saying,
'f*ck this and f*ck that' while leveling other extremely offensive
language at me.”
In another, she says: “Mel became incensed and
began acting like a wild man. He was so close that I could feel his spit
hitting my face.”
She added that the actor's eyes looked like
they were 'bulging out of his head' and that she was 'paralysed with
fear' during the incident.
She also says that Gibson is trying to force her out of her home, because it is owned by a charity that is run by him.
Teddy has requested that Gibson stay 100 metres away from her, a request that will be considered during a hearing next month.
The
news comes after Gibson alleged that Teddy was guilty of 'elder abuse'
over her objections to her husband's medication, which she believes to
be prolonging his suffering.
So why do ex-Witnesses like me criticize the Watchtower Society
and Jehovah’s Witnesses? Many Witnesses assume that we harbor some
secret jealousy of them, that we’re deranged,
or that we’re just a bunch of meanies in general. In reality, there are
many sane reasons why ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses criticize the Watchtower
Society publicly.
1. To Warn Others About Problems We Perceive With “The Truth”
Most
ex-Witnesses left the organization because we believed something was
wrong with it. We point out these flaws to help others avoid learning
about them the way we had to. The hard way.
Many Witnesses accuse us of nitpicking and insist that there are no
good reasons to leave the Society’s truth. They say that the Watchtower
Society is Jehovah’s one and only organization, hence, none of its
human-wrought imperfections really matter. But this assumes a lot. What
if the number one fault we find with the truth is that it isn’t true?
That shifts the priorities around, don’t you think?
Arguments between ex-Witnesses and Jehovah’s Witnesses about the
Society’s truth are as timeless as anything else. Headway is rarely made
on either side. But like it or not, we just don’t believe in the
Society’s truth any more. So telling us that it’s flaws don’t matter
doesn’t really help the situation. Isn’t this really obvious when you
think about it?
2. To Defend Ourselves Against The Way The Society Portrays Us
If
you’re one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, you may not fully appreciate just
how hard the organization is on former members, just as it is on other
religions, governments, and so-called “worldly people.” Witnesses
sometimes lament what they see as attacks on their beliefs or their way
of life, often without noticing how many ways that they – and the
Society – have returned the favor. How many articles in the Watchtower
have portrayed worldly people as lazy, cruel, stupid, or dishonest? I
doubt anyone can count that high. Yet how many more articles have
portrayed ex-Witnesses as evil nutcases who keep lashing out at the
Society like a bunch of ungrateful children, while also claiming that we
have no good reasons for doing so? (If you didn’t notice the irony in
that last sentence, you should really read it again.)
You get used to things like this if you see them often enough. But
the reality is that it’s easy to be hated and despised by “the world”
when you keep picking on it all of the time. The same can be said when
you demonize former members. We like it about as much as you like
hearing our complaints about Jehovah’s Witnesses. Worst of all, many
ex-Witnesses find ourselves being accused of some pretty crazy things by
the Witnesses in our lives because the Watchtower magazine said we were
doing them!
That’s not to say that every complaint is just tit-for-tat. But many
of us want to know what the Society is saying about former Witnesses
because our loved ones are reading every word. Sometimes, what you see
is nothing more than our reaction, or our response, to those comments.
By the way, if we’re the bad guys for criticizing the Society, what
does that make the Society when it criticizes us, other religions, other
people, other governments, etc? Guys, this isn’t a one way street.
3. To Encourage Reforms Within The Organization
Sadly,
I have to say that this one feels like a pipe dream most of the time.
Authority within the Watchtower Society usually flows in one direction;
from the governing body on down. 1 Nevertheless, it is probably one of the more noble reasons for criticism you will find listed here.
Ex-Witnesses who want to see the Society work on its issues (we
definitely think it has issues) simply want to make life as one of
Jehovah’s Witnesses, and former Jehovah’s Witnesses, a whole lot better.
Ex-Witnesses like these aren’t lashing out like petulant children, they
aren’t trying to hurt anyone, and they certainly hold a more optimistic
view of the Society than many other exxers. They are simply trying to make the Society’s truth a better place to live.
I realize that many Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that they are miserable.
But for me, and many other ex-Witnesses, life as one of Jehovah’s
Witnesses was truly miserable. Yet it sure didn’t have to be.
Note, I’m not talking about making changes to doctrine so much as to
the Society’s practices. As an atheist, I really don’t care if the
Society teaches that the Trinity is true or that all good dogs go to
Heaven. From my perspective, the Society is an authoritarian patriarchy
led by men who seem pretty incompetent at guiding others toward a
productive, positive way of life. This is not, in my opinion, a formula
for happiness. So I count myself among those who would like to see some
changes. I just don’t see anything wrong with that.
4. To Share Our Pain With Others Who Understand
Many
ex-Witnesses have been shunned by their relatives and former friends.
Or we have loved ones who are still Jehovah’s Witnesses, and we are
forced to watch them sink deeper and deeper into something we believe to
be harmful. Again, the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses may not see
anything harmful about the Society is irrelevant. We do, and that’s what matters here. These, and other things, make it hard to be former Jehovah’s Witnesses at times.
Many people don’t really understand this. But you know who does? Others who have gone through it.
Ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses are a community in our own right. Sometimes,
we just have to share our experiences and seek support from other exxers
who understand. If you see a former Witness posting complaints in an
online forum or social media website, they aren’t necessarily trying to
denounce the Society per se. Sometimes, they’re just looking for support
from those who get it, just as Jehovah’s Witnesses who experience
hardships seek out other Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s perfectly human, and
there’s nothing weird or “mentally diseased” about it.
Conclusions
Ex-Witnesses
don’t have to be obsessed with hurting the organization to criticize
it. Personally, I think it would be easier if the Society simply
reformed itself into a more positive force in the lives of its
followers. And yes, by that, I mean to say that it falls far short of
that goal in my eyes. That is a criticism, but it isn’t meant to hurt.
It’s simply the way I feel, just as the Society frequently criticizes
other groups of people when it finds fault with them. If Jehovah’s
Witnesses are going to continue criticizing others, then I’m afraid
they’ll have to grow a thick skin of their own. Not that some of them
haven’t, but far too many just aren’t there yet. To Jehovah’s Witnesses:
guys, you simply can’t hit us in the jaw and then cry foul when we hit
back.
Especially if you refuse to have a real dialogue with us because
you’re scared we’ll corrupt you. That just isn’t reasonable. Know what I
mean?
There are many reasons why ex-Witnesses criticize the Society and its
Witnesses. Some of us really are lashing out at the organization that
hurt us, but it’s hardly fair to assume all of us are doing it for this
reason alone. And I really don’t know of any exxers who I would
describe as jealous of the Society. To be honest, this sounds pretty
absurd to most people. It sounds like a parent trying to reassure their
child that the kids at school are only picking on him because they’re
jealous of his freckles. Never mind his coke bottle glosses or the fact
he has an extra nipple on his forehead.
Accusing us of being crazy, jealous, or even under demonic control
isn’t exactly reaching across the aisle, either. These are not the kinds
of assumptions you make about a group of people if you want to have an
honest, open dialogue with them. These are the kinds of assumptions you
make about your enemies. It’s also how you make enemies.
If you’re one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and you can’t handle it when we
criticize you, why not sue for peace by making changes within your own
camp? Doing away with disfellowshipping and acknowledging that many of
our complaints are valid would be a great way to start a real dialogue.
Yes, many Witnesses will say that Jehovah is the top
man in the organization. Just as Catholics, Mormons, Methodists, and
others will say, too. Until one god or another pops down here to clear
up all this confusion, that’s a pretty unreasonable assertion to make in
my opinion. Sorry guys, but as far as I’m concerned, the Society is run
by humans. ↩
Plaintiff Awarded $28 Million in Jehovah’s Witness Child Molestation Case
PRWeb – Tue, Sep 25, 2012
On June 17th, 2012 the New York Times reported that a Northern California jury awarded $28 million in damages to Candace Conti who said the Jehovah’s Witnesses allowed an adult member of a Fremont, Calif., church to molest her when she was 9 years old (Superior Court of California,
case no. HG11558324). Molestation lawsuits encompass a broad range of
circumstances including criminal charges filed on the behalf of a molested child.
Now, AttorneyOne.com, a recognized authority on law, can provide
helpful, proven advice and simple solutions including how to get in
contact with legal counsel so anyone can easily and inexpensively deal with cases of Molestation. [http://www.attorneyone.com/molestation/
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) September 25, 2012
The media spotlight is often a double-edged sword. No one knows this better than Candace Conti and children that have been Molested. And yet, gossip and rumor-mongering aside, the real story here is being overlooked according to Sean Burke of AttorneyOne.
On June 17th, 2012 the New York Times reported
that a Northern California jury awarded $28 million in damages to
Candace Conti who said the Jehovah’s Witnesses allowed an adult member
of a Fremont, Calif., church to molest her when she was a child
(Superior Court of California, case no. HG11558324). Molestation
lawsuits encompass a broad range of circumstances including criminal
charges filed on the behalf of a molested child. In the lawsuit, Conti,
claims that in 1995 and 1996, when she was 9 and 10 years old and a
member of the North Fremont Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, she was
repeatedly molested by a fellow congregant, Jonathan Kendrick.
According to the National Children’s Alliance, 187,862 children around the country reported sexual abuse during 2011. Data from the National Alert Registry reveal that most sexual abuse happens between the ages of 7 and 13.
AttorneyOne.com, a recognized authority on law, can provide helpful
advice and simple solutions including how to get in contact with legal
counsel so that, in case of Molestation, someone can easily and
inexpensively deal with it. As Mr. Burke, director of Media Relations
for AttorneyOne.com, added, “What all this information really
illustrates is that threat of Molestation remains. For that reason, our
focus should squarely fall on getting the word out and assisting people
in finding the right legal assistance.”
Every year 3.3 million reports of
child abuse are made in the United States involving 6 million children;
9.2% of child abuse concerns sexual abuse. More than 90% of juvenile
sexual abuse victims know their perpetrator in some way (ChildHelp.org).
AttorneyOne.com has further information on Molestation lawsuits including how to get in contact with legal counsel.
In a landmark ruling, a California
jury has awarded record $28million in damages to a woman who had accused
the Jehovah’s Witnesses of allowing one of its adult members to molest
her as a child.
Alameda
County jurors awarded $7million in compensatory damages last Wednesday
and another $21million in punitive damages the following day to
26-year-old Candace Conti, her attorney, Rick Simons, said.
'This is the largest jury verdict for a single victim in a religious child abuse case in the country,’ Simons added.
Victim: Candace Conti, 26, sued Jehovah's
Witnesses for failing to address her sexual abuse at the hands of one of
the congregants
In her lawsuit, Conti said that
between 1995 and 1996, when she was nine and ten years old, and a member
of the North Fremont Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, she was
repeatedly molested by a fellow congregant, Jonathan Kendrick. Both her parents were Jehovah’s Witnesses at the time of the abuse, Conti said.
‘I was trying to be the best Jehovah’s Witness I could be at that time,’ she told msnbc.com.
While
it is unusual for victims of sexual abuse to be identified in the
press, Conti has decided to go public with her allegations to encourage
other victims of sexual abuse to come forward, Simons said.
A
Facebook page dedicated to Conti has been created where nearly 500
supporters have expressed their gratitude to the 26-year-old for coming
forward.
Predator: Johnathan Kendrick was convicted of misdemeanor child molestation in 1994 and lewd acts with a minor in 2004
‘Nothing can bring back my
childhood,’ Conti told the Oakland Tribune. ‘But through this (verdict)
and through, hopefully, a change in their policy, we can make something
good come out of it.’ Conti
also claimed in her suit that the religion’s national leaders formed a
policy in 1989 that instructed the religion’s elders to keep child sex
abuse accusations within the group secret to avoid lawsuits. Fremont
elders followed that policy when they chose to conceal the fact that
Kendrick had been convicted in 1994 of misdemeanor child molestation in
Alameda County from the congregation, according to Simons.
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES BELIEFS REVEALED
There is one God Almighty--a Spirit Being with a body but not a human body.
There is one God and no Trinity.
God
created the heavens and earth in six days, but each ‘day’ is equal to
thousands of years. God created and controls all processes and events.
Christ is Lord and Savior, but not God (Jehovah) incarnate, not a God-man but inferior to God.
No soul remains after death. The original sin caused humans to inherit death and sin. Abortion
is wrong. Homosexuality is a serious sin. Gender roles are defined: Men
are the head of the household and women are loving caretakers.
Service in the armed forces or any form of allegiance to government is prohibited.
Blood
transfusions are considered wrong, as God said the soul is in the
blood.
Bone marrow transplants are left to the individual conscience.
source: beliefnet.com
Kendrick was never criminally charged
in the case involving Conti, but besides the 1994 conviction, he was
convicted in 2004 of lewd or lascivious acts with a child younger than
14 years and sexual battery involving a restrained person, records show. Kendrick, aged 58, has been registered as a sex offender in California. He currently resides in Oakley. Kendrick
was ordered to pay 60 per cent of the judgment, but Simons said there
would be no attempt to collect any money from him, in part, because he
would not be able to pay the judgment. The
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York — the organization
overseeing the Jehovah’s Witnesses —would be responsible for 40 per
cent, according to Conti’s lawyer. ‘The
ultimate goal of the lawsuit was to have a change in policy, to be able
to ID these people, child molesters, to the congregation to protect
children,’ Conti told msnbc.com. ‘Secondarily,
to have silent ones come forward and tell their stories and to bring to
light that overall issue of violence and the hush-hush policy.’ Jim
McCabe, an attorney for the congregation, said he was ‘stunned’ by the
verdict and planned to appeal it. He denied Jehovah’s Witnesses has a
secrecy policy concerning child sex abuse and accused Conti’s lawyer of
twisting the facts of the case. ‘The
Jehovah’s Witnesses hate child abuse and believe it’s a plague on
humanity,’ McCabe told the Tribune. ‘Jonathan Kendrick was not a leader
or a pastor, he was just a rank-and-file member. This is a tragic case
where a member of a religious group has brought liability on the group
for actions he alone may have taken.’
Accountable: The Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society of New York, which oversees the Jehovah's Witnesses, would have
to pay 40 per cent of the damages
Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian
denomination noted for its non-traditional interpretation of the Bible.
Members are best known for preaching door-to-door, and distributing
religious literature such as The Watchtower and Awake! magazines. Simons
said his client sued the church in 2011 after trying and failing to get
Jehovah’s Witnesses in Southern California and in Fremont to change the
secrecy policy. ‘The
money is the only way left for her to force Jehovah’s Witnesses to stop
keep hiding known sex offenders within their congregation,’ Simons
said.
$3 Billion class action lawsuit on behalf of Jehovah’s Witnesses children
December 1, 2012
AUSTRALIA A $3 Billion class action lawsuit is being launched in
Australia on behalf of up to 6,160 children within the Church of
Jehovah’s Witnesses. Documents relating to the class action reveal over
14,000 serious criminal breaches of mandatory child protection laws,
committed against these children by elders and “ministers of religion”
within the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses over the past 4 years. The Victorian government “Inquiry into the Handling of Child
Abuse by Religions and other Organisations” is currently investigating
the allegations, and is expected to hold a public hearing in relation to
this in early 2013. JW Survivors –
a victim advocacy group for survivors of the Church of Jehovah’s
Witnesses within Australia – is currently bringing together the final
elements needed to launch a class action lawsuit on behalf of up to
6,160 victims of criminal child abuse committed within the Church of
Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State of Victoria, Australia, directly in
relation to criminal breaches of the Working with Children Act 2005, and primarily committed against these children by the church between July 1, 2008 and December 12, 2011.
On July 26, 2011, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society of Australia, were formally charged in the
Magistrates’ Court of Victoria with the committing of criminal offences,
against children within the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses, by their
refusal to comply with mandatory child protection laws, as legislated in
the Victorian Working with Children Act 2005. (Case No’s:
B12083527, B12083108, and B12082206 respectively.) The period of
non-compliance, as documented in the Charge Sheets, covered from July 1,
2008, through to July 22, 2011. Full compliance with the working with
children laws became mandatory for all “religious organisations” on July
1, 2008.
The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to answer the
Summons to appear in Court on September 13, 2011, either in person or by
legal counsel. The Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses also
refused to answer the Summons to appear in Court. They were again
summoned to appear again on October 11, 2011. They failed to appear or
to send legal counsel. A third time they were summoned to appear in the
Magistrates’ Court on November 9, 2011. They again failed to appear or
to send legal counsel. A fourth time they were summoned to appear on
December 6, 2011. Yet again they failed to appear or to send legal
counsel. A fifth time they were summoned to appear on February 21, 2012,
to answer the criminal charged filed against them. Once again they
failed to appear or to send legal counsel. Arrest Warrants, for each
individual member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, were
thereupon presented to the Magistrates’ Court by Acting Prosecutor
Steven Unthank.
At the same time the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions
intervened in the criminal court cases and “discontinued” the criminal
prosecution; citing that the ongoing prosecution of the Governing Body
of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, in relation to their refusal to comply with mandatory child
protection laws was “not in the public interest.” Criminal breaches of
the Working with Children Act 2005 continue to be committed
within the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the rate of over 1,000
offences per week. This is currently the subject of a formal
investigation by the Victorian “Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religions and other Organisations”,
following a written submission made to the Inquiry by a Jehovah’s
Witness child. It is understood that this submission was the only
submission received by the Inquiry from an actual child.
During the above mentioned criminal court cases it was revealed in
court that the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christian
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society of Australia et al., had knowingly breached Section 35 of the Working with Children Act 2005 –
by engaging and continuing to engage persons (“ministers of religion”)
in child-related work, knowing that it is child-related work, and
knowing that the worker (“minister of religion”) has not passed a
working with children check.
In total there were over 2,000 “ministers of religion” and volunteers
directly engaged in child-related work within the Church of Jehovah’s
Witnesses in well over 100 congregations and church operated internal
Ministry Schools with 1000’s of enrolled children, in the State of
Victoria, that had not complied with the Working with Children Act 2005 –
from July 1, 2008 up until the filing of criminal charges against the
church on July 26, 2011. The Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses has refused
to explain to these 2,000 “ministers of religion” that each of them may
have also individually committed criminal offences under the working
with children laws. Requests by parents within the church for an
explanation as to whether their child may have been a “victim of crime”
have been met with silence.
14,600 serious offences (Level 7 offences) had been documented committed against the Act by
the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State of Victoria against some
6,160 children. Had the Director of Public Prosecutions not
“discontinued” the prosecution, in relation to the first 5 sets of
criminal charges against the church in relation to the Traralgon
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, then the church could have been
prosecuted for all 14,600 criminal offences committed across the entire
state in over 100 congregations. The potential fine’s the Church of
Jehovah’s Witnesses, and their administrative corporation the Watch
Tower Society, were facing was up to:
AU$3 billion ($2,961,020,160.00)
In the State of Victoria, breaches of the working with children laws
are a Level 7 offence and carry up to 2 years imprisonment, in addition
to a potential fine of $33,801.60 (240 penalty units) for an individual and $169,008.00 (1,200 penalty units) for a corporation or body. Source: Victorian Department of Justice web site.
A statement issued by Steven Unthank, who is putting together the
class action on behalf of the primary Plaintiff (a Jehovah’s Witness
child), explained that:
“The Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses was
allowed to escape accountability, by both the State of Victoria and
Victoria Police, in relation to their wholesale criminal breaches of the
working with children laws. Both the state and the police refused, or
declined, to enforce these mandatory child protection laws, thereby
knowingly allowing criminal offences to be committed by the Church of
Jehovah’s Witnesses, and their “ministers of religion”, against
thousands of innocent children. These thousands of children, who through
no fault of their own, have had criminal offences committed against
them. They are the innocent victims in all of this. These children are
entitled to recognition as victims of crimes, are entitled to an apology
for the crimes committed against them, and are entitled to compensation
as such. This class action is about justice for the children.”
On May 12, 2012, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the
Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses became aware that a potential class action
lawsuit was being pursued in relation to their failure to comply with
the working with children laws.
On October 6, 2012, at the Annual Meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses, held in Jersey City, New Jersey, U.S.A., during the discourse “When Does Jesus Appoint the Slave “Over All His Belongings”?”,
it was publicly announced that the worldwide Church of Jehovah’s
Witnesses (the slave of Christ) has just undergone a major
re-structuring of ‘doctrinal teachings’ and asset ownership, the net
result being that the church now claims it no longer has billions of
dollars in assets or ‘belongings’ but is, from a legal position, an
unincorporated association with no assets whatsoever.
In most child sexual abuse
cases the abuser is someone the child knows and trusts – relatives,
neighbors, coaches, teachers, ministers. And, incredibly, in too many of
these cases, the abuse was preventable because the abuser was known by others to have molested before, but that fact was not known to those who could have protected the child.
In 1994, both Megan and Candace were sexually abused and Megan died
at the hands of convicted pedophile, Jesse Timmendequas, who was “a known
child molester.” Law enforcement knew he was a molester, but no one
told seven-year-old Megan Kanka’s parents there were three convicted sex
offenders living across the street from them.
1994 – Megan’s Law
Due to public outcry, one month after Megan’s rape and murder on July
29, the New Jersey legislature passed Megan’s Law requiring
registration and public notification of sex offenders that became
federal law in 1996, and all states have passed some form of the law.
One federally funded study in 2009 determined that Megan’s law had no
effect on sexual reoffenses. When informed of the study, Mrs. Kanka
remarked that the purpose of the law was for parents to know where the
offenders were living. “We never said it was going to stop them from
reoffending.”
Jake Goldenflame, a convicted sex offender, supports the law.
“Megan’s Law is not there to keep me from re-offending,” he said.
Megan’s Law is there so that you can keep me from re-offending by knowing who I am, keeping your eyes on me.”
1994 – Watchtower informed of Megan’s Law
Shortly after learning about the New Jersey legislature passing
Megan’s Law in 1994, I informed two officials of the law’s passage at
the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in Brooklyn, NY, the business arm
that guides the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Two years
previously I had been a volunteer worker at the Watchtower’s huge
complex in Brooklyn, NY for nearly eleven years. For four of those years
I was a staff member in their Writing Department where I did research.
After leaving the Writing Department at the end of 1992, I continued
to help the department from my home in Tennessee by accepting research
assignments. My interest in Megan’s Law had to do with my knowledge of
an increase in reports of allegations of child abuse among Jehovah’s
Witnesses which were being reported to the Watchtower.
In the fall of 1991, while working in the Writing Department, I
learned there were men appointed by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s
Witnesses to serve as elders or assistants to elders who had been
accused of molestation or were confessed molesters. Also, there were men
remaining in their positions of responsibility after they confessed to a
fellow elder of molesting a child at least two or three years
previously. Inasmuch as these men claimed repentance and were observed
to have engaged in “godly acts befitting of repentance” for a number of
years, they were appointed to, or continued to serve in, leadership
positions. Their past remained a secret.
A 1989 policy letter from Watchtower to all elders stated that
certain matters, including child abuse, were to be kept confidential to
avoid lawsuits and financial penalties. In this way, pedophiles were
protected from exposure and went on to molest other children. The
Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, through this policy, had made a
determination that its own needs would be placed above protection of
children and showed an indifference to children who were placed at risk
by the presence of known sexual abusers within the congregations and the
secrecy that surrounded it.
In every case, members in Witness congregations where these men served were never informed that a known molester
was in their midst. The consequences of such secrecy were more and more
complaints of sexual abuse committed by men in oversight positions
coming into the Watchtower’s Service Department. Owing to all of this, a
number of us in the Writing Department were determined to see that
protection of children was paramount, not protection of an organization.
In 1997, the Watchtower developed what I call a “known molester
policy.” Some thought it was Watchtower’s child sexual abuse policy, but
it didn’t protect kids, just the opposite, in that, before appointment,
if a remorseful, repentant man wasn’t perceived (or known) by the
community and the congregation to be a “former” child molester, he could
be considered for a position of trust.
Back in 1994, it was the requirement of Megan’s Law for “community
notification” when sex offenders moved into an area which caused me to
call the Writing Department. I pointed out that elder notification to
the flock of a possible or convicted sex offender who was hiding in
plain sight in the congregation due to the Watchtower’s confidentiality
policy was the way to go.
Required notification of such an individual would be the best way to
protect Jehovah’s Witnesses children from a monster in the room which no
one knew about, someone they called “brother” or “sister.” I was
emphatic that unless the confidentiality policy was replaced with a
notification policy, one of these days, huge lawsuits and scandal would
rock the very foundations of the Watchtower and could destroy it.
1994 – Candace Conti’s molestation
Unknown to me, nine-year-old Candace Conti, began to be molested in
1994, the abuse continuing for two years. Her molester, Jonathan
Kendrick, was a known child molester because he had been convicted by the authorities for the sexual abuse of another child two years earlier.
Kendrick’s sex offender record was also known by the elders
of the Fremont California Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but they
did nothing to protect the congregation’s children, including young
Candace because they kept what they knew about him secret.
They did remove Kendrick from his unpaid assistant-minister’s
position but no one in the congregation knew why. Here then was an
example of elders following the church’s national policy to keep sex
abuse allegations secret. It was this silence that allowed Kendrick to
abuse Candace. Because of the policy of secrecy that the church
followed, information was withheld from the very people who could have
prevented the abuse of Candace, and why her parents didn’t know their
friend and fellow congregant, Jonathan Kendrick, was a sexual predator.
Candace Conti sues the Watchtower and elders
In 2011, Ms. Conti, then 25, sued the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York for keeping reports of child sex abusers within Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations secret.
It was during the Conti trial in June 2012 that a 1989 Watchtower policy letter to elders
was introduced. That letter was a major factor in determining the
outcome of the trial because it stated that certain matters, including
child abuse, were to be kept confidential to avoid lawsuits and
financial penalties.
Also sued were three elders in the Fremont Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses. Loyalty to a religious organization kept the elders from
doing the right thing. In their defense these men claimed they did their
duty towards Candace by “keeping an eye on Kendrick.” Unlike Jake
Goldenflame, the convicted sex offender, who said Megan’s Law was there
so people could keep an eye on him, Fremont elders did not inform
parents so they could protect their children by keeping an eye on Kendrick.
On June 14th, Day 10 of the trial, the day after the jury
awarded Ms. Conti compensatory damages of $7M and was about to decide on
punitive damages, Robert Schnack, Defendants attorney, stated in his
closing arguments to the jury:
“I sincerely believe that Watchtower does
not need to be punished by another monetary award. Why is that? Ms.
Conti said she wanted to change policies. That’s why she brought this
suit. And we feel bad for Ms. Conti. But I can assure you, and I can
assure her, that Watchtower’s policies continue to evolve. And I can
safely say that, with her verdict yesterday, Ms. Conti has succeeded. I
encourage you to award no punitive damages in this case.”
The jury thought otherwise and awarded Ms. Conti $21M in punitive
damages. The Watchtower wasn’t found guilty of failing to report
molestation. They were guilty of negligence, malice, and child endangerment.
It’s obvious from the damage awards that Watchtower policies did not
evolve to the degree needed to protect children and more was required.
New rules in October 1, 2012 elders’ letter
Have Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders gotten the message that parents
should be told if a confessed or accused child molester is worshipping
with them? Well, yes, but only if the Witnesses branch office determines
the individual is a “predator.”
According to a new letter to the elders, dated October 2, 2012,
which updates all previous letters regarding child abuse, if the elders
think a person who has been known to have sexually abused a child,
although seemingly cleaned up his/her life, is a “predator,” the elders
must call the Witnesses branch office. If the branch office determines
that an individual is to be considered a predator, then two elders are
assigned to meet with the parents of minor children in order to provide a
warning. Also, the “predator” should be told that parents have been
discreetly informed. So, for the most part, the secrecy still remains.
In Candace Conti’s case, her molester would never have fit the profile
of “predator”; hence, her parents would not have been warned.
Another point Defendants’ Attorney Robert Schnack made in closing arguments:
“One thing I would ask you to keep in
mind. The Jehovah’s Witnesses Church is not the Catholic Church, that it
has had verdict after verdict after verdict over the years. It’s been
in the press. We are all aware of it. This is the first verdict that the
Jehovah’s Witnesses church has faced. So, again, it is not the Catholic
Church with multitudes of cases over a couple of decades.”
“We were on the phone to managing
directors of Watchtower and to the elders in the Service Department. And
I can tell you they are stunned by the verdict. Again, I mentioned, it
is the first one.”
Yes, the Conti case was “the first verdict that the
Jehovah’s Witnesses church has faced” because Watchtower leaders have
been secretly settling out-of-court child sexual abuse cases for years.
For example, in 2007 there were secret out-of-court settlements with
sixteen victims in nine separate cases of child sexual molestation. And,
as recently as May 2012, in San Diego, California, there was a secret
out-of-court settlement of a case involving six victims of a Witness
serial molester – an elder! As is the case with many blameworthy
Defendants, when Watchtower leaders settled these cases out-of-court,
they acknowledged liability but not responsibility.
No more secrets
However, in the Conti case, this religious body refuses to
acknowledge responsibility or liability that the church was to blame for
Candace’s molestation because on September 21, 2012, a Bond/Undertaking
was posted for an appeal of judgment in behalf of Defendants Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society, NY, and the North Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, Fremont, California, in the amount of $17,277,299.37. Whether
the Defendants win or lose their appeal, due to the publicity
surrounding the Candace Conti case, no longer is the church’s policy
decision to conceal known molesters a secret.
JW NEWS www.jwnews.net www.jwnews.org A number of submissions have been received by the “Inquiry
into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and other
Organisations,” in relation to the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Friday September 21, 2012
by Steven Unthank
The Victoria, Australia, State “Inquiry into the Handling of Child
Abuse by Religious and other Organisations,” including the Jehovah’s
Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society, has officially commenced, with
the last of the formal submissions being presented to the Inquiry
committee on Friday, 21 September, 2012.
Committee Chair, Ms Georgie Crozier MP said the Committee would now
begin the formal process of accepting submissions and finalising the
hearing schedule for 2012.
“The next stage of the Inquiry will involve the Committee analysing
submissions and gathering further evidence from key witnesses through
its hearing process,” Ms Crozier said.
“We anticipate hearings will be held in Melbourne and in regional areas from October and into 2013.”
Information on the Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Organisations can be accessed here:
A large number of submissions have been received by the Inquiry in
relation to the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Watch Tower
Society, their internal lawyer Vincent Toole and his law firm Vincent
Toole Solicitors. Among those who have made submissions include both
current and former members of the religion, as well as people who have
never been a part of the religion.
An 11 page submission was made by a young person, under the age of 18, from the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and deals with the failure of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society to comply with child protection laws.
Another submission was lodged by a current inmate in one of
Victoria’s prisons. This submission identifies and names up to 30
members of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses involved in child abuse,
including child rape, as well as the covering up of child abuse by
senior leaders of the religion. Among the individuals identified are
current elders, circuit overseers, and members of the branch office of
Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some of the allegations of child rape go back
decades.
In addition to the submissions, there have been at least three formal
requests to publicly appear before the Inquiry to present evidence in
relation to the systemic and systematic covering up of child abuse
within the religion of Jehovah’ Witnesses. One of these requests is a
group request from a large number of people wanting to appear to give
their evidence before the Inquiry committee. It is understood that at
least an entire day is being allocated to hear their verbal submission.
A total of three submissions were made by Steven Unthank, two of
which will require him to appear before the Inquiry committee to give
evidence. One submission specifically deals with the breaches of the Working with Children Act 2005 and the criminal prosecution of the entire corporate and religious hierarchy of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society.
In support of his submissions Steven Unthank has written and prepared
a total of three separate submission documents totally 70 pages, 150
pages, and one totally over 500 pages. In addition to this, Unthank has
provided a total of 60 supporting documents and statements totalling
over 2000 pages, as well as a large collection of internal and
confidential letters and documents from the Watch Tower Society. Also
presented as evidence to the Inquiry committee is a compete set of audio
recordings of a secret child rape investigation which took place within
one of the Kingdom Halls of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Melbourne. In this
investigation, the Watch Tower Society assembled a special interstate
Judicial Investigating Team, which was then flown into Melbourne,
Victoria, to conduct the investigation.
In July 2012, a document was sent out by the Inquiry to all
government departments inviting them to make a submission in relation to
their dealings with religious organisations over compliance with the Working with Children Act 2005.
Those departments invited to specifically address this subject within
their submission to the current Inquiry include: Victoria Police
(Working with Children Check Unit and the Soca/Sosa Unit), the Office of
the Child Safety Commissioner, the Department of Justice (Working with
Children Check Unit), and the Office of the Director of Public
Prosecutions.
This inclusion in the Inquiry came about following a verbal
submission made by Steven Unthank to the “Protecting Victoria’s
Vulnerable Children Inquiry” on June 8, 2011, in relation to breaches of
the Working with Children laws by the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses and
the Watch Tower Society. Unthank’s submission was the only one received
by the previous Inquiry in relation to breaches of the Working with
Children laws by any organisation, religious r otherwise.
Below is a facsimile copy of part of the
official document issued by the Parliament of Victoria, that contains
the subject and questions specifically asked by the Inquiry, for various
government departments to address, in relation to the Working with
Children laws and their application within religious organisations.
(Note: the background watermark is part of the Parliament of Victoria’s
official seal.)
Submissions and documents relating to inquiry have been published on the JW LEAKS web site.
The inquiry into religious organisations and their handling of child abuse is being conducted by the bipartisan Family and Community Development Committee of Parliament, which was established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003. It will have powers to compel witnesses to attend and give evidence and to summons documents necessary for its deliberations.
All evidence and proceedings will be subject to Parliamentary privilege,
and the inquiry will be able to take evidence in private hearings where
it considers it appropriate in the interests of victims or for other
reasons.
The terms of reference for the inquiry were approved by the Governor in Council on Tuesday morning, April 17, 2012.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Family and Community Development Committee is requested to
inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on the processes by
which religious and other non-government organisations respond to the
criminal abuse of children by personnel within their organisations,
including:
1. the practices, policies and protocols in such organisations for
the handling of allegations of criminal abuse of children, including
measures put in place by various organisations in response to concerns
about such abuse within the organisation or the potential for such abuse
to occur;
2. whether there are systemic practices in such organisations that
operate to preclude or discourage the reporting of suspected criminal
abuse of children to State authorities; and
3. whether changes to law or to practices, policies and protocols in
such organisations are required to help prevent criminal abuse of
children by personnel in such organisations and to deal with allegations
of such abuse.
In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should be mindful of not
encroaching upon the responsibilities of investigatory agencies or the
courts in relation to particular cases or prejudicing the conduct or
outcome of investigations or court proceedings.
The Committee is requested to report to the Parliament no later than 30 April 2013.
Over the past year, the Government of Victoria, and the
Attorney-General of Victoria, have received numerous letters, and life
stories, in relation to systemic child abuse within the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses. A number of cases are currently being investigated,
or processed, by Victoria Police. Many of the letter writers also
requested that the Victorian Government formally investigate the
religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society over its
child abuse handling policies and practices, particularly with reference
to the covering up of child abuse and the ongoing failure to comply
with mandatory child protection laws.
In a press release announcing such the “Handling of Child Abuse” inquiry, Premier Ted Baillieu and Attorney-General Robert Clarke, extended their
“appreciation to the many individuals and organisations
who have contacted the Government and provided accounts of their
experiences.”
“the Government also welcomes recent commitments by senior church figures to co-operate with an inquiry.”
JW News is unaware of any commitment made by the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses or by the Watch Tower Society to co-operate with the
inquiry.
The Catholic Church, which is regularly criticized by the church
leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses in relation to its handling of child
abuse, have set up a dedicated web site specifically dealing with the
inquiry.
Documents relating to the Catholic Church can also be found on the JW Leaks web site www.jwleaks.org
Steven Unthank can be contact via email: StevenUnthank@email.com
JW NEWS
The internet-based hacking group “Anonymous” has upped the ante on
its crusade for child protection by launching a campaign against the
Watch Tower Society and the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In a video message posted online today, Anonymous publicly called on
“the 99% to infiltrate this group and uncover any data
pertaining to these cultish pedophilia crimes and expose this cult for
who and what it is. Anonymous must get this pedophile list.”
Anonymous also declared that they will “free the silent lambs”, which
is a reference to the many thousands of silenced sexually abused
children within the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Public awareness is currently focused on Jehovah’s Witnesses and the
Watch Tower Society, after recently being found guilty of “malice” in
relation to the rape and sexual abuse of Ms Candace Conti, who as a
child was repeatedly raped by an ordained minister of Jehovah’s
Witnesses. The church was ordered to pay more than $20 million in
punitive damages after a jury found they could have prevented the child
rapes but took no action.
Anonymous has also published the address of the Jehovah’s Witnesses
secret pedophile database, which is reported to have over 23,000 files
which identify mainly ordained ministers of Jehovah’s Witnesses who are
currently serving in church congregations.
Many documents, child abuse memos, court records, and information
relating to the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower
Society have also recently been released on the internet by JW Leaks.
According to Wikipedia: ”Anonymous seeks mass awareness and
revolution against corrupt entities, while attempting to maintain
anonymity.”
Wikipedia has also published a timeline of events associated with the
activities of Anonymous, which highlight the ability of this
decentralized group to infiltrate organizations and governments for the
purpose of crippling their activities, or for accessing databases and
email records.
The online video message from Anonymous regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society said…
Hello Citizens of the world. We are Anonymous.
Dear brothers and sisters,
Now is the time to open your eyes and expose the truth!
Operation Pedo Chat has commenced with a great deal of success and
enthusiasm to protect the innocent from these disgusting pedophiles that
roam the internet. While this war on internet Pedophilia has only just
begun, more cries for help has gained the attention of Anonymous.
A cult under the umbrella of Jehovah’s Witnesses has 23,000 plus
pedophiles names and their offenses on this list within Watchtower Head
quarters which is not available to the public. The Watchtower
headquarters is located at 100 Watchtower Drive, Patterson, New York,
12563. Jehovah’s Witnesses official website is www.watchtower.org
When a Jehovah’s Witness is faced with being victim to a pedophile,
the accusing parents and the child are told to go to the elders first,
not the police, and then let the elders make the decision. When they
bring their child to the elders to explain, the elders hear the story
and then bring in the pedophile. If the pedophile denies the charges,
they leave it up to “Jehovah” to bring it out and go no further, unless
there are witnesses.
Anonymous calls on the 99% to infiltrate this group and uncover any
data pertaining to these cultish pedophilia crimes and expose this cult
for who and what it is. Anonymous must get this pedophile list and
submit it to the following:
The Pirate Bay, Wikileaks, and www.silentlambs.org
Anonymous will expose the vile pedophiles and free the silent lambs.
We are anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.
CLICK TO VIEW THE MESSAGE FROM ANONYMOUS TO WATCHTOWER
Our Families: Jehovah’s Witnesses and Child Protection
JW NEWS www.jwnews.net www.jwnews.org
Sunday May 27, 2012
by Steven Unthank A personal message from Steven Unthank
Thank you to all those who offered support and encouragement as I
went about criminally prosecuting the entire religious and corporate
hierarchy of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria,
Australia, from July 26, 2011 to February 21, 2012, for breaching child
protection laws.
In July 2008, I wrote a letter to Victoria Police and another to the
Attorney-General of Victoria, on behalf of my family and with reference
to the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, requesting that the Committee of
Management for the Religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses be charged with
criminal offences, over their failure to comply with the Working with Children Act 2005,
as it applies to “religious organisations” and ministers of religion
(primarily elders). In my letter I also wrote that in the event that
compliance with the Act is made then I “withdraw this letter.”
From the outset my intention was, and has always been, about compliance
with these mandatory child protection laws. – Romans 13:1-5
Over the next 3 years, from July 2008 to July 2011, neither the
Attorney-General of Victoria, nor the Chief Commissioner of Police or
Victoria Police, nor the Child Safety Commissioner, nor the Department
of Justice, nor anyone else within the State Government of Victoria,
took the necessary action that forced the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses to comply with these child protection laws, even though
non-compliance is a serious criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.
Further, none of these public officials or public bodies took any
action to legally enforce compliance with these laws.
On July 26, 2011, after having exhausted all avenues available to
protect the children within the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I took
action and personally filed criminal charges against the Governing Body
of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christian congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, the Faithful and Discreet Slave, the Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society of Australia, and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
of Pennsylvania. Following this I commenced, on my own and without any
legal assistance whatsoever, the private criminal prosecution of each of
the five accused. In doing this I became the Acting Prosecutor, even
though I had no funds, no legal experience whatsoever, and not even a
single law book. I had to do everything myself, even the wording of the
actual ‘charges’ and the designing and making up of the charge sheets.
Then, for the next eight months, I had to stumble and trip through five
court hearings, each involving five separate cases at every hearing.
My objective was, not to claim victory in any courtroom battle, but,
to force the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses to comply with mandatory
child protection laws for the protection of the children. I succeeded,
when the Committee of Management for the Religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses
finally agreed to comply with these child protection laws, after having
failed to get any of the cases thrown out of court despite effort. On
February 21, 2012, the State took over all five cases and “discontinued”
them claiming that it was not in the “public interest” to prosecute a
religion which violates child protection laws. Regardless of the State’s
action, the end result is that the children within the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses and the children within the community are now safer,
sexually and physically.
I stood up to protect these children. For doing this I am now hated
and despised by the entire worldwide religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
And as for the parents of the children whom I stood up to protect, these
parents have been instructed by the religious leaders of Jehovah’s
Witnesses to teach their children that I am “mentally diseased” and that
if they go near me they will catch this disease and they will die! I
hope that one day these parents learn the truth about my efforts to
protect their own children, and that these children also learn the truth
that I stood up for them when their parents did not. It does not matter
if they never find out. To stand up was the right thing to do. – James 4:17 Steven Unthank
Silentlambs
On April 27, 2012, I received the Silentlambs “Courage” award for
“courage above and beyond the call of duty in the interests of protecting children.”
Along with the award I received a personal letter from Mr William H.
Bowen, National Director for Silentlambs, USA, thanking me for my
efforts in trying to protect children within the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses. I thank both Mr Bowen and Silentlambs for the award.
Upon receiving this award I was reminded of one of Aesop’s fables,
and how it related to myself growing up as a child within the religion
of Jehovah’s Witnesses, especially in the way I was treated by my
elders:
“The Wolf and the Lamb” by Aesop (620-564 BCE)
Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when,
looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a
little lower down. “There’s my supper,” thought he, “if only I can find
some excuse to seize it.” Then he called out to the Lamb, “How dare you
muddle the water from which I am drinking?”
“Nay, master, nay,” said Lambikin; “if the water be muddy up there, I
cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me.”
“Well, then,” said the Wolf, “why did you call me bad names this time last year?”
“That cannot be,” said the Lamb; “I am only six months old.”
“I don’t care,” snarled the Wolf; “if it was not you it was your father;” and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and
Warra warra warra warra warra
ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out
“Any excuse will serve a tyrant.”
- compare Ezekiel chapter 34 written at the exact same time. See direct link below: http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/eze/chapter_034.htm
Why do people have to fight for child protection within the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
JW NEWS
Jehovah’s Witnesses and the use of the word “apostate”
JW NEWS www.jwnews.net
Monday May 14, 2012
by Steven Unthank USE OF THE WORD “APOSTATE” AS A PEJORATIVE
Did any of the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, such as the
Apostle Paul, use the word “apostate” in a pejorative way to describe
former members of the original Christian congregation, thereby setting a
precedent for Jehovah’s Witnesses today?
No!
This is emphasized by the fact that the word “apostate” does not appear anywhere within the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures,
the official version of the New Testament, as used by the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses and published by the Watch Tower Society. That is
why the official Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible encyclopedia, Insight from the Scriptures, also published by the Watch Tower Society, has no formal entry for the word “apostate”.
According to the “Word Index” of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures – Reference Bible,
the official study Bible of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the word “apostate” –
translated from the Hebrew word “chaneph” (hypocrite or wicked, i.e.
ungodly) by the New World Bible Translation Committee – was last used
within the Holy Bible by the prophet Isaiah, who, in the context of his
writings, specifically applied the word and meaning to the ancient
nation of Israel. The Jehovah’s Witnesses reference volume, All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial, states that the writing of the Bible book of Isaiah was completed sometime “after 732 B.C.E.”, over 2700 years ago.
The English word “apostate” was invented in the mid-14th century and used for non-religious situations. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostate
It is also worth noting that the word “apostate” does not even appear within the King James Version of the Holy Bible.
Despite the above, the Watchtower magazine of July 1, 1994, states that
“apostates publish literature that resorts to distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehood.”
What does the evidence really prove? Does the word “apostate” appear
anywhere in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures
as used by the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, or is this article
resorting to “distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehood” thereby
labelling it as ‘apostate’?
Consider the following:
The July 15, 2011, issue of the Watchtower magazine, while quoting and referring to the writings of the Apostle Paul, emphatically states that
“apostates are ‘mentally diseased,’ and they seek to
infect others with their disloyal teachings. Jehovah, the Great
Physician, tells us to avoid contact with them.”
The Simplified English Edition of the same Watchtower magazine claims that
“the Bible says that apostates are mentally diseased, and that they use their teachings to make others think like them.”
Yet nowhere in the Christian Greek Scriptures does the word “apostate” even appear.
In making the claim that “the Bible says that apostates are mentally
diseased”, and giving the impression that such words are actually from
God, is the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses the ones really
resorting to “distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods” – while
giving the impression that they are actually quoting from the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
Rather than give an answer, perhaps we should actually refer to the authority of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, the Bible produced and recommended by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
If you can actually find the word “apostate” mentioned in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, then us know.
JW NEWS
To post a Comment see the link below.
Since the 1890’s, the Watch Tower Society has recommended that, a person who leaves or changes their religion, send a Letter of Withdrawal to
all members of the local church group in which they belonged to, or
were associated with. Their reasoning behind this was published in The Watchtower magazine (October 15, 1895, page 234) as follows:
“LETTERS OF WITHDRAWAL FROM [RELIGION]”
“Frequently those who leave [their religion] get no opportunity to
communicate to their Church brethren the cause of their withdrawal;
because the officers of many churches in their zeal for the prosperity
of their denomination (we regret to say it) seem to forget that honesty
is an important element of Christian character, and either smother the
matter of the withdrawal and permit the impression that the brother or
sister who has withdrawn is still a member, but no longer faithful to
his church engagements, or else hasten to spread a false report of his
belief (as much by insinuation, tone of voice and manner, as by words)
in order to forever break his or her influence. To thus bear false
witness against God’s faithful children is mistakenly considered a
service to God,–it is really against the Lord’s cause and for the
upholding of sectarianism, lest the influence should open the eyes of
others of the Lord’s sheep and they too escape from the bondage of human
traditions, into the light of liberty of the truth.
“To meet such emergencies we have prepared, for those who may desire
them, Letters of Withdrawal, which express about what would be your
sentiments and merely require the signature of the user and the date.
These might be sent by mail, to each member of the church from which you
withdraw, as well as to the minister; for you joined the church
membership and not merely the minister.”
Several years later The Watchtower magazine (February 15,
1900, page 50) added that an additional benefit of sending such a Letter
of Withdrawal is so that it will…
“…insure that you will not be misunderstood and
misrepresented unintentionally. Otherwise your withdrawal is almost
certain to be misrepresented as [“Apostasy”]–as leaving the true Church
and not merely leaving a human organization never recognized by the Lord
nor instituted by him, but by fallible men.”
Is it really necessary to belong to a formal religious organization,
such as the Watch Tower Society or even the church of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, as a means to gain salvation or God’s approval?
On the need to join a religious organization or even a church, the 1939 Jehovah’s Witnesses study book Salvation, published by the Watch Tower Society, states on pages 33 to 36 that:
“Religious
organizations, and particularly the leaders therein, induce persons to
believe that they must join some religious system or organization, which
men call “a church”; and the leaders or clergymen claim that joining
such religious organization is the means to salvation. Such claim or
representation by the clergy is entirely wrong, because such
organizations do not have God’s approval. On the contrary, such
religious organizations teach chiefly the doctrines of men, which
doctrines blind the people to the truth of God’s purpose as set forth in
His Word, and such teachings of men make the commandments of God of
none effect and hence are exceedingly harmful to men.
“…To follow the teachings or traditions of men, therefore, leads unto
destruction. The man who ignores God’s Word and follows the way of man
is designated as a fool by the Word of God.
“…“Religion” is therefore properly defined as a belief in and
indulging in a form of worship of some higher power, and which belief is
based on the teachings of men handed down by tradition from one
generation to another, and which system of belief or teaching is induced
and put forward by God’s adversary the Devil in order to turn men away
from God. For this reason religion is the snare of the Devil … To follow
the lead of religion means everlasting death. To follow Christ Jesus
means everlasting life. (John 17:3) … To live, one must avoid religion
and truly follow the lead of Christ Jesus.”
My personal Letter of Withdrawal
On December 12, 2009, I acted in harmony with my personal beliefs and
my conscience,and wrote a hand written Letter of Withdrawal, posting it
to the religious organization known as the Watch Tower Society. This I
did for the purpose of having my name struck of any “books on earth”
administered by the Watch Tower Society.
My personal reason for my withdrawal was twofold:
1. I found myself
forced to worship, or practice my faith or belief, in a way that they I
found unacceptable, morally, spiritually and emotionally. I also found
that, the teachings, practices, dispute resolution processes, and the
conduct of the leaders of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses was in
stark contrast to the information that I was provided as a child, when I
made my decision to baptised; and
2. in relation to
the active covering up of child abuse within the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, and the wide spread criminal activities being perpetrated
against members of the Victorian community, by the Body of Elders in the
Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and by the Governing
Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and by the Faithful and Discreet Slave, and
by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia, and by the
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.
In relation to reason number 2, I had expressed a view that mandatory child protection laws (Working with Children laws)
– as they apply within the State of Victoria for “religious
organisations” and “ministers of religion” – must be complied with, and
that non-compliance is, not only a criminal offence against the
community and the children, but also an act of lawlessness against the
teachings and commands of the Bible. (Romans 13:1-5) The Watch Tower
Society and the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses maintained a different
view. They instructed the members of the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, including elders, that these child protection laws do not
have to be complied with. For over three years they refused to comply
until I personally had them criminally charged and prosecuted in the
Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. Then, and only then, did they start
complying with the law. But that’s another story.
With my life experience and these two reasons in mind, in good
conscience I could not be associated with any organisation, religious or
otherwise, that particularly engaged in criminal activities, especially
when the victims were innocent children. Therefore, I lawfully
resigned. Prior to taking this action I did indeed beg for help and
advice, from the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and from the Watch
Tower Society, over my concerns, but I was completely ignored and
received absolutely no reply to my letters requesting personal and
spiritual guidance.
I painfully learnt from my personal life experience that “the members
of such organization commit many deeds of cruelty and wickedness”, and
that these elders have no regret or remorse over doing such. For
example, one act of vicious cruelty and outright wickedness committed
against me by a group of elders – including the elder that many years
ago sexually assaulted me and raped my younger brother – resulted in my
attempt at suicide a few years back. If I could change one thing about
the direct events surrounding my suicide attempt, that would be the
getting back of my suicide note which I wrote to be found with my body.
My understanding is that the Watch Tower Society is in possession of it,
after a circuit overseer ‘forced’ my father to hand the letter over. As
part of my healing, in February last year, I wrote about my life
experience (“Walk of Life”) and then published it on my personal web
site www.stevenunthank.com on the page… “Life”.
Immediately after my suicide attempt, my father, who is currently
serving the needs of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Papua New
Guinea, wrote to the Watch Tower Society and to Bethel (Australian
headquarters for the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses) begging them for
help. A number of years have passed since his original plea for help. He
is still yet to receive a reply.
By comparison, when I wrote my Letter of Withdrawal in December 2009,
and posted it the following week to the Watch Tower Society, the public
announcement that I was no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses was made
within a few days.
Click on the below Letter of Withdrawal to enlarge.
For myself, in breaking free from the control of the Watch Tower
Society, I did not lose my religion, I found my spiritual freedom and
true salvation. I also got my life back. Now I stand up for those who do
not have a voice within the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses…the
children.
Steven Unthank
JW NEWS
Short link to this article: www.bit.ly/jwletter To post a Comment see the link below.
“We regard child abuse as abhorrent and we will
endeavour to do whatever we can to prevent it from happening and indeed
bring those who are perpetrators of child abuse to justice.” - Premier Baillieu. Tuesday, 17 April, 2012.
On January, 31, 2011, Victorian Premier, Ted Baillieu, launched the Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry to
comprehensively investigate systemic problems in Victoria’s child
protection system, and make recommendations to strengthen and improve,
the protection and support of vulnerable young Victorians.
On June 8, 2011, Steven Unthank
gave a public verbal submission to the Inquiry, in addition to a
substantial written submission of which was not publicly released.
Unthank’s submission was against the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and
the Watch Tower Society, over the criminal abuse of children within the
church setting. His verbal submission primarily discussed the failure
of the religion to comply with the Working with Children laws.
For further information on the Working with Children laws visit: KidsVictoria.org
In addition to Unthank’s testimony, a 68 page Senate submission,
entitled “Allegations of Criminal Activities Committed by the Religion
of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society against Australian
Citizens”, dated October 1, 2011, was also made available.
On February 21, 2012, the Child Protection Inquiry handed its report
(Cummins Report) to the State Government. Section 14.5 of the report
deals with, not only Steven Unthank’s testimony and submission, but also
the submissions of a number of others, against various religious
organisations.
Recommendation 48 of the report (Section 14.5) stated that
“a formal investigation should be conducted into the
processes by which religious organisations respond to the criminal abuse
of children by religious personnel within their organisations. Such an
investigation should possess the powers to compel the elicitation of
witness evidence and of documentary and electronic evidence.”
Yesterday, April 17, 2012, the Victorian Government announced the
establishment of a Parliamentary inquiry into matters relating to the
handling of alleged criminal abuse of children by religious
organisations.
The inquiry will have broad terms of reference to consider the
practices, policies and protocols of religious organisations for the
handling of allegations of criminal abuse of children by personnel
within their organisations.
The inquiry will also have the power to assess any measures put in
place to respond to alleged abuse and to make any necessary
recommendations for changes to the law or to relevant policies and
practices.
A focus of the inquiry will be on identifying reforms that can and
should be put in place to better protect children and ensure that
instances of abuse are responded to properly and effectively. In doing
so, the inquiry will have the power to consider evidence of past
policies, practices and abuse.
The Government established the inquiry “after giving careful
consideration to the report and recommendations of the Cummins Inquiry
and to the material put before it by many individuals and groups.” Two
submissions were made to the Cummins Inquiry by Steven Unthank, one of
which was made on behalf of ALL the children within the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State of Victoria.
During the Cummins Inquiry, while commenting on the Religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society’s refusal to comply with
child protection laws, the Honourable Philip Cummins declared
“Every individual and every organisation, religious or otherwise, has to comply with the law.”
A submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry is currently being prepared
by Steven Unthank in relation to the handling, and cover up by the
religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, of a number of child rapes committed
within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The terms of reference for the new inquiry also allows for the
investigation into how the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the
Watch Tower Society, handled complaints within the church format against
elders and ministers of religion who had failed to comply with the
Working with Children laws. This failure to comply with mandatory child
protection laws by Jehovah’s Witness elders and ministers of religion,
resulted in the criminal prosecution of entire worldwide religious and
corporate hierarchy of Jehovah’s Witnesses on July 26, 2011.
On this subject, JW NEWS has obtained a copy of a recent letter
issued to Mr William Hahn, and signed by the Attorney-General Robert
Clark, which provides further evidence that Jehovah’s Witness ministers
of religion have only recently commenced complying with the Working with Children Act 2005,after
they became mandatory for “religious organisations” and ministers of
religion back in July 2008. The Attorney-General wrote:
“The Department of Justice has met with representatives
of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia to discuss
requirements of the WWC Act. I understand that following that meeting,
there has been a shift of position by the Watchtower Society, and a
large number have now applied for and received a WWC Check card.”
Click below for copy of letter from Attorney-General Robert Clark.
The Inquiry into Religious Organisations and Child Abuse
The inquiry into religious organisations and their handling of child abuse will be conducted by the bipartisan Family and Community Development Committee of Parliament, which was established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003. It will have powers to compel witnesses to attend and give evidence and to summons documents necessary for its deliberations.
All evidence and proceedings will be subject to Parliamentary privilege,
and the inquiry will be able to take evidence in private hearings where
it considers it appropriate in the interests of victims or for other
reasons.
The Government has concluded that a Parliamentary inquiry is the most
appropriate form for the inquiry to take. A Parliamentary inquiry will
be able to proceed in a less formal and legalistic manner than a Royal Commission, and with no expectation that persons giving evidence will be required to have legal representation.
“We
regard child abuse as abhorrent and we will endeavour to do whatever we
can to prevent it from happening and indeed bring those who are
perpetrators of child abuse to justice.” – Premier Baillieu
The terms of reference for the inquiry were approved by the Governor in Council on Tuesday morning, April 17, 2012.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Family and Community Development Committee is requested to
inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on the processes by
which religious and other non-government organisations respond to the
criminal abuse of children by personnel within their organisations,
including:
1. the practices, policies and protocols in such organisations for
the handling of allegations of criminal abuse of children, including
measures put in place by various organisations in response to concerns
about such abuse within the organisation or the potential for such abuse
to occur;
2. whether there are systemic practices in such organisations that
operate to preclude or discourage the reporting of suspected criminal
abuse of children to State authorities; and
3. whether changes to law or to practices, policies and protocols in
such organisations are required to help prevent criminal abuse of
children by personnel in such organisations and to deal with allegations
of such abuse.
In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should be mindful of not
encroaching upon the responsibilities of investigatory agencies or the
courts in relation to particular cases or prejudicing the conduct or
outcome of investigations or court proceedings.
The Committee is requested to report to the Parliament no later than 30 April 2013.
Over the past year, the Government of Victoria, and the
Attorney-General of Victoria, have received numerous letters, and life
stories, in relation to systemic child abuse within the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses. A number of cases are currently being investigated,
or processed, by Victoria Police. Many of the letter writers also
requested that the Victorian Government formally investigate the
religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower society over its
child abuse handling policies and practices, particularly with reference
to the covering up of child abuse and the ongoing failure to comply
with mandatory child protection laws.
In a press release announcing such an Inquiry, Premier Ted Baillieu and Attorney-General Robert Clarke, extended their
“appreciation to the many individuals and organisations
who have contacted the Government and provided accounts of their
experiences.”
In the same press release, the Premier and Attorney-General stated that:
“the Government also welcomes recent commitments by senior church figures to co-operate with an inquiry.”
There was no commitment made by the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses
or by the Watch Tower Society to co-operate with the inquiry.
JW NEWS
Anyone needing help or assistance in preparing for, or making a
submission, to the State of Victoria over child abuse within the
religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, is encouraged to contact Steven Unthank
for further information.
Forward: The following extended article
has been published for the purpose of inviting fair and critical public
debate and discussion, on the relationship between the Watch Tower
Society and the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses within Australia. As
such, for the purpose of debate or discussion, this article may be
reproduced, in part or in whole, on any public forum.
Suggestions and feedback are most welcome for the purpose of clarifying, correcting, or editing the following article.
JW NEWS
Feature Article www.jwnews.net
Sunday 8, April 2012
by Steven Unthank
The formal title, “faithful and discreet slave”, is
used by Jehovah’s Witnesses to describe and refer to
the ecclesiastical body that exercises absolute authority over the
religion. – For further information click HERE.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are known to often ask the question “who really
is the faithful and discreet slave”? On October 11, 2011, legal counsel
for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia, while
presenting defense arguments in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria,
answered this question by stating that the “faithful and discreet slave”
were nothing more that a
“theological arrangement.”
This now begs the question “who really are Jehovah’s Witnesses” and are they also a “theological arrangement”?
Lay members of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses (called a
‘publisher’) are recognised worldwide for the public preaching and
evangelizing activity they carry out within their local communities.
Last Sunday JW NEWS published a transcript of a letter which was read
out in all congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State of
Victoria, Australia, in October / November last year. This official
church letter explained that this public ministry activity is
“part of a publisher’s personal
ministry and the publisher is not a representative or a volunteer of the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia.”
The above letter was in response to the failure of the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Watch Tower Society, to comply with
mandatory child protection laws, as legislated in the Victorian Working with Children Act 2005.
In the issuing of this letter, it appears that the Watch Tower
Society was attempting to distance itself from the activities of members
of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why? Many individual Jehovah’s
Witnesses may have actually criminally breached and broken the law, over
the past 3 1/2 years, by their failing to undergo a mandatory child
safety police check before engaging in child-related activities as part
of their religious vocation, including the public ministry.
Organisational compliance with the law, by the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society, only commenced after the entire
religious and corporate hierarchy of Jehovah’s Witnesses were criminally
charged and prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. Once the
religion started to organisationally comply with mandatory child
protection laws, the Acting Prosecutor formally requested that the
Director of Public Prosecutions take over all 5 criminal cases. This the
Director did on February 21, 2012, and thereupon “discontinued” the
prosecution claiming that to continue the prosecution of the accused was
not in the “public interest.”
The claim that individual Jehovah’s Witnesses are not representatives
of the Watchtower Society in Australia, raises a number of very
important questions – when considered in the light of current teachings
of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses – that literally demand an
answer:
Who really are Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Are representatives and volunteers of Jehovah’s Witnesses also
representatives and volunteers of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
of Australia?
Has the Watch Tower Society misrepresented the facts in order to
deceive lay members of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia;
or, has the Watch Tower Society misrepresented the facts to the
Australian government in order to obtain status as a religious Charity
with Income Tax Exemption?
Who is liable for the religious activities of ministers within the
religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, when they engage in the preaching and
evangelizing work?
In the book Organized To Do Jehovah’s Will (page 26), the
Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses wrote that the legal corporations
they have set up, which includes the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
of Australia, are
“used to facilitate the preaching
of the good news worldwide and to care for the spiritual needs of the
entire congregation of God in all parts of the earth.”
The previously cited official church letter, as publicly read out to
all congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State of Victoria, gives
the impression that “an individual” can do the “witnessing work,” on
their own as part of their “own personal ministry”, without the need to
be a volunteer or representative of an organization.
In explaining that the preaching work of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not just their own personal ministry, The Watchtower magazine, June 1, 1986 on page 25 says
“The apostles and older men
located in Jerusalem constituted a governing body that made decisions
giving unified direction to the early Christian congregations. (Acts
15:1-31; 16:1-5) Today Jehovah’s anointed witnesses, “the faithful and
discreet slave,” have a Governing Body at their headquarters in
Brooklyn, New York. (Matthew 24:45-47) It directs the tremendous
worldwide Kingdom witnessing work now being done throughout the earth in
fulfillment of the order to announce Jehovah’s Kingdom. (Matthew 24:14)
This work could never be done without an organization. An individual
could never do it on his own.”
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses really alone in preaching the Bible’s message to people in their own homes?
The Watch Tower published book Revelation It’s Grand Climax At Hand! (page 205) claims that
“…often angelic guidance has been apparent in bringing one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to a home.”
This teaching is reiterated in the currently used Jehovah’s Witnesses textbook Benefit From Theocratic Ministry School Education (page 272) which also claims that
“…a vital proclamation under
angelic direction would be made ‘to every nation.’ … It is God’s will
that this message be delivered. We have the privilege of sharing in that
work.”
The Watchtower magazine, December 1, 1965 on page 710 says of angels
“Although remaining invisible, the
angels are very active in this separating work, noting the righteously
inclined hearts of sheeplike persons and, as they did in the first
century, directing God’s earthly ministers to them.”
Clearly then, members of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses believe
that angels are engaged by both God and Jesus as part of the preaching
activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It can hardly be claimed that angels
engage in “their own personal ministry”.
According to the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, each minister of
religion, or ‘publisher’, is under divine command to preach. The version
of the Holy Bible, as published by the Watch Tower Society, records the
Apostle Paul as saying
“I solemnly charge you before God
and Christ Jesus … preach the word … do the work of an evangelizer,
fully accomplish your ministry.” – 2 Timothy 4:1-5 (compare Matthew
28:19,20)
The Watchtower magazine of January 1, 2004, (page 11) clearly states that a
“Christian has to share in the preaching work because it is inseparably linked to faith.”
Why is it so important to ascertain who has engaged each minister of
the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses to go out into the community
preaching from door-to-door?
The Victorian Working with Children Act 2005 states
that a “minister of religion” that comes into contact with a child
under the age of 18, as part of their religious vocation, must “have
their suitability checked by a government body.” – section 1(1) and 9(1)
Compliance with this law creates both obligation and liability for a “religious organisation”.
The preaching work of every single adult minister of religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State of Victoria, Australia, brings them
into regular contact with children in the community.
Section 35 of the Working with Children Act 2005 states that it is an
“Offence to engage in child-related work a person who does not have an assessment notice.”
On July 26, 2011, a total of 35 criminal charges were filed, in the
Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, against the following accused – as
forming part of the combined “Committee of Management for the Religion
of Jehovah’s Witnesses” in the State of Victoria, Australia:
Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Faithful and Discreet Slave
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
Each criminal charge was for “engaging” a minister of religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses “in child-related work …knowing that it is
child-related work, and knowing that he does not have a current
Assessment Notice as required under the Working with Children Act 2005.”
All 35 charges were brought under Section 35 of the Working with Children Act 2005.
In the Jehovah’s Witnesses study book, Keep Yourselves In God’s Love (2008)
– as published by the Watch Tower Society and personally signed by the
Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses – it says on page 44
“RESPECT FOR SECULAR AUTHORITY
“True Christian conscientiously
adhere to the principles stated at Romans 13:1-7. As you read over that
passage, you can see that “the superior authorities” mentioned there are
the secular governments. As long as Jehovah allows these human powers
to exist, they perform important functions, maintaining a measure or
order and providing needed services. We show our respect for these authorities by means of our law-abiding conduct. We are careful to pay whatever taxes we owe, to fill out properly any forms or documents that the government may require, and to comply with any laws that involve us.“
One of these forms that the government requires members of the
religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses “to fill out properly”, so as to comply
with the law, is the Working with Children Check Application Guide and Form.
The “Working with Children Check Application Guide and Form”
requires those who apply for an Assessment Notice, which allows them
to work with children, fill out the details of the “Primary
Organisation” they work or volunteer for.
Click on below image to enlarge facsimile copy of “Section E: Details of Organisation/s”
To download an entire pdf sample of the Working with Children Check Application Guide and Form go to
Currently, the ”Committee of Management for the Religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses” is instructing ministers (‘publishers’) of the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses that they are not
“a representative or a volunteer of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia”
and must not include this on their forms.
Is the above statement true?
Are representatives and volunteers of Jehovah’s Witnesses also
representatives and volunteers of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
of Australia?
This would all depend in Australia, on whether Jehovah’s Witnesses
and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia, were
one-and-the-same, that is, that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
of Australia was actually Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Under Australian law, Corporation Act 2001,
every corporation or business entity operating in Australia as a
“public company” must be registered. Upon registration they are issued
with an Australian Company Number (ACN). Tax concessions are available
for religious organisations (institutions and charities) registered as a
company upon meeting strict criteria. Part of that criteria includes
being the holder an Australian Business Number (ABN). Click here to download a pdf extract copy of the current legal status for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia, after applying
to the Australian Tax Office for an ABN, was granted one on April 7,
2000.
ABN: 42 002 861 225
A check on the official Australian government business registrar for
ABN holders reveals that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of
Australia operates and trades in Australia under the trading name
“Jehovah’s Witnesses”
thereby establishing by law that the Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society of Australia and Jehovah’s Witnesses are one and the same.
See below screen shot from the Australian government business registration web site.
Click on below image to enlarge screen shot which
contains the official Australian government “Historical Details” for the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia.
On February 5, 2001, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of
Australia presented a written submission to the Australian Taxation
Office (ATO) entitled Submission to Inquiry into the Definition of Charities and Related Organisations. In this submission, the Watchtower Society argued on page 6 that
“The person or organization who
provides that guidance out of a sense of Christian love is no less a
sharer in the chain of charitable actions than the one who freely
gives.”
Click
here to download a pdf copy of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
of Australia’s submission to the “Inquiry into the Definition of
Charities and Related Organisations
The above statement was in relation to monetary donations received by
an individual ‘publisher’ within the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses while engaged the public ministry. The submission claimed that
such ministry justifies the basis of charity work, of which work
qualifies the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia to hold
and maintain an Income Tax Exemption – of which exemption was issued by
the Australian government some 7 months earlier.
Yet despite the above, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the
Faithful and Discreet Slave, the Watch Tower Society, and the Christian
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, have all denied organisational
liability, as to the preaching activities of individual ministers within
the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, by claiming that such ministry is
their own “personal ministry”.
This now seriously brings into question the qualification of the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia to be the holder of an
Income Tax Exemption, especially as such an exemption was granted
primarily on the basis of what turned out to actually be the “personal
ministry” of private members of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and
not the religious organisation.
Based on the above conclusion, the Australian Senate and the
Australia government, have received a number of formal complaints in
relation to the Income Tax Exemption status of the Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society of Australia.
The taxation and business status of the Watchtower Bible and Tract of
Australia will be reviewed on July 29, 2012, by the Australian
Securities and Investment Commission.
JW NEWS has been provided access to an extensive complaint and
submission, currently being prepared for the purpose of investigating
the ‘charity’ and not-for-profit status of the Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society of Australia. This submission is for lodgement with the
newly formed “Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission”,
which commences jurisdictional investigative activities on October 1,
2012. This submission was prepared following the advice and
recommendation of an Australian Senator, who has also asked to be kept
up to date on the progress of the submission.
The Charities Commission submission addresses key points in the Australian Tax Law Amendment (Public Benefit Test) Bill 2010, and their application to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia.
One key part of the submission is in relation to the monetary
donations that are accepted from the public, by members of the religion
of Jehovah’s Witnesses while they engage in their own “personal
ministry”. If an evangelizing ‘publisher’ of the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses is not recognised as a volunteer of the Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society of Australia, then does the Society have the authority to
claim the public donations that are received by the ‘publisher’?
The Jehovah’s Witnesses newsletter Our Kingdom Ministry,
January 2006, provides the following advice on how to solicit public
donations through the evangelizing and preaching work carried out by
individual members of the religion
Ways to Mention the Donation Arrangement
“If you would like to make a small donation today toward our worldwide work, I will gladly accept it.”
“Although our literature is offered without charge, we do accept modest donations for our worldwide work.”
“You may wonder how we can afford
to do this work. It is because our worldwide work is supported by
voluntary donations. If you wish to make a small donation today, I will
be pleased to accept it.”
The above advice on how to solicit public donations makes very strong
use of the words “our” and “we” in the suggested solicitations,
especially considering that ‘publishers’ of the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses are engaged in their own “personal ministry”. Unclarity
surrounds who the “our” and “we” actually represent.
Another part of the Charities Commission submission deals with a
request for a ruling on “whether ‘publishers’ and evangelists within the
religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses are representatives or volunteers of
the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia, considering that
there is no registered or legal corporation or association known as
Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
It is the understanding of JW NEWS that the Charities Commission
complaint and submission will be closely linked to a similar submission
to the Australian Tax Office, for a review on whether the Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society of Australia still qualifies as a “religious
institution” and for Income Tax Exemption. This is in relation in
relation to the following Income Tax Exemption criteria, namely that
“An institution will be a religious institution if:
its objects and activities reflect its character as a body instituted for the promotion of some religious object, and
the beliefs and practices of the members constitute a religion.”
Do the “beliefs and practices” of the members of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia “constitute a religion”?
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia have maintained
“religious institution” classification by reason that they have informed
the Tax Office that they trade as, and are known as “Jehovah’s
Witnesses”, who promote their religious objective, beliefs and practices
via the public ministry of ‘publishers’. This must be done by the
Society as they in fact are not a religion, and as such cannot have
religious “beliefs and practices” even though the individual corporate
members may hold a personal religious conviction.
If Jehovah’s Witness ‘publishers’ are not volunteers or
representatives of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, then the
Society cannot claim its “religious institution” status as it has no
members engaging in public preaching. The preaching and evangelizing
work is confined to the “personal ministry” of members of the religion
of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Who determines whether the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of
Australia maintains its compliance within the legal taxation parameters
for non-profit organisations? The Australian Tax Office allows a
“religious institution” the ability to annually self-assess itself for
compliance once it is granted Tax Exemption Status.
For the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to maintain its Tax
Exemption Status it must give the impression that it trades and operates
under the trading name “Jehovah’s Witnesses”. This allows them to claim
the “personal ministry” of the lay members of the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses as the public charitable ministry of the Society.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia also holds
“Charity” status. Questions arise as to whether this “charity” status is
lawful and complies with the special requirements for a registered
charity, to be Income Tax Exempt. This is especially worth investigating
in that “the Society” was established for a closed group of individuals
(“anointed ones”") who also comprise the “faithful and discreet slave”,
and is operated, not for the public, but solely for the purpose of
these individuals “commission to preach” of which commission is now
considered a part of each members own “personal ministry”.
If the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia did indeed
lose their Income Tax Exemption then they would be required to pay back
taxes on any profits derived from their activities. Profits can easily
be calculated by comparing the amount of money that they donate each
year. This is currently averaging about Au$4.75 million per year. See
the blow document:
The Australian Taxation Office sets the tax rate for businesses at
around 30%. Going back the previous 12 years this amounts to Au$1.4
million per year (based on the previous years averages) or a potential
tax bill of around Au$15 million dollars. This does not take into
account the current income surplus for the last financial year of Au$4.5
million, of which would amount to an additional tax bill of Au$1.35
million.
During the 2010/2011 financial year the Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society of Australia spent the following on preaching (evangelizing) and
teaching in Australia:
As can be seen from the above, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
of Australia has claimed almost $3.5 million over the past two years
against their Income Tax Exemption Status in relation to “evangelizing”.
Yet, the evangelizing work is only carried out by unpaid volunteer
members of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
It is worth noting that the almost $10 million in “Donations and
Overseas Aid” over the past 2 years, is primarily money tranfers to
non-profit corporations under the umbrella control of the Watch Tower
Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.
Does the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia recognise
members of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses as being their
volunteers?
In 2009 the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia released a
safety policy in relation to building and construction work carried out
on Kingdom Halls of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The 32 booklet, Working Together Safely, in its introduction, contains a 2 page letter which says
And concludes with the following
Click on the below images to enlarge.
Who is liable for the religious activities of ministers of the
religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses when they engage in the preaching and
evangelizing work?
If the “Committee of Management for the Religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses” within Australia is denying liability, or that they engage
‘publishers’ to preach God’s Kingdom, then who then is liable for
engaging them?
According to the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ is
the head of the church and the one who, along with God, engaged the
individual members of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses to preach
about God’s Kingdom by command in the Bible – as interpreted by the
Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In the State of Victoria, Australia, there are well over 10,000
active adult ‘publishers’ and ministers of religion engaged in going out
into the community preaching to, not only men and women, but also to
children.
Between July 2008, when the working with children laws became
compulsory for “religious organisations” in the State of Victoria,
Australia, up to July 2011, when the entire religious and corporate
hierarchy of Jehovah’s Witnesses was criminally charged with offences
under the Working with Children Act 2005, only 70 individual
Jehovah’s Witnesses, out of these 10,000 plus recognised ministers of
religion, took the personal initiative to comply with the law.
By not accepting responsibility in relation to non-compliance with
mandatory child protection laws, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, the Faithful and Discreet Slave, the Watch Tower Society, and
the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses have appeared to put
the blame onto Jesus Christ and Jehovah God.
This is emphasized by what is written by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the book Organized To Do Jehovah’s Will (page 9)
“Jehovah does not let his
organization go in any direction that it might be inclined to go.
Ezekiel 1:20 says: “Wherever the spirit inclined to go, they would go.”
Thus, it is Jehovah who causes his organization to move to wherever his
spirit impels it to move.”
Therefore, according to the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the
holy spirit, under the personal instruction and direction of Jehovah
God, must have failed to comply with mandatory child protection laws.
This would also apply to Jesus Christ who went along with such criminal
lawlessness for over three years from July 2008 onwards.
By the same measure, the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Watch
Tower Society, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the
Faithful and Discreet Slave, are also literally claiming that any elder
who has been appointed or retained as an elder since July 1, 2008, in
the State of Victoria, and who did not already possess a current
“Assessment Notice” (a Working with Children Check) was not their
responsibility but was the responsibility of the holy spirit who
appointed that elder.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses study book Keep Yourselves in God’s Love (page 43) clearly states that
“Elders are appointed by holy spirit.”
The same also applies to Ministerial Servants as pointed out in the Jehovah’s Witnesses text book Organized To Do Jehovah’s Will (page 58), where it clearly states that
“ministerial servants are appointed by holy spirit.”
When members of the religion Jehovah’s Witnesses preach in the
community they claim they are ultimately representatives of God’s
Kingdom and that they are sent from God. The Watchtower magazine, July 15, 1990, confirms this by claiming that
“Jehovah’s Witnesses are sent from God, and they are doing their witnessing work under God’s view.”
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Victoria, AUSTRALIA
On a number of occasions over the past year, the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society have claimed that the
Victorian Working with Children laws (child protection laws) DO NOT apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses nor do they apply within their religious organisation.
The Sunday Herald Sun newspaper reported on April 10, 2011, that Steven Unthank
…quit the religion in late 2009 after waging a long
campaign to persuade the Watch Tower Society, the religion’s
administrative arm, that elders and door-to-door preachers needed to get
police checks before working with children.
Victoria’s Working With Children Act requires ministers of religion
who have regular unsupervised contact with children to apply for
background checks and the Catholic and Anglican churches say all
ministers and volunteer workers routinely apply for such checks.
Although Jehovah’s Witnesses say all members become ordained
ministers at baptism, a spokesman for the Watch Tower Society said
elders or other evangelists were not required to gain a police
clearance.
“We don’t typically work with children, we don’t have Sunday schools, so that law doesn’t apply to us,” the spokesman said. Former Jehovah’s Witness taking on Watch Tower
The Sunday Herald Sun newspaper ran a follow up story on
July 16, 2011, about the stand the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses was
taking in relation to the Working with Children laws. The newspaper
article reported that
The religion’s corporate arm in Australia, the Watch
Tower Society, says it does not believe its ministers need to obtain
background checks to work with children because they do not typically
work unsupervised with children.
“It’s an absolute beat-up,” a spokesman said. “We do what we have to under law.” Door closes on Jehovah’s Witness campaign
On July 26, 2011, a total of 35 criminal charges were successfully
filed in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria by Steven Unthank over the
refusal of Jehovah’s Witnesses to comply with child protection laws.
Steven Unthank then went on to privately prosecute the entire
religious and corporate hierarchy of the church of Jehovah’s Witnesses
on his own. Over a seven month period, from July 2011 to February 2012,
Unthank managed five separate criminal cases over five separate court
hearing dates for each case.
After failing to have the criminal charges dismissed on a number of
occasions, the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower
Society, in October 2011, agreed to comply with child protection laws as
legislated in the Working with Children Act 2005.
All five cases were taken over on February 21, 2012, by the Director
of Public Prosecutions, who then discontinued the prosecution claiming
it was not in the “public interest”.
The Latrobe Valley Express newspaper, February 27, 2012,
while covering the discontinuing of the prosecution of the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses, reported that the Watchtower claimed “unclarity” in
relation to the Working with Children laws. The newspaper, reported
that
the Watchtower Society had been in discussions with the
Department of Public Prosecutions, but would not comment on whether it
was ordered to conform with the legislation, or had voluntarily accepted
it.
The newspaper also reported that
…an audio recording of a letter from the Watchtower
Society, read to a local congregation in late 2011 and heard by The
Express, it was stated door-to-door activities were part of a member’s
“personal ministry”, and ‘publishers’ were not representatives or
volunteers of the Watchtower Society.
However the letter reading went on to state, “nevertheless, an
individual may volunteer to apply (for WWC)”, which Mr Unthank said was
the religion absolving itself of responsibility, and putting the onus on
individuals.
Watchtower Society senior elder Alan Wood, confirmed a letter had
been sent out to Victorian congregations “about November” last year,
informing elders of their requirement to apply for WWC. Private prosecution gets thrown out of court
JW News has obtained an audio copy of the above referred to letter
being read out in the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses by
Elder Chris Thompson.
Traralgon Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Transcript of an audio recording of the public reading of a
letter, issued by the ‘Committee of Management for the Religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses’, over the need to comply with child protection
laws, which became compulsory for “religious organisations” and
“ministers of religion” from July 2008 onward in the State of Victoria,
Australia.
LETTER READER: ELDER CHRIS THOMPSON
LOCATION: TRARALGON KINGDOM HALL OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA
DATE: publicly read out October / November 2011 in all congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State of Victoria, Australia
[TRANSCRIPT]
“… [Introduction missing] … children are protected from harm. We
certainly share their concern for the welfare of children. In Victoria,
laws have been implemented which require persons who have regular and
direct contact with children to have their suitability for such activity
checked by a government authority. This is known as a Working with
Children Check.
“Unlike many religious organisations, congregations of Jehovah’s
Witnesses do not sponsor any activities that separate, or isolate,
children from their parents. For example, we do not organise Sunday
Schools, camps, excursions, religious instructions at schools, or any
other activities for children.
“Nevertheless, an adult publisher may, as part of their own personal
ministry, have regular contact with a minor, that is a person under 18
years of age who is not a family member, such as when conducting a
regular Bible study. Such Bible study activity is part of a publisher’s
personal ministry … I’ll read that again, again … Such Bible study
activity is part of a per[p?] … publisher’s personal ministry and the
publisher is not a representative of the Borg … (whistle) … Sorry, I’ll
start that sentence again. Such Bible study activity is part of a
publisher’s personal ministry and the publisher is not a representative
or a volunteer of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia.
“Nevertheless, the individual publisher may individually be required
by Victorian law to obtain a Working with Children Check. Therefore, if
you think that you need to apply for a Working with Children Check,
because of your spiritual activities, please speak to the coordinator of
the Body of Elders who will provide you with further information.
“It is a pleasure to be working with you in holding high Jehovah’s
great name in these momentous last days. We send you our warm Christian
love and greetings.
“So brothers, the purpose of this letter is to serve as a reminder to
all in the congregation of two facts; first of all, when we share in
our field service we are not serving in the capacity of a volunteer or a
representative of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. However, this is
the second point, if we are in regular contact with a minor, someone
under the age of 18, we may still be required by law to have a Working
with Children Check. Therefore, if we find ourselves meeting that
criteria could you please come and have a talk with myself, as per the
direction in the letter there to speak to the coordinator of the Body of
Elders, and I will provide you with further direction regarding that.
“Thank you for your attention brothers, we’ll hand over to Brother
Van Der Sluis who will be handling our part the ‘Question Box’.”
[END OF LETTER READING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS]
Do Jehovah’s Witness ministers of religion really preach to children within the community and are they instructed to do so?
www.jwnews.net
by Steven Unthank
Not all young children and teenagers who are members of the religion
of Jehovah’s Witnesses are born or raised in the religion, or even have
parents who are members of the faith. Many children, some even as young
as 11, have joined the religion on their own initiative thereby becoming
child converts.
In 2011 the Watch Tower Society formally republished the following
guidelines and instructions to encourage ‘publishers’ and ministers of
religion to seek out potential child converts in their personal
preaching activity within local communities.
Presenting the Good News—‘Being All Things to All People’
What about teenagers?
Do we take time to speak to them?
Or do we always ask for the parents?
Though their parents may not be interested, many youths are.
One fourteen-year-old boy wrote to the Society requesting a visit from one of Jehovah’s witnesses. Among other things, he said:
“After reviewing many of your
publications, I would like to learn more about God’s Word. Realizing
that my religion is part of Babylon the Great, I wish to get out from
her.”
What might you say when a teenager comes to the door?
Possibly something like this:
“Hello, my name is . . . What’s yours? I am encouraging young folks
like you to read about the grand future that the Bible promises for us.”
(Read Revelation 21:4, 5.)
Ask what his thoughts are about this promise, and conclude with the literature offer.
The above was a direct quote from the Our Kingdom Ministry newsletter, currently published in Australia by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia.
What though if a minor, that is a person under 18 years of age, is
forbidden by their parents to associate with the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses or the Watch Tower Society?
In 2011, the Watch Tower Society in their resource reference, Watchtower Library 2011,
published the following guidelines and instructions for ‘publishers’
and ministers or religion on how to handle such a situation
Question:
“If a young person is forbidden by his father (or his mother) to
study the Bible or to associate with Jehovah’s Christian witnesses, is
he obligated to obey in these matters?”
Answer:
“The fact that the Lord Jesus Christ is brought into the matter shows that obedience to parents is not absolute…
“There are times when children are the only ones in a family that
want to learn about God’s Word. They might come to the home of one of
Jehovah’s witnesses and ask Bible questions or even attend meetings at
the Kingdom Hall. If parents demand that their children cease all
association with Jehovah’s witnesses, the children will have to decide
what they are going to do on the basis of what they know to be right. If
parents begin directly supervising every aspect of the activity of
their children and cut them off from all possible association with
Jehovah’s Christian witnesses, this does not prevent youths from
demonstrating their desire to do God’s will by maintaining fine conduct,
studying the Bible on their own and praying that the time may come when
they will be freer to pursue true worship and can continue to seek the
permission of their parents to share more fully in Christian activity.
“On the other hand, though
denying a child’s request to attend Christian meetings or to let a
minister come and study the Bible with him, perhaps the parents do not
exercise any strict supervision. What is the responsibility of Jehovah’s Christian witnesses toward such a child? Jehovah’s
witnesses rightly respect the wishes of parents as to what will be done
in their own home. But this does not mean that Jehovah’s witnesses
cannot answer Bible questions raised by youths who visit them or who
meet them on the street or elsewhere. Jehovah’s witnesses have no
responsibility to turn children away from their Kingdom Halls because
parents may not want them to attend meetings there.”
- w73 11/1 p. 671
The above published instructions by the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses and by the Watch Tower Society clearly and concisely instruct
Jehovah’s Witness ‘publishers’ and ordained ministers to circumvent
parental authority by suggesting to secretly meet such children outside
of the safety of their own homes where their “parents do not exercise
any strict supervision.” This is done for the explicit purpose of making
child converts.
The following is the official record form currently in use by
‘publishers’ and ordained ministers within the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses in maintaining records on, not only men and women, but also on
potential child converts in the state of Victoria. Note the Symbols
listing “C – Child”.
Criminal Prosecution of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
by Steven Unthank
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Victoria, AUSTRALIA
The Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses is legally
recognized in Australia as forming part of the overall ecclesiastical
and administrative authority for members and associates of the religion
of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Watchtower magazine, November 15, 1996, on page 27 states that
“The Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses is an international brotherhood.”
The Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses operates in
Australia as an unincorporated body unlike other countries where they
have chosen to be formally incorporated or registered. For example, in
the United States of America, the Christian congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses is incorporated in the State of New York under section 402 of
the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law. Whereas, in Italy, they go by the
formal name Congregazione Cristiana dei Testimoni di Geova, of which, according to The Watchtower magazine, translates as “Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses”. – see w02 1/15 p. 32
On July 26, 2011, a total of 7 criminal charges were officially filed
in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Australia, against the CHRISTIAN
CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES in relation to ongoing breaches of
the Victorian Working with Children Act 2005 as it applies to “religious organisations”.
Each of the 7 charges carried a fine of Au$144,000 and up to 2 years
imprisonment for each individual member of the committee of management
for the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses “who knew of, or
knowingly authorised or permitted, the commission of the offence” or
offences.
All 7 charges were in relation to allegations of unlawful activities carried out against children within the Traralgon Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses by the entire Body of Elders within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
A total of 5 separate legal entities were criminally charged over
breaches of child protection laws as legislated in the Victorian Working with Children Act 2005. Those legal entities charged were
Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses (7 charges)
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (7 charges)
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia (7 charges)
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (7 charges)
Faithful and Discreet Slave (7 charges)
The Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses were summoned to
appear in Court on September 13, 2011, to face their criminal charges.
They refused to appear when summoned and failed to be represented by
legal counsel. In addition they also refused to appear in Court or to be
represented by legal counsel on 4 subsequent court hearings conducted
in their absence over the next 5 months. On February 21, 2012, the
Director of Public Prosecutions, after formally taking over the case
from the current Acting Prosecutor, Mr Steven Unthank, “discontinued”
the criminal case after claiming that the ongoing criminal prosecution
of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, over breaches of
mandatory child protection laws, was not in the “public interest”.
The “Charge-Sheet And Summons” for the Christian Congregation of
Jehovah’s Witnesses was served on Vincent Joseph Toole, legal counsel
and senior elder for the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses,
and recognized officer “who is concerned or takes part in the management
of” the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia.
Documents and evidence pertaining to the criminal prosecution of the
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses also identified Vincent
Joseph Toole as part of the committee of management and also as a
“member of the committee of management of the body or association who
knew of, or knowingly authorised or permitted, the commission of the
offence” or offences against the Working with Children Act 2005.
During the Magistrates’ Court hearing on October 11, 2011, the second
round of hearings, a former member of the Christian Congregation of
Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia attended the hearing and later compiled
a report on the hearing. JW News was recently granted copyright
ownership of this report, which, apart from discussing courtroom
arguments in relation to the “Faithful and Discreet Slave”, the report
also discussed brief arguments relating to the Christian Congregation of
Jehovah’s Witnesses presented by legal counsel for the Watchtower
Society and not by legal counsel for the Christian Congregation of
Jehovah’s Witnesses as they failed to appear or be represented.
Note: the below report is published verbatim and contains only one
comment by JW News in brackets [ ] in relation to court listing dates.
Abbreviations have been spelled out according to the original report.
Example “WTS” becomes Watchtower Society. The endnote has been added to
clarify a statement made by the presiding Magistrate in relation to the
criminal charging of each member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s
Witnesses.
Victoria, Australia: Report for October 11, 2011, Criminal Court
Hearing Involving the Prosecution of the Committee of Management for the
Religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses
I had no plans to turn up to the court hearing as an observer, as in
my experience, it can take several hearings and a number of months
before any court case gets rolling. This usually involves a transfer to
the County Court or the Supreme Court for a trial unless the defendant
pleads “guilty.”
Everything changed upon learning that the Watchtower Society (WTS)
had instructed elders and others in the congregations to comply with the
working with children laws and to actually obtain their working with
children cards. Getting the Watchtower Society to comply with the laws
after three years of refusing to comply was quite an achievement for
Steven Unthank. With this development who would not want to sit in on
the next court hearing and witness the defense tactics the Watchtower
Society and their legal team launched to get themselves out of the
potential crisis they got themselves into.
And launch they did. In a short space of 90 minutes, the Watchtower
Society completely destroyed the entire fabric and structure of the
faith of some 7 million Jehovah’s Witnesses for nothing more than
self-preservation. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your view,
most Jehovah’s Witnesses will never find out.
Before compiling this report I took the opportunity to read through Steven Unthank’s web site www.jwnews.net for
the purpose of clarifying a few case point overviews and I recommend
this to others. For anyone interested in court numbers and proof of
court hearings, the Daily Court Listings can be found on the
Magistrates’ Court of Victoria web site for November 8th.
[Note Magistrate Court listings are only published prior to the date of the hearings.]
My opinions and observations
The best way to comprehend what is going on, from a courtroom
perspective, is that the court hearings at the moment are
administrative, which in very simplistic terms means ‘the shuffling of
paperwork’ and ‘the jostling for position’ along with some short case
arguments or presentations to the magistrate.
During the court hearing on October 11th, the Director of
Public Prosecutions and the Office of Public Prosecutions (referred to
as the Crown) indicated to the court that they intend to take over all
five cases. As to why they have not done so previously is anyone’s
guess. In my opinion I would not be surprised if all five cases have
been sort of co-prosecuted and case managed by the Crown and by Steven
Unthank working together in a de facto relationship, with Steven Unthank
acting in the capacity as acting prosecutor and the Crown as legal
adviser. Such an arrangement would be advantageous to the overall
prosecution of the cases for two very specific reasons:-
1. Steven Unthank would not have a working knowledge of the criminal justice system; and
2. the Crown would not have a working
knowledge of the Watchtower Society’s corporate religious system and its
relationship to Jehovah’s Witnesses and each of the defendants.
Many of us, including myself, may have greatly underestimated Steven
Unthank’s ability or understanding of the court process, the structure
of the Watch Tower Society, its relationship with the Jehovah’s
Witnesses, and what was needed to launch a criminal prosecution. It has
been a long running joke about having the “faithful and discreet slave”
charged. But consider this. Everything that happens within the
Watchtower Society and within the Jehovah’s Witnesses is attributed to
the entity and class of individuals known within the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses as the “faithful and discreet slave.”
According to the Watchtower teachings, the authority of the elder
arrangement, their governing body, the branch committees, and also the
authority of the lawyers within the congregation and organization, comes
from the “faithful and discreet slave.” If these elders, governing body
members, branch committee members, and lawyers made a mistake over the
Working with Children laws then the fault may also lie with the person
or legal entity that employs their services, be they corporate services,
legal services or religious services. For a criminal trial this has to
be explored by the prosecution.
The charging of the “faithful and discreet slave” as a religious body
now has the ability to publicly expose the quasi-legal religious
relationship they have with the Watch Tower Society and its legal
department. The Watch Tower Society would no doubt never want this to be
publicly exposed and therefore must take action to keep this hidden
from scrutiny at all costs. It is irrelevant as to whether any observers
believe in the “faithful and discreet slave” or not. It is real to
Jehovah’s Witnesses and is the entire religious heart of their belief
structure.
To understand the court arguments we first need to establish whether
the “faithful and discreet slave” exists under Victorian law. “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?”
What we do know is that the “faithful and discreet slave” (FDS) have
been criminally charged and are being prosecuted as “corporate accused.”
We also know that there are seven charges on their “Charge-Sheet and
Summons (Corporate Accused)” in relation to the Working with Children Act 2005.
We do not know what the charges are as these have not yet been read out
in court. This will happen in time, but until then it is anyone’s
guess. In all reality the charge wordings are irrelevant.
Under Victorian law a “corporate accused” can legally be an
incorporated entity (a registered company), an association, or an
unincorporated body. The “faithful and discreet slave” is not an
incorporated entity (a registered company) and is not an association (no
articles of association) so therefore the charge sheet or sheets must
list it as an “unincorporated body.”
According to the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, as written in the book “Organized To Do Jehovah’s Will”
on page 16, the “faithful and discreet slave” are a “body” which Christ
uses “to publish information on the fulfillment of Bible prophecies and
to give timely direction on the application of Bible principles in
daily life.” Therefore, the “faithful and discreet slave”, by their own
written admission, are a “body” of individual persons. As they are not
incorporated this makes the “faithful and discreet slave” an
unincorporated body similar to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s
Witnesses.
The Working with Children Act 2005 says that a person includes
“an unincorporated body or association and a partnership.” Therefore,
the phrase “person” can also legally be applied to an unincorporated
body. This then makes the “faithful and discreet slave” a legal entity
under Victorian law, a “person” who operates as an unincorporated body.
The Working with Children Act 2005 says that “If this Act
provides that a person, being an unincorporated body or an association
or a partnership, is guilty of an offence, that reference to the person
must–(a) in the case of an unincorporated body or association–be read as
a reference to each member of the committee of management of the body
or association who knew of, or knowingly authorized or permitted, the
commission of the offence.”
To simplify, the Working with Children laws recognize unincorporated
bodies as a legal entity by granting them legal status as a “person”
under law. This was legislated so that there were no loopholes in the
law that allowed or permitted anyone, or any group of people, religious
or otherwise, from not complying with the Working with Children laws. In
the event that a criminal offence is committed by the unincorporated
body then the offence is deemed to have been committed by each member of
the committee of management of the body.
This understanding is important in that it shows that the “faithful
and discreet slave” have been granted legal recognition under Victorian
law as a body that does indeed exist as a legal entity. Why is this
important?
During the court hearing on October 11, legal counsel for the
Watchtower Society, Rachel van Witsen, from Vincent Toole Solicitors
(the Watchtower Society’s in-house law firm located inside Bethel,
Australia) made a statement on behalf of the Watchtower Society that:-
“The faithful and discreet slave is not a legal entity.”
Vincent Toole Solicitors then went on to present arguments that the
“faithful and discreet slave” do not exist as a “person” nor do they
exist as an “unincorporated body” and nor do they exist as a “body” of
Christians.
Literally Vincent Toole Solicitors were arguing that the “faithful
and discreet slave” should be struck off the charge list because they
simply do not exist. In one broad sweeping statement the Watchtower
Society and their in-house legal team completely destroyed the entire
fabric and structure of the faith of some 7 million Jehovah’s
Witnesses. What next happened goes beyond the wildest imaginings that
any Jehovah’s Witness could ever believe was possible.
Steven Unthank stood up, looked around the courtroom, and then
actually defended the “faithful and discreet slave” and the beliefs and
doctrinal teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses. No one else came to the
defense of the “faithful and discreet slave”. Steven Unthank, as the
current acting prosecutor, was the only person who defended them.
Unthank then presented argument that the “faithful and discreet slave”
was real and was that body of Jehovah’s Witness Christians that had
religious responsibility over the entire Christian congregation.
The Watchtower Society and Vincent Toole Solicitors then presented
rebuttal argument that the “faithful and discreet slave” did not exist
but were nothing more than a:-
“theological arrangement”
A massive gasp could be heard emanating from the gallery from amongst
a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses who had attended to watch the hearing.
It is worth noting that Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught that to deny the
“faithful and discreet slave” is to deny the Christ and that those who
deny the Christ are the antichrist.
The Watchtower Society and Vincent Toole Solicitors then turned on
the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and denied that they
existed or operated within Victoria and Australia. The magistrate did
not accept this argument and, after seeking approval from Steven
Unthank, adjourned all the court hearings for four weeks.
Simply put, the Watchtower Society and Vincent Toole Solicitors
denied the existence of the “faithful and discreet slave” and denied the
existence of the Christian congregation arrangement. What is also
interesting in the entire court case to date is that it was the
Watchtower Society and their in-house lawyers that brought theology and
religion into the court room.
It is possible that sometime in the future there could be a very
serious courtroom hearing in which the whole existence of the “faithful
and discreet slave” is argued but not in the way any Jehovah’s Witness
could imagine. Unless the Watch Tower Society backs down, or the
Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses step in and defend their faith,
then we could see Steven Unthank actually defending the existence of the
“faithful and discreet slave” and the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses in
open public court while the Watch Tower Society and their lawyers, with
the backing of the Governing Body, deny the existence of the “faithful
and discreet slave” and maybe even the Christian congregation. And if
such a courtroom drama ever unfolds, then at any given time Steven
Unthank could back down and the “faithful and discreet slave” become no
more than a never existing group of imaginary Christians who are really
nothing more than a convenient “theological arrangement” whom Jehovah’s
Witnesses mistakenly believe exist and are their spiritual leaders who
care about them.
The only party not represented was the Governing Body of Jehovah’s
Witnesses. This is logical from a self-preserving religious point of
view, as to defend the charges would be to acknowledge each single
charge as being a “valid charge of improper conduct.” This would then
disqualify each member from being an elder until the case was sorted
out.
This failure on the part of the Governing Body to appear or to be
represented was noticed by the Magistrate who took the unusual step of
suggesting and recommending to Steven Unthank that criminal charges be
brought against every single member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s
Witnesses as opposed to the unincorporated body known as the Governing
Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The only thing that may actually prevent
this from really happening is that Steven Unthank lacks the financial
resources. Good thing the Crown stated in court its intention to take
over the prosecution.
END OF REPORT Footnote by JW News
The suggestion of the presiding Magistrate, as described in the last
paragraph of the above report, was in relation to the failure of the
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses to answer the Court
Ordered Summons to appear before the Court. The Magistrate was of the
opinion that the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses could
also be described as an “association” and therefore made the
recommendation that the 7 criminal charges be placed in the names of
each officer or ”member of the committee of management of the body or
association who knew of, or knowingly authorised or permitted, the
commission of the offence” or offences. This provision is allowed under
section 45(1) of the Working with Children Act 2005. The
individual members comprising the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses
also comprise part of the committee of management for the Christian
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. As none of the officers or members
of the committee of management for the Christian Congregation of
Jehovah’s Witnesses answered the summons to appear in Court, and, as
such, had thereby established a documented court record of failing to
answer a Court Summons, a “Charge-Sheet And Warrant To Arrest” could be
issued in relation to individual charging.
“Charge-Sheet And Warrant To Arrest” documents were prepared for the
below listed individuals who were identified as being officers or
members of ”the committee of management of the body or association who
knew of, or knowingly authorised or permitted, the commission of the
offence” or offences:
Geoffrey Jackson - current member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Samuel Herd - current member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Gerrit Losch - current member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
M. Stephen Lett - current member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
David H. Splane - current member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Anthony Morris - current member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Guy H. Pierce - current member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Donald H. MacLean - director of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia and elder.
Harold Vivian Mouritz - director of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia and elder.
Vincent Joseph Toole -
legal officer for Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia, legal
counsel for the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in
Australia, and elder.
A number of other individuals were also identified as comprising part
of the officers or members of the committee of management for the
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia, however, a
“Charge-Sheet And Warrant To Arrest” were not filled out or presented to
the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Australia, in relation to them.
To download the above 32 page volume click on the below link
Next weekend’s feature article will discuss and consider
the criminal prosecution of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses in
the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Australia.
Part of a series of regular articles, opinions, and
comments, written or compiled by Steven Unthank and others, to be
published online at JW News every weekend.
by Steven Unthank
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Victoria, AUSTRALIA Originally published October 20, 2011.
I have been asked on several occasions recently if I believe in the
“faithful and discreet slave” and whether I believe they exist as a body
or group.
It is not important what I personally believe on this subject. What is important is what the children believe.
Do the children within the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in
the “faithful and discreet slave” and that they are real? Do the
children believe that the “faithful and discreet slave” represents God’s
Kingdom? Do the children believe that the “faithful and discreet slave”
personally represent Jesus Christ? Do the children believe that the
“faithful and discreet slave” loves them? Do the children believe that
the “faithful and discreet slave” will protect them? Do the children
believe that the “faithful and discreet slave” would punish those in the
congregation who break the law or sin against them?
If the children within the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses believe this, then who are we to say the children are wrong.
Children also believe that those who truly love them and truly care for them, will truly stand up to protect them.
That’s why I’m standing up. I may not get far, I may not be able to
protect these children in the best possible way, but I can stand up and I
am standing up. That’s the best I can do.
As to why the “faithful and discreet slave” has not stood up to
protect the children and the families of Jehovah’s Witnesses, or to even
punished those who broke the law or did wrong to the children, I cannot
answer. I also cannot answer as to why, when asked in writing to
represent these children over the working with children laws, the
“faithful and discreet slave” declined.
But what I can answer, is, that if the children believe in the
“faithful and discreet slave” and that they really exist, then I will
defend what the children believe in as well, even in open court.
To download the above volume click on the below link
Next
weekend’s feature article will discuss and consider the criminal
prosecution of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the
Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Australia.
Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry Report comments on the Religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses
JW NEWS www.jwnews.net
February 29, 2012
Victoria, AUSTRALIA
On January, 31, 2011, Premier Ted Baillieu launched the inquiry Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children to
comprehensively investigate systemic problems in Victoria’s child
protection system and make recommendations to strengthen and improve the
protection and support of vulnerable young Victorians.
In announcing the inquiry, Premier Baillieu said
Thousands of vulnerable, at-risk children were neglected
by the previous Labor Government and its legacy is a child protection
system in crisis.
We have a duty of care to protect our most vulnerable – to ensure
they are safe from harm – and we are establishing this inquiry to
identify the system’s weaknesses and provide practical recommendations
to develop a strong support system for those in need.
On June 8, 2011, the inquiry publicly heard evidence submitted by Mr
Steven Unthank against the Religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch
Tower Society over their refusal to comply with mandatory child
protection laws, such as the Working with Children Act 2005.
In commenting on the religion’s refusal to comply with child
protection laws, the Chair of the Inquiry, the Honourable Philip
Cummins, said
Every individual and every organisation, religious or otherwise, has to comply with the law.
The above statement by the Honourable Philip
Cummins was reflected in a number of recommendations made within the
final report tabled with the Parliament of Victoria on Monday, February
27, 2012.
Among the 90 recommendations made in the 900 page Cummins Report into the Protection of Vulnerable Children were
47. The Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) should be amended
to create a separate reporting duty where there is a reasonable
suspicion a child or young person who is under 18 is being, or has been,
physically or sexually abused by an individual within a religious or
spiritual organisation. The duty should extend to:
A minister of religion; and
A person who holds an office within, is employed by, is a member of,
or volunteer of a religious or spiritual organisation that provides
services to, or has regular contact with, children and young people.
An exemption for information received during the rite of confession should be made.
A failure to report should attract a suitable penalty having regard to section 326 of the Crimes Act 1958 and section 493 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005.
48. A formal investigation should be conducted into the processes by
which religious organisations respond to the criminal abuse of children
by religious personnel within their organisations. Such an investigation
should possess the powers to compel the elicitation of witness evidence
and of documentary and electronic evidence.
If recommendation 47 is implemented by the State, this would mean
that every single minister of religion within the Religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses in the State of Victoria would be required by law to report
all cases of child abuse within the religion to the governmental
authorities and NOT to the local Body of Elders or the religion’s
administrative arm, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia.
The Cummins Report also advised, in number 48 of it’s list of
recommendations, that religions be investigated as to how they respond
to the “criminal abuse of children” by religious personnel. The phrase
“criminal abuse” is more than just physical or sexual abuse, it
encompasses all aspects of abuse against children that is criminal and
includes criminal breaches of the Working with Children Act 2005.
On July 26, 2011, the entire worldwide religious and corporate
hierarchy of the church of Jehovah’s Witnesses were formally charged in
the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Australia, with the mass committing
of criminal offences against children. The criminal charges were brought
about after the Religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to respond to
complaints made within the church format by members of the religion in
relation to the criminal abuse of children committed by the entire
Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and members of the Branch
Committee of the Australian headquarters of the Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society.
A submission is currently being prepared by Mr Steven Unthank in
relation to how the Religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society of Australia “respond to the criminal abuse of
children by religious personnel within their organisations.”
See the following related JW News articles for background information
Highlights and Recommendations of the Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry Report
The report, in the “List of Findings and Matters for Attention”, drew clear attention to the following
The Working with Children Act 2005 clearly applies to persons in religious organisations.”
The Cummins Report made no assertion or claim that any aspect of the Working with Children Act 2005, suffered from unclarity as it applied to “ministers of religion” and “religious organisations”.
This qualified finding is at direct odds with a recent claim by
Jehovah’s Witness and Watchtower Society senior elder, Mr Alan Wood,
who, in a published interview in the Latrobe Valley Express newspaper,
claimed that “unclarity” surrounded the Working with Children Act 2005 -
and any mandatory child protection criteria – and that this
“unclarity” was to blame for the past 3 years and 6 months of
non-compliance with mandatory child protection laws by the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses in every single church in the State of Victoria.
It is worth noting that over 820,000 individuals and organisations
within the State of Victoria have complied with the Working with
Children laws thereby debunking any claim of “unclarity” in the
application of these laws.
In response to Mr Alan Wood’s baffling excuse for the Religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses in relation to their absolute non-compliance with
the law – until they were actually criminally charged – a parent within
the Religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses told JW News
What part of the Working with Children
legislation was unclear in that [the] entire religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses failed to comply with these laws? Was it the part that said
“minister of religion” or the part that said “religious organisation” or
maybe it was the part that said “protecting children” that the entire
religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t understand? Unclarity, is that
even a word in the Bible? Those who broke these laws need to be held
accountable, both by [the] Church and by the State. The Governing Body
of Jehovah’s Witnesses needs to apologize to the children, the parents,
the community, the religion, the State, and then they must step down as
religious leaders.
The Cummins Report on the Working with Children Act 2005
Volume 2, chapter 3, pages 66 and 69, of the Cummins Report provides the following overview of the Working with Children Act 2005
The WWC Act regulates how the government determines who
is suitable to work with or care for children and young people. People
who work with children on a regular basis must apply for a Working with
Children check and employers, volunteer organisations and employment
agencies must not engage anyone in child-related work without a current
‘positive notice’ or Working with Children Check Card.
Section 9 of the Act defines child-related work to include volunteer
work and practical training and lists various services, bodies and
activities including clubs, associations or movements, and religious
organisations.
The Victorian Department of Justice is responsible for conducting
assessments and issuing a Working with Children Check Card. Section 39A
of the WWC Act prohibits registered sex offenders from applying for an
assessment. The Act creates various offences if a person works with
children without a Working with Children Check Card. The application of
this Act in the context of religious and volunteer organisations
involving children is discussed further in Chapter 14.
For comprehensive information on the Working with Children Act 2005 and the Working with Children laws see
Chapter 14 ”Strengthening the law protecting children and young
people” of the Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry report
CYF Act = Children, Youth and Families Act 2005
DOJ = Department of Justice
WWC Act = Working with Children Act 2005
Note: Compliance with the Working with Children Act 2005 became compulsory for “ministers or religion” and “religious organisations” from July 1, 2008, onwards.
[EXTRACTED VERBATIM FROM THE CUMMINS REPORT] 14.5 Protecting children from abuse within religious organisations
The community is all too aware of the numerous cases of child abuse
that have occurred within religious organisations or associations and
the severe trauma caused by sustained and unreported episodes of abuse
inflicted by ministers of religion and other trusted religious leaders.
Churches and religious organisations have traditionally included the
provision of many child-related services and activities. Public
commentary on past incidents of child abuse within such organisations
and the perceived inadequacies with organisational responses is frequent
and often damning.
Section 14.4.7 has dealt with the issue of whether the mandatory
reporting requirements of the CYF Act should be extended to religious
personnel. The two further matters that the Inquiry has considered in
the specific context of whether the current legal framework adequately
protects vulnerable children within or who are in contact with religious
organisations are:
The application of the WWC Act to religious personnel; and
Whether reports alleging child abuse are dealt with internally by
religious organisations as opposed to being reported to the secular
authorities.
Part of a series of regular articles, opinions, and
comments, written or compiled by Steven Unthank and others, to be
published online at JW News every weekend.
by Steven Unthank
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Victoria, AUSTRALIA
This bearing witness can be a form of testifying under oath or in
writing on behalf of someone who has, or may have been wronged, and
therefore by necessity requires potential witnesses or representation to
help the one wronged to get justice or to clear his or her name. Any
witnesses of the wrong would know who has suffered an injustice and
would have a responsibility to come forward to establish their
innocence, and identify the guilty if known, otherwise they themself
must pay the penalty.
In the volume set, Commentary on the Old Testament by Keil
& Delitzsch, the authors point out that, from a Biblical point of
view, an individual can become guilty of someone else’s sin if they
“knew of another’s crime, whether he had seen it, or had
come to the certain knowledge of it in any other way, and was therefore
qualified to appear in court as a witness for the conviction of the
criminal, neglected to do so, and did not state what he had seen or
learned, when he heard the solemn adjuration of the judge at the public
investigation of the crime, by which all persons present, who knew
anything of the matter, were urged to come forward as witnesses.”
Is such a claim valid? Consider the Scriptural principle of Leviticus chapter 5 and verse 1 in the light of the following…
Not one single person in the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses
voluntarily came forward to bear witness on behalf of the children and
their families to get justice in the recent criminal court cases before
the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, over criminal breaches of the
Victorian Working with Children Act 2005. The religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses remained silent.
Likewise, not one single person in the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses came forward to bear witness on behalf of the Governing Body
of Jehovah’s Witnesses nor on behalf of the “faithful and discreet
slave” for the purpose of clearing their name or establishing their
innocence. The religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses again remained silent.
Either way, the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses neither came forward
to establish guilt nor to establish innocence. They simply remained
silent.
Silence does not absolve an individual of liability nor of being a
sharer in the sins, or crimes, of others. Non-compliance with the
Working with Children laws is not only a crime, but also the sin of
lawlessness.
Sharing in the Sins of Others
But suppose we realize that a suggested course of action is wrong?
Does our rejecting it necessarily free us of further responsibility in
the matter? If we know that those suggesting wrongdoing are engaging in
it, what should we do?
Some who have knowledge of wrongdoing by others may be inclined to
say nothing about it to those having the prime responsibility to keep
the congregation clean. Why? Perhaps they do not want to be viewed as
informers. Or, because of a false sense of loyalty, they may keep the
matter quiet or may speak only to those who promise to keep it secret.
This is very serious. Why? Because it can actually result in sharing in
the sins of others.
. . . In today’s world, covering over the wrongdoing of others is a
general practice. Many are as mute as a stone wall when it comes to
revealing the wrongdoing of others to those who should know about such
actions. It requires strength of Christian personality to inform
appointed elders of the serious sin of a fellow believer. But if we are
to have Jehovah’s favor, we must not let personal friendship blind us to
the wrongdoing of another individual. Our relationship with God is of
far greater importance than loyalty to a friend who is guilty of serious
wrongdoing and refuses to reveal the matter.
- The Watchtower magazine, November 15, 1985, pages 19 and 21.
The Watch Tower Society claims that the elders within the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses in Victoria, Australia, do not work with children
and as such have no responsibility towards young ones by complying with
child protection laws. All bodies of elders within the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State of Victoria went on record late last
year, and claimed – by publicly reading out a letter within their
Kingdom Hall – that they, as elders, have no “direct contact” with
children, even going so far as citing the Working with Children Act 2005.
The Working with Children Act 2005 defines “direct contact” for a “minister of religion” as:
any contact between a person and a child that involves–
(a) physical contact; or
(b) face to face oral communication; or
(c) physically being within eyeshot.”
It is irrelevant if a parent or guardian, or even another adult is present. The Working with Children Check Application Guide and Form,
on page 2, explains that “being within eyeshot” simply means that “you
can see them” while carrying out your assigned duties (which includes
any internal ministry) within the “religious organisation” you volunteer
or work in. That is why the Working with Children Act 2005 stated
that the assigned duties for “ministers of religion” include, by
default, working with children. Simply put, the law states that if there
is so much as one child within your “religious organisation” then any
“minister of religion” works with children by default and must comply
with child protection laws, which for “religious organisations” became
compulsory on July 1, 2008.
”Although child training is primarily the duty of
parents, elders also have a responsibility toward young ones in the
congregation. In caring for God’s flock, overseers also need to shepherd
the lambs. (1 Peter 5:1-3) What a fine example Jehovah has set in
tenderly caring for even the little ones! (Isaiah 40:11) Responding to
his example, Christian undershepherds will also want to display warm,
loving interest in young people and make them feel a part of the
congregation.”
- The Watchtower magazine, May 15, 1990, page 29.
Jesus is recorded in the Scriptures as saying
“Whoever receives one such young
child on the basis of my name receives me also. But whoever stumbles one
of these little ones who put faith in me, it is more beneficial for him
to have hung around his neck a millstone such as is turned by an ass
and to be sunk in the wide, open sea . . . See to it that you men do not
despise one of these little ones; for I tell YOU that their angels in
heaven always behold the face of my father who is in heaven.”
– The Holy Bible, Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18 and verses 6 and 10, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Would Jesus work with children?
Background reading on Leviticus 5:1 — w87 9/1 p. 13 “A Time to Speak”—When?
Criminal Prosecution of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, et al. – Court Results – February 21, 2012
JW NEWS www.jwnews.net
Suffer Little Children – Forbid Them Not
by Steven Unthank
February 21, 2012
Victoria, AUSTRALIA
I went to court today to defend and protect the children within the
religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. All I carried in my hand were two
books, the Holy Bible and a copy of the Working with Children Act 2005.
These I placed on the bar table as I took my seat before the
Magistrate. There was nothing else I could do. The prosecuting of these 5
separate criminal cases and 35 individual charges had been taken off
me.
I left court today after having failed to defend and protect the
children within the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I carried in my
hand only one book.
I apologize to the children for failing to defend them and for
failing to protect them. Please forgive me. I tried my best, God knows I
tried my best.
Steven Unthank
former Acting Prosecutor
.
The Sun To Make You Happy
Today, tomorrow, and for all eternity the sun will rise every day upon the good and upon the bad. It shows no partiality.
Today, tomorrow, and for the rest of our lives the sun will rise
every day and shine upon you and shine upon me. It is my prayer that
maybe the sun will make you happy. It has brought me great joy in my
life.
The above painting “the sun to make you happy” was personally drawn
by a young child in the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
who was recently raped by a fellow member of the church. Part of her
rape included the insertion of Lego blocks into her vagina. This
innocent child then went on to be criminally abused yet again, only this
time by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and by the Watch
Tower Society and by the Body of Elders within the Traralgon
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, when they refused to comply with
mandatory child protection laws for “religious organisations” and for
“ministers of religion” as legislated in the Working with Children Act 2005.
Following the rapes and abuse the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses
turned it’s back on this child and her family, as well as the other
abused children, and then actively hindered, opposed and condemned any
execution of justice by aiding and shielding the lawbreakers.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr John Champion SC, after
consultation with the Chief Commissioner of Police, Mr Ken Lay, declared
in court today that the prosecution of those who abused this child, and
other children within the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, “is not in the public interest”.
Thereupon the Director of Public Prosecutions discontinued the
prosecution. The Magistrate declared in Court that he was powerless to
prevent it. The police and the State refused to protect these children
and to grant them equal protection of the law.
“Only persons have human rights . . . Corporations do not
have human rights . . . Every person is equal before the law and is
entitled to the equal protection of the law . . . Families are the
fundamental group unit of society and are entitled to be protected by
society and the State . . . Every child has the right, without
discrimination, to such protection as is in his or her best interests
and is needed by him or her by reason of being a child.” – Victorian Charter of Human Rights.
“The main purpose of this Act is to assist in protecting
children from sexual or physical harm by ensuring that people who work
with, or care for, them have their suitability to do so checked by a
government body.” – Section 1(1) Working with Children Act 2005, Victoria, Australia.
“It is encouraging to know that child abuse is now
acknowledged as a worldwide problem . . . some countries . . . are even
setting up a register of known pedophiles, restricting their easy access
to children. Then there are those who seek a better life for children
by passing legislation to protect them . . . While we all no doubt
applaud such efforts to rid society of child abuse, we must be realistic
and acknowledge that child abuse has very deep roots in human society.
It would be naive to think that a simple solution such as legislation
will provide complete protection for our children. Many laws have
already been passed, and yet the problem persists. It is really an
indictment of the world’s delinquent adults that the natural right to
childhood has to be protected by a vast array of laws. Laws are not the
ultimate protection for children . . . governments, pushed to the limits
by economic constraints, are not doing enough to stop the exploitation
of their children . . . Think of the heartbreak of parents who have
discovered, too late, that their children have been abused by trusted
clergymen, teachers, or even close family members. It would be good for
you as a parent to ask yourself, ‘Does my church tolerate or cover up
child abuse? Is my religion holding firmly to high moral principles?’
Answers to such questions could help you to make wise choices in
protecting your children.” - Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Awake! magazine, April 8, 1999.
“The law is paralysed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.” – The Holy Bible, Habakkuk 1:4, New International Version.
Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses to Escape Judgement for Crimes Against the Children!
Today, Monday, 20 February, 2012, I was formally notified in writing
by letter that, Mr John Champion SC, the Director of Public Prosecutions
(the Crown), intends to exercise his power to take over all 5 criminal
prosecution cases…
“for the purpose of discontinuing them.”
One of the 2 reasons given was that, in the opinion of the Director
of Public Prosecutions, the prosecution of the Governing Body of
Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Watch Tower Society, and others, over criminal
breaches of mandatory child protection laws was…
“not in the public interest.”
At 2.00 pm today I emailed a letter to the Director of Public
Prosecution in response to his written letter. My entire letter, which,
due to time constraints, was compiled in under an hour, appears as
follows…
[Please note: all the alleged rapes and
child abuse allegations mentioned in the following letter have been
reported by myself and also by Latrobe Regional Hospital to Victoria
Police. For reasons unexplained all investigations are currently on
hold.]
- page 1 -
20 February 2012
[John Champion SC]
Director of Public Prosecutions
565 Lonsdale Street
Melbourne
Victoria 3000
By email: director@opp.vic.gov.au
Dear Sir,
Re: Private Criminal Prosecution by Steven Unthank
Corporate Accused: GOVERNING BODY OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
Case No.: B12083527
Corporate Accused: FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE
Case No.: B12083367
Corporate Accused: CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
Case No.: B12083108
Corporate Accused: WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
Case No.: B12083833
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA
Case No.: B12082206
This letter is to acknowledge receipt today of your letter dated 17
February 2012 (Your Ref: 2011-00944) and your written notification that
“should the charges in respect of the five accused remain on foot as of
Tuesday 21st February” then you will exercise your power under section
22(1)(b)(ii) of the Public Prosecutions Act 1994 (Vic) to “take over the
prosecutions for the purpose of discontinuing them.”
The right of a private individual to institute a prosecution for a
breach of the law has been said to be “a valuable constitutional
safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of authority” (per
Lord Wilberforce in Gouriet –v- Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435 at 477).
The action taken by myself in bringing criminal charges against the
above corporate accused was initiated in December 2010 when I made
personal application to the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. This course
of action taken by myself on behalf of the community followed 2 years
and 6 months of “inertia” by Victoria Police, the Child Safety
Commissioner, the Department of Justice, and the State Government of
Victoria.
In June 2011 I was granted permission to bring private criminal
charges against the above corporate accused in relation to breaches of
the Working with Children Act 2005 section 35(1)(a)(b)(c). The
“Charge-Sheet And Summons (Corporate Accused)” for each of the above
corporate accused was filed in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria on 26
July 2011. The filing fees were paid for by a number
- page 2 -
of children within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
It was actually these young children who engaged my services for the
purpose of protecting themselves from those who hold little or no regard
in assisting in protecting these children “from sexual or physical harm
by ensuring that people who work with, or care for, them have their
suitability to do so checked by a government body.” Working with Children Act 2005 section 1(1).
Among the group of children who engaged my services and paid for the
filing fees from their pocket money including 2 young Jehovah’s Witness
children from the Traralgon Congregation who had been raped by a fellow
member of the religion. Recently the Latrobe Regional Hospital called in
Victoria Police to investigate the abuse of a 3rd child from the
Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A Jehovah’s Witness
elder, from the Traralgon Congregation was caught in a private room of
the hospital standing over this young girl. The girl was completely
naked. This elder had gained unauthorised access to the paediatric ward
of the hospital. He was not invited by the hospital or the parents. In
fact the parents had written to the church instructing them that this
elder was to have no contact with their child as the parents were of the
opinion that the elder was a child abuser.
Another child who helped pay for the filing fees and had asked me to
help him in this matter did so because many years ago his younger sister
was raped by a member of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and he, as
a very young boy, was powerless to prevent it. He witnessed the rape.
During the rape the rapist inserted Lego blocks and figurines into his
little sister’s vagina. This young boy froze in fear. Later he had to
remove the Lego’s. The rapist remains a ‘fine upstanding’ member of the
religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and regularly gives talks from the
church podium in his local Jehovah’s Witness congregation, even though
he confessed to the rapes to a number of Jehovah’s Witness ministers.
I promised these children that I would do everything in my power to
protect them and to see that they get justice, not just for the rapes
and abuse, but justice against those who showed no regard for their
sexual or physical safety and expressed this in action by refusing to
comply with the Working with Children Act 2005. Over the days, weeks, months, and
years to come, I can proudly walk within the Victorian community knowing
that I did everything within my power and within my ability to protect
these children and to protect the community. I will hold me head high.
On the other hand, you have failed to protect these children, you
have failed to serve justice, and you have failed to serve the
community. The parents of these children have asked me to convey to you
their abhorrence and outright disgust in you as a human being and as a
public official because you never lifted your finger to help these
children nor to serve the community. They have also asked me to inform
you that they demand you immediate resignation as a violator of the
human rights of these children.
Our Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 states in section 8:
(1) Every person has the right to recognition as a person before the law.
(3) Every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law.
In section 17 of the Charter it states in law:
17. Protection of families and children
- page 3 -
(1) Families are the fundamental group unit of society and are entitled to be protected by society and the state.
(2) Every child has the right, without
discrimination, to such protection as is in his or her best interest and
is needed by him or her by reason of being a child.
In your letter you stated that “on an evidentiary level, there is no
reasonable prospect of conviction in relation to these offences.” My
understanding, after an extensive search at the Supreme Court Library in
Melbourne, is that there has never been a prosecution carried out in
relation “to these offences.” There is enough evidence, namely, all the
children and all the parents and the fact that the church elders
(“ministers of religion”) did not have an Assessment Notice as required
by the Working with Children Act 2005 for the entire time period referred to in the charges sheets.
In your letter you stated a second and final reason for discontinuing
the prosecution “it is not in the public interest.” Over 780,000
individual members of the public, in addition to thousands of clubs,
charities, schools, organisations and religions, all complied with the Working with Children Act 2005.
Only one organisation, that we know of, refused to comply. This thus
provides irrefutable evidence that prosecution is in the best interest
of the public.
The prosecution is not in the best interest of Victoria Police as
such a prosecution would prove an embarrassment to the Chief
Commissioner and Victoria Police as they failed to enforce the law. The
prosecution is also not in the best interest of the Department of
Justice, nor the Child Safety Commissioner, nor the current State
Government, nor the previous State Government, as none of these took any
action to protect the children or to enforce child protection laws.
To prosecute those who break child protection laws is in the best
interest of the public and the community. Criminal breaches of child
protection laws are of considerable public concern. To not prosecute is
to weaken the law and undermine community harmony and public confidence
in the administration of justice. The need for deterrence is paramount.
On the 8th November 2011, I lodged with the Magistrates’ Court a
“Charge Sheet And Warrant To Arrest” in relation to the following 7
individuals:
GEOFFREY JACKSON (Australian)
SAMUEL HERD (American)
GERRIT LOSCH (Austrian)
M. STEPHEN LETT (American)
DAVID H. SPLANE (Canadian)
ANTHONY MORRIS (American)
GUY H. PIERCE (American)
The above are the 7 members of the GOVERNING BODY OF JEHOVAH’S
WITNESSES (unincorporated body) and are also the 7 members of the
FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE (unincorporated body). They also comprise
the main individuals who make up the committee of management for the
CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES (unincorporated body).
The application for arrest warrants was due process in response to
their failure to attend court in relation to the charges brought against
them and under the proviso of section 45 (1)(a) of the Working with Children Act 2005.
- page 4 -
The application was referred by the senior registrar of the
Magistrates’ Court at Latrobe Valley to the Chief Magistrate for
comment. Subsequently I was notified that I have been granted to make
application to the sitting Magistrate for a decision as to issuing in
relation to each of the arrest warrants.
This I intend to do prior to your taking “over these prosecutions for
the purpose of discontinuing them.” My reasons for this are purely due
process of the law. I have included a copy of each of the arrest
warrants for your perusal. I ask for your support.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Steven Unthank
Acting Prosecutor
- [attachment] -
- page 5 -
COURT APPEARANCE SUMMARY
On Friday, 12 August, 2011, each of the Corporate Accused were served
with a Summons to appear in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at
Latrobe Valley. Affidavits of service were lodge with the court.
The following are for your records on how each of the accused responded to the Summons and to the Charges: Corporate Accused: GOVERNING BODY OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES Case No.: B12083527
Summoned to appear at the Magistrates’ Court at Latrobe Valley on 13 September 2011.
Failed to appear and were not represented by counsel.
Failed to appear or be represented for all subsequent court hearings.
No “Notice of Appearance” filed.
Corporate Accused: FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE Case No.: B12083367
Summoned to appear at the Magistrates’ Court at Latrobe Valley on 13 September 2011.
Failed to appear and were not represented by counsel.
Failed to appear or be represented for all subsequent court hearings.
No “Notice of Appearance” filed.
Corporate Accused: CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES Case No.: B12083108
Summoned to appear at the Magistrates’ Court at Latrobe Valley on 13 September 2011.
Failed to appear and were not represented by counsel.
Failed to appear or be represented for all subsequent court hearings.
No “Notice of Appearance” filed.
Corporate Accused: WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. Case No.: B12083833
Summoned to appear at the Magistrates’ Court at Latrobe Valley on 13 September 2011.
Failed to appear and were not represented by counsel.
Failed to appear or be represented for all subsequent court hearings.
No “Notice of Appearance” filed.
- page 6 -
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA Case No.: B12082206
Summoned to appear at the Magistrates’ Court at Latrobe Valley on 13 September 2011.
Represented by legal counsel.
Represented by legal counsel for all subsequent court hearings.
Summary
During every single court hearing the GOVERNING BODY OF JEHOVAH’S
WITNESSES, and the FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE, and the CHRISTIAN
CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, and the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT
SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., all failed to appear or to be
represented.
Only the WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA was
represented by counsel from Vincent Toole Solicitors. Mr Vincent Toole
is the in-house lawyer for the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a
minister of religion, and part of the committee of management for the
religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia. He was directly appointed
by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses as their “direct
representative.”
[END OF LETTER] Link to Office of Public Prosecutions web site
Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses Refuses to Apologize for Sins Against the Children
Suffer the Children
Yesterday, Friday 17, 2012, I had the opportunity to meet with a
number of children from the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses. These children formed part of the group of children who
recently sent an “Open Letter to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s
Witnesses”. Among this small group of Jehovah’s Witness children that I
met with were two young girls that had been raped by a fellow member of
the religion. The girls are coping very well. Their parents are not.
During our brief chat I got to ask the children if the Governing Body
of Jehovah’s Witnesses or even their local elders had said ‘sorry’ to
them over the religion’s failure to comply with child protection laws;
and had they received a reply to their open letter.
The children replied “No!”
These children within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses wrote to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses because
they had been hurt by the sins of their elders. In their ‘open letter’
the children said:
“It makes us sad that you have broken the law for a long
time and not said sorry but hide what you have done instead. This is not
love. If you do say sorry to us kids and mean it then we will forgive
you. This is love.”
These young Jehovah’s Witness children then looked at me expecting
that somehow I might be able to explain to them why the Governing Body
of Jehovah’s Witnesses has ignored them.
What do you say to a child who has been “despised” by their religion?
What do you say to a young girl who has been raped by a fellow member
of her church and then is cast aside by the very religion who promised
to protect her? What do you say to children who have been denied an
apology from their religious leaders?
I had no answer. Words failed me. Instead I gave each of them a hug.
These children held out an offer of forgiveness to the Governing Body
of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This offer from these innocent young children
was utterly rejected.
One of the parents asked me why Victoria Police, the State Government of Victoria, and the Victorian Child Safety Commissioner refused to enforce the child protection laws for so many years. I had no answer. Again, the same parent asked why the Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions
have not taken any action to prosecute the religious leaders of
Jehovah’s Witnesses over their refusal to comply with child protection
laws for over 3 years. Again I had no answer.
Words failed me a second time.
Following my discussion with the children a Jehovah’s Witness parent
handed me a folder containing evidence in relation to another child
within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses who had been
recently abused. Among the documents given to me was a letter issued to
the parent by Mr Peter Craighead, Chief Executive, Latrobe Regional Hospital,
Traralgon, which confirmed that the hospital had recently called in the
police to investigate an allegation of child abuse committed against a
young child within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A
second letter, also issued by Latrobe Regional Hospital identified the
“alleged” perpetrator as an elder within the Traralgon Congregation of
Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Clearly it is in the best interests of the children and in the
public’s interest for the Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown) to
continue the criminal prosecution of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s
Witnesses and others over their refusal to comply with mandatory child
protection laws within the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Victoria,
Australia.
On the other hand, perhaps it’s best if the children suffer in
silence, we all keep our mouths shut, and that those who have abused
children are allowed to escape accountability and punishment.
JW NEWS
“Therefore, if one knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him.” – James 4:17, New World translation.
On Prosecuting a Case or Discontinuing the Prosecution of a Case
The decision to prosecute a case is not one that is taken lightly.
There are strict criteria in place governing the decision to prosecute.
It has long been recognised that not all criminal offences must
automatically result in a criminal prosecution. The resources available
for prosecution action are finite and should not be wasted.
The decision whether or not to prosecute is the most important step
in the prosecution process. In every case great care must be taken in
the interests of the victim, the suspected offender and the community at
large to ensure that the right decision is made. A wrong decision to
prosecute or, conversely, a wrong decision not to prosecute, both tend
to undermine the confidence of the community in the criminal justice
system.
The criteria for the exercise of this discretion cannot be reduced to
something akin to a mathematical formula; indeed it would be
undesirable to attempt to do so. The breadth of the factors to be
considered in exercising this discretion indicates a candid recognition
of the need to tailor general principles to individual cases.
The initial consideration in the exercise of the discretion to
prosecute or not prosecute is whether the evidence is sufficient to
justify the institution or continuation of a prosecution. A prosecution
should not be instituted or continued unless there is admissible,
substantial and reliable evidence that a criminal offence known to the
law has been committed by the alleged offender.
When deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the
institution or continuation of a prosecution the existence of a bare
prima facie case is not sufficient to justify the prosecution. Once it
is established that there is a prima facie case it is then necessary to
give consideration to the prospects of conviction.
The decision as to whether there is a reasonable prospect of a
conviction requires an evaluation of how strong the case is likely to be
when presented in Court. It must take into account such matters as the
availability, competence and credibility of witnesses and their likely
impression on the arbiter of fact, and the admissibility of any alleged
confession or other evidence. The prosecutor should also have regard to
any lines of defence which are plainly open to, or have been indicated
by, the alleged offender and any other factors which in the view of the
prosecutor could affect the likelihood or otherwise of a conviction.
This assessment may be a difficult one to make, and of course there can
never be an assurance that a prosecution will succeed. Indeed it is
inevitable that some will fail.
When evaluating the evidence the prosecutor must also be prepared to look beneath the surface of the statements and evidence.
Having satisfied himself or herself that the evidence is sufficient
to justify the institution or continuation of a prosecution, the
prosecutor must then consider whether, in the light of the provable
facts and the whole of the surrounding circumstances, the public
interest requires a prosecution to be pursued.
The factors which can properly be taken into account in deciding
whether the public interest requires a prosecution will vary from case
to case. While many public interest factors militate against a decision
to proceed with a prosecution, there are public interest factors which
operate in favour of proceeding with a prosecution (for example, the
seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence). In this regard,
generally speaking the more serious the offence the less likely it will
be that the public interest will not require that a prosecution be
pursued.
Prosecution for murder, rape, sexual assault, drug trafficking, child
abuse, arson, theft, fraud, drink driving as well as the prosecution of
those who flout or break laws governing the protection of vulnerable
members of the community are areas that generally fall within the
parameters of public interest…
JW NEWS OPINION www.jwnews.net
article by Steven Unthank
January 30, 2012
Yesterday the Circuit Overseer finished up his week long visit to the
Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. For those who may not be
aware, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses arrange for the
appointment of circuit overseers as their direct representatives to
travel from congregation to congregation.
The circuit overseer did not meet with the children in the Traralgon
congregation who wrote the ‘open letter’ to the Governing Body of
Jehovah’s Witnesses. He did not offer an apology to these children on
behalf of the Governing Body. He did not explain why the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to comply with mandatory child protection
laws for over 3 entire years. He did not answer any of the questions the
child had asked.
These children within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses wrote to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses because
they had been hurt by the sins of their elders. In the ‘open letter’ the
children said:
“It makes us sad that you have broken the law for a long
time and not said sorry but hide what you have done instead. This is not
love. If you do say sorry to us kids and mean it then we will forgive
you. This is love.”
The circuit overseer also offered no assistance to the children in
the Traralgon congregation that were victims of crime, crimes committed
by their religious leaders, their elders. He offered no words of comfort
to the children in the congregation that had been raped. He offered no
reassurance that the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses does indeed care
for and love these children and will help them and protect them and see
that they get justice. Instead the circuit overseer reminded the
congregation to draw close to Jehovah.
The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses wrote the following in the book “Draw Close to Jehovah” (page 268):
“If others have been hurt by our sins, God is pleased
when we do what we can to right the wrong. (Matthew 5:23,24) This may
involve acknowledging our sin, admitting our guilt, and even apologizing
to the victim.”
If God is pleased when we right the wrong, acknowledge our sin, admit
our guilt, and apologize; then who is pleased when we refuse to right
the wrong, refuse to acknowledge our sin, refuse to admit our guilt, and
refuse to apologize? Clearly not God!
Even a very young child knows how to say “I’m sorry”. Is the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses capable of
apologizing to the children within the Traralgon Congregation of
Jehovah’s Witnesses?
That all depends on whether their conscience accuses or excuses.
An earlier JW News article based on the above question made the following comment about our conscience:
A conscience either accuses or excuses. It never acquits.
A good conscience moves one to take the initiative to apologize to
others when they have wronged them, even if unintentionally. On the
other hand, a hardened conscience causes one to excuse their actions or
to justify their wrong course of conduct, often by blaming others.
Either way, the outcome is a clear conscience, genuine or
self-deceptive.
These children are trying their hardest to make room in their lives
for their spiritual leaders. To try is the best they can do. They have
been literally skinned and thrown about like little lambs without a
shepherd. Yet, despite this, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses
continues to say to the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and to the
world:
“Allow room for us. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.” – 2 Corinthians 7:2 NWT
Clearly they have wronged these children, corrupted the entire
congregation, and are actively taking advantage of everybody by means of
the religious power they wield and the position within the community
that they hold.
JW NEWS
“Come to your senses, behave properly, and leave sin
alone; there are some of you who seem not to know God at all; you should
be ashamed.” - 1 Corinthians 15:34, Jerusalem Bible.
JW News has been approached this week by
family members representing a number children within the Traralgon
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses with a personal request that we
publish and distribute their children’s “Open Letter to the Governing
Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses”.
Those making the request simply asked “could
you please publish this letter on the internet so that it can get the
widest possible public distribution and so that it can eventually be
read by each member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. We’ve
written to the Governing Body in the past and they have refused to
respond.”
When asked why they had approached JW News
to publish the ‘open letter’ the reply was “the media and the newspapers
have not yet fully covered the story of our children and how our
religion and the [Watch Tower] Society have broken the child protection
laws. The only way we can get this open letter into the newspapers is if
we pay for a whole newspaper page and publish it ourselves. We can’t
afford this. But getting the letter out there is very important for the
children and also for everybody else. Hopefully those who read the
letter will share it with as many people as possible.”
JW News is proud to publish the below ‘open
letter’ as requested by the children within the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses. It touched our hearts when we first read it and it is our
hope that it touches yours.
AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
January 1, 2012
To the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Dear brothers,
We were wondering why you did not help look after us and protect us
children in Victoria, Australia, by having the elders get their working
with children cards and why you have not said sorry for breaking the
law.
When us kids are naughty or we do something bad we have to say sorry
to the people we did wrong to. This is what Jehovah and Jesus says in
the Bible that we must do if we want to be good people. Sometimes when
us kids are naughty at home we get ‘time out’ and sometimes if we are
really naughty we might also get punished. If we break the rules at
school then we can also get ‘time out’ or we might get yard duty or even
suspended or expelled.
Why have you not said sorry to us kids and why are you hiding what
you did wrong to us? Why has Jehovah not punished you and why are you
still elders? Why aren’t you upset that you broke the law and that you
did wrong things against us children, the little lambs? We know we are
only kids, but why don’t you care about us like Jesus cares about us and
all of the children?
Why didn’t you do anything to help us when you were first told about
the new laws to protect us children all those years ago? All these good
laws try to do is to stop bad people from spending time with us or from
trying to hurt us. You could have stopped all these problems if only you
listened when you were first told. Now you could go to jail for what
you did wrong.
Our parents tell us that Jehovah always disciplines those he loves.
Why has Jehovah not disciplined you? Don’t the laws in the Bible apply
to you? Do you believe in the Bible and what Jesus says we must do if we
sin against other people? Should you still be our elders or our
governing body if you break the law and cover this up? Should you
brothers be disfellowshipped for breaking the law like when you
disfellowship other brothers and sisters when they break the law? Can
Jehovah or Jesus use the Watch Tower Society if they know the Society
broke the law and are trying to get away with it? Would that make
Jehovah and Jesus sharers in the sins of others? It would.
Does Jehovah like elders that are naughty against children or that
don’t try to protect them? Are you still allowed to pray to Jehovah?
When we are naughty we have to say sorry first before our prayers to
Jehovah are heard.
You should go to the courthouse and tell them you are “guilty” and
did wrong and say sorry to everyone even if it means getting into
trouble. You always tell us in The Watchtower magazine that this is what
Jehovah says we must do before he will forgive us. You tell us that
pride is why people do not apologise. You tell us that real Jehovah’s
Witnesses always say sorry.
Will you please tell us the answers to all our questions and if you
will say sorry to us at all for what you have done to us kids? Also, we
would like to meet with all of you elders on the Governing Body of
Jehovah’s Witnesses so you can say sorry to all of us children one at a
time. Our parents tell us that this is what Jesus has told you that you
must do, say sorry. Our families and us kids would like to meet with all
of you at our Traralgon Kingdom Hall before your next criminal court
case on February 21, 2012, so you can tell us why you broke the law and
to give you the chance to say sorry and make amends. We have a list of
how you can make amends.
- 2 -
It makes us sad that you have broken the law for a long time and not
said sorry but hide what you have done instead. This is not love. If you
do say sorry to us kids and mean it then we will forgive you. This is
love.
We are only children but we will be grown-ups one day and then we will learn everything you did to us.
Warmest Christian love,
signed by us kids – the children in the
Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses for all the children in
the State of Victoria, Australia, and the World
P.S. Our parents and families helped us write this letter because
this is what Jesus said we must do to those who sin against us. See
Matthew 18:15-17. This letter is from us kids because it was us kids
that you elders knowingly committed sins and crimes against and then
deliberately lied to.
A MESSAGE FROM THE PARENTS AND FAMILIES OF THE ABOVE CHILDREN
Dear Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses,
On July 26, 2011, you men and the Watch Tower Society were charged
with a total of 35 serious criminal offences committed against our
children because you refused to comply with our state’s child protection
laws in the Working with Children Act 2005. Each offence
carries up to Au$144,000 in fines and up to two years imprisonment. Your
lawlessness in this matter has been going on since July 1, 2008. You
have broken the law in every single congregation in Victoria, Australia,
thousands of times every single week
for over three years – from July 2008 onwards. Everybody warned you of
the need to comply with these laws and you refused to listen. You
ignored the Department of Justice when they offered to personally help
all elders and “ministers of religion” to comply with these child
protection laws. Even though the government had waived all fees you
refused to comply. Your disregard for these laws became so bad that
charges of lawlessness were made in the Christian Congregation against
you men. You were charged with “loose conduct involving children” (child
abuse). The charges were ignored.
In November 2011 you issued letters to all elders and congregations
in Victoria, Australia, that they must now comply with these laws. This
is too little, too late. You complied only after 35 criminal charges were filed against you and then only after
you repeatedly failed to have the charges thrown out of court. By
refusing to comply with these child protection laws for well over three
years you have “taken a stand against the arrangement of God” and the
Scriptures say you “will receive judgment.” – Romans 13:1-5
Jesus made it very clear when he ordered YOU “to see to it that YOU
men do not despise one of these little ones.” (Matthew 18:1-10) In his
sermon on the mount Jesus also said that we should stop everything,
including our service to God, and sort out our problems with others
first. (Matthew 5:23-26) As parents and families with children within
the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses we have repeatedly asked you to sort
this matter out with us over the past three years and every time you outright refused and ignored us all. Will you now “despise” our children and refuse to say sorry to them?
Finally, could you please inform us where we can find a copy of the Child Protection Policy that is ‘used’ by the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
signed by THE PARENTS AND FAMILY MEMBERS
OF THE CHILDREN WITHIN THE TRARALGON CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
FOR ALL THE CHILDREN
Is the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses capable of apologizing to the children within the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
JW NEWS OPINION www.jwnews.net
article by Steven Unthank
January 12, 2012
Clearly there exists a disturbed relationship between the Governing
Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the children within the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is highlighted by the fact that there has been
no explanation and no apology forthcoming from the Governing Body of
Jehovah’s Witnesses nor from the Watch Tower Society for their failure
to comply with mandatory child protection laws in the State of Victoria,
Australia, for over 3 entire years.
In the above ‘open letter’ a very powerful question was asked by the
children of Jehovah’s Witnesses to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s
Witnesses:
Why have you not said sorry to us kids and why are you hiding what you did wrong to us?
This was again reiterated in the letter’s conclusion:
It makes us sad that you have broken the law for a long
time and not said sorry but hide what you have done instead. This is not
love. If you do say sorry to us kids and mean it then we will forgive
you. This is love.
We are only children but we will be grown-ups one day and then we will learn everything you did to us.
Courts deal with crime. Religions deal with sin. Clearly
these children have approached the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses
in relation to their alleged “sin” and lawlessness. The ‘sin’ being the
failure of the religion to “comply with legal requirements that do not
conflict with God’s laws, such as… obtaining required licences and
permits” as they apply within the Working with Children laws for
“religious organisations”.
The book “Organized To Do Jehovah’s Will” -the official code of
conduct and practice for the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses- has this
to say on pages 31 to 37 in respect of the individual overseers
comprising the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses:
The overseers would be individuals who have the courage
to speak up when wrongdoing exists and to take the needed action to
correct it, protecting the flock from any who would selfishly exploit
them. (Isa. 32:2) The overseers would be men recognized by all in the
congregation as spiritually mature, having genuine concern for the flock
of God. Their overall way of life would show this.
…Members of the congregation could confidently approach the overseer
for counsel and advice on a wide range of personal matters having to do
with family life and Christian living. Having conducted themselves
properly within the family arrangement as well as within the community
in general, these men would also be irreprehensible, be free from accusation, and have a fine testimony even from people on the outside. No valid charge of improper conduct could be brought against them to mar the reputation of the congregation.
…They would be known in the congregation and in the community as
upright and God-fearing men who have demonstrated over a period of time
that they conduct their entire life on the basis of God’s principles.
Their blamelessness would give them freeness of speech before the
congregation.
…Their oversight of the congregation would be refreshing to the
brothers and would serve to unite the congregation in rendering sacred
service. Their conduct and the fruits of their labors would give
evidence that they are appointed by holy spirit.
…The overseers of the congregation have both responsibility and accountability in caring for those entrusted to them.
Among those “entrusted” into the care of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses are the children.
Jesus Christ said of his true followers “By this all will know that
you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35)
The Apostle Peter encouraged Christians to “love one another intensely
from the heart.” (1 Peter 1:22) It is this unconditional intense love
that children possess. Children love unconditionally and are always
willing to forgive. Their young innocent consciences often prod them to
forgive or to even say sorry when they do wrong. Occasionally they need
some encouragement.
A conscience either accuses or excuses. It never acquits. A good
conscience moves one to take the initiative to apologize to others when
they have wronged them, even if unintentionally. On the other hand, a
hardened conscience causes one to excuse their actions or to justify
their wrong course of conduct, often by blaming others. Either way, the
outcome is a clear conscience, genuine or self-deceptive.
In a written article on apologizing, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society had this to say:
Why Is It So Hard to Apologize? [*** w02 11/1 p. 4-7***]
One reason why a person hesitates to apologize may be the fear of
rejection. Troubled by the thought of being given the cold shoulder, he
may not express how he really feels. Why, the person who was hurt might
totally avoid the offender, making reconciliation very difficult.
A lack of concern for other people’s feelings may be another reason
why some hesitate to apologize. They may reason, ‘Apologizing will not
undo the blunder I have already made.’ Still others hesitate to say that
they are sorry because of the possible consequences. They wonder, ‘Will
I be held responsible and be asked to make compensation?’ However, the
biggest hurdle to admitting a mistake is pride. A person who is too
proud to say “I am sorry” may in essence conclude, ‘I don’t want to lose
face by admitting my blunder. That would weaken my position.’
For whatever reason, many find words of apology hard to utter. But is
it really necessary to apologize? What are the benefits of apologizing? Apologizing—A Key to Making Peace
…A person should never be too proud to swallow his pride, apologize,
and seek forgiveness. Of course, for sincerely humble individuals,
apologies are not so difficult to make.
…Offering a sincere and appropriate apology for a wrong committed will go a long way toward making peace.
It is often said that “God does not condemn those who make mistakes but judges only those refusing to rectify them.”
Will the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses apologize to the
children within the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and then seek their
forgiveness?
That all depends on whether their conscience accuses or excuses.
JW NEWS
AUSTRALIA: Crisis of Conscience within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses? – Part 2
December 18, 2011
JW NEWS
article by Steven Unthank Victoria Police launch an investigation into the rape and
molestation of a number of children within the Traralgon Congregation of
Jehovah’s Witnesses. Church elders refuse to help or comfort child rape victims and their families.
JW NEWS can report that Victoria Police have launched an
investigation into the rape and molestation of a number of children
within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses over the past
two years.
According to initial reports, the body of elders within the church
were strictly ordered by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of
Australia to cover-up the multiple rapes of a number of children within
the Traralgon Congregation allegedly committed by a fellow member of the
Jehovah’s Witness religion. The elders were also instructed to NOT
report the rapes to the police or the authorities.
The investigation is expected to widen to include numerous
congregations within the Melbourne metropolitan area where the alleged
child rapist has had regular unsupervised direct contact with
potentially up to one hundred young children within the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses since the initial rapes were reported within the
church. The alleged child rapist remains in “good standing” within the
religion and continues to have regular public church meeting parts,
despite allegedly confessing to raping and molesting a number of young
children within the church, when he was confronted by several members of
the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The parents of the child rape victims notified their local body of
elders in the Traralgon Congregation and sought help and scriptural
advice. “All we were seeking was assistance from the elders in coping
with the abuse,” stated the father of two of the abused children. “We
needed some comfort, maybe a Scripture or two, perhaps a prayer, just
something, anything. We desperately needed help and did not know what to
do. Growing up in the religion [of Jehovah's Witnesses] we are taught
to go to the elders when we have problems. Well, this was a problem, a
big problem and we went to the elders. The elders in the Traralgon
Congregation did absolutely nothing. They refused to help us. Three
times we sort help. Nothing was forthcoming. They would not even tell my
children that Jehovah or Jesus or even the congregation did not view
them as dirty or unclean or even naughty children because of what
happened. It’s not the kids fault that they were raped and the elders
need to tell them that.”
One of the elders in the Traralgon Congregation, Jehovah’s Witness
Chaplain Albert Helbling, is alleged to have asked the parents of the
molested children to put their concerns and requests in writing. In
commenting on this request the father of the children later stated in an
interview with JW News, “We were literally being asked to put in
writing our request for an elder to pray or share a Scripture with our
family. They then wanted everything put in writing but still refused to
offer any help. It took me a while to digest what the elders were really
asking. So I asked who reads this information and is there a Privacy
Policy we can read. If I wrote down what the intimate details of how my
children were raped I wanted to know who has access to it. My concerns
were met with silence. The elders refused to answer. They just turned
their back on us and walked away.”
Australian
headquarters for the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their
administrative and publishing corporation the Watch Tower Society
Jehovah’s Witness church elders in Australia are instructed by church
procedures to telephone a church appointed in-house corporate lawyer at
the Australian headquarters in New South Wales prior to taking any
action in relation to learning that a child member of their congregation
has been raped or sexually abused. Elders are required to strictly
follow the advice of internal church lawyers for the handling of the
child molestation case. In this situation, as the actions of the elders
in the Traralgon Congregation clearly show, the advice was to
deliberately withhold help and assistance from those children that were
raped and molested within the church and to decline to offer counselling
and religious support to the parents.
“They just walked away from us. The shepherds refused to shepherd the
flock. Instead they engaged a lawyer, Vincent Toole, to protect
themselves and then followed his instructions,” stated one of the
parents. This serious allegation is compounded by the fact that the
alleged child molester is the son of a senior Jehovah’s Witness elder
who is part of the Watch Tower Society’s legal team in Australia.
This course of action is in direct contrast with what the Governing
Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses claim is what happens in matters involving
child abuse within the church. Philip Brumley, General Counsel for
Jehovah’s Witnesses, on behalf of the Governing Body claims that:
“Our top priority is to protect the victim. And we want
to make sure that whatever steps need to be taken are taken, both by the
elders, by the relatives, and by the congregation in general. Our
second priority has to do with the perpetrator. We are concerned about
their receiving the help they need. Our third priority is to see that
the secular authorities are indeed informed of the accusation.”
Philip Brumley, General Counsel for Jehovah’s Witnesses
“This Jehovah’s Witness response [from Philip Brumley] to their
handling of child abuse is all lies,” according to one of the
grandparents of the molested children within the Traralgon Congregation.
The grandparent then added, “the Jehovah’s Witnesses outright refused
to protect the victims. The elders in the Traralgon church did nothing.
The parents of the molested children were too scared to speak up and no
relatives of the abused children were notified as a result of this. I
know this for a fact as none of them told me. The church elders and the
Watchtower organisation did not see to it that the secular authorities
were informed. I was never told because my family were too embarrassed
that their church abandoned the kids and protected the [alleged] child
rapist and the position of his father who is a senior church leader. The
Jehovah’s Witnesses should pull their act together and actually start
practicing what they preach.”
The religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and their administrative
corporation, the Watch Tower Society, are the only mainstream church and
religious organisation in the State of Victoria that has no formal
child protection policy and no published code of conduct for ministers
of religion and appointed elders in relation to direct contact with
children within their church congregation arrangements. Parents within
the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been met with silence by church
officials when they have asked to see the churches formal child
protection policy or working with children protocol.
Morwell Police Station, Victoria, Australia
The alleged rapes of a number of children within the Traralgon
Congregation were reported at the Morwell Police Station in August 2011
by Acting Prosecutor Steven Unthank who discovered the rape allegations
while criminally prosecuting the entire religious and corporate
hierarchy of the church of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including the Governing
Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, over their refusal to comply with mandatory
child protection laws as legislated in the Victorian Working with Children Act 2005.
The handling of this ‘child sexual abuse’ case within the Traralgon
Congregation by the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is now considered
Solicitor-Client Privilege (Attorney-Client Privilege), in that everyone
is now a client or defacto client of the Watch Tower Society’s in-house
law firm Vincent Toole Solicitors—including the child abuser—and are
thereby protected. Procedures put in place by the Governing Body of
Jehovah’s Witnesses allows the Watch Tower Society to vigorously defend
this claim of “Privilege” as their right even if it requires their
appealing to the laws of the State of Victoria. By contrast there is no
record that the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses have ever
vigorously fought for the protection and rights any children within the
religion who have been abused or molested by a fellow church member.
This Solicitor-Client Privilege (Attorney-Client Privilege) status
does not apply to the young Jehovah’s Witness children that were
sexually abused and nor does it apply to their parents as these have
been abandoned and rejected by the church even though they are current
active members. This is compounded in that one of the parents of the
molested children was informed by the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses
that “having approached the elders, you will have taken the matter as
far as you can. Leave the problem in their hands.”
Almost immediately after the alleged rapes were reported within the
church format, the alleged child rapist, along with members of his
family were relocated by the headquarters of the religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses to “serve” in another church congregation located within the
Skye Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the southern suburbs of
Melbourne. The alleged child rapist was formally introduced into the new
congregation by a letter issued from the Christian Congregation of
Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia and publicly read out from the church
podium praising both the alleged child rapist and his family by
referring to them as well respected members of the Faith who have
volunteered to “serve where the need is greater.” The father of the
alleged child rapist was immediately appointed a member of the body of
elders in the new congregation. Members of the congregation have not
been notified that they have an alleged child rapist within their
congregation who bears a letter of recommendation from the headquarters
of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their administrative arm, the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia.
Jehovah’s
Witnesses church – McClelland Drive, Skye, Victoria, Australia. Used by
five different congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
On May 4, 2011, JW News carried a report on an act of religiously
motivated persecution carried out against Steven Unthank by a senior
Jehovah’s Witness church elder. This elder turned out be the father of
the alleged child molester. The full story as reported in JW News
stated:
WATCH TOWER SOCIETY LAUNCHES RELIGIOUS ATTACK ON STEVEN UNTHANK
A vicious personal attack and campaign of religious persecution has
been launched by the Watch Tower Society in Australia against Mr Steven
Unthank in retaliation for his lodging of Criminal Charges against the
Watch Tower Society and the Committee of Management for the Religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Latrobe Valley Magistrates’ Court for alleged
criminal offences committed against the Victorian Working with Children Act 2005, as it applies within “religious organisations”.
A Watch Tower Society legal officer and senior Jehovah’s Witness
church Elder recently contacted a Gippsland-based construction company
whom Mr Unthank has worked for over many years, and ordered the owner, a
Jehovah’s Witness, that he ”must not employ Steven on any jobs and if
he’s still working for you then this is wrong. You have to get rid of
him for what he’s done.”
It is alleged that the Watch Tower Society legal officer then
proceeded to religiously vilify and severely ridicule Mr Unthank to the
owner of the construction company.
In commenting on the launch of this attack and the alleged
accompanied religious vilification and ridicule, Mr Unthank said ”We
have very strong laws in the State of Victoria that prohibit racial and
religious vilification. These laws are to protect everybody, including
myself and members of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It saddens me
that there are people in society, in respectable community positions,
that feel the need to religiously vilify and persecute another. I do not
believe the church of Jehovah’s Witnesses would support such an
attack.”
Mr Unthank refused to comment on whether he has been sacked or had
his work contract terminated but did reply ”there are a number of
options open to me, including a civil lawsuit or the lodging of a formal
complaint with the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights
Commission for investigation. However, a simple apology would suffice.”
Link to JW News report: http://on.fb.me/nDCs4J
On July 26, 2011, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Faithful and Discreet
Slave, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia, and the
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc. were charged
with a total of 35 criminal offences in relation to allegations of
literally being an accessory to criminal activities being committed
against children within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses by the entire body of elders against some 20 children.
Currently these elders are being actively protected by the Watch Tower
Society and the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. None have stood down
and none have been removed even though their alleged criminal acts
against children and their outright lawlessness are well known within
the community. Simply put, the body of elders in the Traralgon
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses are not recognised by the local community as “upright and God-fearing men” who are “free from accusation.”
The next criminal court hearing is scheduled for February 21, 2012.
The Watch Tower Society refuses to speak to the parents within the
Traralgon congregation and refuses to answer their legitimate questions,
even though their children have been identified as victims of crime.
The religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses remains silent over these child
abuse allegations, child rape allegations and criminal charges.
The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses has repeatedly refused to
answer to the “valid” criminal charges brought against them within the
Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Australia. Truly a religion in crisis.
Postscript from Steven Unthank
For taking a stand on behalf of the children within the religion of
Jehovah’s Witnesses, to protect them, last year a four-year-old child
came skipping up to me and whispered:
“Daddy says I’m not allowed to talk to you ’cause you don’t love ‘hovah!”
She then gave me a big hug and skipped away. She knew I did love Him.
A week later she gave a member of my family a picture she drew at
pre-school and asked that it be given to me. She also said to tell me
that it was:
“the sun to make you happy.”
I did not know it at the time, but this young child was one of the
children within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses that
had been raped only the week before.
AUSTRALIA: Crisis of Conscience within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses? – Part 1
December 11, 2011 – the full story
JW News Religion in crisis. Can it get any worse in Australia for the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society?
According to members of the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, the police turned up during the Theocratic Ministry School
meeting at the Traralgon Kingdom Hall on Tuesday, November 29, 2011, and
spoke with the body of elders who quickly escorted them into a back
room.
Further, during the same week, the police took a number of
“Statements” from parents and members of the Traralgon Congregation in
relation to the body of elders actually working with children and having
“direct contact” with children allegedly in breach of the Working with Children Act 2005.
The police are now investigating allegations of criminal breaches of
the Working with Children laws committed by individual members of the
body of elders in Traralgon Congregation in relation to 8 different
children within the congregation. The investigation is expected to
widen.
This more than likely is what the Office of Public Prosecutions was
referring to in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria on December 6, 2011,
when they stated that the police investigation is “quite well
progressed” in relation to the criminal prosecution of the Governing
Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society et al.
Also on Sunday, December 4, 2011, the Traralgon body of elders
deliberately cancelled a public Bible reading which was to be done by a
young 10 year old child within the Traralgon Congregation during the
Theocratic Ministry School scheduled for the 6th, after the court cases.
The child is very upset and has asked if he is being punished. Those
aware of the situation have never heard of any congregational body of
elders taking away a Bible reading from a young child.
The church weekly meeting schedule sign outside the Traralgon Kingdom
Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses has also been pulled down and removed from
public display following a personal visit in November by an authorised
representative of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses who met with
the body of elders in the Traralgon Congregation.
Traralgon Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Traralgon Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses
(note the meeting time sign in red circle)
In addition, parents within the Traralgon Congregation have openly
expressed concern that they may be victimised or targeted by the Watch
Tower Society simply because they lawfully provided information to the
police when they were contacted by the police while investigating
criminal breaches of the Working with Children laws allegedly committed
by the body of elders in the Traralgon Congregation.
Individual offences against the Victorian Working with Children Act 2005 carry
up to 2 years imprisonment per “an offence.” Compliance with the
Working with Children laws became compulsory for “religious
organisations” and for ministers of religion in July 2008.
The religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and their administrative
corporation, the Watch Tower Society, are the only mainstream church and
religious organisation in the State of Victoria that has no formal
child protection policy and no published code of conduct for ministers
of religion and appointed elders in relation to direct contact with
children within their church congregation arrangements. Parents within
the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been met with silence by church
officials when they have asked to see the churches formal child
protection policy or working with children protocol.
The State of Victoria officially recognises that while “some
organisations undertake a number of measures to check the
appropriateness of their employees or volunteers to work with children,
others do not.” It is for this reason the Victorian Government
introduced, in 2006, a mandatory minimum child protection standard for
all industries and organisations, including “religious organisations.”
According to the Victorian Department of Justice web site:
“In 2006, the Victorian Government introduced the Working
with Children (WWC) Check, a new mandatory minimum checking system to
help protect children under 18 years of age from physical or sexual harm
by preventing those who pose a risk to their safety from working with
them, in either paid or volunteer work.
“This Working with Children Check system helps to protect children
from sexual or physical harm by checking and monitoring a person’s
criminal history for serious sexual, serious violence or serious drug
offences.”
The Parliament of Victoria have stated that the main purpose of the
Working with Children laws “is to assist in protecting children from
sexual or physical harm by ensuring that people who work with, or care
for, them have their suitability to do so checked by a government body.”
“Religious organisations” were included in the Working with Children Check system in July 2008.
For further information on the Victorian Working with Children laws and any legal obligations visit:
Would the Watch Tower Society deny the existence of the Theocratic Ministry School?
The sign outside the Traralgon Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses
publicly advertised that the Jehovah’s Witnesses operate a school on the
premises by publishing the hours their Theocratic Ministry School is
operated, namely each Tuesday night. The Watch Tower Society and the
religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, when contacted by the Victorian
Department of Justice and by Victoria Police, and even by the media in
Victoria, have outright denied that they operate any church-based
schools with enrolled children or that they work with children.
Further, the sign outside the Traralgon Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses had printed in bold letters “All Welcome” of
which is an open public invitation specifically directed at non-members
of the religion, including men, women and children. The presence of
this sign is irrefutable proof that there is indeed a church-based
school being operated within the Traralgon Congregation, and such a sign
can be read by any member of the public or even the police if they pull
up out the front of the hall.
Therefore the sign had to be removed as the existence of this sign
provides public proof that the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses do indeed operate a church-based school and that all members
of the public, including children, can freely attend. The Watchtower
publication, “Mankind’s Search for God” on page 360 states:
“Jehovah’s Witnesses hold weekly Bible study meetings in
their Kingdom Halls that serve over [100,000] congregations throughout
the earth. These meetings are not based on ritual or on emotion but on
the gaining of accurate knowledge of God, his Word, and his purpose.
Therefore, Jehovah’s Witnesses come together three times a week to
increase their understanding of the Bible and to learn how to preach and
teach its message to others.
“For example, a midweek meeting includes the Theocratic Ministry
School, in which members of the congregation may be enrolled. This
school, presided over by a qualified Christian elder, serves to train
men, women, and children in the art of teaching and self-expression in
accordance with Bible principles.”
Parents attending the school with their children are attending on the
same level, i.e. as students. The elder conducting the school is not a
student but is the schools appointed instructor and teacher.
Across the entire State of Victoria, these church-based Theocratic
Ministry Schools are conducted on a weekly basis in over 150 church
auditoriums and “Auxiliary Classes” commonly referred to as “Second
Schools”. The enrolled students include well over 1,000 children between
the ages of 7 and 18 in these school classes which are presided over by
a qualified Christian elder who “serves to train men, women, and children in the art of teaching and self expression.” The
curriculum is prepared and provided by the “faithful and discreet
slave” and the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower
Society.
The published “Guidelines for School Overseers” (see pages 282-285 of
the textbook “Benefit From Theocratic Ministry School Education”) also
includes specific instructions to elders on teaching, assisting,
or counseling young children or even a young one by showing personal
interest in the progress of each student. Each enrolled child is given a
personal school textbook which on pages 79-81 has a personal “Counsel
Form” of which is filled out by school “counselor”, namely the elder
conducting the school. The guidelines for the School Overseer states
that they must “keep an up-to-date list of all who are enrolled in the school” which includes all enrolled children.
The published “Features of the School” (page 6 of the textbook) are:
“A weekly program of reading, study, and research centered on the
Bible; Instruction in public reading and in the arts of speaking and
teaching; Participation in class discussions; Opportunities to give
presentations before the congregation; [and] Personal assistance to help
you progress.”
Of those enrolled “both young and old” that attend the Theocratic Ministry School, the Watch Tower Society advices that “you do not have to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” There
are 8 young children enrolled in the Theocratic Ministry School within
the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and another 12
children regularly attend, some with a parent, others without a parent.
On July 26, 2011, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Faithful and Discreet
Slave, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia, and the
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc. were charged
with a total of 35 criminal offences in relation to allegations of
literally being an accessory to criminal activities being committed
against children within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses by the entire body of elders against these 20 children.
Currently these elders are being actively protected by the Watch Tower
Society and the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. None have stood down
and none have been removed even though their alleged criminal acts
against children and their outright lawlessness are well known within
the community. Simply put, the body of elders in the Traralgon
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses are not recognised by the local community as “upright and God-fearing men” who are “free from accusation.”
The next criminal court hearing is scheduled for February 21, 2012.
The Watch Tower Society refuses to speak to the parents within the
Traralgon Congregation and refuses to answer their legitimate questions,
even though their children have been identified as victims of crime.
The religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses remains silent over these child
abuse allegations and criminal charges.
The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses has repeatedly refused to
answer to the “valid” criminal charges brought against them within the
Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Australia.
Truly a religion in crisis.
JW NEWS
December 6, 2011
The results of the fourth round of court hearings held on 06
December 2011, in relation to the criminal prosecution of the Governing
Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses et al, are as follows:
Mr. Steven Unthank remains the Acting Prosecutor and all 5 cases and
35 individual criminal charges are still before the courts. The Crown
informed the court that the Office of Public Prosecutions are “acting as
a facilitator at the moment”; that the police investigation is “quite
well progressed”; and that the police are awaiting response from the
Department of Justice.
The Magistrate acknowledged “the complexity of the case.”
At the request of the Office of Public Prosecutions all 5 cases were adjourned until 21 February 2012.
Link to Magistrates’ Court of Victoria official Criminal Trial Listings for February 21, 2012: http://bit.ly/vyARdD
Click below image to enlarge:
COURT HEARING SUMMARY
December 6, 2011 Case Number: B12083527
Acting Prosecutor: Mr Steven Unthank
Accused: GOVERNING BODY OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
The accused again failed to appear and was not represented by legal counsel.
An application was made by the Crown (the Director of Public
Prosecutions) for an adjournment for ten weeks so that Victoria Police
could finalize their current investigation and receive further
information from the Department of Justice.
Results: The case was adjourned for ten weeks.
Next Court hearing date: 21 February 2012
Hearing Type: Mention
. Case Number: B12083108
Acting Prosecutor: Mr Steven Unthank
Accused: CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
The accused again failed to appear and was not represented by legal counsel.
An application was made by the Crown (the Director of Public
Prosecutions) for an adjournment for ten weeks so that Victoria Police
could finalize their current investigation and receive further
information from the Department of Justice.
Results: The case was adjourned for ten weeks.
Next Court hearing date: 21 February 2012
Hearing Type: Mention
Hearing Type: Mention
. Case Number: B12083367
Acting Prosecutor: Mr Steven Unthank
Accused: FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE
The accused again failed to appear and was not represented by legal counsel.
An application was made by the Crown (the Director of Public
Prosecutions) for an adjournment for ten weeks so that Victoria Police
could finalize their current investigation and receive further
information from the Department of Justice.
Results: The case was adjourned for ten weeks.
Next Court hearing date: 21 February 2012
Hearing Type: Mention
. Case Number: B12082206
Acting Prosecutor: Mr Steven Unthank
Accused: WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA
The accused was represented by Vincent Toole Solicitors. No legal arguments for the accused was presented.
An application was made by the Crown (the Director of Public
Prosecutions) for an adjournment for ten weeks so that Victoria Police
could finalize their current investigation and receive further
information from the Department of Justice.
Results: The case was adjourned for ten weeks.
Next Court hearing date: 21 February 2012
Hearing Type: Mention
. Case Number: B12083833
Acting Prosecutor: Mr Steven Unthank
Accused: WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
The accused again failed to appear and was not represented by legal counsel.
An application was made by the Crown (the Director of Public
Prosecutions) for an adjournment for ten weeks so that Victoria Police
could finalize their current investigation and receive further
information from the Department of Justice.
Results: The case was adjourned for ten weeks.
Next Court hearing date: 21 February 2012
Hearing Type: Mention
…
FOOTNOTES:
Mention – a mention hearing is an administrative hearing of a case to
allow a magistrate to follow the progress of the proceeding.
The
July 15 2013 Watchtower, which has been leaked weeks in advance of its
scheduled release, offers more questions than answers regarding the
Governing Body’s “new light”
Three weeks ahead of its expected release date in mid-April, a
scanned copy of the July 15 2013 “Study Edition” of the Watchtower was
leaked to the office of JWsurvey by a conscientious active Witness within the organization. I have spent the last two days analyzing its contents.
The magazine in question details the “new light” unveiled at the October 5th 2012 Annual Meeting, at which it was announced that the Governing Body
is now considered the “faithful and discreet slave” – the spiritual
overlords of the nearly 8 million Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide.
By the time the magazine is finally released, ordinary Witnesses will
have waited six months since the Annual Meeting for a written
explanation of the new understanding. However, such ones will be
disappointed to discover that this key Watchtower (which Bethelites have
been instructed by their superiors to study in detail) offers more
questions than answers. As many expected, the magazine writers give
explanations for key doctrinal understandings that are unsupported and
speculative at best.
Here follows a brief overview of the four main study articles…
Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?
(September 2-8) – This article first whets the appetite of the reader by
discussing bible prophecy related to the “Great Tribulation,” which
will commence with an attack on religion by the “disgusting thing” (the
United Nations) and climax with Armageddon. The article then provides a
re-cap of the understanding, held since 1995, that the separation of the
sheep and the goats will happen during the Great Tribulation. The
writers expand on this to provide “new light” on Christ’s “arrival” as
bridegroom. Whereas this was once thought to have occurred in 1918, the
arrival of Christ as “master” or “bridegroom” is now scheduled to happen
at some point during the Great Tribulation.
Look! I Am With You All the Days
(September 9-15) – Christ’s parable of the “wheat and the weeds” is
applied directly to the long period between 33 CE and Armageddon. The
separating work is said to have commenced in 1914, when Christ undertook
a period of “inspection and cleansing” of the organization that lasted
until 1919, when the Bible Students were approved as being “true
Christian wheat.”
Feeding Many Through the Hands of a Few
(September 16-22) – Christ’s miracle of the loaves and fishes is held
aloft as a foregleam of his intentions to appoint only a small group of
men over the spiritual feeding work. The article discusses the “apostles
and older men” as being forerunners to the Governing Body arrangement.
Russell and his associates (pre-1914) are precluded from representing
the appointed channel through which Christ would feed his sheep.
“Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?”
(September 23-29) – The article begins by sweeping aside the previous
understanding that the faithful slave was appointed in 33 CE, and goes
on to explain how the words of the “prophecy” began to be fulfilled only
after 1914. The faithful slave is identified specifically as being “a
small group of anointed brothers” currently comprising the Governing
Body as a “composite slave.” The article concludes by boldly
insisting that Christ WILL appoint the Governing Body, along with other
anointed Christians, “over all his belongings” when he comes in judgment
during the Great Tribulation.
The “disgusting” United Nations – a former partner
The UN has come under fire from Watchtower publications repeatedly
over the decades, but rarely has the denunciation been so forthright as
in this latest magazine. On page 4 in the first study article, Witnesses
are reminded that the United Nations, which is declared to be the
modern-day “disgusting thing,” WILL attack Christendom and the rest of
“false religion” to signal the outbreak of the Great Tribulation.
Witnesses will be familiar with Watchtower labelling the UN as the
“disgusting thing” of Matthew 24:15, but rarely has the assertion been
made with such forthrightness that the UN (and not merely its “members”)
will be solely responsible for an attack on all religion. Over
the last few decades, Watchtower publications have described the UN’s
involvement as executioner of false religion in a variety of ways, some
more obscure than others…
Question: Who will destroy Babylon The Great?
Answer…
1975 – “the United Nations” (w75 5/1 pp. 274-275 par. 11)
1976 – “beastlike radical powers from within the United Nations” (gh chap. 16 p. 147 par. 12)
1977 – “The members of the U.N. and other nations not members of it…” (go chap. 11 p. 177 par. 7)
1980 – “the political backers of the United Nations” (w80 7/1 p. 17 par. 23)
1982 – “The ‘ten horns’ of the United Nations ‘beast’” (w82 5/1 p. 18 par. 9)
1985 – “political elements, represented in the United Nations” (g85 4/8 p. 13)
1985 – “antireligious elements within the United Nations” (w85 6/15 p. 18 par. 19)
1987 – “The ten horns [governmental powers within
the United Nations organization] that you saw, and the wild beast
[United Nations]…” (w87 11/1 p. 28)
1988 – “the nations will use the scarlet-colored wild beast, the United Nations…” (re chap. 35 p. 258 par. 21)
1989 – “the political powers associated with the United Nations” (w89 5/15 p. 6)
1993 – “political elements, including the United Nations” (g93 1/8 p. 12)
1994 – “militarized members of the United Nations” (w94 3/1 p. 20 par. 11)
1994 – “members of the United Nations” (w94 11/1 p. 17 par. 5)
1997 – “the United Nations… will have a principal role” (w97 9/15 p. 19 par. 14)
2005 – “militarized powers within the United Nations” (w05 9/15 p. 19 par. 13)
2013 – “the United Nations” (w13 7/15 p.4 par. 6)
And so the declaration last heard with such conviction in the 70s and
80s is now voiced again in 2013 – namely that the United Nations
organization directly (and not necessarily its “members”) WILL attack
and destroy false religion.
The Watchtower has once again labelled the UN a “disgusting thing” despite being affiliated with it for nine years as an NGO
This should raise eyebrows among personnel within the UN, whose own
Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the “freedom of religion” – a fact
noted by the Society in past publications. (g86 10/22 p. 31)
It will also be a source of unending bewilderment to those within the
Ex-JW community that Watchtower continues to slam the UN as being a
“disgusting thing” despite having enjoyed a formal relationship with it
as an NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) between 1992 and 2001.
Watchtower only ended its illicit association when it received unwanted
exposure from the UK’s Guardian newspaper. (For more information, click here.)
This latest brief foray into attacking the United Nations in the
first few pages of the July magazine sets the stage for what is to
follow, as the reader is dragged deeper into the murky madness of the
doctrinal maze that Watchtower has created, along with its heavily
revised organizational history.
An overview of the changes
Before I begin my rundown of the “new light” regarding the faithful
slave, I feel it’s important to avoid potential confusion by clarifying
elements of the verse in Matthew 24:45-47 and summarizing what the
Society claims to be its fulfilment. Here is what the scripture in
question says in the New World Translation:
“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his
master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the
proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him
doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his
belongings.”
As you can see, the above verse effectively has two elements to it.
First, Christ appoints his faithful slave to watch over his “domestics.”
Then, only later, does Christ “arrive” and appoint the slave over all
his “belongings.” Clearly, both of these things cannot happen at the
same time. One part of the verse is described in the present tense, and
the other in the future tense. Therefore, a period of time is implied
between these two events. The question, at least as far as Watchtower is
concerned, is “when was this time period?”
In an effort to make all of this as simple as possible, I have
produced the following table. It shows the new understanding of the
“faithful slave” teaching side-by-side with the old one. Feel free to
refer to it when reading this article if things get a little too
complicated to take in.
Please bear in mind that if you are expecting explanations in this
article that do not appear, this is not my fault. Any such frustration
should be directed at the Watchtower writers, who have ignored a number
of key questions arising from this “new light.” I will do my best to
highlight all pertinent parts of the Watchtower that I feel are of
interest using selected quotes. However, for reasons of copyright and
personal trust, I cannot and will not reproduce the entire article.
Readers are reminded that the full article will be available online in
PDF format on (or around) April 15th.
Christ’s “arrival” in 1918 scrapped
It has long been proclaimed by the Society that the references to
Christ’s “arriving” as “master” and “bridegroom” in Matthew 24 and 25
occurred in 1918 when he came to inspect his faithful and discreet
slave. It was said that the following year, 1919, Christ completed his
inspection and decided to appoint the early Bible Students as his
faithful slave over all of this belongings.
Under this new understanding, however, 1914 is now earmarked
as being the year that Christ began to inspect and cleanse the
organization – with this “inspection period” ending in 1919 when Christ
supposedly approved the directors of the Watch Tower Society as his
faithful slave by appointing them over his domestics.
1918 has therefore fallen by the wayside and lost any real
significance – at least as far as the “end time” prophecies in Matthew
are concerned. This is made clear on pages 7 and 8 of the new magazine,
where we are informed that all eight references to Christ’s “coming” or
“arrival” between Matthew 24:29 and the end of chapter 25 refer to the
“future time of judgment during the great tribulation.”
An eventful “inspection and cleansing” period
In the minds of many, one of the most intriguing aspects of this new
understanding is the fact that Charles Taze Russell, once considered
part of the Slave Class, has been effectively written out of having any
real biblical significance in Witness history. This is confirmed on page
19, where it says:
“Were the Bible Students in the years that lead up to
1914 the appointed channel through which Christ would feed his sheep?
No. They were still in the growing season, and the arrangement for a
channel to provide spiritual food was taking shape. The time had not yet
come for the weedlike imitation Christians to be separated from the
true Christian wheat.” (w13 7/15 p.19)
Christ’s parable of the wheat and weeds (Matt 13:24-30, 37-43) forms
the basis of the second study article, entitled “Look! I Am With You All
the Days,” and is referenced throughout the magazine, as above. The
scripture and its “fulfilment” is explained by means of an illustrative
timeline that stretches from pages 10 to 11. Key elements of the
timeline are as follows:
33CE – Sowing begins
Sower: Jesus
Fine seed is sown: Anointing with holy spirit
The field: The world of mankind
Enemy: The devil
Men were sleeping: death of the apostles
Wheat: Anointed Christians
Weeds: Imitation Christians
1914 – Harvest begins
Slaves/reapers: Angels
Weedlike Christians are separated from the anointed “sons of the kingdom”
1919 – Gathering into the storehouse, Anointed Christians are gathered into the restored congregation
Shining brightly: Shortly before Armageddon, the remaining faithful anointed ones are gathered to the heavens
Armageddon: At Armageddon, the weeds are pitched into the fire
It seems the Society is using the wheat and the weeds parable in this
magazine as a useful replacement to fill the vacuum left by the
previous understanding of the faithful slave “prophecy.” The
illustration has been drafted in to build a makeshift scriptural bridge
between the organization’s history and the outset of the Christian
congregation in 33CE.
Another scripture that is referenced is Malachi 3:1-4, already
associated in the minds of Witnesses as discussing Christ’s visit to his
“spiritual temple” at the end of the First World War. The second study
article adjusts this understanding by explaining that Christ visited the
organization (invisibly, of course) in 1914 after the weeds (imitation
Christians) had been allowed to grow for centuries among the wheat
(anointed Christians). So, what position, if any, did Russell occupy
when Christ visited in 1914?
“During the decades leading up to 1914, C. T. Russell and
his close associates did a work like that of John the Baptizer. That
vital work involved restoring Bible truths. The Bible Students taught
the true meaning of Christ’s ransom sacrifice, exposed the hellfire lie,
and proclaimed the coming end of the Gentile Times.” (w13 7/15 p.11)
Having
been stripped of any meaningful role in God’s purpose, C.T. Russell has
received the consolation of being likened to John the Baptizer
Thus, Russell is awarded the peculiar role of “John the Baptizer” in
Watchtower’s new convoluted melodrama – forging the path ahead of
Christ’s inspection of the organization in 1914. However, Russell and
his early organization is stripped of having any meaningful role in
God’s purpose. One is left wondering, if Russell’s death in 1916
happened during the “cleansing” period, does this mean that his demise
was all part of God’s plan?! Regardless, only after the 1914-1919
“inspection and cleansing period” was the organization recognized as
God’s organized channel, as explained on page 19…
“From 1914 to the early part of 1919, Jesus accompanied
his Father to the spiritual temple to do a much-needed inspection and
cleansing work. (Mal. 3:1-4) Then, starting in 1919, it was time to
begin gathering the wheat. Was it finally the time for Christ to appoint
one organized channel to dispense spiritual food? Yes, indeed!” (w13
7/15 p.19)
The tumultuous period in the organization’s history between 1914 and
1919 thus becomes the focus of doctrine perhaps more than ever before.
There is no longer a “seamless” transition from the time of the apostles
through to today. Prior to 1914, there was NO “organized channel” on
the Earth. By 1919, one had been suddenly and miraculously formed – by
none other than Christ himself.
A Questionable Character
There is just one small problem with hanging so much doctrinally on
this murky period in Watchtower’s history. The more we delve into
historical documents, the more we realise that Watchtower cannot be
proud of its activities during that time – not to mention the literature that was produced.
To compensate for this, the Society must reach for its eraser and
smudge out some of the less savoury details of its past. This it does
with reckless abandon on page 12…
“In late 1914, some Bible Students were disheartened
because they had not gone to heaven. During 1915 and 1916, opposition
from outside the organization slowed down the preaching work. Worse,
after Russell’s death in October 1916, opposition arose from inside the
organization. Four of the seven directors of the Watch Tower Bible and
Tract Society rebelled against the decision to have Brother Rutherford
take the lead. They tried to cause division among the brothers, but in
August 1917, they left bethel – a cleansing indeed! Also, some Bible
Students gave in to fear of man. Still, as a whole they willingly
responded to Jesus’ cleansing work and made the needed changes. Hence,
Jesus judged them to be true Christian wheat, but he rejected all
imitation Christians, including all those found within the churches of
Christendom. (Mal. 3:5; 2 Tim. 2:19)” (w13 7/15 p.12 par.8)
To those who are even remotely familiar with organizational events
between 1914 and 1919, the above depiction of the Society’s exploits
during that period is flattering at best and heavily revisionist at
worst. For example, there is more to the story of the “four directors”
than is told above. Note the following words from page 9 of the booklet
“Light After Darkness” published by opponents of Brother Rutherford in
September 1917…
The
account of the four directors concerning their ousting from Bethel in
1917, from page 9 of the booklet “Light After Darkness”
As you can see, simply saying that the four
directors left bethel does not tell the full story of what happened.
The directors were threatened with forcible ejection by Rutherford, and
finally left after it was negotiated for them to receive $300 dollars
each rather than be turned out onto the street without a dime to their
name. What crime had led to four directors of the Watch Tower Society
being treated in this way? They had dared to object to Rutherford
effectively tearing up C.T. Russell’s will, which stipulated that power
should be shared evenly between Watchtower’s board of directors.
In a spectacular grab for power following Russell’s death in late
1916, Rutherford used his legal knowledge to enact bylaws in early 1917
that would give him total control over the Society, and render the role
of Society director all but meaningless. This was what the “four
directors” spoke out against, and they were effectively evicted from
their home, Brooklyn Bethel, for their troubles. You can read more about
what really happened during those dark days in the above-quoted booklet
“Light After Darkness,” which is available in PDF form by clicking here.
Rud Persson is a Swedish Watchtower historian who has copiously
analyzed all available documents from this very episode in the
organization’s history, and is compiling a book to summarize his
research. I approached him by email with the above paragraph from this
new Watchtower, and he made this comment…
“It is certainly true that four Directors opposed ‘the
decision to have Brother Rutherford take the lead.’ They should do that,
for it meant a complete departure from the way Russell, the then
recognized ‘faithful and wise servant’, had arranged for matters after
his death. It is not true that they ‘tried to cause division among the
brothers’. That was not their purpose which was to rectify what was
wrong. If spreading information was necessary to do this, then of course
they felt that wisdom from above is first of all clean, thereafter
peaceful. It was Rutherford with the aid of his yes-men who went public
first, publicly blackening the four Directors and then Paul S.L.
Johnson. It is true that the four directors left Bethel in August 1917,
on August 8 to be specific, but that was not the end of the story.” –
Rud Persson
I for one cannot wait for Rud’s book to come out, because I am sure
it will shed much light on these events, and further undermine
Watchtower’s astonishingly misplaced trust and confidence in the
character of “Judge” Rutherford, not to mention this highly questionable
and well-documented period in the organization’s early history.
Documented
evidence shows Rutherford to have been a ruthless bigoted bully rather
than a clean-cut figurehead for the fledgling Watch Tower Society
As previously mentioned on this website,
during his presidency Rutherford distinguished himself as a bully and a
tyrant. He allowed an atmosphere of alcoholism to permeate Bethel, and
used abusive and demeaning language to intimidate and belittle any who
fell short of his standards. He also lived in luxury at a time of
national austerity, while many of his co-workers at Bethel lived in
squalid conditions.
All of this was documented during the Olin Moyle libel lawsuit
in the early 1940s, which Rutherford lost. A copy of Moyle’s
resignation letter which sparked the lawsuit is available to read on this link.
It gives an astonishing glimpse into what life was like in Bethel under
Rutherford’s presidency, and casts serious doubt over whether Christ
could really have supported such a man as custodian over his
organization.
It may be that you, the reader, are so determined to think of
Rutherford as a good man that you will not accept information unless it
is within the Society’s own literature – even if it is documented
information from a lawsuit. If that is the case, I would urge you to
read my article on racism in Watchtower literature
during both Russell and Rutherford’s presidency. Some of the bigoted
statements made by Rutherford and his writers in the Society’s own
publications defy belief, and should leave you beyond any doubt of
Rutherford’s questionable character.
Despite all this, the Watch Tower Society of the 21st Century insists
on ascribing Rutherford with a prominent role in the fulfilment of
bible prophecy – one of the very first members of the faithful and
discreet slave! Even so, it is perhaps noteworthy that Rutherford’s name
is only mentioned once in all of the four study articles – and that is
in the quote reproduced above. I feel this may be telling. Watchtower
wants you, the reader, to focus on the date, 1919, rather than the
bigoted bully behind it.
A tenuous link
Witnesses will be familiar with the Governing Body‘s
constant attempts to draw parallels between themselves and Christ’s
First Century apostles. The third study article, “Feeding Many Through
the Hands of a Few” represents yet another example of this.
The magazine suggests that Christ’s miraculous feeding of the five thousand supports the Governing Body arrangement
The opening paragraphs remind the reader of Christ’s miracle where he
fed the five thousand using just a few loaves and fishes, with his
disciples distributing the miraculously produced food. (Matt 14:14-21)
The writer then expands on this by explaining that spiritual feeding was
of more importance to Christ than providing physical food, and it was
for this reason that Christ chose his apostles.
We are then reminded in paragraph 9 of an incident in the book of
Acts where a physical food shortage arose among the early Christians.
The apostles sprung into action to appoint responsible brothers to
ensure that food was being distributed evenly. So far the reader is
thinking “Yes, but these were Christ’s apostles. There is no
mention in Acts of a Governing Body.” But it doesn’t take long
(paragraph 10, in fact) for the writer to make the connection…
“By 49 CE, the surviving apostles had been joined by
certain other qualified elders. (Read Acts 15:1,2.) ‘The apostles and
older men in Jerusalem’ served as a governing body. As the Head of the
congregation, Christ used this small group of qualified men to settle
doctrinal issues and to oversee and direct the preaching and teaching of
the Kingdom good news.-Acts 15:6-29; 21:17-19; Col. 1:18.” (w13 7/15
p.17)
The above statement makes an unfounded assumption. It implies that,
once the circumcision issue arose, the apostles were permanently
“joined” by the “older men” in the making of any and all subsequent
decisions related to the early congregation. There is absolutely no
evidence of this. In the entire Bible, the phrase “apostles and older
men” appears only six times – and all six times are in chapters 15 and
16 of Acts. It therefore seems that the involvement of the “older men”
in this matter was a one-off “ad hoc” event that was borne from
necessity and the uniqueness of the situation. To suggest that the
apostles were unable to reach decisions without the older men from that
point onwards is making an assertion that simply isn’t contained in the
scriptures.
Once
again the Governing Body holds aloft the account of the “apostles and
older men” in Acts 15 and 16 as their mandate to rule unopposed
The next paragraph goes on to imply that, from this point onwards,
the Apostle Paul was tasked with carrying out the orders of this newly
formed “governing body.” It cites Acts 16:4,5 where Paul is described as
delivering “for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by
the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem.”
Only when the reader looks up the scripture and notes its proximity
to the circumcision issue in the previous chapter does he realise that,
rather than being a permanent arrangement, Paul was merely passing on
the instructions related to this particular matter. But the way the
Society quotes the scriptures suggests to the reader that this was an
ongoing permanent “arrangement,” and that Paul was subservient to the
“apostles and older men” from then on – which, again, is asserting
something that is simply not supported by scripture. Paragraph 11 then
draws the reader to the following conclusion…
“Notice that those congregations prospered as a result of
their loyal cooperation with the governing body in Jerusalem. Is that
not proof of Jehovah’s blessing on the arrangement by means of which his
Son fed the congregations? Let us remember that spiritual prosperity is
possible only with Jehovah’s rich blessing.-Prov. 10:22; 1 Cro. 3:6,7.”
(w13 7/15 p.18 par.11)
And so, like an accomplished magician, the writer succeeds in duping
the reader into drawing two false assumptions: (1) that there was a
first century governing body, which there wasn’t (and bible writers were
perfectly capable of coming up with their own term in Greek to describe
such an arrangement if it existed without the Watchtower adding to the
scriptures), and (2) that it was a permanent ongoing arrangement rather
than a one-off way of dealing with a particular problem that arose,
namely circumcision.
The next paragraph is one of the most intriguing in the magazine, but it serves a very deliberate purpose. It states…
“Thus far we have seen that Jesus followed a pattern when
feeding his followers: He fed many through the hands of a few. The
channel he used for spiritual feeding was clearly recognizable. After
all, the apostles – the original members of the governing body – could
provide visible proof of heavenly backing. ‘Through the hands of the
apostles many signs and portents continued to occur among the people,’
states Acts 5:12. Hence, there was no reason for those who became
Christian to wonder, ‘Who really are the ones through whom Christ is
feeding his sheep?’ But by the end of the first century, the situation
changed.” (w13 7/15 p.18 par.12)
The paragraphs that follow go on to describe Christianity’s slide
into apostasy following the death of the apostles, but rather than
allowing ourselves to be swept along by the rhetoric, the true purpose
of the above paragraph must be fully recognized. The Society is now
trying to make the point, which it repeats more clearly on page 21, that
the faithful slave scripture COULD NOT have applied to the apostles
because their authority was unmistakable due to their “signs and
portents.”
The
magazine twice tries to argue that the “faithful slave” could not have
applied to the apostles because it was mentioned in the form of a
question
Simply put, the Society now argues that, because Matthew 24:45 is
written in the form of a question (i.e. “Who really is the faithful and
discreet slave…?”), Jesus could not have been referring to his apostles.
They say that, because it was so obvious that the apostles were in
charge, such a question would be irrelevant. However, as I will argue
later in this article, this reasoning is so flawed it is almost
laughable.
In reality, all the Society achieves with the above paragraph is to
inadvertently remind thinking Witnesses that the Governing Body really
has no “visible proof” of their appointment by Christ. Sure, they have
an organization that is expanding at an underwhelming annual growth rate
of 1.9% (as of 2012), but it is also an organization that imposes the
torturous shunning of family members and is increasingly making itself
the subject of legal pressure on account of its damaging child abuse policies.
The idea that the individual Governing Body members are somehow
invisibly hand-picked by Christ is therefore unthinkable – so
unthinkable that even the Society evades articulating this idea in
print. So where does the Governing Body get its mandate from?
I wish I could answer that question by quoting a series of paragraphs
in this magazine through which the Society coherently justifies the
Governing Body’s new Pope-like status. Sadly, however, there is no such
material to draw from. Nowhere in these study articles is it described
how Governing Body members are selected, or how it can be proven that
Christ has any role in this process whatsoever. Rather, the mandate for
the Governing Body to rule unquestioned over nearly 8 million people
apparently hinges on three scriptures:
Christ’s miracle of the loaves and the fishes in Matthew 14
Two chapters in Acts, namely chapters 15 and 16 (a historical
narrative about the handling of the circumcision issue by the “apostles
and older men”)
The verses in Matthew 24 about the faithful slave – which many argue were intended purely as a parable.
Having established such a shaky foundation for justifying the present
Governing Body arrangement in the first three articles, the fourth and
final article is left to drive home the message that the Governing Body
is to be loyally obeyed without question, because its future approval by
Christ is already set in stone. This is underlined by the final words
of the second paragraph, which states:
“It is vital that we recognize the faithful slave. Our
spiritual health and our relationship with God depend on this channel.” –
Matthew 4:4; John 17:3.
I looked up both scriptures. As you would expect, neither was remotely connected with the faithful and discreet slave.
Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?
It doesn’t take long for the final article to answer the above
question, which forms its title. A box is provided at the top of page 22
that spells out the answer succinctly, as follows:
“‘The faithful and discreet slave’: A small group of
brothers who are directly involved in preparing and dispensing spiritual
food during Christ’s presence. Today, these anointed brothers make up
the Governing Body.” (w13 7/15 p.22 box)
This answer is elaborated on in the text beneath, in paragraph 10…
“Who then is the faithful and discreet slave? In keeping
with Jesus’ pattern of feeding many through the hands of a few, that
slave is made up of a small group of anointed brothers who are directly
involved in preparing and dispensing spiritual food during Christ’s
presence. Throughout the last days, the anointed brothers who make up
the faithful slave have served together at headquarters. In recent
decades, that slave has been closely associated with the Governing body
of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Note, however, that the word “slave” in Jesus’
illustration is singular, indicating that this is a composite slave. The
decisions of the Governing Body are thus made collectively.” (w13 7/15
p.22, par.10)
Having unequivocally assumed such a lofty title, the Governing Body
members probably felt that they needed to make some token show of
humility. It was noted during the Annual Meeting that, in his talk,
David Splane went to great lengths to “sell” the new teaching to the
audience by pushing the new understanding of the domestics – now
considered to be both anointed christians, and those of the great crowd.
David Splane extols the teaching of the domestics during the Annual Meeting
“And brothers, we LOVE this teaching.” Splane enthused, adding, “We
LOVE this idea, because it really truly does dignify the members of the
Great Crowd.” Many of us who watched those words being spoken on the slick JW.org promotional video
have been left unconvinced. It seems obvious that the “faithful slave”
has far more to “love” about this new teaching than the domestics do.
The issue of the domestics is given similar prominence in a section
entitled “Who are the domestics?” on pages 22 and 23. A picture is shown
at the top of page 23 in which Gerrit Lösch and his wife are seated at a
congregation meeting. Gerrit glances inquisitively as a young child
answers into the outstretched microphone. The message is unmistakeable.
“We are normal, everyday brothers – just like anyone else!” Not everyone
will be buying it.
A selection that has already been made
A key reason why the previous teaching regarding the faithful and
discreet slave almost served its purpose (to some extent) was that it
referred to events in the murky past that nobody could remember, and
made assertions that few could authoritatively argue with unless they
were prepared to do some research. For example, the Society argued that
Jesus selected a Slave in 1919 that had already existed for centuries,
and appointed it over all his “belongings.” Therefore, no matter what
flaws the organization may now have, the argument could be made that the
Slave Class had ALREADY received final approval from Christ – so any
perceived flaws were irrelevant.
But now, the teaching is that Christ has YET to finally approve the
Governing Body in its role as the composite slave. With this in mind,
you would expect the Governing Body
members to exercise a bit of humility, and not try to second guess the
decision that Christ is due to make in the future during the Great
Tribulation when he finally arrives to inspect his slave class. Instead,
the Governing Body boldly makes Christ’s decision for him in advance.
Note what is said on page 25…
“In view of the foregoing, what can we conclude? When Jesus comes for judgment during the great tribulation, he will find
that the faithful slave has been loyally dispensing timely spiritual
food to the domestics. Jesus will then delight in making the second
appointment – over all his belongings.” (w13 7/15 p.25 par.18, bold
mine)
I was amazed at the arrogance when reading the above words. One would
think that, if they have any true Christ-like humility about them, the
Governing Body would say words to the effect of “we will do our best to
provide spiritual food, and if Christ is pleased with our efforts when
he comes, he promises to appoint us over all his belongings.” Instead,
as mentioned, the decision has evidently already been made by the
Governing Body on Christ’s behalf that he WILL choose them when he
comes.
The scriptures themselves indicate that the appointment over the
belongings is not to be considered a foregone conclusion. One is
reminded of the very next words in Matthew 24:48-51 (New World Translation)…
“But if ever that evil slave should say in his heart, ‘My
master is delaying,’ and should start to beat his fellow slaves and
should eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, the master of that
slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he
does not know, and will punish him with the greatest severity and will
assign him his part with the hypocrites. There is where [his] weeping
and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be.”
Ironically, the Society addresses this scripture by means of a box on
page 24, on the page just before it makes the bold assertion that it
WILL be selected. The box begins by discussing the “evil slave” and
makes the following statement…
“Was Jesus foretelling that there would be an evil slave
class in the last days? No. Granted, some individuals have manifested a
spirit similar to that of the evil slave described by Jesus. We would
call them apostates, whether they were of the anointed or of the “great
crowd.” (Rev. 7:9) But such ones do not make up an evil slave class.
Jesus did not say that he would appoint an evil slave. His words here
are actually a warning directed to the faithful and discreet slave.”
(w13 7/15 p.24 box)
And so a warning directed at the faithful and discreet slave is cunningly turned into an opportunity to lampoon apostates
for “beating their fellow slaves.” Even though the box acknowledges
that apostates are not the evil slave, it still leaps on the opportunity
to misrepresent and stigmatize those who are guilty of nothing more
than disagreeing with the teachings and practices of the Governing Body.
Meanwhile, the Governing Body neatly sidesteps Christ’s warning about
the “evil slave.” An unnamed “scholar” makes a brief cameo, and is
quoted as saying: “for all practical purposes [the evil slave warning]
is a hypothetical condition.” (bold and brackets mine)
The writer thus dismisses the entire portion of scripture, declaring
further on in the box that the Governing Body “has continued to keep on
the watch and to provide nourishing spiritual food.” This part of the
discussion is summed up as follows…
“The anointed brothers who together serve as the faithful
slave recognize that they are accountable to the Master for the way
they care for his domestics. The hearfelt desire of these anointed
brothers is to fulfill their responsibility loyally so that they might
hear a ‘well done’ from the Master when he finally arrives.” (w13 7/15
p.24 box)
Whatever the Governing Body may profess their “heartfelt desire” to
be, they cannot escape the fact that their actions and decisions have
caused misery and heartache to countless thousands through their cruel
insistence on unscriptural policies such as the shunning of family members.
Jesus said that his followers would be identified by the love they have among themselves
(John 13:35), and yet the breaking up of families purely because
somebody decides to leave his or her former religion is anything but
loving. Those labelled “apostates” and slandered with hate speech
merely for daring to disagree with the Governing Body have every reason
to think of these men as an “evil slave,” whether such ones still
consider themselves Christians or not. It is therefore difficult to
fathom how the Governing Body can boldly consider Christ’s approval of
their methods to be a foregone conclusion. (Matt. 7:21-23)
More questions than answers
In total there are 23 pages in the four study articles combined. And
yet, for all the sleek illustrations, carefully worded paragraphs and
prophetic timelines, the magazine leaves key questions regarding the
organization’s new doctrines unanswered. Here are just a few…
What scripture supports the fact that the “inspection and
cleansing work” would take Christ four and a half years (from late 1914
to early 1919)?” (p.11) – Repeatedly the magazine insists that
the four and a half years between late 1914 and early 1919 was a period
of “inspection and cleansing” by Christ. However, nowhere is any
scripture provided to explain why Christ would need this specific length
of time to achieve this purpose. Rather, it seems that events in the
organization’s history have been taken as the “evidence” – and the
scriptures just have to fit around them.
The early Bible Students were said to commit an “organizational sin” by ripping out fiercely political pages of this book
What were the circumstances under which the early Bible Students “gave in to the fear of man?” (p.12)
– This statement is found on page 12, but not elaborated on. If you
have the time, I would encourage you to do research on this if you
haven’t already done so. In a previous article, I explored the events surrounding the publication of the Finished Mystery,
and how the Bible Students were ordered by the authorities to tear out
pages 247 to 253 of the book – pages that were fiercly political and
critical of America’s war effort. This compromise was deemed an
“organizational sin.” However, the more you research the ludicrous
statements contained in the Finished Mystery, the more you
reach the conclusion that Christ would actually have praised the Bible
Students for ripping out its pages rather than chastising them for it.
If Russell and his associates were not part of God’s channel
(or even the “slave class”) then why did Christ choose only to inspect them in 1914 and not any other Christian denominations? (p.19)
– To put this question another way – why would Christ “inspect” one
Christian denomination rather than several, or even all of them? If
there was nothing special about Russell or his associates, then why did
Christ effectively set up camp at Watchtower HQ for four and a half
years and “inspect” them over this period? “Cleansing” is one thing, but
“inspection” is something altogether different. Inspection is something
you do BEFORE you are satisfied of the nature of something. Would it
not have made more sense to “inspect” multiple denominations first,
choose one of them, and then “cleanse” it accordingly?
There is no scriptural support for the notion that authority can somehow be passed on from one generation to the next
If all of the original 1919 members of the slave chosen by
Christ are now dead, how can it be said that subsequent members of the
slave were chosen? – As mentioned in a previous article,
a key problem with the “new light” is the question of succession.
Previously, the Governing Body claimed that they were merely the
representatives of a cloud-like mass of “anointed” ones that has always
existed since the time of the apostles. Now, however, they have
effectively evaporated this “cloud” and insisted that their appointment
came directly from Christ in 1919. But all of the 1919 board of
directors are now dead and buried, so how can it be assumed that their
position as “faithful slave” was passed on to their successors? The
Society has roundly condemned the catholic principle of apostolic
succession in their literature – including the Reasoning Book.
It is one thing to suggest that Christ came and selected Rutherford and
his associates in 1919 (despite the connotations of this, once you look
at Rutherford’s character and what they were printing at the time). It
is another thing entirely to assume that this status of “the faithful
and discreet slave” was somehow passed like a baton to successive
generations down through the decades since 1919 based purely on
the necessity caused by people dying. No explanation is given as to how
this was achieved, other than the suggestion that it “just did” – which
is essentially Watchtower’s version of apostolic succession. With this
new teaching, Watchtower has become more like the catholic church than
it would care to admit.
Why can it be said with certainty that Christ’s original
apostles were not at least part of the faithful and discreet slave?
(p.21) – This question is posed on page 21 of the magazine, but
nowhere is it satisfactorily answered. The only explanation offered is
that the “faithful and discreet slave” statement by Jesus was posed in
the form of a question, and therefore it couldn’t possibly have applied
to the apostles since there was no doubt at all that these ones had
Christ’s authority. However, the asking of a question does not
necessarily imply doubt. For example, what about “rhetorical questions”
where the answer is known before the question is asked? And if it was
such a foregone conclusion that the apostles would live up to Christ’s
expectations, then why did Jesus go to such lengths to tell Peter to
“feed my little sheep” after his resurrection? (John 21:15-19) The
article insists that there was “hardly a reason to ask such a question”
regarding the apostles, yet recognizing the authority of the apostles as
the “faithful slave” was as much a choice for early Christians as it is
for Witnesses regarding the Governing Body today. This is highlighted
by the fact that some early Christians deviated from the apostles’
leadership. (2 Tim 2:16-18) The Society’s reasoning is thus SO flawed
that the question is effectively left unanswered.
It
seems that working at World Headquarters in New York is a key criterion
for being considered part of the Faithful Slave, even though there is
no scriptural basis for this assertion
Just what is so special about headquarters? (p.22) –
According to the new explanation of the faithful slave, it seems that a
key identifying feature of a composite slave member is not WHO he is,
or even whether he has a heavenly hope or not. What apparently matters
is WHERE he happens to work. Nowhere in Christ’s discussion of the slave
does it hint that “location, location, location” would be at all
important in identifying who the faithful slave is, so how can the
organization be so dogmatic in insisting that “headquarters” in New York
carries such relevance in making this biblical determination?
How can the Governing Body justify insisting that they WILL
be appointed by Christ over “all of this belongings” in advance of this
event? (p.25) – As discussed above, many sincere Witnesses will
be left scratching their heads at the brazenness of the Governing Body
in insisting they WILL be appointed by Christ over his belongings before
he has even come in judgment. The decision has been effectively
snatched out of Christ’s hands, and made for him.
An organization as porous as its teachings
By now you have probably reached the conclusion that most of what is
discussed in the four articles of this new magazine either makes no
sense at all, or was already covered at the Annual Meeting nearly six
months ago – an event at which some 15,000 privileged Witnesses were
treated to a glimpse of the “new light” before millions of their
brothers around the world.
The
Governing Body preferred to receive applause and fanfare at their
Annual Meeting than go to any efforts to make sure their “new light”
reached the global brotherhood simultaneously
As discussed in a previous article, it took more than a month following the Annual Meeting for news of the “new light” to be finally confirmed on the Society’s official web pages,
and nearly two months for this information to be made available in
languages other than English. Finally, six months after the information
was divulged from a New Jersey platform, the worldwide brotherhood are
finally getting to hear about this doctrine in print – a doctrine that
carries profound implications regarding the authority of the Governing
Body.
No longer are the Governing Body self-appointed representatives of a
some obscure cloud of anointed Witnesses that has always existed in some
form stretching back to the time of the apostles. They are now
self-appointed representatives, not of heaven-bound Christians, but of
Christ himself. They answer to no one, not even Christ whom they
represent! After all, they have made his decision to appoint them over
“all his belongings” for him in advance. Any meaningful evidence to
support their claims is deemed irrelevant.
True, it may be that even before this announcement a good number of
Witnesses considered the Governing Body to be the faithful and discreet
slave, but this would only realistically have been for one (or both) of
two reasons: (1) ignorance on the part of individuals regarding
Watchtower doctrine, or (2) confusion as a result of the way in which
the Governing Body increasingly presented themselves over many years as
being synonymous with the Slave Class. The fact that the rhetoric coming
down from the Society led many to predict the announcement in advance
does not lessen the fact that the new teaching carries profound
implications. It consolidates the authority of the Governing Body, and
effectively elevates them to Pope-like status.
The leaking of this magazine and other documents proves that more thinking Witnesses are finding the courage to take action
With all this considered, perhaps we learn more from the fact that
this magazine has been leaked weeks ahead of its release than from
anything contained in its pages. The Watch Tower Society now seems
unable to hold water both in terms of its doctrines and in keeping
information confidential, as more and more information is leaked by conscientious individuals within the growing ranks of thinking Witnesses.
It is exhilarating to think that so many within the organization are
waking from their indoctrination and finding the courage to take risks
by getting information like this article into the hands of those who
will make use of it. I only hope that this pattern continues, so that
more and more true light can shine down on this quirky organization with
its dubious history, shady practices and tangled teachings.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are told to have complete trust in the
information the Governing Body provides them. Examples of numerous
misquotes are included in this article, showing that such trust is not
warranted.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are utterly convinced that their church’s
leadership - the Governing Body - is both trustworthy and
unquestionable. They are assured that the information they are provided
is well researched, accurate and truthful. Under the heading “Tracing
All Things With Accuracy” the 2011 Yearbook states:
“In summary, the Writing Department insists on using only material that is accurate and truthful, even regarding seemingly insignificant details.
As a result, “the faithful and discreet slave” can consistently supply
spiritual food that brings honor to “the God of truth,” Jehovah.” (p.13)
Witnesses are told to put aside personal opinion regarding
Scriptures, but rather have complete confidence in the leaders, as even
Jehovah trusts them.
“[A mature Christian] does not advocate or insist on personal
opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding.
Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave.” Watchtower 2001 Aug 1 p.14
“Since Jehovah God and Jesus Christ completely trust the faithful and discreet slave, should we not do the same?” Watchtower 2009 Feb 15 p.27
“We are determined to be loyal to Jehovah and to his organization. This organization has never disappointed us and always gives us an abundance of pure waters of truth from God’s Word.” Watchtower 2011 Jul 15 p.12
External research is not recommended, as the Watchtower supplies all the information required.
“In Jehovah's organization it is not necessary to spend a lot of
time and energy in research, for there are brothers in the organization
who are assigned to that very thing, …” Watchtower 1967 Jun 1 p.338
“Thus “the Faithful and discreet slave” does not endorse any
literature, meetings or websites that are not produced or organized
under its oversight. … For those that wish to do extra Bible study and
research, we recommend that they explore Insight on the Scriptures…” Kingdom Ministry Sep 2007
With such trust, Witnesses become impervious to the manner in which
misinformation is presented. There are many ways of presenting
information to mislead others, including total dishonesty, incorrect
information, misrepresenting a person's position, misquotes, withholding
information, use of ambiguous language and rhetorical fallacies. This
article has specific examples of each from within the Watchtower.
The Watchtower has regularly lied about what it said prior to 1914,
claiming it correctly predicted the occurrences of 1914, and has held
to consistent teachings regarding that date.
Until the 1930's, the Watchtower taught that:
The time of the end commenced 1799
Jesus presence commenced 1874
Jesus' heavenly rule in 1878
"There are two important here that we must not confuse, but clearly
differentiate, namely, the beginning of "the time of the end" and of
"the presence of the Lord". "The time of the end" embraces a period from
A.D. 1799, as above indicated, to the time of the complete
overthrow of Satan's empire and the establishment of the kingdom of the
Messiah. The time of the Lord's presence dates from 1874, as
above stated. The latter period is within the first named, of course,
and at the latter part of the period known as "the time of the end"." The Harp of God (1921) p.231
"The year A.D. 1878 … clearly marks the time for the actual
assuming of power as King of kings, by our present, spiritual, invisible
Lord …" Studies in the Scriptures - The Time is At Hand (1911 ed) p.239
Yet it is now stated that the Watchtower "anticipated" Jesus would receive power in 1914.
"By linking the "seven times" of Daniel 4:25 with "the times of the Gentiles", they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914." Watchtower 1998 Sep 15 p.15
"For over thirty years before that date and for half a century
since, Jehovah's witnesses have pointed to the year 1914 as the time for
the end of "the appointed times of the nations" and the time in which Christ would begin his Kingdom rule. (Luke 21:24)" Watchtower 1966 Feb 15 p.103
Likewise, it was originally predicted that the end was to occur in
1914, yet now it is wrongfully stated that 1914 was the "start" of the
end.
"But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble." Zion's Watch Tower 1894 Jul 15 p.226
"Jehovah's witnesses pointed to the year 1914, decades in advance, as marking the start of "the conclusion of the system of things." Awake! 1973 Jan 22 p.8
1914 was to be the start of the earthly resurrection.
"The beginning of the earthly phase of the Kingdom in the end of
A.D. 1914 will, we understand, consist wholly of the resurrected holy
ones of olden time-from John the Baptizer back to Abel;-"Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob and all the holy prophets."" Studies In the Scriptures - The Day of Vengeance (1897) p.625
Now they claim their calculations were true.
"He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the "seven times"
mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such
calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of
God's kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king. Just think of it!
Jehovah granted his people that knowledge nearly four decades before
those times expired." Yearbook 1975 p.37
"Decades before 1914, Jehovah's worshippers declared to the nations
that the end of "the appointed times of the nations" would come in that
year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble." Watchtower 2013 Feb 15 p.18
It was not declared that the world would enter the time of trouble in 1914, as the time of trouble was said to have started in 1874.
“…, and the time of trouble, or “day of wrath” which began October 1874 and will end October 1914;… “ Studies in the Scriptures - The Day of Vengeance p.604
Whilst, it is strictly correct that Russell declared the Gentile
Times, or "appointed times of the nations", would end in 1914, these
statements hide that nothing expected for the end of the Gentile Times
came to pass.
For more information see Failed 1914 Predictions.
In the 2010 DVD Faith In Action, Anthony Morris, speaking of Russell and the Bible Students, makes the statement:
"The fact that they were able to pinpoint that year [1914] is just phenomenal."
Russell did not originate the interpretation that the Seven Times
pinpointed 1914 as the end of the Gentile times. Russell took this
teaching from the Second Adventist movement. In 1823, John Aquila Brown
published in The Even-Tide that the "seven times" of Daniel 4
were prophetic of 2,520 years, running from the beginning of
Nebuchadnezzar's reign in 604 B.C. to 1917 A.D. Barbour later adjusted
this to 1914. In 1875, The Herald of the Morning, edited by Barbour, Cogswell and Paton, stated;
"I believe that though the gospel dispensation will end in 1878,
the Jews will not be restored to Palestille, until 1881; and that the
"times of the Gentiles," viz. their seven prophetic, times, of 2520, or
twice 1260 years, which began where God gave all, into the hands of
Nebuchadnezzar, 606 B.C.; do not end until A.D. 1914; or 40 years from
this." The Herald of the Morning 1875 Sep
Impressed with Barbour's prophetic doctrine, Russell joined with
him in 1876 and started to promote Barbour's date doctrine, including
1874, 1878 and 1914.
The Watchtower falsely predicted that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were going to be resurrected in 1925. In 1980, the Yearbook quotes from a 1926 Watchtower
justifying the failure as just “an expressed opinion.” First, that
statement is inaccurate, as from 1918 to 1925 the core Watchtower
message was that the new system would commence in 1925, with a series of
lectures and the booklet entitled “Millions now Living Will Never Die.”
So effectual was the message, that after the predictions of 1925 failed
to eventuate, memorial attendance dropped from 90,434 in 1925 to only
17,380 in 1928. (See Watchtower 1960 May 1 p.282 and Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose p.313)
Second, the Yearbook only half quotes the statement, putting
a full stop in place of a semicolon. The full quote showed that the
return of Abraham and the other Ancients was still being promoted with
the phrase, “it is still shortly after 1925.”
Original Quote
1980 Quote
“It was stated in the "Millions" book that we might
reasonably expect them to return shortly after 1925, but this was merely
an expressed opinion; besides it is still shortly after 1925.
There is no good reason why we should expect the ancient worthies to
return until the church is complete and the work of the church on earth
is done." Watchtower 1926 p.196
"Indicative of this testing was the question meeting held by
Brother Rutherford during the Basel, Switzerland, assembly, which took
place May 1-3, 1926. The report on this convention stated:
Question: Have the ancient worthies returned?
Answer: Certainly they have not returned. No one has seen them,
and it would be foolish to make such an announcement. It was stated in
the "Millions" book that we might reasonably expect them to return
shortly after 1925, but this was merely an expressed opinion." Yearbook 1980 p.62
Revelation 7:9-17 and 19:1 show that the great crowd are in heaven. However, the Watchtower is determined to show they will be on earth. Since Revelation 7:15 states that the great crowd are in the temple sanctuary (naos), where only the priests could enter, the Watchtower resorts to lying in order to convince followers that naos could include the outer courtyards.
"For example, in the Bible account of where Jesus Christ drove the
money changers and merchantmen out of Herod's temple, the original Greek
word used is na.os'." Watchtower 1980 Aug 15 p.15
This is a lie. None of the Scriptures discussing where Jesus drove the money changers from use the word naos, they use the word hieron, which includes the outer courtyards. See John 2:14-15, Matthew 21:12 and Mark 11:15 in the The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.
Jehovah’s Witnesses must not worship Jesus.
Yet this has only been the case since 1954, as originally Witnesses
worshipped both Jehovah and Jesus. Interestingly, the Watchtower Charter
stated Jesus was to be worshipped up until it was finally amended in
1999. For 45 years, Witnesses were counselled against worshipping Jesus,
even though in the Charter to do so was stated as the express reason
for the existence of the Watchtower Society. To deal with this
discrepancy, the Watchtower resorted to misquoting the Charter.
The Charter stated:
"for public Christian worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus; to arrange for”
The Yearbook of 1969 p.50 leaves the words "and Christ Jesus" out, replacing them with dots.
"for public Christian worship of Almighty God … ; to arrange for”
The Watchtower 1971 p.760 replaces the word “and” with “through”, to significantly hide and change the true meaning of the sentence.
"for public Christian worship of Almighty God [through] Christ Jesus; to arrange for" Watchtower 1971 Dec 15 p.760
The 1993 Proclaimers book, which is a history of the Watchtower Society, fails to even mention what is in this important document.
It has been written that there was never a biography about Russell, so as not to take glory from Jehovah.
"But, is it true you have never published a biography of Pastor Russell? …
That's right. Jehovah's witnesses admire the qualities he possessed
as a man, but were we to give the honor and credit to Pastor Russell,
we would be saying that the works and success were his; but Jehovah's
witnesses believe it is God's spirit that guides and directs his
people." Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (1959) p.63
This is not true, as the Proclaimers book tells us that there was a biography.
"A brief biography of Russell along with his will and testament was
published in The Watch Tower of December 1, 1916, as well as in
subsequent editions of the first volume of Studies in the Scriptures." Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom p.64
The Watchtower re-wrote history when changing what it must have
recognised would become an embarrassing failure, when changing the
wording of the original printed magazine to what it included in the
bound volume. The Watchtower 1989 Jan 1 p.12 indicated that Armageddon would arrive within the twentieth century, stating :
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century."
When printed in the 1989 Watchtower bound volume and the subsequent Watchtower CD library, this was changed from "in our 20th century" to "in our day."
This is ingenious, as it provided Witnesses reading the magazine
with false hope and motivation, yet in the future those researching
would not be able to say the Watchtower was wrong. Printed prior to the
mainstream internet, it could never have been expected that more than a
few would ever become aware of the switch.
Plagiarism carries inherent risks. At one level there is the
potential that the information being copied is inaccurate, at the other
it can be an illegal breaking of copyright.
It is important to note that the majority of Watchtower doctrine
comes from other sources. For instance, the date teachings of Russell,
including 1914, were from the nineteenth century Adventist movement.
Rutherford introduced the idea in Watchtower literature that Jesus did
not die on a cross, but this was an idea that at the time was being
promoted by some Protestant Preachers, such as E.W. Bullinger. The
arguments in the Creation book have been taken from Creationist
books, including the misapplication of science quotes. If the
information is correct and properly referenced, then it is not an issue
what the source was, but Witnesses should be realistic that doctrine is
not magically revealed to the leaders by Holy Spirit.
Images in the Watchtower have also landed the Watchtower in trouble. According to one illustrator from Bethel, it was common for some artists to source and copy pictures from magazines.
One of the more illegal examples was the cover of the Watchtower 1982 Sep 15. During 1981 and 1982, the following Johnny Walker advertisement appeared in magazines such as the U.S. News and World Report 29 Jun 1981 and certain editions of Reader’s Digest Sep 1982 page 37. The Watchtower plagiarised the advertisement, with slight alterations for the cover of the Watchtower 1982 Sep 15.
On becoming aware of this violation of copyright, the distributor
of Johnny Walker, Somerset Importers, contacted the Watchtower. It was
agreed to change future printings, including in the Bound volume and
foreign editions.
The new cover was changed to a grove of trees against a mountain.
Not only did the Watchtower break copyright, but they have been
less than forthright with readers enquiring about the change, who have
been advised it was for “a more appropriate and suitable illustration…”
If an enquirer was unaware about the copyright issue, they must have
been left wondering what was inappropriate about the sunset.
An unfortunate example appears in the book You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth.
This was released when I was a teenage boy, and I fondly remember the
picture on page 93. The woman was so beautiful that I could clearly
understand the temptation that the angels must have felt whilst looking
down upon the earth. What I did not know at the time was that this woman
was a real person, Pascale Petit, who appeared in Playboy November 1963 and some raunchy movies, such as the European sex comedy Frau Wirtin hat auch einen Grafen. The inclusion of this picture in the Live Forever
book was a potential copyright infringement, as the image of Pascale
Petit was taken directly from the cover of the 13th August 1961 German
magazine Stern.
A further example of Watchtower copying other sources is the Bible Stories book, with several illustrations closely resembling images from The Bible Story by Arthur S. Maxwell (Review and Herald Publishing Association 1955).
The 2005 book What Does the Bible Really Teach, page 183 makes the comment;
"… you have made a dedication to Jehovah God himself, not to a
work, a cause, other humans, or an organization. Your dedication and
baptism are the beginning or a very close friendship with God-an
intimate relationship with him."
In actual fact, Jehovah's Witnesses do make a dedication and baptism to an organisation. The second baptism question is;
"Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as
one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed
organization?" Watchtower 1985 Jun 1 p.30
The Watchtower used to abide by the Biblical procedure outlined at Matthew
28:19 of baptising in the name of the Father, Son and holy spirit, but
in 1985 holy spirit was replaced with God's spirit-directed
organization, as discussed at Changing Baptism Arrangement.
The Watchtower made definitive statements that this worldly system would end in 1914 and 1925 and strong implications regarding 1975. Yet following the failure of these predictions, it claimed the fault was that of faithful members.
Regarding 1914:
“There is no doubt that many throughout this period were
overzealous in their statements as to what could be expected. Some read
into the Watch Tower statements that were never intended.” Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose p.52
Regarding 1925:
“Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the Lord did not state so. The difficulty was that the friends inflated their imaginations beyond reason; and that when their imaginations burst asunder, they were inclined to throw away everything.” Watch Tower 1926 p.232
Regarding 1975:
“If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of
thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing
that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought
disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong
premises.” Watchtower 1976 Jul 15 p.441
The Yearbook 1976 p.71 discusses Elliot Kenan Kamwana, the Watchtower's first representative in Nyasaland, Africa from the early 1900's.
"After 1906, Booth was strongly influenced by Millennialism, … he
strongly influenced Elliot Kenan Kamwana, the first leader of the
Watchtower followers of Charles Taze Russell in Nyasaland." Yearbook 1976 pp.70-71
In 1909 the Watchtower contained an article titled "Good Tidings
Spreading in Africa", which discussed the work of Kamwana in Nyassalan.
"They are overjoyed at having the same message brought here which
they have heard was being proclaimed up in their home country,
Nyassaland, by Brother Elliott Kamwana. … Brother Elliot Kamwana was
arrested and deported by the government at the instigation of the
Calvinistic Scotch missionaries of Bandwe, Lake Nyasa, who were greatly
surprised that their work of years could be so quickly lifted to the
higher plane of our teaching. … Brother Kamwana baptized 9,126 in past
year." Watch Tower 1909 Jul 1
The followers that Kamwana managed to convert became known as
members of "The Watchtower Movement". However, many of the followers
continued with pagan practices and polygamy, and were involved in a
later uprising. In 1948, the Watchtower released a booklet called The Watchtower Story in an attempt to distance itself from this group. The booklet dishonestly said:
"It should be particularly noted that the "native rising" took
place in 1915. The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society had no resident
representative in Nyasaland or the Rhodesias prior to 1925." The Watchtower Story p.6 Click to download
"Who are no part of the world and learn war no more? Again, the historical record of the 20th century testifies: only Jehovah's Witnesses." Watchtower 1992 Apr 1 p.12
There are a number of pacifist and neutral religions that do not go
to war, such as Quakers, Christadelphians, Worldwide Church of God and
Anabaptists. Some Pacifists go further than Witnesses in their avoidance
of war by even refusing to pay the "War Tax" component of income tax in
the United States.
“Third, unlike the Protestant movement, which has splintered into
hundreds of denominations, Jehovah’s Witnesses have maintained a united
global brotherhood.” Watchtower 2009 Nov 1 p.19
Surely, Jehovah's Witnesses are aware of enough of their history to
know of the Russellites and Bible Student groups that broke away,
particularly following Russell's death, though these groups would claim
Rutherford broke away from the true religion as set up by Russell.
It may be said that the quote was referring to Jehovah's Witnesses
specifically since the official name was chosen in 1931, rather than the
Jehovah's Witnesses that have existed since Adam (Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose p.8),
or possibly when the Governing Body is said to have been chosen in
1919, but even that is not true. New sects have been constantly forming.
In Romania, one group of Witnesses spent decades isolated during
communism, with access primarily to Rutherford's works. On gaining
freedom, they were offended at the many doctrinal changes in recent
Watchtower publications, and set up The True Faith Jehovah's Witnesses. Since the Internet, there have been many small splinter groups starting.
Some Breakaway sects with active websites, as of 12 Feb 2013 include:
In order to justify that the Watchtower teaches truth, despite
constant doctrinal changes, the idea of the “light gets brighter” is
invoked. New doctrine does not contradict but clarifies old doctrine.
The progression of doctrine is described as tacking, moving from side to
side but ever forward.
“Of course, such development of understanding, involving “tacking”
as it were, has often served as a test of loyalty for those associated
with the “faithful and discreet slave.” However, progress is being made
continually toward fuller appreciation of the “good news” and all that
it means.” Watchtower 1981 Dec 1 p.31
This is not the case in many doctrinal changes, where the doctrine
has gone back and forth between two or more interpretations. Recent
examples regard the “generation” and “faithful and discreet slave.”
In such cases, the new doctrine is presented as new light, without
revealing that they are going back to a previous teaching.
For instance, the Watchtower used to teach that the Superior Authorities
of Romans 13:1 were Governments. In 1929, this was changed to being
Jehovah and Jesus. In 1962, this went back to being Governments. Yet
when discussing this topic, Watchtower publications, such as Watchtower 1990 Nov 1 p.11 and Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom
pp.146-147, present the 1962 change as “progressive” or “increased”
light, failing to mention that they were returning to “old light.”
The Watchtower employs a range of methods to convince members that
blood transfusions are unsafe. This is such an important topic, due to
ongoing lives being lost, that it is recommended to consider the
information at Blood Transfusions, and also Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusion, and the Tort of Misrepresentation by Kerry Louderback-Wood.
One outstanding misquote regards the risk of refusing a transfusion
for renal transplantation. Not only is a full stop added, but the quote
hides the context that shows a significant increase in death rate for
Jehovah's Witness renal transplant patients with anaemia.
“The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be
safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah’s Witnesses.” How Can Blood Save Your Life? p.16
The full quote is:
"Jehovah Witnesses had an increased susceptibility to rejection
episodes. The cumulative percentage of incidence of primary rejection
episodes was 77 percent at three months in Jehovah’s Witnesses versus 44
percent at 21 months in the matched control group. The consequence of
early allograft dysfunction from rejection was particularly detrimental
to Jehovah’s Witness who developed severe anemia (hemoglobin (Hgb)* 4.5
per cent) – two early deaths occurred in the subgroup with this
combination. The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah Witness
patients but those with anemia who undergo early rejection
episodes are a high-risk group relative to other transplant patients."
Misleading comments are made such as that erythropoietin (EPO) can
help a patient "form replacement red cells very quickly”, “three to four
times faster than normal.” (How Can Blood Save Your Life? p.15)
A reader quite likely would think "very quickly" means hours or days,
yet "EPO can take four or more weeks to begin to relieve some of the
symptoms of anaemia." (myeloma.org.uk Erythropoietin Infosheet Oct 2011)
The information supplied in How Can Blood Save Your Life? also attempts to create unrealistic fear of the risks of blood transfusion. For instance, page 11 quotes from The New York Times
July 18 1989 that "A panel of health officials … [all] answered no" to
accepting blood from a person who tested positive for Lyme disease. What
is not stated is that there have never been any "cases of Lyme disease …
linked to blood transfusion …." (http://www.cdc.gov/lyme/transmission/
as of 22 Apr 2013)
The year 607 B.C. is pivotal to Jehovah's Witnesses, as it is the
foundation for calculating 1914 as the start of the Last Days. This
topic is so detailed that it warrants its own discussion at 607 - 1914 - Last Days.
Relevant to this article is that while the Watchtower says Jerusalem
was destroyed in 607 B.C., virtually every other source, including
encyclopaedias, historians and scholars, state that Jerusalem fell in
either 587 B.C. or 586 B.C.
To arrive at the spurious date of 607 B.C., the Watchtower needs to
re-work the dates for other significant events, also without any
historical support. For this reason, the Watchtower has resorted to
misrepresenting quotes to make it appear its date system is correct. For
example, in the following quote the Insight Book inserts the
year 624 B.C.E. as the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar. Though done
correctly by use of [ ], the reader is left with the impression this
date is supported by the original source.
"In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and "in the month
Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu
to Babylon." (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson,
1975, p. 100)" Insight on the Scriptures - Volume 2 p.480
However, on checking Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Grayson does not use the date of 624 B.C., but rather on page 19 gives the accession date as 605 B.C.
The Watchtower discourages advanced education. The following quote
contains a number of flaws in how information should be presented.
“Of this important library of books, Phelps added: "Our ideas, our
wisdom, our philosophy, our literature, our art, our ideals, come more
from the Bible than from all other books put together. … I believe a
knowledge of the Bible without a college course is more valuable than a
college course without the Bible." Awake! 2000 Dec 22 p.3
This quote encapsulates the misleading way the Watchtower commonly includes quotes.
First, no source for the quote is provided, so it is difficult and time consuming to verify. It turns out to be from the Encyclopedia of Sermons
and that Phelps was a nineteenth century preacher. Such information is
important in understanding the purpose and bias of such a comment. More
importantly, the quote misrepresents the intention of Phelps' sentence,
by the use of "…" to hide the first part of the quote;
"I thoroughly believe in a university education for both men and
women', said Dr. William Lyon Phelps of Yale University, 'but I believe a
knowledge of the Bible without a college course is more valuable than a
college course without the Bible. Every one who has a thorough
knowledge of the Bible may truly be called educated, and no other
learning or culture, no matter how extensive or elegant, can form a
proper substitute.'" (Encyclopedia of Sermon Illustrations)
In context we have a preacher recommending university, yet the
Watchtower presents the quote in such manner to make it appear Phelps is
downplaying the value of advanced education.
There is a volume of evidence that Jesus died on a Cross. (See Cross or Stake.) Since there is little evidence to support their theory that Jesus died on a stake, the Watchtower has resorted to misquoting.
The Imperial Bible-Dictionary is partially quoted to make it appear
that stauros must mean a stake. By partial quoting, it hides critical
information that stauros was being used to refer to a cross in the first
century.
"The Greek word rendered "cross" in many modern Bible versions
("torture stake" in NW) is stau·ros´. In classical Greek, this word
meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used
for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial
Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: "The Greek word for cross,
[stau·ros´], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of
paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in
impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans
the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been
originally an upright pole."-Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol.
I, p. 376." Reasoning from the Scriptures p.89
Ellipses (…) are used to change the meaning of this quote. The full quote is:
"The Greek word for cross, (stauros), properly signified a stake,
an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or
which might be used in impaling (fencing in) a piece of ground. But a
modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended
themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans,
the crux (from which the word cross is derived) appears to have been
originally an upright pole, and always remained the more prominent part.
But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of
punishment, a traverse piece of wood was commonly added: not however
always then.
… There can be no doubt, however, that the later sort was the more
common, and that about the period of the Gospel Age, crucifixion was
usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of
wood.
… But the commonest form, it is understood, was that in which the
upright piece of wood was crossed by another near the top, but not
pricisely at it, the upright pole running above the other, thus "a
cross" and so making four, not merely two right angles. It was on a
cross of this form, according to the general voice of tradition, that
our Lord suffered.
… It may be added that crucifixion was abolished around the time of
Constantine, in consequence of the sacred associations which the cross
had now gathered around it." The imperial Dictionary p.376
The Imperial Dictionary shows that crosses were the
prominent form of execution in Jesus day, and it was Constantine that
put an end to them, quite the opposite of what the Watchtower used the
quote for.
The 16th century De Cruce Liber Tres by Justus Lipsius is misrepresented in a different way. The Appendix to the 1950 and 1969 editions of The New World Translation and the Kingdom Interlinear
reproduces a woodcut illustration by Lipsius of a stake, stating, "This
is the manner in which Jesus was impaled", giving the distinct
impression that Lipsius supports Jesus death on a stake. A 1980 Watchtower article attempts to give the same impression that Lipsius supported a stake.
"Whether the wooden sculpture is the work of the 16th-century
artist Michelangelo or not, it illustrates that the impalement of Christ
on a cross frame has not always been so certain as Christendom’s
leaders today would have people believe. For example, the 16th-century
Roman Catholic scholar Justus Lipsius illustrated impalement on an
upright stake in his book “De Cruce Liber Primus.” This fits the meaning
of the Greek word used in the Bible to describe the impalement of
Christ." Watchtower 1980 Feb 15 p.30
This misrepresents Lipsius, who taught that Jesus died on a cross.
His book included a total of 16 woodcuts, 9 depicting various forms of
crucifixion. Under one of the crucifixion woodcuts is inscribed in Latin
with, "In the Lord's cross there were four pieces of wood, the upright
beam, the crossbar, a tree trunk placed below, and the title placed
above."
The Watchtower also draws on unreliable sources for support. The Reasoning Book
on page 89 goes on to quote "The book The Non-Christian Cross, by John
Denham Parsons" for support that Jesus did not die on a stake. Yet John
Parsons was a Skeptic who also wrote Our Sun-God: Or Christianity before Christ,
trying to prove a connection between Jesus and the Egyptian God Horus,
and was a member of the Society for Psychical Research to promote
information on psychics and the paranormal. The research provided by
Parsons regarding crux is flawed. For instance, he quotes Livy as using
crux to mean stake (Livy, xxviii. 29) but was mistaken. Livy used the
word palus not crux in this passage - "Bound to a stake (deligati ad palum) they were scouraged and beheaded" (28.29.11). Parsons also quotes Lucian saying Jesus was "fastened to a skolops;" (De Morte Peregrini) and claims Lucian used skolops to mean a single piece of wood. Yet this too is wrong, as Lucian uses the same verb anaskolopizoó in Lis Consonantium, 12 to refer to crucifixion on a two-beamed stauros.
The worst example of dishonesty amongst Watchtower literature regards the Trinity.
When attacking the Trinity doctrine, the Watchtower resorts to a
multitude of deceptive tactics, including the straw man technique of
misdefining the Trinity, misquoting sources, and presenting specifically
false information.
The doctrine of the Trinity is that there are "three persons in one
God". At times, the Watchtower uses the straw man technique of
misdefining the Trinity doctrine as "three Gods in one", such as in the
following quote, so as to attack this incorrect definition.
"The disgusting idolatry of the religions of Christendom and
pagandom has been set aside by Jehovah's restored people. Their worship
is not distributed to three gods in one, the so-called godhead of some
mysterious Trinity, but they are united as the one people who worship
the one God, Jehovah. Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 p.23
When discussing the Trinity, they have almost never mentioned the
concept of economic and ontological equality, yet this is key to
understanding the Trinity. Nor do they discuss Modalism, which is an
alternate doctrine about the nature of God that is believed by many
Pentecostals. Watchtower discussion melds Trinitarian and Modal concepts
into one, and then attacks the inaccurate hybrid straw man that they
themselves have created.
The Watchtower also presents the history of the Trinity
incorrectly, attempting to lead its followers to believe the Trinity did
not develop until centuries after Jesus, and under pressure from
Constantine. Should You Believe in the Trinity? p.7 states "…
history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical
times and for several centuries thereafter." It goes on to make the
inaccurate claim that the Antenicene fathers, including Justin Martyr,
Iraneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen were
against the Trinitarian concept, yet each of these people had an
instrumental part in the development on the Trinity. Page 5 claims "this
is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity." Yet
Tertullian stated;
"The connection of Father and Son, of Son and the Paraclete [Holy
Spirit] makes three who cohere in a dependent series. And these three
are one thing; not one person." (Against Praxeas ch.25)
"The Son of God is identical with God. The Spirit of God is God." (Against Praxeas ch.26)
See The Watchtower and the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers by Michael J. Partyka for an in-depth article with full source quotes of the partial quotes used in the Watchtower brochure Should you Believe the Trinity.
In each case it is readily apparent that the Watchtower Society has
distorted what the early Church Fathers were attempting to say.
Should You Believe in the Trinity? also makes classic use of
ellipses to hide words like "but", "however" and "therefore" in order
to twist the point being made by the source. Quotations are only
partially referenced, making it difficult and time consuming to locate
the original quote for verification purposes. The following partial
Watchtower quotes are compared with the original quote to highlight how
significantly the Watchtower is prepared to misrepresent sources to
convince followers of their viewpoint.
Source
Trinity Brochure
Full Quote
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethic, James Hastings, Trinity, p.461
"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was
not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the
N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings."-Encyclopædia of
Religion and Ethics. (ti pp. 6-7)
"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference."
The Triune God, Edward Fortman
"Jesuit Fortman states: "The New
Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the
Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal
divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of
three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same
Godhead."" (ti p.6)
"They give us no formal or formulated
doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are
three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated.
"
The Encyclopedia Americana
"The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be 'beyond the grasp of human reason." (ti p.4)
"It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind".
The Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org /cathen/ 15047a.htm 21/12/2006)
"The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments:
"In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine
Persons are denoted together. The word ????? [tri´as] (of which the
Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch
about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."" (ti p.5)
"The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom" ("Ad. Autol.", 11, 15, P. G., VI, 1078). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."
Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity
The Catholic work Trinitas-A Theological
Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, notes that some of
Tertullian's words were later used by others to describe the Trinity.
Then it cautions: "But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for
he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology." (ti pp.5-6)
"The great African fashioned the Latin
language of the Trinity, and many of his words and phrases remained
permanently in use: the words Trinitas and persona, the formulas 'one
substance in three persons,' 'God from God, light from Light.' He uses
the word substantia 400 times, as he uses consubstantialis and
consubstantivus,
but hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology."
New Catholic Encyclopedia - p.306
"And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "And the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."" (ti p.6)
"The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT.
In many places of the OT however, expressions are used in
which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowings
of the Trinity
."
Origin and Evolution of Religion
"Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it."-Origin and Evolution of Religion." (ti p.6)
"The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John (c.100 AD.") To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; at any rate they say nothing about it."
The 1985 Creation book (Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?) is another epic presentation of false information, receiving similar treatment as the Trinity
brochure. Evolutionary theory is mis-represented, Creationists are put
forward as Scientists, and Scientists are quoted out of context. At
times, a scientific article will state a problem, which the article then
addresses with a proposed solution. The Creation book will quote
the problem as if is it an unsolved confession from a scientist, such
as the quote that follows from Gould and Eldredge, neglecting to advise
that the article addresses the problem.
Following are quotations from Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), along with a comparison to the source. Many have been sourced by Jan Haugland, 2006 Feb 15.
Creation Book
Original Quote and Comments
Page 15
"The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this
way: "Evolution ... is not only under attack by fundamentalist
Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.""
James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?", Discover, October 1980, p. 88:
"Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in
1859, had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and
forever changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is
not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being
questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists
who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the
prevailing view of Darwinism.... Most of the debate will center on one
key question: Does the three-billion-year-old process of evolution creep
at a steady pace, or is it marked by long periods of inactivity
punctuated by short bursts of rapid change? Darwin's widely accepted
view -- that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl -- favors the
tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum
of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their
bets on the hare.""
Page 20:
"In fact now, after more than a century of collecting fossils,
"we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in
Darwin's time," explained the Bulletin."
"
"Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29.
This quote from David Raup is taken out of context, as the paper
was not about the fossil record's evidence of common decent, but whether
the mechanism of natural selection at the level of species is shown in
the fossil record. On page 22, Raup had prefaced his comment with, "We
must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in
organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's
contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest
how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the
geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural
selection as we would like it to be."
He goes on to state, "Now with regard to the fossil record, we
certainly see change. … If we allow that natural selection works, as we
almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was
responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9
percent." (p.26)
Page 18:
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To
suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 133:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the
sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind
declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei,
as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells
me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one
complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to
its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies
and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and
if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing
conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and
complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by
our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
Page 39:
"At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins' comment
in the preface to his book: "This book should be read almost as though
it were science fiction.""
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976, p.ix:
"This book should be read almost as though it were science
fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not
science fiction: it is science. Cliché or not, "stranger than fiction" expresses exactly how I feel about the truth."
Page 42:
"Richard Dickerson explains: "It is therefore hard to see how
polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones]
could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean,
since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big
molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.""
The quote is from Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75. The purpose and content of the article goes on to address how polymerisation may have occurred.
Page 89:
"Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: "No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.""
Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy -- the Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Warner Books, Inc, 1981, p. 286.
"No one can be sure what any extinct hominid looked like with its
skin and hair on. Sizes here are to scale, with afarensis about two
feet shorter than the average human being."
Page 143:
"Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms "appear to have
been carefully and artfully designed." He views them as "the chief
evidence of a Supreme Designer." It will be useful to consider some of
this evidence."
This quote is a shocking twist of the writers intent and vastly changes the meaning of what Lewontin said.
Richard C. Lewontin, "Adaptation", Scientific American, vol. 239, September 1978, p. 213:
"The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a
major outcome of evolution.... Life forms are more than simply multiple
and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external
world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and
behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to
enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own
life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much
more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a
Supreme Designer. Darwin realized that if a naturalistic theory of
evolution was to be successful, it would have to explain the apparent
perfection of organisms and not simply their variation."
Page 15:
"Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe,
stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great
unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter,
is in a surprising amount of trouble.""
The Bible - God's Word or Man's? p.106 describes Hitching as a "scientist" and "authority". He is also quoted in the Watchtower 1994, 1990 and Awake 1994.
Hitching is a favourite for quotes by Creationists. The Creation book quotes his book Neck of the Giraffe 13 times. However, he has no scientific credentials, which he lies about in his book, as discussed at Hitching 12 Fe 2013). He is a paranormalist, and his book Earth Magic describes his belief in pyramid energy, astrology, ESP, dowsing and psychic research. The criticism of evolutionary theory in Neck of the Giraffe
is used to advance his own theory regarding paranormal forces directing
evolution. He is in no way a credible source, yet the Watchtower uses
him as one of their primary sources of information in the Creation book.
Pages 36-37:
"The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof
that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with
knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this
order: [...] Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this
order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a
box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on
your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened
to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the
facts from somewhere is not realistic."
This section of the Creation book is terrible at several levels.
First, scientists do not agree with the order of creative days in Genesis.
Scientists say the source of light, the sun, was before the earth.
Also, science lists the order of animal evolution as fish, reptiles,
birds; not fish, birds, reptiles/animals. At least two of the days are
out of order.
Second, there are two creation stories in Genesis, with the order
in Genesis 2 differing from the the order of creation in Genesis 1. The Creation book does not clarify which story it claims Scientists agree with, and science agrees with neither.
Third, it cannot be equated to the simple probability of drawing
the numbers 1 to 10 from a box. Even the simplest person would assume
that the sun and earth were first. The earth is a prerequisites for
containing the water, plants and animals. Light and water must precede
plants, which die without them. Plants must have been created before
animals, birds and fish, whom depend on plants as food. Therefore simple
logic will put most of the creative days in the correct order,
significantly reducing the chances of an agreement with science to well
below one in over 3 million.
The Creation book was replaced in 2010 by The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking and Was Life Created? These are of similarly poor quality, and the document Weighed and Found Wanting shows how both misrepresent evolution and distort almost every quote included.
The Watchtower is also known to misquote Scriptures, such as
putting a full stop where there was not one, which changes the true
meaning of the verse. The Watchtower concentrates on a select few
Scriptures to support their doctrine and by hand picking and quoting
catchy portions of Scriptures, the doctrine may seem solid, when it is
not. For example, in order to support the concept of soul being
non-existent at death, Reasoning From the Scriptures p.100, quotes Ecclesiastes 9:5 as:
“The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.”
This is misleading, as it adds a full stop, whilst in the Scripture there is a comma. In entirety it states:
"For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the
dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have
wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. Also, their
love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they
have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be
done under the sun."
Ecclesiastes is a poetic work about the vanity of life, and it is
not generally taken literally. The aforementioned Scripture cannot be
taken as literal, as the sentence continues with the comment that there
is no remembrance of the dead. Further, it removes the resurrection
hope, stating that the dead “have no portion anymore to time
indefinite….” Read in full, the verse only says what the Watchtower
wants it to say if they dishonestly add a full stop.
One of the most significant flaws in the New World Translation is the inclusion of the word Jehovah
in the New Testament. Of the many thousands of early New Testament
fragments, not a single one includes God's name. Including Jehovah means
that many Scriptures have their meaning changed.
One Scripture that quite clearly refers to Jesus, Romans 10:13, is changed to Jehovah in the Watchtower Bible.
Romans 10:13 "For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.""
This has an important effect, as the Watchtower attempts to use
this Scripture to prove that only Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved.
"We stand now at the brink of the greatest tribulation of all, when
Jehovah's storm wind will sweep wickedness from the face of this earth,
clearing the way for a paradise of eternal peace. Will you be one who
"calls on the name of Jehovah" in faithfulness? If so, rejoice! You have
God's own promise that you will be saved.-Romans 10:13." Watchtower 1997 Dec 15 p.21
An examination of the Emphatic Diaglott, published by the Watchtower Society shows that the word used in this passage is not YHWH but Kyrios (κύριος) - Lord.
Just prior to this verse, Romans 10:9 states, "Jesus is Lord (Kurios)". It follows that Romans 10:13 refers to Jesus, and identifies Jesus as the requirement for salvation.
"Do they believe that they are the only ones who will be saved? No.
Millions that have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah's
Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for
life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness
before the "great tribulation," and they will gain salvation." Jehovah's Witnesses, Who are they? What do they believe?(2002) p.29
Not content with mis-translating the Bible, the Watchtower
criticises other religions that don't use the word Jehovah through
deceptive quoting of their sources.
"Honor Jehovah's Great Name
By and large, Christendom's churches have distanced themselves from God's name. For example, the Revised Standard Version
states in its preface: "The use of any proper name for the one and only
God … is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the
Christian Church." Watchtower 2013 Mar 15 p.24
What the Revised Standard Version quote says in full carries a very different meaning.
"For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar
usage of the King James Version: (1) the word "Jehovah" does not
accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God,
as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished,
was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church."
A rhetorical fallacy is a line of argumentation that is poorly
constructed or misleading, such that the information direct a persons to
an incorrect conclusion. Rhetorical Fallacies
goes into detail on numerous of these that are to be found in the
Watchtower. These are common in everyday conversation and written
material, and often unintentional, but it is worth understanding these
so as to spot them when they occur.
The Watchtower will refer to unreliable sources, not credible in
the field that they are being quoted for. An example is how Hitching is
presented as a scientist to highlight flaws in evolution, when in fact
he is a paranormalist.
Blanket statements are made regarding what experts have said,
without any supporting quote or identification of whom those experts may
be. For instance, regarding a global flood, accepted almost universally by scientists are impossible, the Watchtower claims:
"Similar findings have led other scientists to believe that a global flood is a distinct possibility." Watchtower 2008 Jun 1 p.8
Without any information about these scientists, such a statement is meaningless.
10% of the Brain
A similar unsupported comment is that humans only use 10% or less of their brain.
"Neuroscientists say that during our present life span, we use just
a small part of our potential brain power, only about 1/10,000, or
1/100 of 1 percent, according to one estimate. Think about it. Is it
reasonable that we would be given a brain with such miraculous
possibilities if it was never to be used fully? Is it not reasonable
that humans, with the capacity for endless learning, were actually
designed to live forever?" Awake! 1995 10/22 p.8
Which Neuroscientists make such a claim, as the article fails to
produce any? This is in fact an urban myth spanning back to out of date
research from the 1800's - see faculty.washington.edu and Ten_percent_of_brain_myth.
This myth is seized upon by psychics such as Caroline Myss and Uri
Geller to explain their powers. Another similar Watchtower quote is from
an advocate of Eastern religion and transcendental meditation.
"In The Brain Book the author states: "Within our own heads
lies one of the most complex systems in the known universe. Its power
and versatility far surpass that of any man-made computer." He adds: "It
is frequently stated that we use only 10 percent of our full mental
potential. This, it now appears, is rather an overestimate." Watchtower 1985 Jan 15 pp.16-17
Notice that the name of the author is not mentioned, nor details of
the book, other than it's title. I looked it up and the quote comes
from page 7, in the chapter "The Spearhead of Evolution", which
describes the brain as the "culmination of millions of years of
evolution". The author is Peter Russell, and his biography at peterrussell.com
(25 Feb 2013) states, "His principal interest is the deeper, spiritual
significance of the times we are passing through. He has written several
books in this area - The TM Technique, The Upanishads, The Brain Book,
The Global Brain Awakens, The Creative Manager, The Consciousness
Revolution, Waking Up in Time, and From Science to God." This is hardly a
person that the Watchtower should be quoting, as the information is
incorrect, and the author has an agenda greatly at odds to that of the
Watchtower.
The other issue with the way the Watchtower uses this information
is that it is statistically naive. The message is that since we only use
1/100 of 1 percent, we have "the capacity for endless learning," whilst
we live forever on earth. If we use 0.01% in 100 hundred years, simple
maths would have us using 100% in 1,000,000 years. That is not endless
capacity, it is not even a speck in the stream of time of eternity.
Eternity is infinitely more time that one million years.
Greber's Bible Translation
Another example has been to use Greber’s The New Testament in support of the Watchtower's New World Translation.
In the 1950's, the Watchtower discussed how Greber was a spiritualist
and attributed his Bible translation to communication with the spirit
world.
"It comes as no surprise that the one Johannes Greber, a former
Catholic clergyman, has become a spiritualist and has published the book
entitled "Communication with the Spirit World: Its Laws and Its
Purpose."" Watchtower 1955 Oct 1 p.603
"Says Johannes Greber in the introduction of his translation of The
New Testament, copyrighted in 1937: "I myself was a Catholic priest,
and until I was forty-eight years old had never as much believed in the
possibility of communicating with the world of God's spirits. The day
came, however, when I involuntarily took my first step toward such
communication, and experienced things that shook me to the depths of my
soul. … My experiences are related in a book that has appeared in both
German and English and bears the title, Communication with the
Spirit-World: Its Laws and Its Purpose." (Page 15, ¶ 2, 3). In keeping
with his Roman Catholic extraction Greber's translation is bound with a
gold-leaf cross on its still front cover. In the Foreward of his
aforementioned book ex-priest Greber says: "The most significant
spiritualistic book is the Bible." Under this impression Greber
endeavors to make his New Testament read very spiritualistic. … Very
plainly the spirits in which ex-priest Greber believes helped him in his
translation." Watchtower 1956 Feb 15 pp.110-111
Despite this, Watchtower publications quoted Greber's translation
during the 1960's and 1970's for support of its own translation of John
1:1, and Matthew 27:52,53, including in The Word - Who Is He According to John (1962) p.5; Watchtower 1962 Sep 15 p.554; Make Sure of all Things (1965) p.489; Aid to Bible Understanding (1971) p.1669; Watchtower 1975 Oct 15 p.640; and Watchtower 1976 Apr 15 p.231.
Finally, the Watchtower stopped referring to Greber's translation,
deceptively indicating that it became aware of Greber's involvement with
the spirit world due to a foreword in the 1980 edition of his Bible.
"This translation was used occasionally in support of renderings of Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1, as given in the New World Translation and other authoritative Bible versions. But as indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition of The New Testament
by Johannes Greber, this translator relied on "God's Spirit World" to
clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is
stated: "His wife, a medium of God's Spiritworld was often instrumental
in conveying the correct answers from God's Messengers to Pastor
Greber." The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism." Watchtower 1983 Apr 1 p.31
The misuse of statistics is common in all forms of media, and the
Watchtower furnishes an extreme example of how statistics can be
misused. In an attempt to make Witnesses appear to have a lower divorce
rate than the general population they state:
"By applying unselfish love in their marriages, Jehovah's Witnesses achieve stable relationships. In some countries one marriage out of every two or three ends in divorce. But the above-mentioned survey indicated that presently only 4.9 percent of the Witnesses are divorced or separated from their mates." Awake 1997 Sep 8 p.11
Here they make it appear the world has a 50% divorce rate, but
Witnesses only have a 5% rate. In actual fact, only around 5% of people
are divorced. The “percentage of marriages that end in divorce”, and
“percentage of people divorced” are two very different measurements.
Most studies show that the percentage of Witnesses that are divorced is
very similar to that of the general population. See Divorce for a full explanation.
The Watchtower has been intent on proving that the Last Days
started in 1914. One way has been to present information to convince
members that the signs of Jesus presence, such as earthquakes,
have increased since 1914. Since this is not the case, they have
resorted to presenting misleading and dishonest information about
earthquakes. One ingenious method has been to quote an external source
to verify that there is an increase in earthquakes.
"In the Italian journal Il Piccolo, of October 8, 1978, Geo
Malagoli observed: "Our generation lives in a dangerous period of high
seismic activity, as statistics show. In fact, during a period of 1,059
years (from 856 to 1914) reliable sources list only 24 major earthquakes
causing 1,973,000 deaths. However, [in] recent disasters, we find that
1,600,000 persons have died in only 63 years, as a result of 43
earthquakes which occurred from 1915 to 1978. This dramatic increase
further goes to emphasize another accepted fact-our generation is an
unfortunate one in many ways."" Watchtower 1983 May 15 p.6 Earthquakes-A Sign of the End?
The Watchtower has withheld information, by not advising readers that the grossly inaccurate figures in Il Piccolo had been taken from its own Awake! magazine.
"Interestingly, for a period of 1,059 years (856 to 1914 C.E.),
reliable sources list only 24 major earthquakes, with 1,972,952
fatalities. But compare that with the accompanying partial list citing
43 instances of earthquakes, in which 1,579,209 persons died during just
the 62 years from 1915 to 1976 C.E." Awake! 1977 Feb 22 p.11
The Watchtower has also included this seemingly independent Il Piccolo quote in Life How did it get here? By Evolution or by Creation? p.225, and the Watchtower 1983 May 15 p.6.
The same Watchtower article also misquotes Professor Aki, attempting to prove a surge in the frequency of earthquakes.
"Professor Keiiti Aki of the Department of Earth and Planetary
Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology speaks of "the
apparent surge in intensity and frequency of major earthquakes during
the last one hundred years," though stating that the period from 1500
through 1700 was as active." Watchtower 1983 May 15 p.6
This partial quote from Professor Aki gives the opposite meaning to what he actually said. Aki's full sentence was:
"The apparent surge in intensity and frequency of major earthquakes
during the last one hundred years is, in all probability, due to
improved recording of earthquakes and the increased vulnerability of
human society to earthquake damage. The main reason is the well
established plate tectonics which indicates a very steady fault motion
over the past many millions of years."
Aki was explaining that earthquake activity has been consistent
over millions of years, and the difference has been our ability to
record earthquakes since the nineteenth century of seismometer in 1842.
Most people are unable to gain a comprehensive understanding of the
Watchtower religion, because information is released on a right-to-know
basis. For instance, there is a soft version of the Watchtower for the
public, and a far more controlling and direct study version that is used
once a person has progressed to the stage of attending meetings.
Elders have a manual that outlines rules and procedures, some that
are not listed elsewhere accessible by the average member. So secret is
this information, that when the latest version was released, Letter to Elders, August 23, 2010 stated:
"The information is designed for use by the elders only, and other
individuals should not have any opportunity to read the information."
Sisters are not allowed to even bind it under supervision, as directed in the following quote from the Letter to Elders, October 7, 2010:
"There is no objection if an elder personally spiral binds or
laminates his own textbook or does so for other elders. If he has
another baptized brother who is not an elder do the work for him, the
elder must watch while the work is being done. Outside companies,
unbelievers, or sisters are not permitted to do this work. The material
in the book is confidential, and confidentiality must be preserved."
Much of the information in this book is devoted to the practice of
disfellowshipping, information that a person should be made well aware
of before any baptism into the religion.
Information highlighted on the Watchtower's official website is
also presented in a way to appear far less offensive than the official
doctrine really is. For instance, in order to justify the strict stance
on shunning and disfellowshipping, the article Always Accept Jehovah's Discipline
under the heading "Why Some Are Disfellowshipped" states,
"Disfellowshipping takes place only if a member of the congregation
unrepentantly engages in gross sin." This is misleading, since there are
numerous things a Witness can be disfellowshipped for that cannot be
considered a "gross" sin, such as speaking to a disfellowshipped person,
smoking, or questioning Watchtower doctrine.
In the article Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?, the initial comment that those who no longer preach "are not shunned" is a red herring, as it is referring to a person who is inactive, not a former member as the question clearly states.
"Those who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer
preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with
fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, we reach out to them and try to rekindle their spiritual interest.
We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious
sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the
Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or
disfellowshipped. The Bible clearly states: “Remove the wicked man from
among yourselves.”"
The second paragraph is also deceptive, as a person does not just get disfellowshipped
for breaking "the Bible's moral code", but also the many Watchtower
rules that are not directly outlined in the Bible, and also for
disagreeing with Watchtower doctrine. Further, a person that stops their
wrongdoing and repents will still be shunned for life, unless they
return to the religion and are officially reinstated.
Likewise, misleading information is presented when dealing with the Watchtower's offensive doctrine on salvation.
The Watchtower is clear that you must be one of Jehovah's Witnesses to
be saved at Armageddon, with billions of people being mercilessly
destroyed. Yet notice the ambiguous way in which a Witness is to respond
when questioned if only Witnesses will be saved. It is recommended to
say NO; even though the explanation shows the answer is yes.
No. Many millions who lived in centuries past and who weren’t
Jehovah’s Witnesses will have an opportunity for salvation. The Bible
explains that in God’s promised new world, “there is going to be a
resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15)
Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God, and they too
will gain salvation. In any case, it’s not our job to judge who will or
won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands."
Another misleading statement appears in an Awake! article that discusses how people should not be dissuaded from leaving their religion to join the true religion.
"No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds
unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family."
Awake! 2009 July p.29
The irony of this quote is that the Watchtower enforces one of the
strictest censorships on its own members that change religion, forcing
family members to shun former members for the remainder of their lives.
"Really, what your beloved family member needs to see is your
resolute stance to put Jehovah above everything else - including the
family bond. … Do not look for excuses to associate with a
disfellowshipped family member, for example, through e-mail." Watchtower 2013 Jan 15 p.16
Dicto Simpliciter, or Sweeping Generalisations can be a form or
rhetorical fallacy. A very simple one is the following comment from the
Watchtower.
""Happy is the people whose God is Jehovah!" (Ps. 144:15) Those
words describe Jehovah's Witnesses as the happiest people on earth." Kingdom Ministry 2002 p.1
Though this comment appears quite regularly, there is never any
evidence presented in the Watchtower to support the statement that
Jehovah's witnesses are in fact the happiest people. This type of
comment should cause the reader to question what the basis is for such a
sweeping statement. In fact, the article Mental Issues
looks at studies that have been done into the mental health of
Jehovah's Witnesses, and there is every indication that rather than
being the happiest people, Witnesses suffer higher levels of mental
illness than the general population.
Conclusion
"… really, would you want to be even associated with a religion that had not been honest with you?"
Is This Life All There Is? p.46
This article serves to show that the Watchtower cannot be taken as
truthful, let alone the "pure truth" they falsely claim. Despite
assurances to the contrary, each detail is not "accurate and truthful,
even regarding seemingly insignificant details." (Yearbook 2011
p.13) Not only do errors creep in, but information is included that is
specifically deceptive and misleading. As much as the Watchtower leaders
encourage otherwise, each one of Jehovah's Witnesses owes it to
themselves and their God to verify if the information that they are
basing their life on is the truth.
A California appeals court has overturned most of Candace Conti's
record award in her child sexual abuse lawsuit against the Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society of New York, the parent organization of the
Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Credit: Adithya Sambamurthy/Reveal i
Candace Conti drew worldwide attention
in her fight against the Jehovah’s Witnesses when a jury awarded her
$28 million in damages – the largest verdict for a single victim of
child abuse against a religious organization in U.S. history.
The amount was later reduced to $15.6 million, including $8.6 million in punitive damages.
Now, three years later, an appeals court has eroded her courtroom
victory even further by ruling that the leadership of the Jehovah’s
Witnesses had no duty to warn congregants that a confessed child
molester was one of their own. As a result, judges eliminated the
punitive damages in the case. Conti still stands to receive $2.8
million.
The decision by the California Court of Appeal is the latest ruling
in a rash of lawsuits aimed at Jehovah’s Witnesses policies directing
elders to keep child abuse secret from their congregations and secular
authorities.
Conti, who is no longer a Jehovah’s Witness, had sued her abuser, her
former congregation in Fremont and the Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society of New York – the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ parent corporation – in
2011. She claimed that Watchtower policies allowed a Witness named
Jonathan Kendrick to molest her repeatedly when she was 9 and 10 years
old.
Kendrick had admitted to North Fremont congregation elders that he
had sexually abused his stepdaughter. The elders informed the Watchtower
of Kendrick’s confession in 1993, but in accordance with Watchtower
policy did not notify police or warn the congregation. Soon after, Conti
says, Kendrick began abusing her.
In their ruling Monday, the judges said forcing the leadership of
Jehovah’s Witnesses to warn congregants about child abusers would be too
burdensome.
“While it is readily foreseeable that someone who has molested a
child may do so again, the burden the duty to warn would create and the
adverse social consequences the duty would produce outweigh its
imposition,” the judges wrote.
“The burden would be considerable because the precedent could require
a church to intervene whenever it has reason to believe that a
congregation member is capable of doing harm, and the scope of that duty
could not be limited with any precision.
“Since that ‘secrecy policy’ was the only basis for the punitive
damages assessed against Watchtower, the punitive damage award must be
reversed,” the judges added.
Rick Simons, Conti’s attorney, disagreed with the new ruling in an interview.
“They think in public policy terms that there’s too much risk in
broadening the church’s responsibility and liability so that it burdens
what churches do,” he said. “We think there’s too much child abuse in
these institutions.”
Conti could not immediately be reached for comment.
Hear Candace’s story
The judges also touched on a contentious national debate over
religious exceptions to reporting child abuse. California law requires
clergy to report suspected child abuse to secular authorities unless
they learn of it through a penitential communication, like a confession
in the Catholic church. Kendrick’s admission to elders in 1993, they
wrote, failed to meet that standard.
“The privilege for penitential communications does not apply unless
the communication is made ‘in the presence of no third person so far as
the penitent is aware,’ a condition not satisfied at the Kendrick family
meeting with the Congregation elders,” the judges wrote.
Dozens of lawsuits in recent years have focused on a series of
Watchtower memos dating back to 1989 that direct elders to keep cases of
child abuse secret from law enforcement and their congregations.
Watchtower officials have testified under oath that since 1997, the
organization has collected detailed information on known child sexual
abusers in its congregations.
Last year, a San Diego judge awarded Jose Lopez – a former Jehovah’s
Witness who was abused by a man in his San Diego congregation when he
was 7 years old – $13.5 million after the Watchtower refused to provide
its list of known predators.
In the Conti case, the panel upheld the lower court’s ruling that the
Watchtower and elders in the North Fremont congregation failed to
supervise Kendrick when he preached door to door in the community, a
practice Jehovah’s Witnesses call field service.
According to Conti, the North Fremont elders would group her with
Kendrick for long afternoons of field service. She says he used those
opportunities to take her to his house and sexually abuse her.
“While the Congregation may not have been able to police Kendrick’s
behavior after scheduled field service was over, it could have
controlled his access to Conti during the field service,” the judges wrote Monday.
Although Kendrick has confessed to abusing his stepdaughter, and later his stepgranddaughter, he denies abusing Conti.
Watchtower officials told the court they allow child molesters to
perform field service, but not alone or with a child. They could not,
however, produce a written policy for the court.
“Even if Watchtower had a policy of preventing known child molesters
from performing field service alone or with children, there is no
evidence that Watchtower did anything to implement that policy in
Kendrick’s case,” the court found.
The judges went on to remark on the larger risk of allowing child
abusers to preach door to door: “They are also a threat to children in
the community when they engage in that activity. The prospect of
children opening their doors to proselytizing child molesters is
frightening.”
Watchtower officials did not immediately return calls for comment.
James McCabe, the attorney representing the North Fremont congregation,
declined to comment.
Simons said Conti has not decided yet whether to appeal the court’s decision. She has 30 days to do so.
This story was edited by Fernando Diaz and copy edited by Sheela Kamath. Trey Bundy can be reached at tbundy@cironline.org. Follow him on Twitter: @TreyBundy.
Olyeg Sadabash -ALYOSHA.
But boy-oh-boy, there sure are a whole lot of clean, fit, happy and straight White people here, and Gazmanov's crucifix is very obvious too!
Layana Frémaux-Soormally 2018
By 
“Religious
organizations, and particularly the leaders therein, induce persons to
believe that they must join some religious system or organization, which
men call “a church”; and the leaders or clergymen claim that joining
such religious organization is the means to salvation. Such claim or
representation by the clergy is entirely wrong, because such
organizations do not have God’s approval. On the contrary, such
religious organizations teach chiefly the doctrines of men, which
doctrines blind the people to the truth of God’s purpose as set forth in
His Word, and such teachings of men make the commandments of God of
none effect and hence are exceedingly harmful to men.
