Ray Franz' Conscience

4-10-03  revised 08-03-07

    Ray Franz

The following comments are offered for those who may have concern why many have concluded that Ray Franz and certain ones from his group have displayed a lack of support for child abuse survivors and taken a position that endorsed certain 'Watchtower Policy' positions instead.

It all started with the 1972 book authored in part by Ray Franz that was called, "Organized for Kingdom Preaching and Disciple Making" it was referred to as the OR book. It was written as an elder/publisher guidebook in handling or organizing matters in the congregation. There was no elder's book at the time. When elders went to school they were given a textbook that was blue called "The Kingdom Ministry" book. When the elder completed the school held at Kingdom Farm in upstate New York, he was required to turn his copy in and nobody was allowed to take the book home other than what was written in their notes. The OR book was an attempt to provide direction to elders on how to handle problems in the congregation with specific instructions for doing so. Years later in 1982 the OM book "Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry", was changed to be more of a publisher handbook (standard congregation member). The elders were given the first in a series of three elder booklets that eventually evolved into the KS 91 or "Pay Attention to Yourselves and all the Flock" book as we know it today.

This is significant in the fact that the "OR" book was used to direct how judicial matters were handled, much of that material was removed from the "OM" book when it was released. With that being stated it is highly inconceivable to believe that the author of material written in the OR book could have no idea that those directives would be applied to wrongdoing involving child abuse. Silentlambs has in their records a case that was started in 1975 regarding a child molestation that involved correspondence to the Watchtower Service Department and the Governing Body that spanned over four years. The individual who wrote the letters along with his wife were eventually disfellowshipped for not keeping quiet about it. Silentlambs also has numerous pedophile surveys that go all the way back to the 1940's, many cases are given, a part of which describe the Service Department's involvement with dealing with individual cases and cover up. For these reasons it is extremely suspect when Ray Franz chose to comment publicly that in 40 years as a CO, DO and nine year member of the Governing Body who served part of that time as a member of the Service Committee in the Service Department up until 1979, that he never ONCE dealt with a case of a child being involved in underage sex. For anyone who has ever served in a position of responsibility in the organization and knows the way matters are handled it is a statement that is hard to believe at best.

Child molestation is always considered a difficult problem and it invariably involves the Watchtower Service Committee as well as the CO (Circuit Overseer) and DO (District Overseer) in finding solutions.

In the fall of 2001 a telephone call was placed to Ray Franz. The purpose was not to request support for silentlambs but to help track down a story of abuse in the state of Georgia as it was thought he might know some old timers in that area. After covering that information Mr. Franz was asked if he understood the extent of the abuse problem in the organization. This was of concern as a few months earlier Franz had been quoted in one of the first articles written about the abuse problem. The article was in the "Associated Press," dated 2-11-2001 it was entitled "Elder Leaves Faith to Protest Child Molestation Policies" Franz was quoted as follows by the reporter:

"Raymond Franz, a high-ranking Jehovah's Witness who was disfellowshipped and then wrote two books about the inner workings of the faith, said he doesn't believe cases of pedophilia are any more prevalent in the denomination than in others."

 Read complete article here:

Associated Press (AP) News http://wire.ap.org/

February 10, 2001

Crisis of faith

Elder resigns to protest Jehovah's Witnesses policies on child molesting reports

By KIMBERLY HEFLING
Associated Press

BENTON, Ky. -- As a boy, William Bowen sat quietly in his seat while his classmates recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

As a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, he spent years going door-to-door evangelizing and serving the denomination. In time, he became an elder, a position of authority, in his western Kentucky congregation.

But as an elder, he was privy to information that caused him to question the Jehovah's Witnesses faith -- and to question it publicly, an ultimate transgression in the denomination.

In a letter dated Dec. 31, Bowen resigned as an elder, in protest of how the denomination, a society that shuns the outside world, handles accusations of child molestation. His claim is that in such a culture, accusations of child sex abuse can go unreported to secular authorities by Jehovah's Witnesses members who don't want to go against their faith. The claims of abuse victims are discredited, he said.

"They want to act like pedophilia doesn't exist. Shame on them," said Bowen, 43, in an interview from his home in Draffenville where he runs a candlemaking business with his wife, Sheila.

Though Bowen expects to be kicked out of Jehovah's Witnesses -- or disfellowshipped -- for speaking out, no disciplinary action has been taken by his congregation. Still, some members refuse to shake his hand or associate with him outside the church.

"They treat us like we have the plague," said Sheila Bowen. "You don't go against God, and they think the organization is God."

Bowen's decision to resign has made him a hero among the denomination's dissidents.

"People have been intimidated into not saying anything. There are pieces of this all over the country where one person has a piece of evidence and another has a piece of evidence, but they're scared to bring it up because they'll be disfellowshipped ...," Bowen said. "So these people stay silent and they think, 'I'm the only one."'

A person who is disfellowshipped is considered invisible by denomination members and may even be shunned by members of his or her own family.

"It's not just being out of a health club," said Steve Hassan, a former Unification Church member who is now a therapist and author. "It's losing your connection to God and members of your family inside the group."

Bowen chose to speak out anyway, and his story has appeared in religious publications and the secular media. In Kentucky, The Paducah Sun and WPSD-TV covered it. The (Louisville) Courier-Journal published a story in which it examined court records in seven child molestation cases around the nation involving members of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Bowen said a Jehovah's Witnesses policy requiring two people to witness wrongdoing before it is acknowledged by leaders makes it nearly impossible to prove child molestation occurs. Victims who do come forward confident they will receive help from church leaders are often left feeling betrayed, Bowen said.

Bowen said he became interested a couple of years ago after reading a confidential file alleging a member had molested a child in the early 1980s. He said he disapproved of the way the case was handled by church officials even after he spoke up about it.

J.R. Brown, spokesman at the Jehovah's Witnesses' headquarters in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, said he believes Bowen does not have a full understanding of church policies.

Members are free at all times to report abuse to secular authorities, Brown said. "This is a personal decision on how you want to handle this," he said.

What is revealed to church leaders is generally kept confidential unless state law requires that allegations of abuse be turned over to police, he said.

"We deal with sin, and law enforcement deals with crime," Brown said.

In some cases however, the matter is turned over to secular authorities regardless of the law, Brown said.

Of Bowen, he added: "He's concerned about victims of child abuse and we are, too." Brown said the faith does require at least two witnesses to prove any kind of wrongdoing -- including child molestation -- because that is what is taught in the Bible.

But corroborating evidence can be used instead of a second witness to prove wrongdoing, Brown said.

James Bonnell, an elder in Bowen's congregation, said the faith reaches out and helps people in need. It is not controlling, he said.

"It's a free choice," said Bonnell, of nearby Gilbertsville, Ky. "Everything you do is based on love of God and your neighbor."

The Jehovah's Witnesses denomination has 89,985 congregations and 5.5 million members worldwide, according to its Web site. It was founded in Pittsburgh in 1872 by Charles Taze Russell, a former Congregationalist layman.

Members refuse to bear arms, salute the flag or participate in secular government. They also refuse to accept blood transfusions. They reject a number of doctrines taught by traditional Christianity, including the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that the faith is the authority and the only way to salvation. They are to bring all problems to their religious leaders first.

Members attend numerous meetings, do Bible lessons and go door-to-door to evangelize, and some who have left the faith say that schedule leaves little time to think individually.

"It's like an identity thing," said Marilyn Zweifel, an ex-Jehovah's Witness in New Berlin, Wis., who runs a telephone helpline for current members. "Somewhere along the way, you lose your identity."

Debbie Shard, an ex-member who also operates a helpline from Ocoee, Fla., said members are told going outside the religion could hurt the faith's image and make it difficult to recruit and retain new members.

"If there's a fire, you'd call the fire department," Shard said. "If it's something that's not a life-threatening emergency, then the elders would be the first line of defense."

She agreed with Bowen, saying: "If you go to the elders, they will generally discourage you from going to (secular) authorities because it will bring reproach on the organization."

A former elder agreed.

"Denial and secrecy are elemental to the way the society operates," said Mike Terry, of Conway, Ark.

Raymond Franz, a high-ranking Jehovah's Witness who was disfellowshipped and then wrote two books about the inner workings of the faith, said he doesn't believe cases of pedophilia are any more prevalent in the denomination than in others. But the religion's insularity leads to problems, he said.

"The thing is to keep everything within the system," Franz said. "That's a natural reaction for Witnesses because they are essentially a closed community..."

It took several years before Carl and Barbara Pandelo of New Jersey left Jehovah's Witnesses.

In 1988, their 12-year-old daughter told them she was being molested by her grandfather, Clement Pandelo of Paramus, N.J., who was also a member of the faith.

As part of a plea agreement, Clement Pandelo pleaded guilty to two counts of endangering the welfare of a child and one count of criminal sexual conduct. Court documents reveal Clement Pandelo admitted to having fondled girls for 40 years.

He was placed on five years' probation. He did not return phone messages seeking comment.

Carl and Barbara Pandelo said they wish they had pushed the case more so he served prison time, but they decided to allow the plea bargain because church leaders told them to do so -- a claim disputed by Anthony Valenti, an elder in the Hackensack, N.J., congregation.

Despite the denomination's opposition to suing other members, the couple later decided to sue the grandfather's homeowner's insurance policy for funds to help pay for the daughter's therapy. A multimillion-dollar verdict was returned last year to the daughter, now Corinne Pandelo-Holloway. It is being appealed.

She and her parents are angry that Clement Pandelo -- after being disfellowshipped at least once -- is now a member of a Jehovah's Witnesses congregation in Hawthorne, N.J., and is allowed to evangelize door-to-door.

"It really does anger me," said Pandelo-Holloway, now 24 and married. "People don't know what he is, and I think they should be warned he's a convicted pedophile in your neighborhood."

At a time when we needed help, it appeared Franz chose to take negative ground on the issue. We were stating to media that the problem if abuse was far worse and that is why silentlambs was brought into existence to help the many harmed by WT Policy on abuse.  If what Franz stated were true then there really would be nothing to blow the whistle about.

In the course of talking with Franz on the telephone he made the remark that he did not really think child abuse was a major problem in the organization. It was then related to him the hundreds of abuse survivors that had come to silentlambs as evidence, not to mention the seven Body of Elder letters written on the subject in the last ten years, it certainly gives clear evidence there must be a problem.  Franz responded in spite of this evidence, in forty years he had not known of any cases of abuse and that he restated the thought that the problem of abuse among JW's was no larger than in main stream religion.

A few months later it was discovered that as early as 1992 Franz had been repeatedly approached by key people that gave him documented cases of rampant abuse in the organization.  In 2003 Franz was handed the same fifty plus page report that was delivered to the Governing Body in 1992.  This report included extensive documentation with actual letters and comments from JW therapists about how abuse was mishandled and covered up.  Ray Franz had more documentation than anyone else had ever seen on this matter, yet how did he respond?    

A simple request was made in 2001 and that was, "Ray, if you did not see this as a problem when you were in, it certainly has become a problem now. So, if anyone asks you about this, please, either offer no opinion or make remarks that acknowledge this is a problem."

Franz was not asked to join silentlambs, nor was he asked to endorse an organization that supports abuse survivors.  All that was asked was a simple request to not be negative to others about child abuse being a problem in the Jehovah's Witness community. The primary reason for making this comment was in the event Franz was called by media, it was hoped he would not give them further negative impressions regarding the extent of abuse in the organization. Three weeks later silentlambs was contacted by an individual that had just talked to Franz, they were disturbed in that he stated to them,

1. He did not think child abuse was a large problem in the organization.

2. He had never dealt with the problem personally.

3. He did not think it a problem any worse than with mainstream religion.

A couple of month’s later silentlambs was contacted by a reporter that worked with a newspaper they stated they had talked to Franz asking about abuse, he again made similar comments.  The reporter stated that considering the overwhelming evidence they would not use his remarks. Silentlambs was later contacted by a second reporter who got the same comment from Franz. So the question, is Ray Franz being supportive of the problem of abuse in the JWs? Was his position helping abuse survivors in any way?

For these reasons many believe Mr. Franz has not supported the issue of child abuse being a problem in the organization to media and by personal comments to persons who ask him privately about this. Franz’ remark in telephone conversations was that silentlambs had sensationalized this issue and should only bring forth documented cases.

If you look back in history you will see that Mr. Franz comments in "Crisis of Conscience" on page 79, regarding the development of the OR book:

"The Governing Body was not asked to supply the material for the book (OR Book). The president had assigned the project of the book's development to Karl Adams, the overseer of the Writing Department. He in turn assigned Ed Dunlap and myself to collaborate and with him in the manual's development, each of us writing about one-third of the material.

 (footnote) I was assigned chapters on "Your Service to God," 'Safeguarding the Cleanness of the Congregation," and "Endurance That Results in Divine Approval."

Mr. Franz makes very clear his authorship of the chapter, "Safeguarding the Cleanness of the Congregation".  He even mentions the GB was not involved in the writing of it.

In 2002 Mr. Franz made public comment on the internet that he had no idea the information would be applied to wrongdoing that involved child molestation. Certainly all elders at that time knew the chapter in the OR book applied to all wrongdoing in the congregation, and how judicial hearings were to operate. Incest was considered part of that and incest was described as a sin to be handled according to the guidelines in Watchtower articles that discussed handling wrongdoing in that time period. Note the following quote from a 1970 Watchtower on this very topic.

*** w70 7/1 pp. 404-405 Personally Benefiting from the Bible’s Laws and Principles ***

PURPOSE OF CONGREGATIONAL ACTION

15 In the Christian congregation there are definite laws against adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, murder, stealing and other things, any of which, when committed by a Christian, would bring reproach from the world against the congregation. These things the Bible has put under the authority of the congregation, that is, it is required to take some action. (1 Cor. 5:1-5, 13) This action is not the punishment that the law calls for, at least not by any means the full punishment for the deed. The congregation acts, not primarily to punish the person, but to clear itself of reproach, uncleanness and contamination by cutting off (expelling) such a one from membership in the congregation. It may, if he is repentant, take disciplinary measures and place certain restrictions on him. If he is disfellowshiped (expelled), it is not to discipline him, but to get him out of God’s clean organization. The action also serves as an example working for the disciplining of the congregation. This is how we are to understand 1 Timothy 1:20; 5:20, where we read: “Hymenaeus and Alexander belong to these, and I have handed them over to Satan that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme.” “Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear.”

Yet Ray Franz made this public remark on the internet,

“Of the many sexual crimes, child molestation is unquestionably one of the most despicable. Those who shield child molesters certainly bear a very heavy responsibility. Nonetheless, to focus on certain specific policies as if these are the root problem is, I believe, to think superficially.”

So according to Mr. Franz it is “superficial” to say that a policy caused an abused child to not be dealt with properly.  Since he authored policy, it appears he is thus excusing his actions in writing a directive that has potentially harmed thousands of children. As a person who served as an overseer in the Service Department as part of the Service Committee, he certainly should have a basic comprehension level of how polices make certain things happen. So while the ‘two eye witnesses’ ruling was used and mentioned in previous books (Lamp Book, Qualified to Be Ministers)) and magazines, yet before Franz wrote about it in the OR book, it was never defined as clearly in a judicial settings pertaining to children than what was written in this chapter. On page 175 of the OR book a segment was entitled "Dealing with Minor Children and Married Couples." The first paragraph included this statement:

"A baptized child's being a minor does not shield him from reproof before the congregation by the elders, or disfellowshipping, if he commits serious wrongdoing. In minor trespasses, of course the child would be counseled and reproved by his parents, particularly the father, with whom the responsibility for rearing and training the children rests. However, where wrongdoing becomes a practice, or is of a serious nature, such as gross loose conduct or fornication, or is such that brings the congregation into a bad light in the community, then elders rightly are concerned."

If Mr. Franz had never heard of a case of an “under aged child having sex” then why did he write about how to deal with it judicially? This was new information in 1972 and was used time and again to disfellowship or reprove children that came forward with abuse allegations. When the child spoke of being molested and the accused molester denied the charge, the elders would then turn to the child and say that they had confessed to sexual misconduct and needed to be disciplined. This practice is ongoing as part of the child abuse policy of the organization. As recently as December of 2002, children were in fact being disfellowshipped for reporting being sexually assaulted due to this long standing policy that was authored by Ray Franz. How do we know this? Read the policy statement on pages 164-165 of the OR Book,

“Judgment of matters affecting the lives of servants of Jehovah carries with it a great responsibility, and for that reason, the judicial committee is obligated to be sure that it has all the facts before it renders its decision. (1Tim. 5:21; De. 13:12-14) For a matter to be established as true, there must be two or three witnesses. (1Tim. 5:19; De. 19:15; Heb. 10:28) These cannot be persons who are simply repeating what they have heard from someone else; they must be witnesses themselves of things concerning which they testify.  No actions is taken if there is just one witness; it is not that the brother  discredits the testimony but the Bible requires that unless the wrongdoer himself admits his sin the facts must be substantiated by two or three witnesses in these serious matters.”

“A Person may come and confess a serious wrongdoing and implicate another with him.  If the other person denies any sharing in the wrong, then the other charge cannot be accepted without additional testimony to provide the necessary two or three witnesses; the committee would not act against the one accused, but the person confessing would be counseled and reproved as necessary for he has either committed the deed he confesses or is guilty of lying or both.”

In the seventies, a refinement was happening regarding exactly how judicial hearings were to be established. There was an additional insert in the 1977 KM (Kingdom Ministry) that provided detailed information on how a judicial committee was to be selected, it is sometimes referred to down to this day. Note this comment on handling wrongdoing.

*** km 9/77 p. 6 par. 42 New Arrangements for Congregation Organization ***

Once a judicial committee begins to handle a case, there are other factors to be kept in mind. Rather than only looking for rigid rules to govern how a situation should be handled, there is a need to determine whether a basic law of God has truly been violated. Bible principles, the circumstances involved, as well as the gravity of the sin committed, are factors that must all be weighed.

So by this directive, elders were required to consider that when a baptized or unbaptized child confessed to committing a sexual act repeated times they had to discipline the child as a wrongdoer.  You see, it was Mr. Franz chapter on how judicial hearings were to operate that offered a clear new directive on baptized and unbaptized children in 1972.  That directive was a fiasco that caused untold suffering to unbaptized children of JWs for almost seventeen years till it was repealed in 1988.  What did it state?

OR page - 174

What of unbaptized persons that have been regularly associated with the congregation but who now have become involved in serious wrongdoing?...if they are not repentant and fail to turn from their wrongdoing, then the congregation would be advised that their conduct is “unbecoming a Christian” and that association with them would not be in harmony with the counsel as 1Cor. 15:33.

This heartless policy allowed the disfellowshipping (disapproved associate) of unbaptized children between the years of 1972 – 1988.  Many children that were sexually abused and reported this to elders were subsequently “DAA’d” (disapproved associate) and put out on the street by their parents due to this policy that Ray Franz authored.  Elders recall the immense relief that was experienced in 1988 when this hateful directive was finally removed as policy. As one who was given much Mr. Franz wrote an organizational directive that potentially harmed thousands of children he endorsed and authored.  

Think of it this way as an illustration:  If you were to load a pistol and then give it to a child to play with and someone got killed who would be responsible? Would it not be the person who gave the child the gun? Ray Franz loaded the gun by writing the chapter on how judicial hearings were to be handled and through the Watchtower organization it was given to elders untrained in abuse issues across the country. Hundreds if not thousands of children were harmed as a result and he now claims it is none of his responsibility as he was unaware of the problem? We encourage you to read the chapter in the OR book and ask yourself if you were a elder and had a child abuse problem arise in the congregation at that time, how would you have been compelled to use the directives given in the OR book on handling judicial matters? How would you react if you were disfellowshipped as a child due to this policy? You can read the chapter here at this link,

OR BOOK  

As an example, the silentlambs website reported details about a case involving a young woman that reported her grandfather as a molester.  It is called “She Was a Fine Sister” you can read it on the Personal Experiences page

The detailed nature of that information is precisely the reason it was taken out of the 1980 OM book (Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry) as it was too detailed and WT wanted only elders to have that information for legal reasons.  Yet the detailed policy resulted in thousands of children being disciplined for reporting sexual abuse. This policy is one of the primary ways abuse survivors were silenced in the congregation allowing the protection of pedophiles.  It was “a bullet in the chamber”, but again, while most see this as bad policy, why does Mr. Franz by his comments appear to have no idea it would be used in this way and wishes to accept no responsibility?

It is well known Mr. Franz repeatedly attacks the policies of the Governing Body in his book ‘Crisis of Conscience’(COC). The policy regarding the political cards in Malawi and its inconsistency with the way things were handled in Mexico, the policy of the GB on military service and how many went to jail needlessly as a result of a policy that was later changed, the policy of the GB on blood fractions and how children may have suffered needlessly as a result of their decision. In the latest edition of COC number four, Mr. Franz brings up the policy of the GB cooperating in allowing Watchtower of New York to become an NGO with the United Nations and discusses that topic also. Yet the child abuse issue had been going strong for over eight months before the UN scandal erupted.  There is no single event in the history of the Watchtower organization that has had so much worldwide media attention as the child abuse issue.  In the latest media reporting in May of 2007, sixteen “documented” cases were settled out of court with major monetary settlements.   It certainly seems odd that after all these attacks on the policies of the GB that in not one place in all four revisions Mr. Franz could in good conscience mention just once a discussion of the policy of the organization regarding child abuse.

A friend of silentlambs that more than once approached Franz about the abuse policy in the early 1990's, was surprised when Mr. Franz at that time also refused to accept it was a problem. He even insisted the GB had no knowledge of a problem with child abuse in the organization to this individual. That individual in 1995 wrote an article entitled, Do You Practice Incest?   It was the first mention of the words “Pedophile Paradise” in connection with Jehovah’s Witnesses.  The article made the certain distinction that Jehovah’s Witnesses were far worse than main stream religion with regard to child abuse. 

Read the article below:

Below is the first mention of the words “Pedophile Paradise” used to apply to the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  The year was 1998 and it was in response to the 1995 Watchtower article on child abuse.  Read this essay and see if you feel to that Jehovah’s Witnesses provide a “Pedophile Paradise” for child molesters.

Do you Practice Incest?

6-12-98

By Norman Hovaland

Do you molest children?

Would you like to be able to do this undisturbed and with no risk of being punished?

If your answer to these questions is yes, you should not hesitate but as soon as possible get in contact with the nearest congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and ask for a ”study”.

By taking some simple precautions, like never taking two spectators to your abuse sessions (you can take one if you want), you will be able to abuse as many children as you want without much danger of ever being held responsible for it.

The Pedophile Paradise

Why use a lot of money to go to Asia to abuse children, when you can have it all at home?

In the Jehovah's Witnesses congregations there will always be a good supply of little boy’s and girls. You just have to pick and choose, and you can always rely on the protection and support of the elders against possible accusations from your victims. And in addition they will see to it that the police is never involved.

Do you think this is a tasteless joke? Unfortunately it isn’t.

Let us take a look at an article published in the Watchtower magazine November 1, 1995 issue on pages 25 to 29, with the title:

“Comfort for Those With a “Stricken Spirit”

Problems with incest has reached such proportions in their congregations that the Watchtower Society has been forced to “deal” with it in their literature. As the title of the article indicates it has the apparent aim to “comfort” the victims of such abuse, but when reading the article there seem to be little real comfort for them:

The article brings up the problem of “Repressed memories” and states the following:

“ *** w95 11/1 25-6  Comfort for Those With a "Stricken Spirit" ***
In recent years some have been “brokenhearted” for reasons that others find difficult to understand. They are adults who, on the basis of what have been described as “repressed memories,” say that they were sexually abused when they were children. Some have no thought of having been molested until, unexpectedly, they experience flashbacks and “memories” of an adult (or adults) abusing them when they were young.”

The article continues to say that mental-health professionals, don’t really understand these memories and not surprisingly state the following:

“ *** w95 11/1 26  Comfort for Those With a "Stricken Spirit" ***
So we look with confidence to God’s Word for guidance in handling them. The Bible provides “discernment in all things.” (2 Timothy 2:7; 3:16) It also helps all concerned to put faith in Jehovah, “the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation.”—2 Corinthians 1:3, 4.”

This kind of reasoning is unfortunately what usually lands the victims in the problems in the fist place. The Bible unfortunately provides no help for such victims. Faith in “Jehovah” is as we know synonymous with faith in the Watchtower organization and it’s representatives. Usually it is one of these representatives of this organization, which is the abuser. For the victims that kind of faith and trust was misused and exploited in the most despicable manner.

“Jehovah” and his alleged “organization” was helpless to prevent the abuse and by its very structure are only geared for protecting the abuser. If for arguments sake we exchange “Jehovah” with your own “fleshly” father. Let us say he had a “ring side view” to the abuse, like Jehovah has, being omni-whatever, and he didn’t do anything to help you and protect you but just let this trusted “brother” molest away. How would you feel when the Elders came to you and demanded that you should “trust” your father? What respect would anyone have for such a father? How sick and twisted is it possible to get for believers?

The Watchtower continues:

“ *** w95 11/1 26  Comfort for Those With a "Stricken Spirit" ***
In the world, there is much controversy as to what these “memories” are and to what extent they represent things that actually happened. Jehovah’s Witnesses are “no part of the world” and take no part in this controversy. (John 17:16) According to published reports, “memories” have sometimes proved to be accurate. For example, after insurance adjuster Frank Fitzpatrick “remembered” being molested by a certain priest, almost one hundred others came forward to claim that they too had been abused by the same priest. The priest reportedly admitted to the abuse.”

The article points out that such memories has turned out to be wrong, and when it comes to help such people the article mention the example of the “neighborly Samaritan”. Then the article proceeds to give them most strange interpretation of that parable that has ever been printed. Let us look at this masterpiece:

“ *** w95 11/1 26  Comfort for Those With a "Stricken Spirit" ***
When the Samaritan came along, his heart went out to the wounded man. What did he do? Did he insist on hearing every last detail about the beating? Or did the Samaritan get a description of the robbers and immediately chase after them? No.” 

The message from the Watchtower Society is as follows: “Don’t talk about details, distract the already confused victim as much as possible, try to convince him/her to put the lid on the whole thing for good.”

The article then state:

“ *** w95 11/1 26  Comfort for Those With a "Stricken Spirit" ***
True, there is a difference between physical wounds and a “stricken spirit” caused by actual childhood sexual abuse. But both cause great suffering. Hence, what the Samaritan did for the wounded Jew shows what can be done to help an afflicted fellow Christian. The first priority is to give loving comfort and to help him recover.”

Yes, and how do they do that? One of the greatest concerns for a victim would of course be for justice and the knowledge that the abuser will be taken care of to protect other potential victims. A lot of mumbo jumbo about forgiving and you are probably just hallucinating probably isn’t much comfort. A new low is then reached with the next statement:

“ *** w95 11/1 26  Comfort for Those With a "Stricken Spirit" ***
Can we doubt that the Devil now plays upon child abuse and the “downhearted spirit” of many adults who suffered this (or are troubled by “memories” of having suffered it) to try to weaken the faith of Christians?”

What fantastic comfort this must be for the abused! Of course this is what every victim of sexual abuse needs, to be served some superstitious clap trap about the Devil planting memories in their heads, and that their abusers is probably innocent. “Oh, don’t bother about these pesky memories, it is the Devil trying to lure you out of the wonderful “truth”. Every trick in the book must be used to prevent the victim from starting to talk to others about such memories. This would of course set the Watchtower Society in a very negative light and that simply must be avoided at all costs.

Then follows a lot of talk about the importance of trusting God and remember that Jesus loves you. Etc. Totally missing from such twisted and insane reasoning is of course where God and Jesus were when the abuse took place. Obviously they were powerless to prevent the evil deed, and why should they deserve such immense trust now? Of course it is always the victim who is asked to “endure”. Why should they endure?

We find the reason here:

“ *** w95 11/1 27  Comfort for Those With a "Stricken Spirit" ***
What of the Alleged Abuser?

A person who actually abuses a child sexually is a rapist and should be viewed as such. Anyone victimized in this way has the right to accuse his abuser. Still, an accusation should not be made hastily if it is based solely on “repressed memories” of abuse. In this case the most important thing is for the sufferer to regain a degree of emotional stability. After the passage of some time, he may be in a better position to assess the “memories” and decide what, if anything, he wants to do about them.”]

The follows another set of statements that show why victims of incest in the Watchtower Society really need all the strength they can muster:

“ *** w95 11/1 28  Comfort for Those With a "Stricken Spirit" ***
If there is some valid reason to suspect that the alleged perpetrator is still abusing children, a warning may have to be given. The congregation elders can help in such a case. Otherwise, take your time. Eventually, you may be content to let the matter drop. If, though, you want to confront the alleged perpetrator (after first assessing how you would feel about the possible responses), you have a right to do so.”

As we can clearly see from the above quotes the central leadership in the Watchtower Society isn’t very happy for or interested in having victims of incest “rocking the boat”. In some cases the abuser is himself an Elder. When an Elder have abused you, possibly for years, some times even with the knowledge of other Elders, it shouldn’t be difficult to understand the difficulty you have with trusting any of them.

When one read articles like this is easy to see how guiding the wording is. It isn’t a coincidence that words like: “an accusation should not be made hastily”; “After the PASSAGE of some TIME, he may be in a better position to assess the “memories” and decide what, IF ANYTHING, he wants to do about them.”; “If there is some valid reason to suspect that the alleged perpetrator is still abusing children, a warning MAY have to be given.”; “Otherwise, TAKE YOUR TIME”; Eventually, you may be CONTENT TO LET THE MATTER DROP” (my capitalisation) . After having received some sessions with this kind of “comfort” the victim usually gets the message from Brooklyn, which is, forget it! Of course you knew all along that when it is your word against “Brother Elder” you didn’t stand much chance anyway. Somehow he forgot to bring two witnesses to observe the act.

The imitation or fake “comfort” given by the Watchtower Society is even more visible in the next section of the article, under the heading:

What Can Elders Do?

As we will see they can’t do much but increase the victim’s problems:

” *** w95 11/1 28  Comfort for Those With a "Stricken Spirit" ***
What if the sufferer decides that he wants to make an accusation? Then the two elders can advise him that, in line with the principle at Matthew 18:15, he should personally approach the accused about the matter. If the accuser is not emotionally able to do this face-to-face, it can be done by telephone or perhaps by writing a letter. In this way the one accused is given the opportunity to go on record before Jehovah with his answer to the accusation. He may even be able to present evidence that he could not have committed the abuse. Or perhaps the one accused will confess, and a reconciliation may be achieved. What a blessing that would be!”

This “advice” is really a gem. The victim should approach the abuser, wow! But if the victim doesn’t feel up to it, will the Elders help? Not really, it is still the victim who must do it, by telephone or letter. What wonderful insight they have in Brooklyn. The article staggers on and get more pathetic by every sentence: 

“ *** w95 11/1 28-9  Comfort for Those With a "Stricken Spirit" ***
If the accusation is denied, the elders should explain to the accuser that nothing more can be done in a judicial way. And the congregation will continue to view the one accused as an innocent person. The Bible says that there must be two or three witnesses before judicial action can be taken. (2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19) Even if more than one person “remembers” abuse by the same individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain to base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence. This does not mean that such “memories” are viewed as false (or that they are viewed as true). But Bible principles must be followed in establishing a matter judicially.”

Yes, the Bible principles must be followed, the abuser must remember to bring at least two witnesses to the act. Here we can enjoy the pure genius of the Watchtower Society in full flight. By clinging to the “law” of an old Hebrew nomadic tribe they have created a safe environment for predators in general and pedophiles in particular. What a paradise!  But it can still be even more pathetic:

“*** w95 11/1 29  Comfort for Those With a “Stricken Spirit” ***
What if the one accused—though denying the wrongdoing—is really guilty? Does he “get away with it,” as it were? Certainly not! The question of his guilt or innocence can be safely left in Jehovah’s hands.”]

That’s all the abuser has to do. He can deny everything and he is safe. As long as he hasn’t sold tickets to the very act, he can go on indefinitely, after all such people doesn’t exist in the “New World Society”, do they? If some such persons should exist Jehovah is going to take care of him you know. Jehovah is going to be at least as alert as he was when you were abused. Jehovah was no doubt there looking very sad when he was a helpless eyewitness to the abuse. No doubt both Jesus and Jehovah was weeping. But rest assured they will get him in the end you know. They just have to let him continue to abuse children another 20-30 years first, so they can be real sure he is good and guilty. Aren’t we all so privileged to have the truth and belong to Jehovah’s organization? You know the one that Jehovah himself keep so squeaking clean all the time?

Let us in conclusion look back to the quote further above about the priest that had abused over 100 persons. Apparently he confessed to the crimes, but if he had been a Witness and chosen NOT to admit to any wrongdoing, he would still be a Witness in good standing. Why? Because he neglected to bring two eye witnesses to the crime. Is that a problem? Not to the Watchtower Society. It is Biblical justice, of course.

When a statement is made that the JW abuse problem is no worse than main stream religion, is that supporting abuse survivors or the GB by this type of comment? If the statement were in fact true that the problem with abuse is not bigger with JW's than mainstream religion, then why would silentlambs have any reason to exist?  This was certainly the implication of JR Brown. PR spokesman of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Brown stated to media just two weeks before Franz made his comments to the Associated Press, in a Christianity Today article dated 01/26/01,

"Witness spokesman [J.R.] Brown says that the incidence of pedophilia is no worse in his religion than in others, but he admits that some elders have not reported suspicions of abuse."

So here we have William H. Bowen and hundreds of abuse survivors describing the problem as far worse than main stream religion, and then we have Ray Franz and JR Brown basically in the same camp saying it was not!  Who was telling the truth? The comments were taken as a challenge and William H. Bowen wrote a piece he called the "Silentlambs Manifesto". It later evolved into "Is There a Problem?" What was the purpose? To establish with great detail and the thirteen questions asked at the end, that without a doubt the position taken by the abuse survivors was in fact the truth. This was published on the internet and on public forums for all to see.  Many read the information and agreed that with the explanation it had the ring of truth.

Franz’ internet response in 2002 agreed with silentlambs that abuse is bad, while defending his position and authorship. At one point certain comments basically implied that questioning his writing in the OR book is somehow challenging Jehovah Himself.

Note Mr. Franz comment:

“If so, then Paul, and Christ himself, as well as Moses who first set out the principle, bear similar responsibility since I was being guided by and quoting from their teachings. And, if we accept the divine inspiration of what they taught and wrote, then the slur conveyed by this charge must reach back to God himself.”

Read the complete statement with comments below:

Ray Franz' Conscience

Ray Franz requested the following comments be posted by a friend on a public forum in September of 2002, as a way to respond to criticism of his stance on child abuse in the organization of Jehovah's Witneses.  The bold (darker) areas are my reponses to each of the statements he made. His comments do an excellent job of exposing his position on the child abuse issue.

 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ray Franz requested that I post the following comments written by him:

As has been stated already, the presentation made from the silentlambs source in connection with the child abuse issue completely misrepresents my position.

(The "source" appears to be William H. Bowen the first accusation is that Bill has"misrepresented" his position. If that is the case then of course Mr. Franz is calling him a liar. Is this true? Further comments by Mr. Franz clarify his position.)

When I spoke by phone recently with the author of that presentation, and pointed out that I had never expressed the views presented, his comment was that from his previous conversation with me (held some months earlier) he "got the impression that I was not on the same wave length" with him.

(Franz in effect did agree over the telephone that he had expressed the views presented. The 40 years of not hearing anything about abuse and the fact he had made negative comments to reporters. This was by his own admission to Bill over the telephone, in this instance we do not need "two eye witnesses" that Franz made these comments? No we have a confession.  Franz "confessed" to talking to reporters and telling them he had never dealt with abuse and that he did not think it a greater problem than main stream religion. Thus this confirmed n an earlier suspicion that Mr. Franz would talk negatively to others about the abuse issue being a problem in the JW community.   A request was made for Mr. Franz to not comment to others with a negative opinion about something he claimed to have no experience with. That was it. To make negative comments does not help those who are coming forward. They should be encouraged and told that they are believed and helped to understand they are part of a much larger problem.)

I could not help but be reminded of the events at the Watch Tower headquarters in 1980 when Governing Body members questioned Ed Dunlap and other members of the Writing Department to see if they, in effect, were on the same wave length with the organization in its official teachings and policies.

(In this instance Franz is basically saying to be asked to not talk negatively about something he claims to have no experience with is similar to when a judicial committee questioned and df'd Ed Dunlap. This is a rather harsh characterization of a simple request in the interests of helping abuse survivors. Dunlap and others had doctrinal objections to the teaching of the organization and were subsequently excommunicated for their position. Mr. Franz was not being threatened in anyway nor was he under duress to be excommunicated. He was simply asked to not make comments that could hurt the cause of helping abuse survivors. Why was this perceived or presented ot the reader as such a harsh threat?)

I would make clear that I look to God and his Son as the sole transmitters, by holy spirit, of any "wave length" with which I feel I should be in harmony, not any human source or movement.

(Here it appears "wave length" is being misrepresented as if it was said Mr. Franz should respond to the "holy spirit" directing silentlambs. No one made such claim nor was Franz in any way required to. Now when he states he does not wish to be in "harmony" with any human source or movement unless directed by holy spirit, is that saying he does not feel holy spirit is behind the silentlambs effort and thus the reason he chooses to not be in harmony with it? Why else would he not want to be on the same "wave length?")

Watch Tower leaders view negatively any "independent thinking" and feel justified with criticizing harshly those who do not line up with them.

(This is a clear insult/comment directed to the WT Society.)

I find it depressing that many former Witnesses who attack the Watch Tower organization, proceed to manifest a similar spirit and use similar tactics toward those who do not line up with their thinking.

(This is a clear insult/comment directed to anyone associated with silentlambs. It appears he is saying if he does not agree and insults abuse survivors then if they react it is like WT attacking apostates. If you hurt people by your comments and they react you cannot cry foul. This is a misleading and unfair characterization, in fact it is really a harsh criticism of anyone who disagrees with Franz's position.)

I am reminded of Pauls letter to the Romans in which he wrote of some who boasted of their relation to God, as knowing his will and determining what is best, seeing themselves as guides to the blind, a light to those in darkness, correctors of the foolish and teachers of children, and spoke of them as having no excuse since, when they engaged in adverse judging of others they passed judgment on themselves, because, as he said, "you, who judge, are doing the very same things."Romans 2:1-3, 17,18.

(So now Franz is calling for a Biblical context to say we are "blind" and involved in "adverse judging" when in reality is he not doing exactly the same thing? Is he not judging us as being wrong for requiring him to act responsibly toward abuse survivors?)

As related in the book Crisis of Conscience , I was assigned to write a chapter in the manual titled Organization for Kingdom Preaching and Disciple-Making dealing with the handling of judicial hearings.

(Here we have further confirmation that Mr. Franz wrote the chapter in the OR Book by his own admission.)

The fact is that in that material I simply repeated the words written by the inspired Apostle Paul at 1 Timothy 5:19 when he says: "Never accept any accusation against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses." Paul quite evidently was drawing upon the provision in the Mosaic Law at Deuteronomy 19:15 which states: "A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing in connection with any offense that may be committed. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained." Christ Jesus himself referred to this "two or three witnesses" principle. ( Matthew 18:16) And his apostle, Paul, not only wrote it to Timothy but also included it in his second letter to the Corinthian congregation.2 Corinthians 13:1.

(Franz has now stated the basis of his comments in the OR book.)

What I wrote back in 1972 has now been portrayed by the silentlambs source as being the basis for the Watch Towers twisted policy regarding the handling of child molestation cases.

(Yes that is exactly what Bill was saying and what is clarified by the OR book. As a mater of fact in that same chapter new directives were given for dealing with unbapitzed associates. This chapter gave authorization for treating minor children as disfellowshipped or as we called it DAA, disapproved associate. This was later retracted around 1988 for the great harm it caused to children. Later in that same chapter it brought up specifically how to deal with baptized "children" that were found guilty of "gross loose conduct" along with fornication. Funny if there was no underage sex to his knowledge as Franz claims, then why did he write a whole section about it in chapter he wrote in the OR book? Interesting also is the fact that many children were judicially reproved when they came forward to report abuse due to the directives given on dealing with children who are guilty of sexual misconduct. The abuser with denial remained an innocent man the child was reprovedor even disfellowshipped for confession of sexual misconduct.)

If so, then Paul, and Christ himself, as well as Moses who first set out the principle, bear similar responsibility since I was being guided by and quoting from their teachings.

(The implication here is if Franz did anything wrong then God and everyone else did to.)

And, if we accept the divine inspiration of what they taught and wrote, then the slur conveyed by this charge must reach back to God himself.

(So again if Mr. Franz did anything wrong, then God must have done wrong also. Is this a bit arrogant?)

Paul makes plain that he knew what it was to have his statements and teachings distorted so as to convey something completely at odds with his intent. As he writes at Romans 3:8: "And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say ) Let us do evil so that good may come? Their condemnation is deserved."

(Mr. Franz appears to be saying if anyone disagrees with his assumptions then they are condemned by Bible/God. If anyone says what he does not want them to say, same result.)

The fact that the Watch Tower Society distorts the purpose of that law principle referred to by Paul and Christ (which was to protect the innocent against a false accuser) does not justify ones distorting the meaning or intent of a quotation of that principle such as is found in the chapter of the manual referred to.

(It is odd that here Franz is stating that WT distorted the very rule that he wrote on how judicial committees investigate any wrongdoing. Then he is turning around and saying by Bill pointing this out that Bill is distorting what he wrote and Wt distorted. Is this double talk? What was the intent? Was it not ALL judicial hearings? How is that distorted? It appears very clear to anyone else who was an elder that dealt with abuse what the actual instructions were.)

As I have already expressed, I do not believe the Mosaic Law was designed to be rigid and "cut and dried."

(FYI we are not under the Mosaic Law. No one believes it is to be "cut and dried" unless you are a practicing Jew.)

One person (Robert Frazier) commenting on this issue cites an example from the Law itself that gives evidence of circumstances where the two or three witness rule might not apply and this example cited simply exemplifies the point I have made. In a similar manner, the law regarding the Sabbath was very forcefully stated: "the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God; you shall not do any work you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns." Yet, when accused for doing healing on the Sabbath, Jesus said to his acc user s: "Suppose one of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold on it and lift it out? . . . So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath." ( Matthew 12:11, 12; in Luke 14:5 he refers to an ox falling into a well; obviously in both cases the extraction of the animal involved work, even heavy work, even though on the sabbath day.) God had good reason for inspiring each of the provisions in the Law given through Moses, and all of its provisions were designed to benefit and do good. That is why the Psalmist could write: "Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers; but their delight is in the law of Jehovah, and on his law they meditate day and night." "Oh, how I do love your law! It is my meditation all day long."Psalm 1:1,2l 119:97.

(Anyone could agree the law made accommodation for suffering animals along with other matters for clarification. What application this has to child abuse is beyond the reader.)

I am puzzled that in commenting on this point (from that source citing the example from the Law indicating an exception to the "two or three witness" rule), some, in effect, seem to seek to discredit or tarnish the use of Pauls statement in the Organization book by reference to the fact that as Christians we are not under the law.

(Wait a minute is silentlambs being accused of tarnishing Paul's words?? Who put those words in the book Mr. Franz? Are you claiming we are now insulting Paul by the challenge of your application to judicial committees of the "two eyewitness" principle? Again an arrogant assumption.)

This is of course true. But, as such individuals must realize, it is also true that the Christian writer who most forcefully taught that truth (Paul) is the same writer who applied the principle of this particular rule (regarding two or three witnesses) in his writing to Timothy (and to the Corinthians). What is here stated is in defense of the rightness of Gods law and the validity of citing its principles, not in defense of the misuse of that law by a religious system.

(Here we have clear support of the two eye witness principle by Franz)

One would have to be blind to the evidence of history not to realize the value of this principle contained in the Law and referred to by Paul.

Unsubstantiated accusations have brought untold suffering and even death to countless persons down through the years, notably in the Inquisition, as also following the French Revolution when one person could accuse another and the accused be tried and even executed on that basis (the resulting period becoming known in France as the time of le Terreur ) and more recently in the vilifying, ravaging and slaughter of the Jewish people in the Holocaust. Gods own Son was the victim of false charges and untrue accusations. Who today would wish to turn the clock back to the dark period before enlightened nations began to apply the principle that a person is to be considered innocent until proved guilty?

(The implication here is that abuse survivors will in essence bring on the French inquisition if they come forward with allegations. This is just simple misinformation. We have never stated that people should be put in jail over unsubstantiated allegations. A court of law makes that determination based on the evidence at hand. The victims on the other hand should not be called liars if they cannot absolutely prove their case. This is certainly not the Holocaust or the Inquisition, it is simply not hurting further those who suffer. Franz draws a drastic implication and applies this to abuse survivors allegations. This is unfair at best.)

As with other principles, this principle of the divine Law can be misused in a harmful way and this is evidently the case with Watch Tower policies regarding child molestation cases.

(Here is an admission that policy is hurting children, but what does Mr. Franz do next?)

But that does not argue against the value of the law regarding witnesses here being discussed. In the same letter to Timothy which includes his reference to this principle, Paul, after referring to persons who presented themselves as teachers, but "without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions," then went on to say: Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient." (1 Timothy 1:7-9)

(He defends the two eye witness principle. Now at silentlambs have we in anyway suggested that people should be put in jail on simple allegations? Never. Have we ever stated we are against the biblical edict of two eye witnesses as a good principle in establishing many matters? Absolutely not. Why this lengthy defense of a non issue?)

At Romans 7:12 he said that "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good." An organizations misuse or perversion of any part of that law is no basis for our viewing a particular principle as though something noxious and hurtful, so that the mere quoting of it can be seized upon as basis for tying one in with the perverters of its good and just principle. (This is known in the field of flawed argumentation and flawed logic as "tarring others with the same brush.")

(Now the insults start to all abuse survivors, here is an accusation we are doing something "noxious and hurtful" by challenging the two eye witness principle on abuse. Also once again with the policy he authored he accepts no responsibility for those who it may have hurt.)

Any who would make it appear that way are once again doing the same thing as those toward whom they express condemnatory judgment, condemning those who engage in perversion and misinterpretation of information, while themselves engaging in perversion.

(So again anyone who disagrees with Mr. Franz is condemned. The arrogance is flaring again.)

Similarly, to say that because one does not choose to align himself with a certain movement (whether Silent Lambs or any other anti-Watch Tower movement) he thereby can be labeled an apologist for the skewed Watch Tower policies is unjust and hence un christian.

(You were not asked to align with anything. You were asked to not speak against it. You did and now you are saying it is "unchristian" for anyone to disagree with your position.)

In his second letter to the Corinthians the apostle wrote: "Though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does . The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to tear down strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, NIV.) If some choose to engage in what might be termed a form of media-oriented, political activism to fight wrongdoing, that is their privilege. If the goal is the protection of the innocent it is a worthy goal.

(What other goal are you implying we may have Mr. Franz?)

The worthiness of the goal, however, gives no justification for impugning the motives of any who make a personal choice not to pursue that same media-oriented route.

(We never questioned your motives, we questioned your actions. Your actions in writing a chapter in a book used by elders to deal with molestation, your actions in making negative comments to the media about abuse. Those actions are what brought the criticism.)

As I have stated, during my 40 years of Witness membership any cases of child molestation never came to my attention. During my 9 years on the Governing Body and my years on the Service Committee of the Governing Body, the issue was not presented, though matters of sexual immorality of many kinds did surface. I recently spoke with a man in Nevada who was baptized in 1951. His father was a very prominent Witness in the southern California area where this man grew up. He says that he likewise did not hear of child molestation charges during his decades of association.

(This comment is viewed by many to be absurd. The implication is there was not a problem with abuse and your friends agree. Why would you comment about something you admit you know nothing about?)

It is quite naive of persons to assume that the intense publicity on this issue in recent times necessarily means that the situation was similar in earlier periods.

(Who are you accusing of being "Naive"? Is it those who believe this is a long term problem in the organization? What about the numerous abuse survivors who have reported to silentlambs being abused in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's are you saying they are liars?)

The issue of legalizing homosexual unions is prominent in current times but was definitely not so in previous decades. Regrettably, the willingness of some former Witnesses to accept sensational claims made if made with a pretension of insider knowledge betrays a lack of critical thinking, the same lack of critical thinking endemic in the Witness membership.

(Here we have a clear insult to all abuse survivors, "the willingness of some former witnesses to accept sensational claims," what are you talking about Mr. Franz? Abuse survivors who come forward? Then you say if they accept this they "lack critical thinking"? Would that basically be they are stupid? Now you say those who accept abuse claims lack "critical thinking" are like all JW's? It appears you just insulted abuse survivors and Jehovah's Witnesses with this comment)

Of the many sexual crimes, child molestation is unquestionably one of the most despicable. Those who shield child molesters certainly bear a very heavy responsibility. Nonetheless, to focus on certain specific policies as if these are the root problem is, I believe, to think superficially.

(From day one we have challenged WT policy as the basis children have been hurt. That policy was written in part by you. Now you wish to say if Policy is challenged those who do this are thinking "superficially?" What suggestions do you have to protect children and stop WT from hurting them by their polcy?)

There is a more basic problem underlying not only these but all the legalisms promoted by the system here involved.

(Now going to the courts is wrong also? Does that not take away the very legs for anything to be done about WT Policy?)

In Jesus day people were in awe of religious leaders from the Pharisee division of Judaism. The blind trust and subservience this produced was harmful to the people. Jesus did not seek to achieve their relief by endeavoring to create problems for the Pharisee movement with the Roman officials, so that the government would take punitive action toward them. Rather, Christ Jesus spoke truths which enabled people in his time to free themselves from domination by the thinking and traditional teaching of the Pharisees and any like them, enabling people to see that God is not honored by mens "teaching human precepts as doctrines". Matthew 15:8, 9 (note that in his exposition of matters, Jesus had no hesitation in quoting [verses 1-6] from the Law given through Moses, calling it "the word of God.")

(So with the above reasoning it would appear we should "Wait on Jehovah" and read the Bible till the problem is solved by God. Who does that sound like?)

I wrote two books, Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christian Freedom , and in these endeavored to help people realize that there is no Scriptural basis for subservience to any human religious organization and its decrees and humanly-originated policies; in both books emphasizing the crucial importance of a personal relationship with God and Christ, and the importance of being true to personal conscience and conviction.

(Yet you expect everyone to agree with your position or they are condemned by God)

How anyone could read their contents and then seek to portray the author as a sympathizer with the Watch Tower organizations legalistic policies of whatever kind is difficult for me to understand and I cannot fathom what motivation would cause a person to do this.

(Your comments betray you.)  

After this was written it is interesting to note in the next few months the Ray Franz “defenders” came onto forums to slam silentlambs and abuse survivors while supporting his position.  While William H. Bowen was busy traveling around the world helping abuse survivors have a platform to speak out in United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Slovenia and other countries, the Franz “defenders” went on a campaign to discredit the testimony of abuse survivors and the character of Bowen.  An example of this is when on a key forum James Penton, an author and college professor commented.  What did Penton say?

“Bill seems to think that Jehovahs Witnesses are more guilty of child sexual abuse than members of other religions. I doubt that. I taught religious studies for some years at university level, studied many religions closely, and know that child sexual abuse has been and is rampant among Catholics, Anglicans, Pentecostals, and Mormons. So like Ray Franz, I tend to think that the Witness sexual abuse of minors fits the norm.”

So Jim Penton who is a good friend of Ray Franz stated that he basically agreed with Franz position.  This was after Dateline aired and there were over one thousand stories of abuse on the silentlambs website, yet Penton carefully chose to not go against Franz position on the matter.  Shortly there after in January of 2003, Carl Olof Jonsson came to the JWD forum as a first time poster and offered this comment in support of Franz,

“Because of the campaigns carried on in the media in some countries to publicize child molestation cases among Jehovahs Witnesses, some seem to have concluded that this crime is more common among Jehovah’s Witnesses than elsewhere. I have discussed this with some former Witnesses here, including Rud Persson (Wolfgang Herbst), the co- author of the book, The Sign of the Last DaysWhen?. Our conclusion is that child molestation is no more common among the Witnesses than in the community at large.”

“Some former Witnesses here in Sweden are now planning to start a media campaign about child abuse among the Witnesses, similar to the one going on in the United States. Neither I nor Rud Persson have any wish to become involved in it. Why not? Have we done or do we know about something that we are "covering up", something we "do not wish to reveal"? No. The simple reason is that we have no evidence to present against anybody, nor do we have any evidence to show that child abuse is more common among the Witnesses than in other organizations or in the community at large. If we were to partake in an organized attempt to control this particular crime, and had the time, energy, and resources for it, we would find no reason to pick out the Watchtower organization in particular as the sole object of our activity. In this matter, we fully understand the position taken by Ray Franz, and undoubtedly thousands of other former Witnesses, because we have taken the same position.” 

So the “Franz Defenders” banded together to make sure that none of them supported the abuse survivors that were coming to media to speak about the cover up of abuse in Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Swedish television eventually aired four different programs that covered most of Europe but the old time Ray Franz supporters sat on the side line and offered no assistance.  It seems when these men have other support work they rally to each others aide as ambassadors to promote their personal agendas.  But when it comes to a volunteer effort to help abuse survivors,

“Neither I nor Rud Persson have any wish to become involved in it.”

So now it is the year 2007.  There have been twenty one documentaries along with hundreds of newspaper, magazine, radio, and other media that have in fact shown that abuse within Jehovah’s Witnesses is far worse than main stream religion.  The documentaries have shown in over fifty countries around the world and collectively the body of evidence is irrefutable.  With all this information available, what has been the response of these XJW scholars on the mountain of evidence that shows their “opinions” to be completely wrong?

Silence.

The real issue at stake is abuse survivors and the need to support them as well as provide a support structure for them to speak out about abuse. It is discouraging that an individual would declare war on a small non-profit organization, using his supporters to attack and discredit silentlambs as a basis to cover up his course of action in having a negative view of child abuse being a problem in the Jehovah's Witness community. Anyone that would openly endorse the past position of these men shows by their association, that they do not support abuse survivors. 

We ask you the reader to carefully review the comments made by Franz and his “defenders” about this issue, can you find any compassion for abuse survivors? Is this not similar to WT when they defend their position? Watchtower spokesmen say, “We abhor abuse” out of one side of their mouths and then go on to defend their policy of requiring “two eye witnesses” before a child can be believed.  The comments  of Mr. Franz and certain supporters appear to reflect much the same thought.

If Mr. Franz really wanted to express a cleansing, why not write a public statement to be posted on the internet or in his book on his role in Watchtower's child abuse policies and apologize to abuse survivors for having any hand in causing part of their suffering.  Many elders have done this as a matter of record.

We would certainly hope that many people who feel helped by Mr. Franz can also find it in their hearts to support survivors of abuse and the ideals of silentlambs in changing WT policy. To date the evidence has went forward in the many documentaries have been shown around the world with the support of silentlambs helping abuse survivors to come forward. The problem has been well established and thousands of children have been protected even without Watchtower changing their misguided policy. Many brothers and sisters are more aware of the abuse issue than ever before in history and have quietly made up their minds what they will do if the problem ever arises no matter what WT Policy states. Who can you thank for this?

The courageous abuse survivors who went before cameras around the world and did so with only one thought, to protect children. It is true silentlambs was part of this, but without these heroes we would be nothing. The evidence that has been developed will be useful for years to come to educate and protect children from abuse and that will come through silentlambs. Why would anyone in their right mind want to stop that?

In conclusion, we want to make clear silentlambs is not part of any anti-JW movement nor do we have any intention of destroying the organization. We are a support group, we help people in need. We can respect your beliefs whatever they may be while having compassion for how you were hurt. Many have been moved in their hearts to support and assist with this effort, some are JW's, some are not, it makes no difference as it is a labor of love not of bitterness or hate.

For those who read this material it should let you know that silentlambs has not changed, we still operate the same way as the day the organization was started, that is, we support and defend abuse survivors against anyone who in anyway does not do so. If you believe that to be a positive then we encourage you to support silentlambs. On the other hand if you want to support the position of those that by their words openly oppose the children that have been hurt by this organization, we wish you peace.

silentlambs