The article, “Honor ‘What God Has Yoked Together,'” also discusses marital infidelity, first saying that an innocent wife can decide to divorce in that situation. However, after that brief statement, there is an entire paragraph speaking against divorcing an unfaithful man:

“Significantly, Jesus did not say that a mate’s immorality (por·neiʹa) must absolutely lead to divorce. For example, a wife might choose to maintain the marriage despite her husband’s having been immoral. She might still love him; she might be willing to forgive him and work with him to improve their marriage. Realistically, if she got a divorce but did not remarry, she would face challenges. What of her material and sexual needs? What about loneliness? Are there children to consider? Would a divorce make it harder to raise them in the truth? (1 Cor. 7:14) Clearly, the divorced innocent one would face serious issues.”

“Work With Him”

First, it says a wife might “work with” her unfaithful spouse to “improve their marriage.” My question is, why would an innocent spouse need to work to improve the marriage? She didn’t cheat, betray her vows, or break that marriage bond.

I agree that no marriage is perfect and perhaps the husband wasn’t happy with the relationship, but that’s still no excuse for infidelity! When a husband is unfaithful, he needs work and improvement, first and foremost, not “the marriage.”

This sexism is more apparent when you compare this information to the February 15, 2007, Watchtower:

“As the family head, the husband has the authority and responsibility to correct family members, including his wife. While firmness may be needed, this correction should be given in a kind, loving manner … If there is a fault that needs attention, husbands should not necessarily expect that their sincere efforts to correct it will meet with immediate success … Changes in attitudes and conduct often take time and are gradual.”

This 2007 Watchtower tells a husband to “correct” his wife if he feels she’s doing something wrong; it doesn’t say he should “work with” his wife to improve “their marriage.”

Yet, the 2018 Watchtower says nothing about a wife “correcting” an unfaithful husband. Instead, she might “work with him” to improve, not him as a person and husband, but “their marriage.”

As always, the wife is not an equal partner in the marriage or an adult able to counsel her husband, even after he’s been unfaithful; she’s an underling, there to support him and his needs.

All the Problems If She Divorces … None If She Stays

The magazine notes problems a woman might face if she divorced and didn’t remarry. As a single woman, I will agree that it’s challenging at times (and probably even more so for Jehovah’s Witness women who aren’t allowed sex outside of marriage). That being said, there is a two-fold misogyny in how this information is presented.

You’re Lost Without a Man

The first issue is that Watchtower talks about challenges a woman might have without a man; for example, her materials needs. Certainly women might struggle to make a living; however, women are also quite capable of earning a paycheck! I’ve always supported myself financially; while my bank account has gone up and down over the years, never once in my adult life has a man paid my rent.

The magazine also notes a divorced woman might be lonely; again, I agree it’s nice to have a “special someone” in your life, but single women and their families are also quite capable of keeping each other company without a man around! A divorced woman might also find she has more time to do the things she enjoys and that makes her feel fulfilled, minimizing her loneliness.

The Watchtower then mentions children. Not being a parent, I can’t comment much on the challenges of single mothers, but I do know that many women have raised children on their own quite successfully.

Note, too, that having a man in the home doesn’t automatically mean he’s sharing child rearing responsibilities. Not to discredit hard-working, involved fathers, but let’s be honest; some men still see disciplining children, helping with homework, taking care of a sick child, meal prep for the kids, etc., as “women’s work.” Also, if a husband is lazy about cleaning up after himself or helping with chores in general, his presence can also mean more work for a wife and mother, not less.

No Problems If She Stayed?

The second problem is that the paragraph says nothing about the “serious issues” a woman might face if she stays with an unfaithful man; for example:

• What message would this send to her husband and children; will they think it’s okay to cheat on a woman and that she should simply tolerate such behavior?
• Was the husband unkind in the time leading up to his infidelity, perhaps constantly faultfinding as a way of justifying his unfaithfulness? Will that self-justifying, blaming attitude continue if she takes him back?
• Would the wife be able to trust the husband, or would she always live in fear of him cheating again?
• Is there any risk of sexually transmitted diseases or of the husband having gotten the other woman pregnant?
• An unfaithful husband has demonstrated a gross lack of regard for their innocent mate’s feelings; would he continue to show such blatant disregard for his wife’s feelings and dignity?
• Does the husband show selfishness or a sense of entitlement to attention outside the marriage and would this continue if she takes him back? For example, does he flirt with or “gawk at” other women, even if this hurts his wife’s feelings?

One last note; if a woman feels she must stay with an unfaithful husband because she’s unable to support herself, might get lonely, or cannot handle the children, and not just because she loves him, this is a red flag that it’s time to make changes in general!

Every person should be able to support themselves financially so that they never need to stay in an abusive or unhappy relationship simply for a roof over their heads. A mother should also be strong and capable on her own, and children should be taught respect for mothers and the family in general, with or without a father in the picture.

Also, the Watchtower mentions that a divorced woman might struggle with loneliness, but a woman might be just as lonely, if not even more so, married to a cheating spouse who shows little regard for her as a person.

Obvious Bias Toward the Men

The bottom line is that this article has an overt bias toward men; of course women should consider challenges a divorce might bring, but the Watchtower says nothing about the drawbacks and “serious issues” of staying with an unfaithful spouse! There is also, as usual, no encouragement or empowerment for women who deserve better than to stay with an unfaithful man, and not one word about how taking back that cheating spouse might affect her or her children.

I can’t help but think that this information, instead, empowers men tempted to have an affair, knowing the pressure an innocent wife feels to forgive him. Unfaithful men, as well as elders and others in the congregation, might also put added pressure on an innocent wife to stay, implying or saying outright that god is disappointed at her for divorcing, she’s not following bible counsel, is now bad association, etc., or that she’s even to blame for the marital breakup for choosing to divorce.

Watchtower has never tried to hide their power-hungry, snarling, insulting misogyny when it comes to how women are treated, even in their own homes and marriages, and it’s downright depressing to think that they obviously never will. I can only hope fewer generations accept this sexist, hurtful garbage as time goes on.

*** ***

Confidentiality Trumps Mandatory Reporting Laws

The court noted when religious authorities are exempt from the state’s mandatory reporting laws; from page 14 of their ruling:

“Clergy are not required to report known or suspected child abuse if the knowledge results from a congregation member’s confidential communication or confession and if the person making the statement does not consent to disclosure.”

In other words, if someone communicates something to their clergy and expects that information to remain confidential, that clergy member is not required to report that information to authorities or anyone else.

Jehovah’s Witnesses Promise Confidentiality to Congregants

The decision by the state justices referred to statements made by Dave Chappel,¹ “a Jehovah’s Witnesses Service Department elder designated by the Watchtower and CCJW [The Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses] boards of directors to serve as their representative in this litigation”:

In short, Chappel argued that congregants in the religion are promised that things discussed with elders remain strictly confidential. Chappel used this promise of confidentiality as a legal argument against requirements of reporting child sex abuse to the authorities.

The Deception Over “Confidentiality”

There is a problem with this so-called promise of confidentiality, however. The 2010 edition of “Shepherd the Flock of God,” the handbook used by Jehovah’s Witness elders, chapter 7, paragraph 15, says:

These instructions are repeated in the 2019 versions of the “Shepherd” book, in chapter 15, paragraph 15.

In other words, these so-called promises of keeping things confidential are rubbish. Elders are outright instructed to share things said during judicial committee cases with other elders, the circuit overseer, and the branch office as they see fit, without informing the “wrongdoer.”

I’m not a lawyer so I have no input as to how this information affects any legal case, if at all. However, set that aside; from a moral point of view Jehovah’s Witnesses were, at the very least, downright deceitful in their arguments. They don’t ensure confidentiality during the judicial committee process, even instructing elders to use someone’s name in certain discussions and to not tell that person that they’ll be sharing their supposed confidential information.

Whatever anyone’s legal arguments and outcome of any court case, there is no doubt in my mind that Jehovah’s Witnesses continuously fail child sex abuse victims in their religion. They keep the secrets of molesters, fail to warn parents, fail to notify authorities, fight victims in court, and say whatever they can to protect their assets over their children.

I’m heartbroken over how the court’s decision must make those victims feel, and knowing that the case was reversed based on a dishonesty obviously doesn’t make things any easier to accept.

*** ***

¹It’s my understanding that the person’s name was Douglas, not Dave.

*** ***

Glossing Over Zimbabwe’s Colonization

One immediate problem in this information is the whitewashing (no pun intended) of how that government came into power, with Europeans colonizing Zimbabwe. Note this information from Wikipedia:

In the 1880s, European colonists arrived with Cecil Rhodes’s British South Africa Company (BSAC). In 1888, Rhodes obtained a concession for mining rights from King Lobengula …

Rhodes used this document in 1890 to justify sending the Pioneer Column, a group of Europeans protected by well-armed British South Africa Police (BSAP) through Matabeleland and into Shona territory to establish Fort Salisbury (now Harare), and thereby establish company rule over the area. In 1893 and 1894, with the help of their new Maxim guns, the BSAP would go on to defeat the Ndebele in the First Matabele War. …

Mass settlement was encouraged, with the British maintaining control over labour as well as precious metals and other mineral resources. …

Following … failed insurrections [in the late 1800s], the Ndebele and Shona groups were finally subdued by the Rhodes administration, which organised the land with a disproportionate bias favouring Europeans, thus displacing many indigenous peoples.

The white man did not just arrive in Zimbabwe and quietly set up shop; those settlers slaughtered the native populace, forced them from their lands, took their resources, and established a fascist regime over them.

Yet, the Yearbook refers to how “the white man came to this country,” as if those colonizers were dinner guests or a package arriving from Amazon.

Cultural Marriages Are a “Problem”?

Colonizers often refer to native peoples as “savage” and “barbaric,” and other such derogatory terms, to degrade their culture and justify land grabs and domination. The colonizers are “bringing civilization” to those people; the natives are somehow better off with their new rulers.

This attitude is prevalent despite the fact that such cultures are no more or less peaceful and moral than others. For example, the Yearbook mentions a marriage “go-between.” In some African cultures, marriages united entire families and not just two people; the “go-between” served as a communicator between those families, negotiating property exchanges (the “bride price”) and other details that sealed the commitment between the husband and wife. While I personally would never want my family involved in my relationships, there is certainly nothing wrong or immoral about those customs!

The Yearbook, however, refers to these native marriage traditions as a “problem.” This is a horrific insult to cultures that are simply a bit different than Anglo-Saxon, European peoples and practices. 

They WERE Married

Some Jehovah’s Witnesses might argue that the bible requires a couple be legally married before living together and having a sexual relationship; otherwise, they’re committing fornication. This is true, but these African couples were married; the Yearbook says “marriages were performed,” just according to African tradition.

Those traditional marriages included all the commitments and responsibilities a Christian marriage entails. It was the “white men” who decided that native unions weren’t legitimate marriages.

This is a vital point because the bible doesn’t stipulate what specific ceremonies dictate when two people are considered “legally married.” The Watchtower organization certainly had the choice to recognize native marriages as being acceptable for members of the congregation, whether or not the white government gave those marriages legal status.

Yet, not only were those African marriages not acceptable, removing those members was a “cleansing work.” The congregation was somehow “unclean” with African people, in their ancestral homeland no less, being married according to their native laws and traditional practices. The Watchtower organization took the side of the white government in dismissing those marriages, when that government should have respected the native peoples whose land they now occupied!

Jehovah’s Will?

The Yearbook says that Africans who didn’t follow the dictates of those white colonizers “did not want to bring their lives into harmony with Jehovah’s will.”

Demeaning, harsh laws for native peoples who had already suffered decades of brutality was Jehovah’s will?

It wasn’t Jehovah’s will that native peoples be respected in their homeland?

Note, this wasn’t a situation of people moving from one country to another and needing to comply with the laws of their new residence; that I might understand. Instead, this was a government forced upon those natives, on their homeland, through brutality and violence.

I’m guessing the real reason those people did not go through the hassle and expense of getting their marriages registered was that they saw no need to recognize an illegitimate government in the first place. If my neighbor broke into my apartment, kicked me to the floor, took everything I owned, forced me to work for him, and then demanded I buy new identification papers from him, I wouldn’t be in a big rush to comply, but not because I’m the horrible person.

To paint those native peoples as negligent, not caring about god’s will, and needing “cleansing” from the congregation is deceitful, slanderous, and downright hateful, all from a religion that claims its “love never fails.”

What Zimbabweans Really Need From a Religion

Research the current culture in Zimbabwe and you’ll see that gender inequality, domestic violence, and the lack of women’s rights are significant problems. One source I found said that women are expected to always give sex to their husbands on demand, even if they know he is HIV positive due to infidelity or promiscuity before marriage.

If Jehovah’s Witnesses cared so much about ensuring their Zimbabwean congregations were clean, you’d think they would be doing more to address domestic abuse in that country, including its root cause:

In discussing why abusers abuse , it’s clear that a lot of the causal factors behind these behaviors are learned attitudes and feelings of entitlement and privilege — which can be extremely difficult to truly change. Because of this, there’s a very low percentage of abusers who truly do change their ways.

Yet, male entitlement and privileges are common with Jehovah’s Witnesses; the religion repeatedly emphasizes that women need to be submissive to men and that women should consider staying in abusive homes, even if a life is at risk, in the hopes of converting men; see the Women section for more information.

See also: Dangerous Advice to Domestic Violence Victims, With a Disturbing Twist

While Jehovah’s Witnesses might say that violence is unacceptable, if that were true, violent men would be handled as decisively and firmly as those who didn’t “legalize” their marriages with an illegitimate government!

The Watchtower organization will “cleanse” congregations of members who don’t follow arbitrary laws from an illegitimate government, something that hurts no one. However, they are far less concerned about abusive men in their religion and make leeway for their horrific nature all too often.

See also: The Domestic Violence I Saw With Jehovah’s Witnesses

The blatant racism in the Yearbook is bad enough, but the hypocrisy of what Jehovah’s Witnesses feel makes their congregations “unclean” doesn’t help. Perhaps the next “cleansing” of their congregations will include those responsible for vilifying native peoples and the violent, abusive men who truly do pose a danger to others in their religion.

*** ***

The husband, however, is outright invited to sit in on any meetings an accused wife has with elders:

I’ve commented on this gross double standard before; the husband is seen as a mature adult, able to instruct and counsel his wife, but she’s not considered as having the same ability to direct and “restore” her husband.

Keeping information from an innocent spouse is also disrespectful to marriage itself; the bible refers to husbands and wives as “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24; Ephesians 5:31), so nothing should be considered “confidential” from the other and especially if it pertains to a spouse’s fidelity. If elders willfully withhold information from an innocent wife, acting as if they have more rights to that information than the wife, the husband is then “one flesh” with the elders more so than his wife.

Determining Repentance?

Not only is this arrangement insulting to the intellect and abilities of a woman but, in addition, the judicial committee is told to weigh if a sinner has considered the impact of their behavior on others. Note chapter 16, “Procedure for Judicial Hearings,” under the subheading “Determining Genuine Repentance”:

What has he done to repair his relationship with Jehovah and with others he has hurt by his actions? Has he made amends, expressed willingness to do so, or apologized to those damaged by his sinful course? Has he asked for the forgiveness of those he has wronged?

And:

If he has committed adultery, has he confessed to the innocent mate and asked for forgiveness?

How can the committee ensure the unfaithful spouse has made amends or even apologized sufficiently, according to the extent of damage he’s caused, if they don’t meet with both together and guarantee the wife knows all relevant details? Those details are sure to contribute to that damage done and will also affect what the wife feels are proper amends; as every instance of unfaithfulness is different, those needed amends will also be different.

As an example, if the husband was away on a business trip and had a drunken one-night stand with a stranger he met in a hotel bar, whom he’s never seen after that night, he might make amends by allowing the wife to go with him on future trips or no longer traveling for business altogether. However, if the husband had an affair with a coworker, those amends might include quitting that job and even moving to a new city, to avoid any chance encounters with the other woman.

Yet, elders cannot determine if an unfaithful husband has made proper amends and, in turn, evaluate his supposed “genuine repentance” unless they’re sure the innocent mate knows all pertinent information.

Added Duplicity With Confidentiality

There is another twist in the 2019 edition of the “Shepherd” book when it comes to so-called “confidential” information; also from chapter 15:

So, information regarding a husband’s infidelity is considered “confidential” from his own wife, but anything that anyone else says during the judicial committee process is fair game, to be shared with other elders, a circuit overseer, and men at the branch office, without that person’s knowledge much less their permission!

These instructions negate any argument or scriptures elders might offer as to why they consider certain information “confidential” from an innocent wife, as they set aside those defenses when the wife is accused of adultery and when they feel a need to consult with men outside their congregation.

Note, too, that this lack of confidentiality potentially affects those who are innocent of a certain sin! The information above doesn’t say to consult with other elders if a committee cannot determine repentance after a confession or proof of sinful conduct, and the instructions regarding a wife’s judicial committee refer to her being “accused” of adultery.

However, confidentiality is given to an unfaithful husband and from the person he sinned against in this situation! No one else in the congregation is afforded this privacy and respect.

These instructions are nothing less than duplicitous, deceitful, misogynistic, and obscenely shameful, and should make anyone think twice about this entire arrangement and the supposed honesty of the religion overall as well as elders themselves.

*** ***

For more information regarding the 2019 “Shepherd the Flock of God” book, please visit this post.

*** ***

Please share via social media below.

Confession of Adultery

From chapter 12, “Determining Whether a Judicial Committee Should Be Formed”:

For those unfamiliar, Jehovah’s Witnesses allow couples to divorce without sanction under certain circumstances, but they are not free to remarry unless adultery has taken place. If one spouse has committed adultery, the other is then “Scripturally free” to remarry.

That term, “Scripturally free,” is used often among Jehovah’s Witnesses and every congregant knows its meaning. If someone says that one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is divorced but not “Scripturally free,” it’s understood that the person’s spouse didn’t commit adultery.

By the same token, if one of Jehovah’s Witnesses says his or her spouse is “Scripturally free,” there is no ambiguity as to their meaning; they are saying that they’ve committed adultery. Period. This phrase does not mean that the unfaithful spouse doesn’t want their ex back, that they’re in a new relationship but haven’t yet been sexually intimate, etc.

Individual Jehovah’s Witnesses also know that they can’t simply decide that their ex-wife or ex-husband can get remarried; even someone who has left their spouse or the religion does not have the authority to say, “You’re free to do what you want.” Being “Scripturally free” does not refer to their own feelings or opinions; there is nothing other than adultery that would make a former spouse “Scripturally free.”

With all that in mind, I can think of no legitimate reason to view this statement as anything but a clear confession of adultery. The book offers no insights as to why this statement “would not by itself be viewed as a clear confession of adultery,” and says nothing about what other information is needed specifically to absolutely determine that adultery has taken place.

Intruding Into the Business of Third Parties

It’s also worth noting that elders asking for details beyond the statement that a spouse is “Scripturally free” would be intruding into the private business of an outside third party.

To illustrate, suppose congregation member John Smith has an affair with his coworker, Susan. John says that his Jehovah’s Witness wife is “Scripturally free,” but elders in his congregation decide to press him for added details.

However, anything John shares about his affair reveals details abut Susan’s sex life, not just his! If an elder tries to “clarify” John’s statement in any way, he’s asking about what Susan did sexually and that’s certainly not his business. It’s not even John’s right or privilege to reveal those details to anyone, much less an elder in his congregation.

Questioning an Engaged Couple

From chapter 27, “Weddings”:

I find this directive disturbing because it does not say to simply ask the couple if they have avoided misconduct or if there is anything “in general” that they want to discuss before their wedding. It also does not say to make inquiries if there is some legitimate reason to believe the couple is guilty of misconduct.

Instead, it proactively instructs elders to make “straightforward inquiries,” meaning to ask detailed and direct questions about sexual matters, without any reason other than the fact that the couple have been dating. There are also no guidelines set out as to the nature of these questions; elders have full freedom to demand the couple explain or talk about anything and everything, in as much graphic detail as the elder insists.

Let’s Go Fishing

The accusatory nature of this directive is also confounding; elders don’t necessarily “police” other matters to this extent. For example, if elders hear you say that you had a “great night on the town,” they won’t necessarily sit you down and ask how much you had to drink, what you drank, did you do drugs, did you dance provocatively, and so on. Unless someone reports to the elders that you acted inappropriately, you aren’t likely to face “straightforward inquiries” or a fishing expedition about your conduct.

Questioning Children

I can’t help but to note that many Jehovah’s Witnesses get married quite young, no doubt because of the religion’s prohibitions against sex before marriage, masturbation, etc. An elder might then be asking someone just seventeen, eighteen, or nineteen years old these pointed, direct, and even obscene and perverse questions. These teenagers would have no parents or anyone else there to protect them from this intrusive, disgusting line of questioning.

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a Cult?

I’m no cult expert but I have always considered intruding into sexual matters like this a sure sign of a cult. Anyone in a sequestered group who misuses their authority to intrude into sexual matters without any legitimate reason is just like a cult leader, insisting that the organization and its adherents satisfy their perverse need for power or sexual gratification without any respect or consideration for them as individuals and adults.

See also: Beware the Cult-Like Control and Abuse of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Whether or not this type of directive is a sign of a cult, it’s definitely inappropriate, intrusive, and an obvious violation of privacy. It’s also not supported by any scripture I can find! Nowhere in the bible does it say to “go fishing” for potential misconduct between an engaged couple or to press for details about adultery. Remember that the next time Jehovah’s Witnesses tell you that they follow the bible more closely than any other religion, and when an elder wants to meet with your engaged son or daughter.

*** ***

Please share via social media below.

According to the book, one action that might warrant discipline by a judicial committee includes “Permitting Individuals to Commit Sexual Immorality in the Home.” From chapter 12:

In all fairness, guests in a home need to respect the rules of the homeowner; take your shoes off by the door, clean up after yourself, and so on. A homeowner also has the right to insist that you don’t bring guns or drugs into the home, get drunk when under their roof, etc.

That being said, there also comes a point when a homeowner, and especially a parent hosting their grown children, needs to respect other people in the house as adults. I can’t imagine insisting that a grown child visiting for the weekend attend my Sunday morning “Atheists Unite! Plus 21 Ways to Season Those Babies Before You Eat Them” services, especially not vegans who don’t even eat babies in the first place. Even in a parent’s home, that grown child is now an adult and needs to be treated as one in certain ways.

Intruding on an Adult’s Relationship

I would think this respect would be warranted when it comes to the subject of “sexual immorality,” and especially for an adult child who is in the parent’s home for an extended period, as this section is discussing. It’s inappropriate to insist that your grown child live by your chosen morals in the first place, no matter where they live, but much less so if they need to give up their own home and stay with elderly parents to care for them on a daily basis.

Note, too, that insisting your grown child not engage in sexual activity while in your home for a long time can put a strain on their relationship with a significant other. Before you dismiss this thought, perhaps reasoning that the grown child can just go to the other person’s home when they want to be intimate, what if their significant other lives a long distance away, making it impossible to just hop in the car and have a nice date night?

What if the adult child lived with their boyfriend or girlfriend? Moving out so they can stay with their parents full-time might mean that the other person can’t pay the rent, so the couple needs to stick together.

Someone having to stay with their elderly parents might already experience stress in their relationship, not having the same amount of free time to spend with their boyfriend or girlfriend, having to pay for a parent’s medication or medical care, and so on.

Just caring for aged parents alone can be stressful in of itself, and the boyfriend or girlfriend in this situation might be making many accommodations already; putting a wedge in their sex life, in addition to these other stressors, can be downright rude.

Remember, this section isn’t talking about teenagers or 20-somethings who haven’t yet left their parent’s home or are rebelling against the rules; it is specifically addressing elderly parents who need “assistance.” If the parents are elderly, their adult children would probably be in their 40s or 50s, an age when they can and should be able to make up their own minds about sexual behavior, and when those decisions should be respected apart from the beliefs of the parents.

No Recourse Means You’re Not Exemplary

All that having been said, one real problem with these instructions is that it openly states the elderly persons may have “no recourse” but to allow their grown child to engage in sexual activity in the home. For some reason, this might make that elderly person no longer qualified to serve in an “exemplary” position, even though they’re not the ones committing “sexual immorality” and are not allowing it under their roof because of a negligent attitude.

Consider this brutality for a moment. An elderly person is no doubt already anxious for their age and health, might be suffering pain, limited mobility, a strain on their finances, embarrassment over some physical condition, etc., and probably doesn’t enjoy needing to rely on anyone for assistance. If they have “no recourse” but to have that grown child in the home, their condition or situation is obviously quite serious.

In addition to all those concerns, however, now they’re not considered “exemplary”? How are they setting a poor example by doing the only thing they can do in order to cope physically and perhaps even financially with their advancing age and all its challenges?

What is the elderly person’s other option; kick their child out of the home and then get sick and die, or be put in a horrible nursing home and suffer abuse and neglect every day?

“Love Never Fails” to Abandon and Then Judge You, Even Elderly Ones

There is an ironic hypocrisy in the fact that this new “Shepherd” book was released in January of 2019, and the theme for the 2019 regional conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses was “Love Never Fails.” A symposium on Saturday, “Display Unfailing Love in the Congregation,” included the part, “To the Elderly.”

Well, love has certainly failed in this directive. If elderly ones in the congregation have “no recourse” but to rely on non-Jehovah’s Witness adult children, doesn’t that indicate that the congregation has failed to provide the care they need?

Wouldn’t a better set of instructions to the elders demand that they find out why those elderly ones need to rely on so-called worldly children in the first place and then do what’s necessary to make sure older congregants are provided for properly?

Shouldn’t the congregation members and elders who have failed to care for their own, and especially elderly people who need assistance, be the ones no longer considered “exemplary”? 

The harshly judgmental attitude is an obscenity in of itself. Elderly and infirm Jehovah’s Witnesses are now judged for the horrific sin of getting old and needing assistance, and of having no one else to rely on but their grown children who might (gasp) expect a bit of respect and deference as an adult.

In addition to the indignities of old age and of needing everyday assistance for physical ailments, financial limitations, or other such concerns, these elderly ones now also suffer the potential punishment of having certain privileges denied them in their beloved religion.

Love never fails, indeed.

*** ***

Please share via social media below.

For those unfamiliar with their practices, Jehovah’s Witness elders might determine that someone guilty of a serious sin is repentant and will be “reproved” rather than disfellowshipped [excommunicated]. This reproof might be administered privately, or it might include a very brief announcement to the congregation.

Public Reproofs Are Not a Protection

The “Shepherd” book makes the claim that a public reproof serves as a “protection” to the congregation against certain dangerous behaviors, such as child sexual abuse; note this statement from chapter 14, “Child Abuse::

However, this announcement of reproof includes no information about the person’s “sinful” behavior, as instructed in chapter 16, “Procedure for Judicial Hearings”:

The “Shepherd” book even outright instructs that a person’s sinful acts should not be connected to their reproof, such as when a “warning” talk is given regarding their behavior; also from chapter 16:

This statement alone demonstrates that the entire “public reproof” arrangement protects no one from congregation members who might pose a danger to others, including children. Simply stating that someone has “been reproved” doesn’t warn a congregant of that person’s specific behavior, and especially when there is a long list of reasons why someone might be publicly reproved, including:

• Smoking
• Fornication, adultery
• Theft
• Lying, slander
• Various forms of “apostasy”
• Severe fits of temper, fighting
• Drunkenness
• Using narcotics
• Taking up boxing

After hearing a rather generic announcement that someone has been “reproved,” without knowing the actual reason for that reproof, how would congregants know to keep their children away from them? Another congregant might assume that a person being reproved was caught smoking or fornicating with an adult; child sexual abuse might be the last thing they would consider when they hear of someone having been reproved!

Your Conscience Shouldn’t Be Clean

This begs the question of why Jehovah’s Witnesses think that their consciences can be clean in these cases. Elders honestly think that making an announcement of so-and-so having been “reproved” protects the congregation and so they’ve done their job of keeping people and children safe?

Nothing can be further from the truth, especially when it comes to child sexual abuse. This “public reproof” arrangement purposely conceals the action that warranted the reproof, so it warns no one about a congregant who might be a danger to their children.

This announcement does not take away from an elder’s complicity in hiding allegations of abuse. Any elder who hears of such a credible allegation and doesn’t notify authorities, cooperate with their investigations fully, and then do everything possible to keep a potentially dangerous person away from children shares guilt and blame if that person goes on to molest another child.

The bottom line is that Jehovah’s Witnesses and elders especially have no problem lying to themselves and to the general public about their supposed “protections” for congregants. They shield alleged molesters by purposely ensuring that no information about a particular act is associated with “reproved” persons, and then tell themselves that this passive-aggressive “hinting around” is going to somehow alert congregants to the need to keep their child away from him or her.

While the authors of these practices and the elders charged with enforcing them might go to bed with a clean conscience, remember it’s not them who suffer the consequences of their actions; the elders are not being raped and abused, the men who wrote this “Shepherd” book are not the ones who will be the next victims of these “reproved” persons.

Their complicity in this horrific act is bad enough, but their smug self-righteousness in thinking that they’ve somehow done enough to protect children with a generic “reproof” is just another slap across the face of those same children.

*** ***

Please share via social media below.

Trial Background

This case took place in the Thompson Falls congregation, where it was alleged that a congregation member sexually assaulted, molested, and raped two young women, both family members of the abuser, over a 13-year period, dating back to the 1990s.

The abuse began with one plaintiff, now age 32, who alleges that her brother was also a victim of abuse. Elders in the congregation apparently disfellowshipped [excommunicated] the abuser in 2004, but allowed him back into the religion the very next year.

After he was reinstated, the man then began abusing the second plaintiff, a niece of his first victim, now age 21.

The Trial and Judgment

Leading up to the trial, Watchtower’s attorneys had requested that the state’s Supreme Court overturn many of the judge’s ruling and delay the proceedings, but those requests were denied.

It was also reported in court filings that Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t deny the abuse happened, but claimed that Montana law exempted the elders from reporting “internal ecclesiastical proceedings on a congregation member’s serious sin.”

The attorney for Jehovah’s Witnesses also said in her arguments, “The Constitution bars the court from contradicting a religious organization on issues of religious beliefs, including canon law, church doctrine and established church practice.”

It was also reported that Jehovah’s Witness lawyers argued that too much time had passed for the women to sue, and the Watchtower Society claimed that they were not responsible for the actions of individual elders.

The trial itself only lasted three days, and the judgment was against both the Thompson Falls congregation and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in New York as well as the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The older woman’s claim was dismissed; according to news stories, “Jurors concluded church elders did not receive notice of the 32-year-old woman’s abuse… and therefore did not have a duty to tell authorities.”

The judgment pays $4 million in compensation plus $30 million in punitive damages from Watchtower and $1 million in punitive damages from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. That judgment must be reviewed and can be reduced by the trial judge.

The judge also did not accept the attorney’s argument that church practice was exempt from mandatory reporting laws, as one news report stated:

“Earlier in the case, Judge James Manley ruled that Reyes’ criminal acts were foreseeable to the church leadership when they allowed him to return and that the congregation’s elders were not exempt from Montana’s mandatory reporting law when they learned of the allegations against him and didn’t turn him over to law enforcement.”

News reports have referenced what the Australian Royal Commission Inquiry Into Institutional Response to Child Sex Abuse revealed about Jehovah’s Witnesses and their handling of child sex abuse claims; read more about that Inquiry and Jehovah’s Witnesses at this post. See the Pedophilia category of this site for more information as well.

Also reference the handbook, “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Child Sex Abuse,” at this page.

*** ***

Please also see:

Jehovah’s Witnesses accused of mishandling abuse in Montana (AP)

Montana jury awards two women $35 M in sex abuse lawsuit against Jehovah’s Witnesses (The Missoulian)

*** ***

Please share via social media below.

In that magazine, Troy’s wife, “Valerie,” says that women shouldn’t “be quick … to follow advice from people who think they know what is best for you.” She also says she was glad she didn’t “throw [her] marriage away.”

In other words, Valerie is outright saying to ignore advice from those who might recommend you do the opposite of what she did, and get out of an abusive marriage!

The December 2018 study edition of the Watchtower again discusses abusive marriages and, again, virtually eliminates a woman’s right to be safe in her own home. This article even subtly suggests that children are better off if a woman stays in an abusive marriage!

Twisting the Scripture

First, note a huge twisting of scriptures in this Watchtower. The article quotes the apostle Paul:

“To the married people I give instructions, not I but the Lord, that a wife should not separate from her husband. But if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled with her husband…” (1 Corinthians 7:10,11)

The magazine then makes the comment:

“Paul advised that whatever the underlying problems, if sexual immorality is not involved, the goal should be reconciliation.”

This is an interesting statement, because Paul never said anything about a “goal” for a separated woman.

The scriptures say that a woman who leaves her husband has two options; to remain unmarried, or be reconciled with her husband.

Period.

There is nothing in these verses, or the surrounding context, about which of those options she should choose, or which is preferred in god’s eyes, etc. The Watchtower is putting these words in Paul’s mouth, as it were.

In reality, the writers of the magazine are also inserting these words into the bible, since they’re talking about actual scriptures. This is not their right to do, as 1 Corinthians 4:6 says to “not go beyond the things that are written.” This is also a form of blasphemy, as only god has the right to dictate scripture, or so I would assume.

Encouragement to Stay With Abusive Mates

The Watchtower goes on:

“…and if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is agreeable to staying with her, let her not leave her husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:13)

The magazine notes that a man’s behavior may indicate that he is not “agreeable” to living with his wife, outright saying that she may feel her health or life is in jeopardy. It then says:

“In such cases, some Christians have personally decided that … a separation is necessary. But other Christians in comparably difficult situations have not; they have endured and tried to work at improving matters. … They can testify that doing so was worthwhile in a special sense when their mate became a true worshipper.​”

As I’ve brought out in past posts, and as demonstrated in this magazine, the wife in an abusive home is not the Watchtower’s priority. They say nothing about her dignity, self-esteem, or happiness. Instead, their entire concern is for the man, the abuser, and whether or not he’ll become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

As brought out, even becoming one of Jehovah’s Witnesses doesn’t necessarily mean that his abuse will stop, as domestic violence was far too common in Jehovah’s Witness homes when I was in the religion. (See this post.) The lack of concern for women and their welfare is absolutely obscene.

The Damaging Twist of Mentioning the Children

As brought out in this post, Jehovah’s Witnesses seem to have little, if any, concern for how children are affected when raised in homes marked by domestic violence:

As I’ve brought out, a child doesn’t need to be a victim themselves to be affected by abuse in the home; UNICEF published a report noting how witnessing domestic violence can harm the physical development of a child’s brain. Children in these homes may have trouble learning and sleeping, and be at an increased risk for substance abuse, juvenile pregnancy, and criminal behavior.

Despite this, the writers of this Watchtower displayed a gross hypocrisy when it comes to a child’s welfare. First, this Watchtower said nothing about any positive aspects of a woman leaving her cheating husband, but only warned about such a separation, asking:

“Are there children to consider? Would a divorce make it harder to raise them in the truth?”

So, if a woman is considering divorcing an immoral husband, the writers of the Watchtower:

• don’t counsel women to consider the effects of having an unfaithful husband in the home, including the fact that it teaches girls to overlook a man’s hurtful behavior and teaches boys that they can potentially get away with cheating on their wives
• are only concerned if a divorced woman could raise children “in the truth” (meaning their religion), and not with other issues a woman might face, such as providing materially for the children, having time for the children, etc.

Next, this Watchtower brings up children again when talking about why a woman might actually stay with a violent, abusive man:

“The apostle Paul gave another reason for staying united. He wrote: “The unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.””

Again, the writers of the Watchtower say nothing about how an abusive husband could also be abusing the child, and nothing about the affect on children who simply witness domestic abuse. Instead, this Watchtower actually encourages women to think that it’s somehow good for the children to stay in abusive homes, calling those children “holy,” versus children raised in broken homes, who are “unclean”!

This is a bizarre, sick twist for the Watchtower. As I’ve brought out previously, Jehovah’s Witnesses have never outright suggested that a woman consider leaving an abusive husband for any reason, much less for the sake of her children. Now, the Watchtower is actually implying that children are better off in abusive homes, no matter the extent of the abuse!

Blood On Their Hands

Something striking about this article is that the writers of the Watchtower openly admit that a woman’s life may be at risk in abusive homes, but then applaud the idea of staying in such situations, despite that risk.

This realistic risk to a woman’s life is nothing to diminish, as I bring out in this post:

• According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, almost one-third of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner.
• In 70%-80% of these cases, the man physically abused the woman before the homicide.
• According to the American Psychological Association, some 3 women are killed by an intimate partner in the U.S. every day.

The writers of the Watchtower freely acknowledge that they’re not talking about verbal or emotional abuse, but outright say that there may be a risk to a woman’s life. By their own words, Watchtower writers know the risk of homicide at the hands of an abusive spouse, but state that staying with an abusive spouse can be “worthwhile.”

This information itself puts blood on the hands of the writers of the Watchtower magazine. If they admit that a woman’s life is at risk, and by default, the children’s lives as well, but then say that staying in that home and taking that risk is “worthwhile,” they are complicit in that abuse, and share responsibility for any injuries, whether they be mental, emotional, or physical, and share responsibility for any death that should occur, to her or the children.

Writers of the Watchtower openly admit that a violent man might kill his wife, they admit the risk to her, but encourage that woman to stay and take that risk, so she can potentially recruit that man into their religion. That’s complicity. That’s blood guilt.

This Isn’t New

This December 2018 Watchtower is nothing new, not in the least. Watchtower articles encouraging women to stay in abusive homes have been in print for decades; you can browse the Domestic Violence category of this site to see for yourself.

Throughout the years, in all these articles, a woman’s happiness, self-esteem, or dignity are hardly mentioned, much less are they a priority; neither is her welfare or even her life. The welfare of the children is also rarely mentioned in these magazines, as said, but this article takes it one step further by implying that children are somehow better off in abusive homes than in broken homes.

This is pure emotional blackmail on the part of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hinting to women that their children might somehow be “unclean” and not “holy” if she were to leave an abusive husband. I have always been of the opinion that women should work hard to escape an abusive home for the children’s sake, if nothing else, but Watchtower is now using children as emotional leverage to convince women to actually stay in those homes.

Never let Jehovah’s Witnesses tell you that they love their neighbors or even their own congregants. Jehovah’s Witnesses have so little feeling for women and children in their religion that they actually encourage mothers to keep those children in an abusive home, even if it should risk that woman’s life.

Everything about this religion demonstrates, time and again, that they care nothing for even the most helpless and vulnerable among them.

*** ***

Please share via social media below.

There are many legitimate criticisms against this policy, including the blatant hypocrisy of Jehovah’s Witnesses in picking and choosing when they apply this rule, something supposedly required by the bible for all accusations of misconduct, but which Watchtower gladly sets aside when they so desire:

One of the more obvious criticisms is that there is rarely, if ever, a second witness to the crime of child molestation.

Their Own Illustration Betrays This “Requirement”

The Watchtower’s book, “Learn From the Great Teacher,” is meant to be a type of study or lesson book for children, covering a range of JW doctrine and life lessons based on the life of Jesus.

In one chapter of the book, “How Jesus Was Protected,” the information discusses what a child should do if someone were to attempt to touch them inappropriately.

I do give the writers of the book credit for at least attempting to address child sexual abuse, and for attempting to empower children to resist such abuse. However, the illustration they used in this story betrays Watchtower’s own stubborn insistence on this horrific “two witness” policy of theirs:

This picture is not inaccurate; it shows a typical scenario of child sexual abuse, with an adult, by themselves, ready to force themselves on a child.

Because it’s not inaccurate, however, it also shows the gross shortsightedness of Watchtower’s “two witness” rule. There is no other adult in this illustration, not even another child, who can act as that needed second witness, the one that Watchtower demands a child produce before putting an alleged pedophile out of the congregation.

Obviously Watchtower knows that there is rarely a second witness to this type of abuse, otherwise they would have put another person in this illustration, or they would have depicted a scenario of child sexual abuse in a different context (i.e., in a school with other students nearby, at a sleepover with other children present, etc.).

Yet, when their own artists were tasked with depicting what they felt would be a good representation of potential child sexual abuse, it probably didn’t even occur to them to add another person, that “second witness” to this abuse.

The hypocrisy of Watchtower and local elders in congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses picking and choosing when they apply this “two witness” rule is disturbing and sickening enough; the rule itself is an obscenity all on its own. However, this illustration alone proves that Watchtower writers know a child can rarely, if ever, provide a witness to their own abuse.

Despite this knowledge, they stubbornly “double down” on that rule, ignoring their own hypocrisy in when they pick and choose to apply it, ignoring their own subtle admission that it’s impossible to apply in cases of child sex abuse, and continuing to abandon children to these horrific abuses.

*** ***

Please share via social media below.