Theodore Jaracz aware of molestation issue in 2001 before Dateline

Here is a conversation with Theodore Jaracz, key member of the Watchtower's Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, initiated by Alan Feuerbacher in 2001.

Jaracz knew about the Dateline expose' of their child abuse problem at least 8 months before Dateline aired.

THIS CONFIRMS THAT THE GOVERNING BODY KNEW ABOUT THE DATELINE PROGRAM EXPOSE' OF WATCHTOWER CHILD ABUSE PROBLEM.

Of course, to be fair to Jaracz, he was entirely unaware of the problems to the Watchtower that would follow, including the resulting court cases, which Watchtower settled out-of-court.  

Six years later, the time of the court settlements, Jaracz was proved to be wrong on his observations as discussed in the conversation.

Watchtower had knowingly appointed molestors to positions of authority, which was established in the lawsuits, so Jaracz's arguments do not hold water here.

This is established in the lawsuit court documents (see http://www.watchtowerdocuments.com/)

Randy

Excellent Randy!  This could turn out to produce something.

Gumby

Randy:

Thank you Randy!

N.

Good job!  Thanks!

That is so cool to hear Alan's voice. He sounds strangely unassuming. I like it.

Not sure about the ethics of posting a conversation without permission though.

That was utterly nauseating to listen to.  What struck me was the 'come what may' attitude that Ted Jackass had towards the whole pedophile thing.  I can't believe he had the balls to claim "we can't go beyond what is written" and how the Catholic Church "moves these pedophiles from one place to another"......I mean, good lord, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

But how encouraging it was to hear Brother Jackass encouraging Alan F to go back to the meetings and if he did then Jehovah would direct him steps. 

Thanks for posting that Randy.

Digesting..... menfolk conversations are just so different then how we girls discuss things.

How many times did Teddy say "Bible principles"   Geez...

I wonder if he believed the BS he was shoveling...or if it was his standard MO when handling someone who questioned or doubted, "Trust in Jehovah...appy Bible principles...blah blah blah..."

This is what I don't get:  Assuming that Ted Jaracz has read CoC (and I'd find it incredibly hard to believe he hasn't), how in god's name can he still honestly believe that what they're preaching and teaching is correct???

Sometimes it is hard for us to make the distinction between the finer character traits of an individual. :-))

Fundamentalists (TRUE BELIEVERS) are a real character study. I have studied them in-house for decades, from many religions as well as social groups. 

They often have two fundamentally different psyches going on simultaneously. They may actually be very honest people, in each of those spheres, yet because they are living in a form of non-awareness, they cannot actually see what you and I see that is faulty about them (Jaracz will never really see the point of this discussion--his mind will not allow himself to go there unfortunately.) They are not stupid, or immoral necessarily. The same lesson in Nazi Germany: it's a kind of mental compartmentalization, with each compartment having its own rules and ethics relatively independent of the others. We all do it sooner or later, and we will usually acknowledge it in relaxed times (think normally-upright persons telling bigoted jokes), but as to fundamentalists,  THEY DO NOT ALLOW THEMSELVES TO GO THERE.

I can admire SOME things about people I generally don't like, or maybe even despise. That doesn't implicate me in their overall morality. If that is even an issue.

I can dislike SOME things about people I generally like, or maybe even love.

We tie up so much loaded language (i.e., emotional language in this case) in our conversations that other people, if they are going to determine the truth of our report, actually have to put on a mental filter to interpret what we are saying, so as to get a more objective stance on a matter. Street talk is a perfect example of "heavily loaded" language. It is aggressive, provocative.

We all say things in anger, or when we swagger we get cocky, but the sign of a balanced, comfortable head is to give credit where credit is due. It makes your story more believable and less likely to become a lynching. I do not consider Jaracz an "evil" man (in my book that means with intent to harm or devour), unless there is something I don't know about.

The point of this post is not to dog Jaracz so much as to wake up those of you who are reading this who are on the fence. KNOW your leaders. Can you live with this? I would imagine if Jaracz heard this tape he would agree with what he said still! That's what you need to understand from this. He was not "caught" in a down moment. Jaracz likely does not have down moments. Probably always on!  :-))

Recommended source:

The True Believer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

Randy