BOE Letter re. Pornography (page 3)

vitty

Sieving out the Nat and gulping down the camel springs to mind

It makes me sick! But as the old saying goes, "Shit rolls downhill". In another words, it starts from the top - in this case from the Mother organization. One sick mother who doesn't care for her little, innocent ones.

Juni

AlanF

This is all in keeping with the Society's rapid slide deeper into Pharisaism triggered by the coming into absolute power of Ted Jaracz and his cronies.

I'm reminded of Ray Franz's description in CoC of how Jaracz, back in the 1970s and when the GB was discussing some restriction on JW conduct, said something like, "We can't allow the brothers to do such and such, because we know that if we give them an inch they take a mile." As if it's the GB's job to play God.

Disgusting.

AlanF

greendawn

Once more their obsession with the letter of the law stands out, it reads like a complex legal document what they have to say about viewing pornography, it's similar to the blood fractions sophistries.

I wouldn't buy porn so as not to support the industry, some people there force women to participate in photos or films eg women abducted from Eastern Europe.

juni

This is all in keeping with the Society's rapid slide deeper into Pharisaism triggered by the coming into absolute power of Ted Jaracz and his cronies.

Thanks Alan. So he's the one who gives birth to this crap. I'll have to go back and refresh my memory w/Ray's comments about these individuals.

Juni

Leolaia

LOL!!! Someone's got the post the sucker on reexamine.org or something...

If a brother has a habit of viewing porn or has watched child porn, bondage, or gang rape he does not qualify. And will be removed immediately....A person persistently watching soft porn is not exemplarary and doesn't qualify for any privileges, but no need for a judicial committee...Viewing hetero-oral or [hetero-]anal sex does not automatically warrant a judicial committee, but depends on frequency (and something else I missed). Viewing of homosexual or group nature is more serious

I can only imagine the research that went into this! They've got almost every genre. But I have some lingering questions. Does this mean that it is more serious for guys to view male-on-male porn, or is it just as serious for hetero guys to look at lesbo porn (which is "of a homosexual nature")? After all, is that the most popular kind? Furthermore, how do they properly distinguish between "soft porn" and "porn of a homosexual nature"? Is a picture of two girls kissing just as serious as hard-core orgy porn, or hetero anal sex? This is so confusing! I am appreciative of this spiritual food from the faithful slave (I'm sure donned in leather gear), but .... I think they gotta do more research to sort these things out.

candidlynuts

well if they'd allow the brothers to research the watchtower society on the web they'd not have to spend their time "unintentionally" running across PORN! lol

Warlock

If a brother has watched child porn, he has committed a crime.

Warlock

ballistic

I wonder who was tasked with the research for this letter and how long it took?

Leolaia

Good point Warlock. Anyone who has a copy of the letter, does it say that if it is discovered that a brother has child porn, it is mandatory to report it to the police? Or is there nothing at all about that. That omission would be huge....that they care more about defining distinctions between soft and hard-core porn than reporting criminal offenses (particularly those with potential to harm other ppl) to the police.

BOE Letter re. Pornography

Share this