Another wacky BOE letter

by sir82 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sir82

  Here's part of the text of another BOE letter read recently. I'm going to see if I can get these scanned so someone can post them.

  In line with the letters to all bodies of elders dated July 1, 1989, August 1, 1995, March 14, 1997, and February 15, 2002, elders should call the Legal Department regarding any inmate who may have been accused of child maltreatment in the past and who is now associating with the organization, whether he is baptized or not. (Child maltreatment includes physical or sexual abuse.) It is recognized that in some cases elders may not be authorized to inquire of the offense the inmates have been accused of, but if the elders gain knowledge of the offense, they should call the Legal Department as well as follow the directions and suggestions in the aforementioned letters so as to protect our children. Elders should also follow the direction in the August 1, 1995 and March 14, 1997, letters if a child-maltreatment offender is released from prison and moves to another area of the country or if he is recommended for regular pioneer service in the future.

  So now their concern is to "protect our children"? When did that start?
• 

  undercover

  So now their concern is to "protect our children"? When did that start?

  It's not to protect the children. It's to protect their ass.
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  The elders in my old kh "protected" the children of a brother who had been accused by them of child abuse by disfellowshipping the two who were baptised, as well as their mother, for going to the police. The brother, who is now doing 7.5 years in prison, was "repentant", and is still a jw in good standing. He will be welcomed back into the congregation on his release.

  As in many other cases that have come to light in recent years, it seems the only thing being protected there is the reputation of the wts.
• 

  Mary

  It's not to protect the children. It's to protect their ass.

  Me thinks you spelt that wrong hon. It's spelled: a-s-s-e-t-s.
• 

  undercover

  Me thinks you spelt that wrong hon. It's spelled: a-s-s-e-t-s.

  LOL....I stand corrected
• 

  greendawn

  They still have the two witness regulation which is like a loophole in the law that allows child molesters to get away, because they are not stupid enough to molest them while there are potential witnesses around. That means they are not really interested in protecting children.
• 

  Swan

  The key word here is Inmate

  It has nothing to do with accusations against anyone in the congregations who hasn't already been convicted or sent to prison.

  Tammy
• 

  candidlynuts

  Elders should also follow the direction in the August 1, 1995 and March 14, 1997, letters

  i think that the articles mentioned should be examined before anyone decides this is a big change.. since the articles are from 95 and 97 i doubt there is any real change.
• 

  HappyDad

  This is disgusting. I'm sure glad I had my eyes opened when I did.

  undercover said:

  It's not to protect the children. It's to protect their ass.

  How true......how true. The only thing that matters is the reputation of the "organisation."

  Victims mean nothing. I like (or should I say don't like) how they use another word (maltreatment) instead of "molestation." That takes away some of the horror of what happened.

  HappyDad
• 

  AuldSoul

  Mary...are you suggesting they have female asses?

  ...

  ...

  Oh! I see. I read it wrong, I thought you wrote a-s-s-e-t-t-e-s.