Branch Service Department Manual approves appointing Child molestors as Elders (page 7)

Vidiot

Screwed if they don't, buggered if they do.

(And those euphemisms are particularly appropriate in this issue, IMO.)

LoveUniHateExams

Screwed if they don't, buggered if they do - spot on - Vidiot.

I do feel a great amount of Schadenfreude when I watch useless WT lawyers and elders being nailed to the wall.

Mind-blowingly, I also feel some shame in my Schadenfreude - first and foremost, the child victims are most importance in these cases. I hope these persons get all the help (funded by WT) and justice possible.

cantleave

Bloody hell.............................

This is a real eye opener for me and I was an elder.

OrphanCrow

I am trying to wrap my head around this:

18. Factors to consider: At times, the conduct of an individual may not be classified as child abuse from the perspective of the congregation, but from a legal standpoint he may be viewed as guilty of such.

So, the congregation has a different standard to measure child abuse than what the law states it is?

There are things that are not seen as child abuse according to the JWs, that would be seen as such if it was heard in a court of law. In other words, their standards negate abuse in certain circumstances. Their moral standards are lower than worldly standards.

I would like to hear a GB member clarify that distinction - how do the JWs view child abuse differently than the law does?

Is it that view that allows them to appoint child abusers to elder positions? "Oh well, he really isn't a sex offender - it was only his daughter..." Does the "sanctity of the family" that they brag about include the notion that a father is allowed to "make a little slip" once in a while?

There was something published from the WTS, too, that said that not all child abusers are predators. That the WTS decides who is "just" a child sex abuser and who is a predator.

I would like to know how the WTS makes that distinction.

BluesBrother

Thankyou Stuckinamovement........priceless!

_Morpheus

Crow, on that point there is a reasonable explanation. In the USA the legal age of consent is 18. It is not uncommon in mexican communities for 19 and 20 year old males to be involved with 16 or 17 year old females. Legal that is pedophila but the congregation (and much of the community) do not view as it such. I have been told that clause you mentioned is specifically aimed at the mexican population.

Balaamsass2

The immediate response to this letter in Northern California was to appoint a man who had been involved in SIX Child molesting/kidde porn cases in the late 80s, early 90s in Central California.

Evidently changing congregations and counties and some "green handshakes" helped move the process along. He was shown off by having a part on the platform at the Sacramento Convention Center to the horror of some of his now adult victims.

Sauerkraut

It's interesting how the manual speaks of "the Congregation", meaning Elders. Just like Jehovah is the GB.

Branch Service Department Manual approves appointing Child molestors as Elders

Share this