From a scriptural standpoint it stated that. But from a legal point of view and when it must be reported is based on the definition at the beginning of the letter to body of elders which included child pornography. It states there the law may view it as child abuse and would be included in what is considered a reportable act.
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
OC you just want to ignore everything else and focus on that one sentence. The rest of that statement is:
it is still a serious violation of Jehovah’s standards. A person involved in viewing child pornography should be strongly counseled. Depending on the frequency and the extent of his viewing, he could be subject to congregation judicial action. In such cases, the Service Department may decide that branch-imposed restrictions are warranted.
Also point 13 of the Service Department Guildlines state:
13. Restrictions are imposed when (1) a congregation judicial committee determines that one guilty of child sexual abuse is repentant and will remain in the congregation, (2) one disfellowshipped for child sexual abuse is reinstated, (3) when an unbaptized publisher or a baptized member of the congregation who denies an accusation of child sexual abuse is convicted by the secular authorities, or (4) one viewed as a child molester by the community or the congregation becomes a publisher or becomes a baptized member of the congregation. In all of these situations, as long as he is viewed negatively by the victim, the victim’s family, the congregation, the elders, or the community, the branch office must impose restrictions on his activity in the congregation and in the field ministry.—Gal. 6:7.
So even though there is that statement. If viewing child pornography is illegal for a person in that country and they are convicted of it, regardless of how the congregation sees it, restrictions will still be imposed by the branch office against that person. The restrictions are also spelled out in both documents, Guildilines for Service Departments and in the Body of Elders Letter Protecting minors from abuse.
RO: OC you just want to ignore everything else and focus on that one sentence
Yes, I do.
That one sentence reveals the fundamental flaw in the WT's thinking. Fundamental.
In the same way as if I was building a house and I saw a fatal crack in the foundation before the rest of the house was built, I would stop what I was doing and fix the fatal flaw. Without fixing that, the whole house will tumble down.
That one single sentence is the statement that puts all of the rest of the WT's policies on child abuse into question.
If they cannot grasp that simple concept, that viewing images of child abuse is child abuse, then there is no hope whatsoever for them.
That has to be fixed before the rest of the house is built.
It is a fatal flaw in thinking and in policy. It looks small, but it is really, really big. The WT does not define child abuse correctly. How can they design policies about it until they understand what it means?
Nor did you also bring out the other two bullet points in that section. Again it mainly is referring to the morality of the issue and not the legality of the issue.
Sexual misconduct involving only minors: Such conduct is not generally considered by the congregation as child sexual abuse. However, cases in which one minor is significantly older than the other or in which the younger minor was not a willing participant or in which one minor has been involved with multiple minors must be carefully evaluated. In certain cases, branch-imposed restrictions may still be warranted.
• Age of the accused and age of the victim: The Service Desk needs to consider the ages of both the accused and the victim. From a legal standpoint, the definition of adult varies according to the country or area in which one lives. In some countries, one is viewed as an adult when he reaches 18 years of age. The Bible does not specify an age when one reaches adulthood. From a Scriptural standpoint, cases in which the minor and the adult are close in age and the minor was a willing participant may be viewed differently than cases in which the adult is significantly older than the minor.
NO the only portion that it speaks of the legality is when it states:
From a legal standpoint, the definition of adult varies according to the country or area in which one lives. In some countries, one is viewed as an adult when he reaches 18 years of age.
Or do you feel that that the whole section is speaking of legal issues, so in that case elders should report two under consenting teens who have sex with each other to the authorities, because this section is speaking of the legal definition of child abuse and not a moral or scriptural issue.
Well orphan crow. You said it, you want to nit pick on that one exclusive sentence without taking into account any other sentence not just in the document or policy but within that same line of thought. You speak of legalise and the nuances of details should not be taken into account when you feel that Watchtower is at fault, but that is exactly what you are doing, you are focusing on a single, not sentence but a single phrase within a multi-page policy that has been written for a worldwide policy with many different circustances.
"viewing child pornography is not considered to be child abuse"
That is just the most insane, reprehensible and indefensible statement i have ever seen from the WT.
To even think it's something suitable to be put down in writing shows how far from human compassion and good sense the WT has fallen, in its deluded and arrogant attempt to micro manage people's consciences on something so dangerous.
I am honestly dumbfounded.
Also orphan crow you and outlaw love to use the term “building or using a strawman argument.” I am not sure where you got your definition of that term from but that is not what the term means. In fact you keep building a strawman argument. Here is what Purdue OWL defines as a strawman argument.
Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.
People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.
In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.
Notice that you keep reducing my argument down to a simplistic point when I am doing the complete opposite. I am showing that there is a number of sides to a matter when it comes to child abuse, but you keep narrowing it down to one single point that you know you then attack.
What I may have done in the past is a red herring where to avoid specific topics by shifting it to a different argument.
But you also avoid the main topic and choose to go with logical fallacies of ad hominem where you attack my person or character rather than the actual opinions or facts. Ad populum where you use a argument that will illicit other people agreeing with you because it would be unpopular not to do so. And a post hoc ergo propter hoc where you feel that just because one thing occurred after another so therefore the first thing must have caused the second without taking into other accounts or possibilities.
Orphan crow. Finally do you or do you not agree that in the BOE Letter Protecting Minors from Abuse that the definition in paragraph 2 includes in it that child pornography is a form of child abuse?
Child pornography is not a form of child abuse it is child abuse.
Sparrowdown. Form of child abuse is correct. As child abuse can take on many different forms or can be expressed in many different ways. What you are saying is that child pornography would be the only way of child abuse.