ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks 347 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    Like I said, I think that they should have handled that question better. I am not sure what they should have said but certainly, it could have been handled better by them. Again there were some good parts and some bad parts. In reality we will see how the Commission viewed it when they present their final report later on.

  • LoveUniHateExams

    @Richard Oliver - why do JWs shun disassociated people?

  • LoveUniHateExams

    In reality we will see how the Commission viewed it when they present their final report later on - indeed.

    Shunning is a very serious thing to do - if you're gonna do it, you better have a bloody good reason. And neither Spinks nor O'Brien answered the question.

    Worse still, victims of child abuse who choose to disassociate are also shunned.

    I think it's safe to say that the Commission views these matters very seriously indeed, and that this view will likely be included in the final report.

  • freddo

    Spinks and O'Brien are spiritual Eunuchs. Sock puppets of the Governing body who themselves are too cowardly to appear.

  • OrphanCrow
    RO: I have acknowledged all of that and agree with you on all of that. And I understand that you may not see it as carrying the same weight or any weight, but do you acknowledge that the BOE Dated August 1, 2016, that it does state that child pornography is child abuse.

    So. Child pornography is child abuse - according to what you say the BOE August 1, 2016 letter says. I am not going to argue that, even though it is arguable. I will concede that point.

    The problem, though, is the position that the WT Branch has on viewing child sex abuse material.

    Let's walk this one through, Richard. You be the Branch and I will be the confused elder who doesn't know what to do and I have phoned you for direction.

    Me: Hello, I need some advice on what to do about Brother Wewee. His wife phoned me and told me that she saw images of child porn on his computer. What do I do?

    RO: Thank you for calling. I will consult the CHILD PROTECTION GUIDELINES FOR BRANCH OFFICE SERVICE DESKS that Jehovah has so lovingly provided for us to follow. Have you read the August 2016 letter that we sent out to all BOEs?

    Me: Oh yes. I am familiar with that letter - we all are - and I am just doing the very first step - calling the Branch as instructed. We have read the letter and have noted what paragraph "2" says about child pornography - that "Depending on the circumstances of the case, it may include involvement with child pornography" so we do realize that it might have something to do with child abuse but we need more clarity on this. And, of course, we want Jehovah's loving direction as put forth in the Branch manual received from the WTS.

    RO: In the Branch guidelines it says this on page 3 concerning child pornography: "Showing pornography to a minor is considered to be child sexual abuse." Did Brother Wewee show pornography to a minor?

    Me: No, not that we have been aware of. Mind you, he may have. All we know is that his wife said she found lots of pictures of naked children on her husband's laptop.

    RO: Oh. Well, in that case,you will have to find that out through a judicial investigation. Let's look at the next sentence. " Although viewing child pornography is not considered to be child sexual abuse, it is still a serious violation of Jehovah’s standards." So you say that Brother Wewee was just viewing those images?

    Me: From what we know so far, that is all he has done.

    RO: Okay then. Well, that would not be child abuse, according to our loving directions from Jehovah. However, Jehovah still needs you and the other elders to look into this. Because it isn't considered to be child abuse, no need to call the police. However, Jehovah's standards may have been violated. You will have to conduct a judicial inquiry to decide if Brother Wewee has sinned against Jehovah.

    Me: And how should we do that?

    RO: Is Brother Wewee wife able to allow you access to his laptop where she said she found the images?

    Me: Oh, yes! Sister Weewee does her best to please Jehovah and she has said she will give us the laptop. What do we do next?

    RO: It is important to determine first, that the images do show children being abused. You will have to look at them - all of the elders will have to examine them. And then, if you find that those images are against Jehovah's standards, you will have to hold a JC and confront Brother Wewee with the images.....

    Me: But, but, should we be looking at those images? That would be awful to see if it were true....I feel like I am hurting those kids just by looking at photos of them...

    RO: It's okay...just viewing images of naked children is not child abuse. Don't worry about that. Jehovah's directions say that it is okay - just looking isn't child abuse.

    And so on and so doesn't matter what that BOE letter said because the BOEs get their instructions from the Branch. Does that letter carry any weight? No. None whatsoever. That letter is just a "face" for the world to see. The Branch guidelines trump the elder guidelines. You know that.

  • Fisherman
    A sexual image of a child is ‘abuse’ or ‘exploitation’

    Who can argue with that! (Actually evidence of abuse.)

    should never be described as ‘pornography’.

    Why then does US code 18 use the term?

  • Fisherman
    RO: It's okay...just viewing images of naked children is not child abuse. Don't worry about that. Jehovah's directions say that it is okay - just looking isn't child abuse.

    Orphan Crow, why are you misrepresenting what RO posted on this thread?

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.

  • Fisherman

    Richard, OC was asking a moral question. Wt does not get to decide if child porn is child abuse in any instance or jurisdiction. When they are compelled to report, that is what they are required to do.


    Please change the title of poor ol JW Leaks topic to :


    12 f****ing hours later and you are still entertaining each other here ! And the score is still 0 - 0 !

Share this