ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
Thanks found it now.
These people are surely retarded.
EdenOne - "...two 'dislikes' to the OP? Wow!
Gosh, I wonder from who???
From their POV, the WTS can't budge on the 2-witness rule.
If they did, they'd end up having to take far more action, and likely have to dismiss too many otherwise "qualified" brothers to make the Org work.
And then they'd be fucked.
BTW, this has also all but guaranteed that the lawsuit tide will continue to rise.
This policy manual fails to instruct the reader on the illegal nature of viewing child sex material. They fail to say that someone caught with child sex material (or viewing it) should be reported to the police.
Yet again, it never seems to occur to these nitwits that certain acts are, more than "sins", actual felonies, and for the protection of everyone, should be reported to the proper authorities.
sir82 - "...it never seems to occur to these nitwits that certain acts are, more than 'sins', actual felonies..."
Oh, it's occurred to them.
They'd have to be far worse than nitwits for it not to have sunk in by now.
But they "must obey Gods Word rather than men"...
...and "God's Word" doesn't seem to view pedophila as all that big of a deal.
Wasn't there an awful elders letter a few years ago that lumped this kind of porn together with gay porn as being the same gravity of sin? Totally ignoring that one is concesual and legal and the other is non consensual and illegal.
Should not the 2-witness rule have been done away with when the Mosaic Law was ended? Same reason why we don't hold on to the Sabbath?
slimboyfat - you allude to the April 10th 2012 letter to elders that made a distinction between regular porn and "abhorrent" pornography:
He may continue to serve if his involvement consisted of (1) a few brief viewings, (2) he displays a heartfelt desire to desist from looking at pornography in any form, (3) the elders are convinced that he will refrain from viewing pornography, (4) he continues to retain the respect of others who are aware of what he did, and (5) his conscience allows him to do so.
An entrenched practice of viewing, perhaps over a considerable period of time, abhorrent forms of pornography that is sexually degrading. Such pornography may include homosexuality (sex between those of the same gender), group sex, bestiality, sadistic torture, bondage, gang rape, the brutalizing of women, or child pornography. Brazen conduct would be involved if the offender was promoting such material, such as by inviting others to view it, thus giving evidence of a brazen attitude. — w12 3/15 pp. 30-31; w06 7/15 p. 31.
Thererefore, viewing pornography escalates to gross uncleanness if the type of pornography viewed was abhorrent or sexually degrading in nature, as described in the second example above. An additional factor to be considered would be if it were a practice for "many years." As a general principle, when these elements are present, a judicial committee would need to handle the matter. At Ephesians 4:19 Paul stated: "Having come to be past all moral sense, they gave themselves over to loose conduct to work uncleanness of every sort with greediness." (Gal. 5: 19; w83 3/15 p. 31 par. 3) When an individual has 'given himself over' to this unclean practice as evidenced by his repeatedly viewing abhorrent pornography, the matter has escalated to gross uncleanness and needs to be handled judicially. — w06 711 5 pp. 29-3 1.
Geezus, 88JM, the WTS sure goes to great lengths to "grade" the gravity of sexual sin, don't they? That must have taken several sessions of detailed discussion around the round table to get all that into print and properly categorized.
I am still astonished at the audacity of their comment that "viewing child pornography is not child abuse".
What is their excuse for saying that it is not? That "just looking" is only a "fraction" of child sex abuse so therefore, it is up to individual conscience? That it isn't a crime? Fractions of child abuse are fine?
The WTS thinks the rest of the world is stupid. We're not, Watchtower. We're not. Not all of us. There are some of us who know very well that if you transfuse a fraction of blood that you are receiving a blood transfusion. We don't buy into your deception on that one and we don't buy into the your notion that "viewing child pornography isn't child abuse". It is.