Pathofthorns
Couldn't the same be said of the Catholic Church, Friend?
To an extent the same could be said, but there are differences. For instance, the Society has not knowingly transferred pedophilic psychopathic elders away from one congregation and to another to continue in the same capacity. Sociopathic elders have transferred and have transferred with other local elders having at least some knowledge of their behavior, and those persons have harmed children. However it has not been a practice of the Society to knowingly shift such a monster from one congregation or circuit to another (one parish or dioceses to another). The Catholic Church has done such as that and it represents another, and entirely different, level of culpability.
On another hand, the Society certainly bears a tremendous burden for wrongdoing by elders, especially when other fellow elders know of wrongdoing and nothing is done about it. In such instances the problem is not that the Society has condoned wrongdoing but rather that it has failed to institute sufficient safeguards, reasonable and foreseeable safeguards.
A religion being led by God shouldn't need to gain a "greater and better understanding.. of the morally correct thing to do." It makes a mockery of the perfect direction and spirit of God.
That is a perfect refutation of a straw man. The Society has never pretended to offer perfect direction in everything, furthermore even first century Christians could not be said to have offered perfect direction in everything. As represented in the Bible, those who were led by God made plenty of mistakes, and sometimes it cost lives. Of course, that does not excuse any wrong or sinful action it is just a reality. That Jehovah’s Witnesses grow in their understanding of social disorders similar to other communities is nothing to be ashamed of or to criticize; furthermore such a reality is similar to the first Christian community.
Of course [the Society is vigorously and relentlessly pursuing reports of child abuse] because it has become fashionable to take such a strong stance and its much better for public relations.
Though the Society’s action in this matter does provide better insulation from liability, better image and public relations, to pretend that those are the primary reasons for those actions is meaningless unless you have evidence to back the claim. Do you? From what I can tell the Society responded to the danger of the issue more so than because of those other effects. Have you forgotten that Jehovah’s Witnesses have for decades been disfellowshipping persons given to pedophilia and other immoral acts? The predisposition against such perverts has been there all the time. The problem discussed here has been more along the lines of how things were handled and why rather than whether the crime was finally realized and loathed for what it is and with a strong desire to protect others from it.
All of these cover-ups by representatives of the Society have gone with no formal acknowledgement or apology. The same goes for deaths due to bogus doctrine on blood, blood fractions, organ transplants and vaccinations. Abuse of raped women who were disfellowshipped for fornication because they failed to scream because they were so paralyzed with fear.In the real world, heads roll, people are fired, people resign, people are sued, people are put in jail. I think its time the people making all the rules started taking responsibility for their actions.
Regarding our subject, actually there have been some private apologies from representatives of the Society, many of them. The blood fiasco is another subject entirely and must be addressed. Frankly, it is easy to see how the Society initially adopted the view it did regarding blood transfusion. Nevertheless, by now the Society should have corrected what has become realized as a seriously flawed teaching, one that probably represents the most tangible threat to its existence.
Friend
Edited by - Friend on 8 August 2000 9:17:4
