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.