BRITISH APOSTASY!

by silentlambs 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  LovesDubs

  SL - Do we have access to any other country's BOEs on this subject besides Britain and US?
• 

  Eusebius Hieronymus

  The moral obligation however has not changed. I do have this on first hand experience.

  Hats off to the British!

  The moral failure in Brooklyn makes them the apostates! That is, the US is the apostate Branch, as is their kissing cousin in Canada.

  Jemimah, it is so very, very refreshing to hear someone speak about morality in terms other than sexual.

  I hope Jeff Anderson beats the hell out of the Governing Body with this duplicity. No one in their right mind can say that JEHOVAH is the author of conflicting policy which is "food at the proper time."
• 

  silentlambs

  Jem, I thank you for your comments regarding your experience with WT legal. In the case you reference, was the matter reported to the police? Were you advised to do so at the biding of WT Legal? I do not deny that WT legal will advise certain cases to be reported, but what if they advise you not to, what would you do then?

  Regarding the 12-1-00 boe letter there are clear directions given to report the matter to authorities first, conduct an investigation, and THEN call WT Legal. The Reference is as follows:

  "The elder may express deep and sincere concern and offer Bible-based counsel in harmony with what has been published by the Society. His counsel should always include advising the complainant that the congregation cannot take over the God-given responsibility of the ‘superior authorities’ in dealing with crime. Accordingly, the complainant should consider his or her responsibility to report the matter to the authorities without delay. (Compare Romans 13:4, James 4:17) Such authorities might include the family doctor, the head teacher of the child’s school, the social services, the NSPCC, or the police. The elder should explain to the complainant that he himself might have a duty to report the matter to the proper authorities.

  If the complainant is a child the elder might offer to accompany him or her to discuss the situation with a parent (but not the alleged abuser) or to one of the above authorities. A child should not be placed under pressure to take such action, and an elder should not be alone with a child who complains of abuse. At an initial disclosure elders should avoid making promises, but they may indicate that they will need to give the matter very serious and urgent consideration. In any event they should treat the matter as a priority so that the complainant does not get the impression that nothing is being done.

  As soon as possible thereafter contact the Society’s Legal Department. The presiding overseer should also be informed, but do not arrange to speak with any other person. The elders should not lose sight of the fact that victims urgently need to be protected from further abuse and abusers need to be prevented from finding additional victims."

  Here is plainly stated the British policy, go to the elders who then direct you to go to police first or other authorities to see it is reported, they even would be willing to accompany you. Good policy! Yet the very next month you recieved a policy change see Boe letter of 1-1-01 there it is stated:

  "When a member of the congregation is accused of child molestation remember to contact the Society's Legal Desk immediately."

  So now I ask you, which letter do you now follow?

  12-1-00 or 1-1-01.

  There clearly seems to be a conflict of direction. Do you contact the police first or WT Legal? As you well know newer letters superceed older ones and as a result you now have a part of USA WT policy in place.

  Now roll forward six months, the 6-1-01 letter makes a further adjustment in British policy. There it states:

  "Those who have confessed to child molestation, or who have been found guilty of child molestation by the congregation on the basis of two or more credible witnesses,"

  and

  "a former child abuser who is currently serving as an elder or ministerial servant. In such a case, if the branch office has decided that he can be appointed or continue serving in a position of trust because the sin occurred many years ago and because he has lived an exemplary life since then, his name should not appear on the List, nor is it necessary to pass on information about the brother’s past sin if he moves to another congregation,"

  Policy change #2, now according to direction offered, the CONGREGATION determines guilt based on direction from 97 letter of what a "known" child molester is defined to be. Again I point out why was the 12-1-00 letter not referred to when establishing the basis of how to determine if a person is a child molester? Would not turning a person over to the police seem to be a huge factor in determining that? Not according to the 6-1-01 and the 97 letters, they clearly state the CONGREGATION makes that decision. Once they are determined to be guilty by the CONGREGATION, then Legal authorizes what to do next. If you are to just simply turn them over to the authorities why would you need to call WT Legal? What would be the purpose? They would have no basis to be involved.

  Policy change #3, if you are a child molester and wait a few years you become completely anonymous as you serve as an elder.

  This has never been so clearly stated than this letter. Even the form letter sent out when a brother is removed only allows for minor priviledges. Here we have clear direction and acknowledgement that child molesters are and can again serve as elders.

  As I mentioned earlier, I hope this are wrong assumptions, but the hard copy seems to indicate otherwise.
• 

  Tanalyst

  So for 10 years or so Britian had a totaly different policy then the USA one - proof to me that the Holy Spirit( which directs the Governing Body ) suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder.

  The big question is WHY? Why don't they want the police involved? Do members of the Governing Body have skeletons in their closets? If so, if they tell members to go to the police, would they,themselves or some of them be ratted out. And thereby lose power?

  Perhaps PRIDE is the issue! Since Silentlambs went public, WT is too proud to admit it has sinned against their youngest members by not protecting them.
• 

  bluesapphire

  Silentlambs, while reading your comments a thought came to me: What if the other Brittish BOE letters were only written in response to the Data Protection Act in that they were afraid authorities would read their letters so they had to make it look good. Perhaps they always had their little "unwritten" understanding of the policies. Another thought is that maybe the 6/1/01 letter was written only because the danger that authorities would search and read their files is over. Do ya think?
• 

  JEMIMAH

  Thanks Bill

  I do understand your confusion.

  However let me make the following point.

  The June 01 letter is clearly a letter regarding all files (written records) regarding child molesters and the Data Protection (these are letters of introduction and info held in Cong files.

  The Dec 00 letter is a different subject altogether, it is how to handle a situation when person comes forward with an allegation or evidence of child abuse. How would we handle it? who can we inform etc?. The instructions in this letter have not changed.

  Likewise when we recieve letters on how to fill out S77's and the like on disfellowshipping. those letters have nothing to do with the actual handling of the Judicial case itself.

  There is a clear difference on how to handle written records, and how to handle victims of child abuse.

  I hope this helps

  Jem