Now why would the WT not ask former elders the 3rd question?

by wheelwithinwheel 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  wheelwithinwheel

  In chapter 3 of KS-10, paragraph 13 (page 35), the WT Corp provides the precise questions that are to be asked aspiring elders before announcing their appointment. There are only 2 for qualifying brothers who have served previously. Brothers not having served before must be asked a 3rd.

  To be clear, brothers having served in the past, are not to be asked if they were ever involved in pedophilia. Does that mean the WT believes it can take for granted that a brother who’s has already served could never have been involved in child abuse?

  I think it’s just the opposite. And I’m convinced this directive has everything to do with accountability, liability, ass-covering and don’t ask…don’t tell.

  For anyone who is still trying to believe there are no child abusers among the JW clergy-class, I think this paragraph underlines how big the legal problem of pedophile servants has to be for the WT.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Just when I think they can't shock me any more.
• 

  fokyc

  The exact wording:

  13. In every case, the elders must ask the following

  questions: "Is there anything from your past,

  even before baptism, or in your personal or family

  life that disqualifies you or that would prevent you

  from accepting this appointment? Is there any reason

  why your appointment should not be announced to

  the congregation?" If the brother has not previously

  served as an elder or a ministerial servant, ask the following

  question: "Have you ever been involved at

  any time in the past with child sexual molestation?"

  If he answers yes to any of these questions, do not announce

  the appointment. Return the S-2 form or

  5-52 appointment letter to the branch office, and provide

  a complete explanation as to why the appointment

  should be annulled. If the brother answers no

  to these questions and accepts the appointment, the

  elders might direct his attention to information provided

  by "the faithful and discreet slave" that will

  help him fulfill his new privilege of service.- Matt. 24:45; od caps. 5-6.

  Notice also that IF he accepts the appointment "the elders MIGHT direct his attention..."
• 

  DanaBug

  Relying on pedophilias to turn themselves in...are they stupid or evil?
• 

  Ultimate Reality

  The lawyers had to write this. With new appointees they protect themselves by asking the molestation question and they protect themselves from liability through a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy with those already serving. They don't want to have any liability for elders that molest children.
• 

  james_woods

  Rather ironic that this would specifically cover situations where an existing elder was caught at pedophilia, then moved to another congregation - where he was appointed again as an elder, but would not be asked about any such episode in the past.

  Which is the specific coverup that they have been guilty of in the past - moving known molesters over to another congregation where they can repeat the offense without any record of the previous conduct.
• 

  Meeting Junkie No More

  This modus operandi will SINK them. While other organizations, both religious and secular, are mandating background checks for those who work with and have access to minors, this outfit embarks on an ostrich-with-its-head in the sand approach. Seriously, the lawyers wrote this?? Is this how the organization aims to absolve itself of liability?
• 

  Room 215

  I thinlk it reveals how pervasive the problem of child molestation is in the organization. They're clearly on the defensive on this issue.
• 

  elder-schmelder
• 

  booby

  Stunned about this are we elder-schmelder. Not 100% on topic. But when reading that paragraph is there anything that makes you feel the "holy spirit" is involved?