Watchtower knew of CHild Abuse in 1976

JW Ben

I just did a search on the CD and ther was a mjor article on child abuse in the Awake of July 22 1976 starting on page 5 and going to about page 10.

Unfortunately, that article dealt with physical abuse, not child-rape.
The WTS has long promoted beating children to keep them in line, so that article was at least, disingenuous, but it doesn't help with providing any evidence that the WTS discouraged child-rape back then.

Child beating? Horrible! Child rape? No comment.

That about sums it up.

Farkel

JW Ben

Ok in me hurry I did not read the full article so I did some more searches...

Another search result…

Watchtower My 15 1950 an early article on Blood. The discussion went along these lines….. "If God forbade close relatives like brothers and sisters, parent to child, etc., to marry because of thereby bequeathing emphasized human idiosyncrasies to their offspring and causing diseases, do you think that God would disapprove any less of blood transfusion with all its disease-spreading and fatal properties and possibilities?—Leviticus 18:6-18; 20:11-21."

The interesting part for me was their use of Leviticus 18:6-18 Just quoting verse 9 …"9 “‘As for the nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born in the same household or born outside it, you must not lay bare their nakedness."

They realised back then that sex with a child was wrong. They also teach sex out side of marriage is wrong. So even though it may not have been a big problem the principle was there. As I child from going to meetings I knew it was wrong.

I can only assume that it was not talked about because the community as a whole did not talk about it.

The first mention of "Pedophile" was in a 1982 Awake June 22

So I did a search using "child sex" and came up with this as the oldest related printing

Watchtower 1960 15 November page 678 paragraph 6 …..

"……These sex organs are therefore not to be treated as playthings, nor are they to be abused, misused or misapplied. The proper care of sex organs applies both before marriage and after marriage, in order to conduce toward successful, happy marriage. When we take a long-range view of matters, the healthy, helpful preparation of a child for future marriage really begins before that child’s birth. Yes, in that respect a heavy responsibility rests on its parents, who should think not only of their child but also of their grandchild. No one, either the parents or persons not the parents, should want or has the right to mar a child’s opportunity, privilege and natural right to enter into clean, honorable marriage."

NOTE THE QUESTION FOR THAT PARAGRAPH

6. How are sex organs rightly to be considered, and does anyone have the right to interfere with a child’s finally entering into clean marriage?

My conclusion…They knew that paedophilia was wrong (even if the word was not in use)

larc

JW Ben,

Your heart and your intent is in the right place, and I applaude you for your research. However, the first article is about incest, and the second article, although it could be interpreted to apply to abusing children, was about masterbation, I think.

This raises a very interesting point. Back in the 60's, they were more concerned about masterbation (wrote about it often) than they were about the sexual abuse of children.

Thanks for the input, and keep up the good work. Please don't be offended by my interpretation of the quotes.

avishai

My conclusion?They knew that paedophilia was wrong (even if the word was not in use)

Gee, ya think? No kidding, genius, that's why we put people in JAIL for it then. And have for a loooonnggg time!!!!! And yet they try to weasel out of it in this press release here http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/2122827332/7172632856.htm

"We didn't know it was THAT bad 10 or 20 years ago." Typical contemptible JW doublespeak. Just like when they joined the UN. They said "Oh, well, we withdrew our membership because the rules for membership changed" when they had been condemning other religions as the harlot for DECADES for having the same membership.

They did'nt change their rules on child molestation because of new psychiatric knowledge, they changed it within a week of the dateline special. They did'nt withdraw their membership because of rule changes, it was within three days of an expose in the guardian newspaper in the UK.

In both cases, folks, it was'nt because of benevolent new light, it was because they got CAUGHT WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN!!! DUH!!!

avishai

Oh, and another thing, knowing it's wrong is'nt the issue, period. It does'nt take Yoda to figure out that raping a four year ole is bad!! It's how they handle it!!! Using a two witness rule to cover it up and make the cong. appear "clean", thus allowing these monsters carte blanche to rape children, that's the issue!!!

And, yes, look at the stupid press release. "Well, we did'nt know it was THAT bad!!!" I was 15 yrs. old 20 yrs. ago and your damn right i knew it was "that bad"!! Wimping out with that lame excuse is worse than something most little kids I know would do.

Aude_Sapere

"We didn't know it was THAT bad 10 or 20 years ago."

OH!! This makes me so angry.

I was molested at age 6 by a neighbor. A male babysitter.

I absolutely remember reporting to my mother that I didn't like when he babysat us. I didn't like that he came in my room and pulled down my pajamas and touched me.

He continued to be our babysitter with the stipulation that he was not allowed to come upstairs. He did anyway.

Nearly 30 years later, I learned that my younger brother (he was 3 at the time) was molested by the same person.

Our JW parents' response to their grown children about this issue?? "Child abuse and molestation just wasn't such a big deal in the 60's" And besides, we needed a babysitter.

It's criminal. Pure and simple. The purpetrators and those who allow it.

-Aude.

avishai

Yeah, read the transcript of what she says, it'll make your stomach turn. And that they're using THAT on their media site.....

Sunspot

In both cases, folks, it was'nt because of benevolent new light, it was because they got CAUGHT WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN!!! DUH!!!

YESSIRREE!

Dirty old Mother did get caught with her pants down and the "kiddies" rushed to cover up her nakedness. Rather than be embarrassed for her, they made up excuses (and sad ones at that) to try and clean up her tarnished reputation, all the while patting themselves on the back at what a "good job" they did in doing some fast polishing.

Jez

They realised back then that sex with a child was wrong. They also teach sex out side of marriage is wrong. So even though it may not have been a big problem the principle was there. As I child from going to meetings I knew it was wrong.

Which makes the Watchtower hypocrites, and liars or else they would have dealt strictly, severely and as quickly as possible with their pedophiles. Yet they hide THEM and let the victims suffer, which is really what the men sitting on top of this empire are all about, victimizing victims.

Jez

Watchtower knew of CHild Abuse in 1976

Share this