MAJOR NEWS- VICKI BOER TRIAL/Canadian Press/Sep 12 (page 2)

UnDisfellowshipped

Now remember, Theodore Jaracz says "WE DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT'S WRITTEN" (You just have to go through a Public Library and find out which Book it is written in right?)

hawkaw

The Toronto Sun just blasted the JWs too in today's paper!!!!!!

http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoNews/ts.ts-09-13-0027.html

Friday, September 13, 2002

Jehovah's Witnesses in coverup: Ex-elder

By IAN MCDOUGALL, TORONTO SUN

A former elder of a Jehovah's Witness congregation told court yesterday the church and defendants in a $700,000 lawsuit were trying to protect a sex abuser and keep the case hushed up.

Harald Momm, who stepped down as an elder in Shelburne, Ont. because of internal power struggles, said defendants Brian Cairns and Steve Brown and other church officials were trying to protect a man who sexually assaulted his daughter.

"Their primary concern was always about the abuser," Momm said.

CHURCH LAWSUIT

A woman, whom The Toronto Sun has chosen not to name, has sued the church and elders Cairns and Brown over allegations they tried to hide the abuse she suffered from the Children's Aid Society and was discouraged from getting counselling.

Momm also testified he was upset Children's Aid was not notified immediately of the abuse.

"We wanted the law followed," he said. "Cairns and Brown didn't care about the law, they wanted this kept quiet."

Momm first learned of the abuse when he returned from a Florida trip in January 1990.

He said he was shocked to find out Cairns and Brown had known about the case but had not informed Children's Aid despite church policy that secular authorities must be notified immediately in such cases.

Court heard earlier the woman's father turned himself in to Children's Aid officials in February 1990.

Edited by - hawkaw on 13 September 2002 8:29:19

hawkaw

The CP article is on the Canada.com site

http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id={F069EEFD-B66C-464A-AF28-D52D17CD8647}

Marvin Shilmer

This Vicki Boer vs. Watch Tower trial is dynamite stuff! Given the evidence of witnesses, WTS lawyers surely tried to settle this thing outside public court for some major dollars. Vicki must be one determined gal! I imagine the WTS willing to pay dearly to keep this story under wraps!

The comment about the three-year statute of limitations on such things as abuse does stand out. I know what this remark refers to, but I've never seen it used as a defense mechanism (i.e., an excuse!). I suppose the good WTS attorney is framing his language in terms better understood by the court (and/or media). Plus the WTS may think this language provides some sort of "public image" defense based on religious exercise. But to invoke such a supposed "statute of limitations" rule regarding a case of sexual child abuse is obscene, and I'm sure our Good Canadian citizens can see this for themselves. Frankly, to invoke a statute of limitations on sexual abuse of a child is to say that this sin is less offensive and less dangerous than the sin of fornication, which is preposterous and, again, obscene! What do I mean?

This supposed rule about a statute of limitations comes from a Question Box article published in the October 1972 Kingdom Ministry. Here is the full text:

*** km 10/72 8 Question Box ***
What is meant by "some years ago" on page 170, paragraph two, in the "Organization" book?
This indicates more than a year or two. It may be noted that it did not say "many years ago." So it is not an exact number of years, but more like two or three years. It was not intended to have a brother go back into the distant past to bring up wrongs of which he repented years ago and that have evidently been forgiven by Jehovah and are not being practiced now. In many cases the wrongs occurred prior to the time when the "Watchtower" drew attention to what the Scriptures say on such misconduct.
If a brother has been serving faithfully for some years and has seen evidence of Jehovahs blessings upon him, why should he now step down from office? If he has the right viewpoint now on conduct and will give good counsel he should be able to continue to serve. If the local body of elders see that he has the respect of the congregation and has shown the proper qualifications over the last two or three years, he may remain in his position of service.
Must wrongdoing be brought to public attention after many years? The book (page 168) under "Public Reproof" quotes 1 Timothy 5:20 and mentions reproof of those who confess to committing more than one offense. But it really has to do with recent events. The "Interlinear" refers to those "sinning," something going on at the time. So if repentance occurred some years ago, three years ago or more, and sinning ceased, and he is respected by the congregation, it is not necessary now to publicly reprove one who committed more than one offense "some years ago."

This material was covered at elder schools back in 1997/8. Elders were instructed that this provision of essentially overlooking sins "two or three years" in the past did not apply to the sin of fornication. In explicit language elders were told that there was no "statute of limitations" on fornication. Elders were instructed to write a note to this effect on a certain page of their ks91 textbook.

So, there you have it. If the "brother" that sexually abused Vicki, Gower Palmer, had had consensual sex with his next door neighbor 20 years ago the WTS judicial hounds would proceed against him. But, sexually abuse a little girl 3 years ago? Forget it, the statute of limitation has run out!

Sickening obscenity!

Scully

The "three year" statute of limitation struck me as quite odd, too.

Does this mean that someone who is DF'd or DA'd only has to endure three years of shunning now??

C'mon.... you know that isn't going to happen!!

Love, Scully

Nathan Natas

Thanks Marvin, for that clarifying insight into WTS institutionalized sexual obsession and moral irrationality.

By the way, I notice that "sisters" are specifically not mentioned. Given that sisters could only serve the congregation in unusual circumstances, might we understand that sisters do not have the benefit of a 'statute of limitations" on their conduct? Or am I parsing too vigorously?

Edited by - Nathan Natas on 13 September 2002 10:17:46

MAJOR NEWS- VICKI BOER TRIAL/Canadian Press/Sep 12

UnDisfellowshipped

hawkaw

Jehovah's Witnesses in coverup: Ex-elder

hawkaw

Marvin Shilmer

Scully

Nathan Natas

biblexaminer

hawkaw

hamptonite21

Satanus

Share this