by hawkaw 32 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Elders were instructed to write a note to this effect on a certain page of their ks91 textbook.
I find this VERY interesting. When any other company or organization I have been a part of made a change to instructions... they ALWAYS sent a correction page that was to be inserted in the affected manual or book.
In this case, the bOrg can claim that the person made the note on his own and skirt responsibility.
In many cases the wrongs occurred prior to the time when the "Watchtower" drew attention to what the Scriptures say on such misconduct.
This phrase has always interested me as it clearly shows the 'we speak for God' dogma in action. It is not until the 'Watchtower' draws attention to 'what the scriptures say', can that scripture be acted upon. If a JW recognises that a scripture may mean a certain thing, they cannot act upon it until the Watchtower has drawn attention to it.
HS
Edited by - hillary_step on 13 September 2002 14:24:3
Marvin Shilmer writes:
>>>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.<<<
Am I missing something here???
Doesn't the term JWs translate as "fornication" (porne'ia) include a VAST array of sexual misconduct, which involves the genitalia of two individuals?? It encompasses a HUGE number of sexual practices, including IMNSHO pedophilia and rape.
There was a time when (and still is "current light" if I'm not mistaken) oral sex between a married couple was considered "porne'ia" - yet it's now a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The practice is still not recommended for "true Christians". There are still public talk outlines in circulation which discuss the depraved nature of these kinds of activities.
Surely CHILD MOLESTATION and CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE _is_ PORNE'IA. Surely there should be NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS on it, just as there are none with consensual sexual relations between unmarried adults.
Sadly, the WTS's attitude toward women - that we should put out and shut up transcends all common sense. Anyone of sound mind would be horrified and appalled at what these idiots expect women to submit to in silence.
I hope the judge throws the book at all of them.
Love, Scully
Watchtower = Al Queada
SS
I once wrote to the Branch in a European country regarding the 'past sins' comment and exactly what sins the comment reagrding not acting on them congregationally pertained to and Marvin is quite correct. It does not apply to any carnal sins. I was told the WTS meant these sins to be applied to minor failings like 'smoking' over which they have had changing viewpoints.
I knew a member of a Branch Committee who was removed after 23 years service for a 'carnal' sin committed while a young and innocent Pioneer in the 60's!
HS
Edited by - hillary_step on 13 September 2002 14:30:38
Hi, Elsewhere
You wrote:
When any other company or organization I have been a part of made a change to instructions... they ALWAYS sent a correction page that was to be inserted in the affected manual or book.
At the first Kingdom Ministry School for elders after the ks91 textbook was released the Bethel instructor (Weaver) at my class told us that future instructions would be provided as loose-leaf pages from the WTS. This never happened. Instead we get verbal instructions from COs and DOs to add or delete specific language. Back in 2000 (or maybe 2001) elders were read detailed instructions about how to handle cases where publishers accepted specific uses of blood (e.g., packed red cells therapy). Instead of giving in writing they provided it verbally but asked us to write it into our ks91 textbook verbatim.
All this smacks of the same thing we see going on in the Vicky Boer trial. In polite language it's called a CYA position, at any cost. I can understand the CYA part. But the "at any cost" part is extremely disturbing. Freedom of religion cannot mean freedom to practice an ideology no matter the cost to others. It just cannot mean this!
Hello, Scully
You wrote:
Doesn't the term JWs translate as "fornication" (porne'ia) include a VAST array of sexual misconduct, which involves the genitalia of two individuals?? It encompasses a HUGE number of sexual practices, including IMNSHO pedophilia and rape.
Surely CHILD MOLESTATION and CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE _is_ PORNE'IA. Surely there should be NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS on it, just as there are none with consensual sexual relations between unmarried adults.
Specifically WTS policy is that porneia is an act involving one human and a partner (animal or human) that includes the manipulation of genitalia for sexual gratification. Rape, for example, is porneia for the aggressor but not for the victim. Though rape is often about control rather than sexual satisfaction the act is nevertheless undeniably an act that involves gratification via someone's genitals. That is, whether it is sexual climax or fulfilled control; gratification is still achieved with genitalia.
There are some acts that society at large rightly calls sexual molestation that does not involve genitalia. In these case the act would not constitute porneia according to the WTS so the stipulated statute of limitation would accrue. Generically this would be classed as "loose conduct" that a person could be disfellowshiped for if unrepentant. But loose conduct would fall under the policy of that 1972 Question Box article. I have no idea of the details in the case of Vicki Boer's victimization. Regardless, it is heinous that a statute of limitations is even a consideration(!) in any case of child molestation, particularly sexual molestation! The WTS' defensive posture on this point is, simply put, antithetical with Christianity!
Edited by - Marvin Shilmer on 13 September 2002 14:53:24
I must retract a statement made earlier.
Earlier I commented that instances of sexual child abuse do not constitute porneia according to WTS policy if they do not involve use of genitalia. However, if we take the WTS' words at face value then they have stipulated that sexual abuse of a child is porneia regardless of whether genitalia is involved. What do I mean?
Page 93-94 of the ks91 textbook states:
"Por.neia" involves immoral use of the genitals of at least one human ( whether in a natural or a perverted way ), and there must have been another party to the immoralitya human of either sex or a beast; willing participation incurs guilt and requires judicial action. It is not a casual touching of the sex organs between persons but involves the manipulation of the genitals. (w83 6/1 pp. 23-6; w83 3/15 pp. 30-1)
It includes oral and anal sex or mutual masturbation between persons not married to each other, homosexuality, lesbianism, fornication, adultery, incest, and bestiality. (Lev. 20:10, 13, 15, 16; Rom. 1:24, 26, 27, 32; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10)
Also included are sexual abuse of children, including practices involving a catamite (a boy kept for purposes of sexual perversion). (Deut. 23:17, 18, Ref.: Bi., ftns.)
The last paragraph categorizes sexual abuse of a child as prima facia porneia. This means regardless of whether use of genitalia occurs, when sexual abuse is committed on the person of a child then it is porneia nevertheless. Looking back, I know of instances where the WTS has applied their policy in this way.
This means the WTS' legal team would have to explain why sexual abuse of a child is not porneia when their own written policy says it is, and therefore not subject to the stipulated statute of limitation. It would require a savvy lawyer to press this issue, and they would have to ascertain whether refuting WTS assertions of a statute of limitation is important to the case at hand.
What a tangled web the WTS weaves!
Edited by - Marvin Shilmer on 13 September 2002 15:24:40
Hi Marvin,
You said a few posts ago ....
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!
Nope. They only offered her enough to cover her legal costs and they offered Frank Mott-Trille a kinda bribe for not testifying (which is completely irrelevant to the case but oddly did come out in court thanks to a defence counsel mistake but fortunately it did not cause a mis-trial). She would have accepted it but the WTS wanted a gag order and Vicki said no to the gag order.
That is something I hope you people understand when you meet Vicki. She said NO to being gagged and wanted the story to be told so other victims would not fear the way she had too.
hawk
Edited by - hawkaw on 13 September 2002 15:28:26
Hi, Hawk
Thanks for the information. This "people" does very much appreciate the courage of the Vicki Boer's of the world.
Marvin Shilmer
