Branch Service Department Manual approves appointing Child molestors as Elders (page 2)

bafh

at the bottom of the page, it has the internal document code and the date:

S-66-E 5/13

I would read this as having been prepared and possibly delivered May 2013.

This is current. May they get what they deserve.

elderINewton

wow - burn them down.

How can anyone even one lawyer defend this?

Thank you for posting.

Village Idiot

...........Branch Service Department Manual......

breakfast of champions

AUDESAPERE - yes the Royal Commission. I just can't believe they have their hands on this stuff. . . . It's absolutely incredible.

Ok, so perhaps I should have said "Gezundheidt!" 😉

In such cases, the elders would not normally mention anything about his past conduct in the letter of introduction unless the branch office has determined that there is reason to do so.
My wife just read this sentence and almost fell off her chair.

opusdei1972

It reads: "Although the elders make the recommendation, the final decision is always made by the branch office, not by the local elders"

My question is if the above statement has been modified. As far as I know, currently, was not the Circuit Overseer who makes this final decision??? Am I right?

stuckinamovement

This is evidence that will damn them not only in Australia but in all other branches.

Ohiamfree

Okay...so let me get my head round this AGAIN....if I marry someone when I am not free to marry again under their rules of what qualifies as loose conduct, myself and my husband can never ever have privileges again.

However a known child molester.......

What the freakin hell????!!!!

Crazyguy

Oh hell it's burning the whole damn cult is burning down all around them. Best day ever. They were so right when the said the end is near.

ScenicViewer

From the letter, p1, par4: 4. The following questions should be considered when determining whether he qualifies to serve: How many years ago did he commit the sin? What was the extent of the conduct? Was it a
single incident, or was it repeated? What were the circumstances? What was his age at the time?
What was the age of his victim? Is there an outcry about him? Were the authorities ever informed of
his actions? If so, what action did they take, and do they have him listed as a sex offender? How do
the community and the secular authorities view him?

Cofty's post: At times, information regarding a man is known only to the elders. The fact that they have knowledge of his past sin should not automatically rule out his serving. There may be unusual circumstances that would indicate this is not necessary. At times, the branch office may determine that a man qualifies for congregation privileges, as he is not considered to be a “known” child molester. He may then move to another congregation. In such cases, the elders would not normally mention anything about his past conduct in the letter of introduction unless the branch office has determined that there is reason to do so.

Critical points seem to be whether or not there is an outcry about him (presumably the outcry comes from the congregation), and whether he is a "known" child molester.

It all seems a bit silly. How could there be an outcry about him, or how could he be a known child molester if his identity is kept secret from the congregation and the police, which is generally the case?

This is an incredible example of Watchtower double talk.

Branch Service Department Manual approves appointing Child molestors as Elders

Share this