Yeah I picked up on that too WillYouDF me, their wording is very... clever, he "may" never qualify for privileges, the Elders "may" inform parents. In other words, they might, they might not. He might, he might not. Shameful.
May 2019 child abuse WT
by neat blue dog 36 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
john.prestor
-
steve2
There are some steps forward - not clearly enough.
But it provides evidence that the organization has been badly affected by the negative publicity and court verdicts.
Yes, it is PR sweet double talk - but at least it’s out there in the organization itself; like the Catholic Church, the organization can no longer play, “Let’s block ourvears abd pretend all is well in JW land”.
Who knows what else might change as time passes.
-
DATA-DOG
Nothing has really changed. What determines whether or not anything is reported is the undue influence of the GB/Legal Department on the Elders. That undue influence has been bypassing common sense and allowing Pedos to shuffle from congregation to congregation for decades and do who knows what to “worldly” children because they were never reported.
This article is pure damage control and represents 0% change as far as I can tell.
I haven't seen any illustration of a mature Sister sitting in on a call, but we all know that NEVER happens. Parents aren’t even allowed to be present when children go over the questions for baptism.
Those quotes have the stink of WT Legal all over them.
DD
-
zeb
zophar. you are very perceptive. The answer is never. The wt had this feature rung out of them at the CARC.
again as others are saying damage control..
-
smiddy3
While on the surface it looks promising for some change ,I will keep watching this space .
-
The Fall Guy
WT hiding behind the use of language again:
11 A Christian who gives in to wrong desire and commits a serious sin is spiritually sick.
A serious sin? It's a crime you idiots! It's child-rape.
13 Do elders comply with secular laws about reporting an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities? Yes. In places where such laws exist, elders endeavour to comply with secular laws about reporting allegations of abuse.
Only in places where mandatory reporting exists? Elders will merely endeavour?
-
WillYouDFme
This article is pure damage control and represents 0% change as far as I can tell.
Absolutely, and mostly for JWs.
When I was brainwashed, I would have not acknowledged the possibility that the GB could be wrong, or bad.
Thus any thin drewel would be accepted as gods word... till the dominos started falling.
-
Slidin Fast
13. Do elders comply with secular laws about reporting an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities? Yes. In places where such laws exist, elders endeavor to comply with secular laws about reporting allegations of abuse. (Rom. 13:1) Such laws do not conflict with God’s law. (Acts 5:28, 29) So when they learn of an allegation, elders immediately seek direction on how they can comply with laws about reporting it.
Note: The first port of call is still the legal department not a report to the authorities.
Surely child abuse is a crime everywhere whether reporting is mandatory or not. The WT should not put themselves between an elder and his conscience.
-
Vidiot
Of course the victim is "free" to exercise his/her "right" to report abuse to the secular authorities...
...just as the WTS is "free" to exercise its "right" to (for all intents and purposes) discipline victims if they report to the secular authorities without waiting for a "second witness" (labeled as "slander"), or...
...punish elders for reporting to the secular authorities first instead of calling the local Branch (labeled as "not following those taking the lead"),...
...or - in general - airing any of the Org's dirty laundry to the public (i.e. "causing divisions", or "brazen conduct", or whatever the fuck it happens to be labeled as at the moment).
And we all know that once a JW is "disciplined", everyone else in their (sometimes former) congregation has been conditioned to not believe a goddamned thing they say.
-
Vidiot
john.prestor - "...their wording is very... clever, he 'may' never qualify for privileges, the Elders 'may' inform parents. In other words, they might, they might not..."
First thing I noticed, too.
Sleazy lawyerese that ends up leaving it wide open to privately backslide on damn near everything they're (seemingly) publicly pledging to do.