BOE Letters

by Perry 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Perry

  So the loophole only applies to disfellowshipping offenses of a non sexual nature? Or disfellowshipping offenses that are not "major sins" Clear as mud.

  Well thanks HS and Gumby and all for clearinfg this up for me. I must have read someone's commentary and rememberd it as actual Society direction. Still, like Gumby pointed out there is a lot of double talk and an independant erring researcher could easily come to a conclusion from WT literature that is opposite from actual policy.

  This topic well illustrates the difference between written and oral WT policy. If they wrote it down plainly, it would be impossible to defend their classification of sins biblically... as far as I'm concerned.
• 

  blondie

  Perry, I also find it amazing that because smoking was not considered a DFing offense before 1973, that if an elder had smoked before then that he would not be DF'd or removed if found out in 1976, i.e. Is smoking now considered a DFing offense because the GB woke up to that fact in 1973? Wouldn't it have been a DFing offense in God's sight before 1973? Was smoking a lesser sin than fornication or adultery before 1973 just because the GB said it was?

  I have seen too many people DF'd and cut off from the WTS because of smoking. It is not considered a lesser sin now. So who is designating sins as DFing offenses, God or the GB/FDS/WTS?

  That brings into question the following statement. "Known" by whom? The congregation in general, only the elder body? If only the elders know, will they appoint such a person?

  w97 1/1 p. 29 Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked

  For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation.

  Read the whole letter to the elder body:

  http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/wt97.htm

  It may be possible that some who were guilty of child molestation were or are now serving as elders, ministerial servants, or regular or special pioneers. Others may have been guilty of child molestation before they were baptized. The bodies of elders should not query individuals. However, the body of elders should discuss this matter and give the Society a report on anyone who is currently serving or who formerly served in a Society-appointed position in your congregation who is known to have been guilty of child molestation in the past.

  In your report please answer the following questions: How long ago did he commit the sin? What was his age at the time? What was the age of his victim(s)? Was it a one-time occurrence or a practice? If it was a practice, to what extent? How is he viewed in the community and by the authorities? Has he lived down any notoriety in the community? Are members of the congregation aware of what took place? How do they and/or his victim(s) view him? Has he ever been disfellowshipped, reproved, counseled, or otherwise dealt with? If he has moved to another congregation, please identify the congregation to which he has moved. Was that congregation advised of his past conduct of child molestation, and, if so, when? [If you have not advised them, this should be done now, and you should send a copy of your letter to the Society in a "Special Blue" envelope.] This information should be sent to the Society along with any other observations that the body of elders has. Please send this to the Society in the "Special Blue" envelope so that the factors involved may be given due consideration; this information is not to be made available to those not involved.
• 

  dannyboy

  For what it's worth, my recollection of policy in this area is the same as HS's...

  Indeed, I recall specifically that fornication/adultery sins were the exception to the "rule(s)" set forth in the KM. I think this was communicated through either the Circuit Overseer during his meeting with the body, or through the meeting held at the Circuit Assembly with the CO and DO.....a favorite method of the Society for communicating "policy" of this sort.

  As Blondie relates, more recently the issue of child molestation was brought to the foreground in the late 1990s....which kind of adjusts the above policy a bit in that it doesn't REQUIRE a confession of such abominations in the past, but focuses instead on KNOWN situations.....which has been compared to the well-known "don't ask don't tell" US Military "gay" policies........[At the time, being VERY uninformed about how many Witness's lives had been/were being impacted by this issue, I distinctly recall sitting around with my fellow elders and wondering "....Why on earth would the Society take the time to write this letter about elders/MS and child molestation...we must be out of the loop on this...."]

  My how things change.

  My two cents,

  Dan
• 

  Perry

  Blondie! That's the BOE that I was looking for. Thank you... you're the best.

  Here's the main poing as I see it.

  It may be possible that some who were guilty of child molestation were or are now serving as elders, ministerial servants, or regular or special pioneers. Others may have been guilty of child molestation before they were baptized. The bodies of elders should not query individuals. However, the body of elders should discuss this matter and give the Society a report on anyone who is currently serving or who formerly served in a Society-appointed position in your congregation who is known to have been guilty of child molestation in the past.

  Now, if you are an Elder in that meeting and you know that you were guilty of Child molestation but your sin fell short of "pornia" read: penetration or the gross manipulation of sexual organs, (maybe just touching a six year old for instance or exposing oneself) and no one knows about it; then there is no WT directive to confess. Elders are not to ask.

  Am I getting this right? Or, could this BOE be construed to some to mean that even pornia with a child, "if not known" doesn't need to come out under ceertain conditions like the ones mentioned in the '72 OKM?

  The ending of that BOE letter is insightful:

  P.S. to Body of Elders: A meeting of the body of elders should be arranged to read and discuss this letter together. This letter is confidential and should not be copied but should be kept in the congregation's confidential file. Elders should not discuss this information with others. It is provided so that you can appropriately apply the spirit of the Scriptural information in the January 1, 1997, Watchtower article "Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked."

  Looks like oral vs. written law to me.
• 

  gumby

  That article was a good example of the doubletalk mentioned. There was a watchtower much older than that that stated if a brother was a known child molester(even in the past) he would NEVER serve as an elder. Never.

  Do these frickin people forget what they write or ever check to make sure they don't contradict themselves? ( Now that was a dumb question)

  Gumby
• 

  Max Divergent

  To avoid doubt, the '72 OKM can apply to ANY SIN, including carnel GROSS SIN (a DF offence for which a JC is required) - all sin is sin is sin and is treated the same before God....

  BUT, concealment of Gross Sin is a Gross Sin too, and that is current sin right up the the day of confession, so OKM has no application as the guy is a current gross sinner.

  So, for practical purposes it's mostly the sinning of the nature for which the council of an elder or two will suffice, except where the sinner is ignorant of the nature of his sin being a Gross Sin, such as where it's only defined as a sin in a book he has no access to - like Flock. A rare occurance but it does happen, especially with pornia.

  Max - who feels like going out for a gross sin after talking about it so much...
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  Perry.... I think you hae cuaght on to the face our DFing system is nonsense and elders have no accountability. Thats why I would like to start and off grid kingdom hall. Also JWs are true christines or what ever, but 99% are unsaved. The catholics would have put us in pergatory instead of a new world order.

  My problem is all your "sins" do not apply to the damned. In JWs the 1% christians are trying to shove their obligations on us. This is unfair. I think you would agree. Infact the only real place we would disagree is you think Jesus died for the unsaved and they can be saved if they ask or something. Which I doubt. Face it the holyspirit in the JW faith flows from inside the xtains to us pawns. So yeah we only got that meat between our eats to fight off "sin". Which oddly does not mean much because we are not getting and punishment or reward for our troubles.
• 

  jwsons

  Did you try to search for this BOE letter at Kent's site ?

  http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=BOE

  jwsons
• 

  Perry

  HS wrote:

  They wrote back saying that this was between his conscience and God and quoted Cornithians, 'This is what some of you were'. I wrote back to them asking, what if he had helped to murder the girl afterwards? They informed me that in such a case it would be neccessary to insist the person reported this to the authorities, rape obviously not being as serious a crime to their way of thinking than murder!

  Sickening.

  Legal definition of accomplice:

  · Has legal duty to prevent commission of crime but fails to do so

  Well that is absolutely incredible. What is so painfully obvious is that the WT so easily assumes the role of identifier and forgiver of sins, roles biblically given to Christ and the Holy Spirit. Christ's two greatest commandments (as well as Caesar's laws) are thrown out the window when the Society starts trying to regulate the appropriate reaction and remedy to sin.

  Max wrote:

  So, for practical purposes it's mostly the sinning of the nature for which the council of an elder or two will suffice, except where the sinner is ignorant of the nature of his sin being a Gross Sin, such as where it's only defined as a sin in a book he has no access to - like Flock.

  So the society takes it upon itself to decide what is and is not "gross sin". So, the concealment of gross sin negates the loophole in the '72 OKM. I see now.

  However, similar to my illustration of the Elder child abuse that falls short of actual penetration is Hillary Step's experience above. This proves that the society is more than willing to break the law of God as well as Ceasar when the sin doesn't match their idea of "gross sin" . Can you just imagine what a jury would do to the man who simply watched the rape? Can you imagine the "gross sin" argument working on a jury of average people? While not maybe not having the same punishment as the actual rapists, that kind of criminal indifference is a felony offense.

  XQ wrote:

  Also JWs are true christines or what ever, but 99% are unsaved.

  I appears that by using the word "whatever" that your idea of a true Christian is a bit foggy. According to well established Christian doctrine, it is the very faith and explicit trust in the promises of Christ that makes them Christian. They are declared righteous (Abraham was declared righteous by faith in God's promises alone, since he predated the Law) by that childlike trust. God spent thousands of years to make this one point. If we believe in God, it would be a shame to miss that point. That is the core of Christiantity.

  So, since 99% of JW's believe that the promises of Christ do not apply to them, but only to the G.B.; and since the R&F believe that they only get to share in the promises to a limited degree if they are obedient to the entire body of G.B. teachings (a baptismal requirement), then functionally only the G.B is their Savior along with their whimsical teachings. Which of course, is a direct challenge and falsification to Christ's claims. It's just a clever way of denying the office of Savior of the Messiah.

  That is why when we went door to door that sometimes we encounterd folks who accused us of not "beleving in Christ". Of course, we thought that was nonsense since we believed he actually lived and died. That of course wasn't what they were talking about. We just coulldn't get it because our faith was a perverted one in the promises of men. A common theme in all cults and heretical teachings.

  Now, that only leaves the 1% whom you suspect are saved, I'm assuming because they accept that Christ died for them and they believe in the promises. However, this cannot be because they deny and teach that he did not die "for all men" .... another minimization of Christ's role and office.

  Tragically, they believe and clearly teach that they are "the Way and the Truth, and the Life" and furthermore they teach that channel (themselves) is open to "all men", when Jesus plainly said that he was. This particular claim doesn't merely minimize Christ's role but steals it outright, setting themselves up as an anti-christ.

  1 John 2:22 - "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist"
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  Perry you are taking the (now retired) GB out of context. You mean the FDS which applies to all anointed about 8000 people not the 13 guys in New York.

  In truth JWs a chritiandom have parallel doctrines. Except replaced hell with oblivion and purgatory with the "paradise earth". Now do you understand. Unless you are part of a church that does not believe in hell you understand Jesus died for the people in hell too some faiths even believe Jesus went to hell to preach to those in it. If you are prebytarian you believe that the people in hell& heaven were predetermined. The same is true for the anointed they are called to God and loose their place only when they greive the Holy Spirit or become the antichrist. Where did you get the Idea JW look to the GB for salvation?

  How is changing the the rules of the neither world blasphemous when the catholics did it all the time?

  Your never my addressed the fact that the "great crowd" is the damned. What good is it for the damned to pretend they are saved. WHy should humor an anointed like you claim to be.

  ***

  tr chap. 9 p. 77 The Reason Why a "Little Flock" Goes to Heaven ***

  6

  Those who are called by God to share in such heavenly service are few in number. As Jesus said, they are a "little flock."