Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Watchtower's Statute of Limitations on Pedophilia

*** Our Kingdom Ministry October 1972 Issue, Page 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. (So if the Watchtower does not tell you that a practice is wrong, you cannot be held accountable for it.)
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.
However, pedophilia is not fornication. There is a "statute of limitation" on those who abuse children.
So, there you have it. If a brother has consensual sex with his next door neighbor 20 years ago the Watchtower judicial hounds would proceed against him.
However, if this same brother sexually abused a little girl 3 years ago? Forget it, the statute of limitation has run out! He is free to serve in any capacity to which he is appointed.

14 comments:

Aramis said...

Man, I'm enlightened about these issues too but you may need to see a shrink,your totally venting 6 times a day, and your slanting stuff too much, no wonder that poor woman doesn't belive jws have a serious pedophile problem, instead of saying that that's what that policy enabled for elders all the time or what have there, you could state it less foaming at the mouth and say in many of the cases where pedophiles got away with it to prey on more victims a misinterpreting of this "theocratic" rule, or written law, was to blame.

As Paul said the letter kills and one reason it "kills" is for the problem of legalism,which the wicked will exploit, and paul explained these things to those congregations he wrote about it to, and this is one of the major problems with Jehovahs witnesses.

Legalism and Materialistic spirituality.

To the woman who didn't believe there are child abusers among jws I'm sorry to say this but you are wrong, actually it happened to an inlaw of mine, they didn't believe him and it continued for years, one is enough, Jehovah God thinks so, and the fact is its many many more than one, some even prey on unsuspecting young ones who's familys are not even witnesses yet.

I've seen this too he wasn't an elder tho so was promptly disfellowshipped without question,the sad fact is it happens more than you think and the organzation settled many lawsuits this past year and payed off the victims, if Jehovah were exclusive with this org, or if it were a "spiritual paradise" one infact which Paul had a vision of..as the third heaven(...wow..) It would atleast keep be clean and Jahs children safe from scum who would prey upon peoples "trust in his org"

I'm not anti witness but it needs to be known to keep children safe from harm and not slanted in a manner where any reading jws will dismiss it as the hateful ramblings of a bitter "lying" apostate.

JoePublish said...

Knowledge is Power.

Governing Body Letters said...

"instead of saying that that's what that policy enabled for elders all the time or what have there, you could state it less foaming at the mouth and say in many of the cases where pedophiles got away with it to prey on more victims a misinterpreting of this "theocratic" rule, or written law, was to blame."
------------
I state it like I see it. I am not foaming at the mouth, I am not bitter and my mental health is probably at least as good as yours. However, some matters just cannot be stated in a calm, rational manner. Is my writing slated because I state that Watchtower policy enabled the pedophile paradise that existed within the Watchtower. Yes! Was it a mere "misrepresentation of the theocratic rule" or was it the wishes of the Governing Body to protect the reputation of their precious organization and not let people know of the filth that lay beneath it. You say it your way, let me say it my way!

JoePublish said...

It's interesting... when I sense emotion in blogs or responses, I try to look for the truth in the message (so as to not get side-tracked). This way I don't end up shooting the messenger. The message in this case was and is a serious one:

JW's leaders so badly mishandled pedophilia problems and the only way they could have done this is for the wrong reasons - and as GBL so aptly stated, the GB was more interested in quieting any press on this matter so they can appear spotless and clean to outsiders.

What they failed to understand is how badly they have hurt the insiders - those directly affected and the thousands of loyal JW's who have just started to piece things together. When they do, they will be highly disturbed about this whole matter - I know, I have seen it personally. And, it isn't pretty.

kimmy jo said...

The JW's are peddling paradise door to door, so it would work against the congregation and watchtowers goal to grow if this info got out . These things do not happen in paridise.

The publishers would be seriously discouraged and the world would laugh at their claim to be the ONLY ONE TRUE RELIGION.

It is not to their advantage to be honest and open.

JoePublish said...

Boy, you hit the nail on the head Kimmy Jo. The GB knew how damaging this information would be to their religion.

When Bill Bowen figured out that they were putting first the protection of their own image OVER the protection of children, it cause Bill to have a serious Crisis of Conscience. And, the rest is history (some of which is continuing to write itself as we speak): www.silentlambs.org

passwordprotected said...

There's a reason why the GB insist that JWs spread this 'life saving message of truth' from door-to-door when few people are at home; they don't want people to know about Witnesses because as soon as you dig even slightly below the surface of the WTS you see the corruption, lies and cover-up.

hudsoncarl said...

regarding your comment: "pedophilia is not fornication"

if you go by the dictionary.com definition (click here), then you're right. because fantasizing isn't fornication. but, if you're applying the term pedophilia to abusing children (like in your next sentence after the quote above), then you're partially wrong. sexual contact with a child (or with anyone not your mate) is fornication. i say 'partially' only because 'abusing children' is a broad term. you can take nude photos of a child, and that's not fornication. it would still be abuse; and it would definitely be a disfellowshipping offense (for loose conduct), but it wouldn't be fornication.
the problem with posts like this is all of the broad language and catch phrases. maybe if you stop looking up 1972 articles and get into the 21st century, you'll understand that mistakes can be made and that changes can happen. or should we all start waving our arms in the air about lead paint, asbestos in our schools, and leaded gasoline?

kimmy jo said...

hudsoncarl,

you must go to the same congregation as ronde,nathan and frank, just in another part of the world.

steve said...

http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7248906&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

The Catholic Church is paying out millions of dollars to people in Kansas City who were abused up to 60 years ago!

I was watching the TV today and a guy (looked like he was at least 50) said he was happy with the acknowledgment of guilt, but all the money in the world would not give him his LIFE back.

These abused ones suffer for the rest of their lives! It may have happened in 1972, but it still affects them and the Society still has not acknowledged anything publicly, still no apology, still no remorse. They are still contributing to the abuse by callously ignoring the abused ones.

steve said...

Sorry the link didnt post properly

http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?

contentId=7248906&version=1&locale

=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

JoePublish said...

Steve, your comment about NO PUBLIC apology to the abused victims is interesting because it's "one" of the big issues I see with the whole situation.

And, the longer they wait, it will become too little-too late for all those who have discovered this coverup via the Internet.

I mean if victims have to beg for an apology, what good is the apology?

Anonymous said...

This blog seems to think that it presents the answers.

But history shows that answers are not so easily found. False accusations are easily made and with prejudice standing behind them, they are easily perpetuated.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/scottsboro/SB_hor33.html

"History, sacred and profane, and the common experience of mankind teach us that women of the character shown in this case are prone for selfish reasons to make false accusations both of rape and of insult upon the slightest provocation for ulterior purposes. These women are shown, by the great weight of the evidence, on this very day before leaving Chattanooga, to have falsely accused two negroes of insulting them, and of almost precipitating a fight between one of the white boys they were in company with and these two negroes. This tendency on the part of the women shows that they are predisposed to make false accusations upon any occasion whereby their selfish ends may be gained."

jwcpp said...

It isn't even true that an abuser can remain an elder or ministerial servant if he confesses to abuse three years ago. That's a fiction invented by opposers. Find out the truth at this site.