Bible-Based Child Protection Packet Released

[Bob]

https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

 

Good, good read. Really hits the nail and covers everything.

[Skyler]

That is incredible. A difficult read, but completely necessary. The FDS are always prepared and poised to give a thorough, Bible-based answer to any questions that arise. Unlike most of false religion, we have always given a clear answer on what is just & acceptable to Jehovah. Any sort of abuse is never related to Jehovah at all, but belong only to the sick individuals who commit these deeds of their own selfish greed. And even then, Jehovah's heart is so tremendous, that under specific conditions these ones are allowed to repent and worship Him in a conditioned way (which is more generous than I could ever be!).

 

I really appreciated this statement:

"The elders’ handling of an accusation of child abuse is not a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter."

 

In my humble opinion, it doesn't matter if that person is a spiritual brother or sister, things like these should never be swept under a rug! This person may decide to repent for the time and even be forgiven by Jehovah, but what happens if that person leaves the truth? Not taking these accusations to the authorities puts the lives and mental health of other children, family related or at a job or anywhere, at risk! Especially if nothing is done, some may believe they'll always get away with it and be more likely to do it again. I hope I haven't offended anyone but these things cut very deep with me. Before you think about saving a person's reputation, think about the child who will remember the abuse for the rest of their lives.

[AH173]

This document brings to mind of the Australian case discussed here some time ago. We parents must be vigilant. 

[Bob]

This puts a lot of lies to rest. And it’s an authoritative, one stop shop source for anyone wondering how we handle issues. 

 

It’s the measuring stick. So if anyone wants to know how elders go about doing their jobs on this regard, they have the resources. 

 

Again, so much for “WTS” trying to “hide” it’s policies. 

[Beggar for the Spirit]

Love this Packet! 

Here are a couple points I really appreciated.

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Beggar for the Spirit

[AH173]

I think I want to include this for my family worship this week. It's sobering news that must be discussed in a family setting. 

[Bob]

Just now, AH173 said:

I think I want to include this for my family worship this week. It's sobering news that must be discussed in a family setting. 

I planned to go over this with my family as well. The references are aboundant and need to be considered carefully. 

[Hope]

44 minutes ago, lovejoypeace said:

I really appreciated this statement:

"The elders’ handling of an accusation of child abuse is not a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter."

 

^^^This.

 

I've NEVER understood the attitude of those upset at elders because somehow, they're not the police.  If someone in the congregation molested my son, the elders could do what they wanted to the person... but *I* wouldn't stop until the authorities put that beast under the jail (that's if I didn't murder them first).  It's MY responsibility to take care of my family - not the elders. And the elders are not law enforcement.

 

A crime has been committed.  Go to the authorities... end of.

[Bob]

19 minutes ago, Hope said:

A crime has been committed.  Go to the authorities... end of.

Yes. This has long been the case, however, it needed to be make unequivocally clear as the media has only shown interest in publishing lies by our opposers as if attaching the word "allegedly" before or after the lies exonerates them. 

 

This makes it impossible for them to do that.

[Sequoia]

I would like to mention just in case there are those that are wondering.  When they stated that a member who is guilty of child abuse will be prevented from holding special privileges or a responsible position for decades if ever.  It's could to point out, especially to Non-Witnesses that this means that usually such a person will not be allowed have such privileges permanently, only in very rare cases would a person be allowed to after decades which has been brought out in the past. 

 

An example in the past was if an 18 year old male had sexual relations with a 15 year old female who was a willing participant.  In some areas this may have been considered child abuse.  All factors would be considered carefully and depending on the situation and circumstances, many years later such a man might be able to have a responsible position in the congregation.

 

I just thought that I would point this out since they mentioned this example in the past on one of our old websites jw-media.org.  I don't think anything has changed.

 

Also I know that the two witness requirement still applies as it should if the accused denies it.  Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19.

 

I'm sorry if someone has already mentioned this and I missed it.

Edited May 2, 2018 by JW2017

[Guri]

1 hour ago, Hope said:

*I* wouldn't stop until the authorities put that beast under the jail (that's if I didn't murder them first).  It's MY responsibility to take care of my family - not the elders. And the elders are not law enforcement.

Me too! 

[Sequoia]

I meant to say good to point out, if it comes up.

[Sequoia]

I just thought that I would add that this packet can be found by going to the News Room, then Legal Developments, and Human Rights, and then Legal Resources.  It's one of the downloadable packets.

 

https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/

Edited May 2, 2018 by JW2017

[Bob]

3 hours ago, JW2017 said:

An example in the past was if an 18 year old male had sexual relations with a 15 year old female who was a willing participant.  In some areas this may have been considered child abuse.  All factors would be considered carefully and depending on the situation and circumstances, many years later such a man might be able to have a responsible position in the congregation.

 

I just thought that I would point this out since they mentioned this example in the past on one of our old websites jw-media.org.  I don't think anything has changed.

 

Also I know that the two witness requirement still applies as it should if the accused denies it.  Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19.

 

I'm sorry if someone has already mentioned this and I missed it.

 

This is an excellent point. I thought of the same scenario when I went over this with my wife. Of course, a middle-aged man molesting a 9 year-old certainly would probably fall under the "if ever" category. An 18 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old can be viewed as a stupid mistake or bad judgement. The former, is not.  

[Sequoia]

I'm not entirely sure about this, RoccoExpress (brother, Andy).    I do know that legally and in psychology a person can be considered a pedophile at the age of 16 if he or in less common cases a she sexually abused a younger child or has a sexual attraction to younger children.   I'm not sure what the age difference would have to be. Minors younger than 16 can get into trouble for sex crimes including ones committed against younger children.  But I'm not entirely sure about what you are referring to. 

 

There is another word for someone who is only attracted to teenagers who are at least 13 years old but no younger.  I can't think of what that word is, pedophile is the word most people are familiar with which actually refers to someone who is attracted (sexually) to children under the age of 13 only.  Sometimes even the authorities use the more familiar word when referring to those that only want teenagers.  Anyway, unless something has changed.  To be labeled the other word a person must be a legal adult and at least ten years older than the victim.  

 

However a person can be convicted of a sex crime in many places including statutory rape with a willing participant even if there isn't that much of an age difference (Ten years I mean).  It can be very confusing.  Different countries and even different parts of the same country may have different laws on this including the age of consent which can make it more confusing for some.

 

I have read and heard that although many adults that have sexually abused children are sexually attracted to them which is terrible!  Some do it for other reasons even when they are not.  An example is to feel power over another person.  I bring this up because child molesters do it for different reasons which is something that I already knew.  Another horrible thing!  I don't know what type of label a person would get if doing it for another reason but whatever the case it's a horrible thing to do which is putting it lightly.  

Also horrible are other forms of child abuse.  I am glad that the packet mentioned other forms of abuse including physical and mental abuse as well as neglect.  Although not always this extreme some children have died from some of the other forms of abuse so they are good to mention and talk about.

 

Anyway Rocco, your comment reminded me of all of this as I was typing.

 

 

Anyway,  I just thought that I would add this.

Edited May 3, 2018 by JW2017

[sunshine]

6 hours ago, Bob said:

This puts a lot of lies to rest. And it’s an authoritative, one stop shop source for anyone wondering how we handle issues. 

 

It’s the measuring stick. So if anyone wants to know how elders go about doing their jobs on this regard, they have the resources. 

 

Again, so much for “WTS” trying to “hide” it’s policies. 

 

 

Indeed.  The major criticism against the Society has been that...

 

1.  victims (or their parents) are discouaged from going to the police.

2.  JWs create a "hothouse" for abusers (presumably by feeding igorance, and silence, creating situations were children are unsupervised contact with other members)

3.  the brothers do not take appropriate action or inform the members of the congregation of the presence of an abuser.

4. victims are forced to confront their abusers.

5.  sisters cannot be present in any part of the  process.

6.  reporting accusations to the society is encouraged in order for the society to "cover things up"

7.   elders are not allowed to report accusations

8.   religious trials negate a criminal investigation

 

Our organisation stands heads and shoulders above others on this matter, and as frustrating as it is to hear accusations that imply the opposite at least it means our standards get higher and higher.  

 

 

 

 

[sunshine]

2 hours ago, Bob said:

An 18 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old can be viewed as a stupid mistake or bad judgement.

 

I think we need to be really really careful about what we say. I understand the point being made about some things being more serious and traumatic than others but it's worth keeping in mind that in most countries an 18 year old having sex with a 15 ("consentual" or not) is viewed as "statutary rape" which would legally make him a sex offender.  In short in the eyes of the law it would not just be viewed "stupid mistake or bad judgement" it would be considered (depending on the country) child abuse and that might not mean full on sex, but being touched inappropriately!  A boy or girl of 15 is considered a child and a child  is not considered capable of "consenting" to sex or sexual contact so even if the girl said that she did not object, a in most countries a crime would have been committed.  The reason  its important is if such a thing came to the attention of the elders and they treated it as "two kids making a mistake" that could open the society to big  (and I mean huge, multi million dollar) liabilities.  

 

Kids in the world are allowed to "date" at a very young age and are having sex younger and younger, so a 15 year old having sex wouldn't necessarily raise any eyebrows. Of course we don't reflect the low standards of Satan's system and I don't know of any Witness parent that would let their underage child  "date",  but we have many enemies waiting to attack us on any premise and use the press to spread lies.  If that 15 year old were, 10 years later to tell her story differently, our defence lies in the respecting of the steps and principles outlined in the leaflet.

Edited May 3, 2018 by sunshine

[Life4u]

2 hours ago, JW2017 said:

I just thought that I would add that this packet can be found by going to the News Room, then Legal Developments, and Human Rights, and then Legal Resources.  It's one of the downloadable packets.

 

https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/

 

We had our letter read last night telling us of this information. 

[Sequoia]

1 minute ago, Life4u said:

We had our letter read last night telling us of this information. 

Oh I see.  I haven't had my meeting this week yet.

[Life4u]

2 minutes ago, JW2017 said:

Oh I see.  I haven't had my meeting this week yet.

No problem Sis. Sometimes we get information well after others also. 

[Sequoia]

1 hour ago, sunshine said:

 

I think we need to be really really careful about what we say. I understand the point being made about some things being more serious and traumatic than others but it's worth keeping in mind that in most countries an 18 year old having sex with a 15 ("consentual" or not) is viewed as "statutary rape" which would legally make him a sex offender.  In short in the eyes of the law it would not just be viewed "stupid mistake or bad judgement" it would be considered (depending on the country) child abuse and that might not mean full on sex, but being touched inappropriately!  A boy or girl of 15 is considered a child and a child  is not considered capable of "consenting" to sex or sexual contact so even if the girl said that she did not object, a in most countries a crime would have been committed.  The reason  its important is if such a thing came to the attention of the elders and they treated it as "two kids making a mistake" that could open the society to big  (and I mean huge, multi million dollar) liabilities.  

 

Kids in the world are allowed to "date" at a very young age and are having sex younger and younger, so a 15 year old having sex wouldn't necessarily raise any eyebrows. Of course we don't reflect the low standards of Satan's system and I don't know of any Witness parent that would let their underage child  "date",  but we have many enemies waiting to attack us on any premise and use the press to spread lies.  If that 15 year old were, 10 years later to tell her story differently, our defence lies in the respecting of the steps and principles outlined in the leaflet.

 

Thank You.  I used this example because I read it when we had the Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Protection Document when we had www.jw-media.org as provided by the Faithful and Discreet Slave.

 

The reason I posted the comment where I mentioned it was to show that usually a person guilty of child abuse in our organization would not be allowed to have a responsible position or special privileges, such as being a pioneer and this would be permanent, not just for decades.  It was clear with the statement made on our older website whether this is still the case or not that even someone who was 18 and had relations with a willing 15 year old could also be prevented from having a responsible position permanently even though it might or might have been allowed in some cases after all factors and the situation were carefully considered.

 

I'm sorry if I caused any misunderstandings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by JW2017

[Bob]

7 hours ago, sunshine said:

 

I think we need to be really really careful about what we say. I understand the point being made about some things being more serious and traumatic than others but it's worth keeping in mind that in most countries an 18 year old having sex with a 15 ("consentual" or not) is viewed as "statutary rape" which would legally make him a sex offender.  In short in the eyes of the law it would not just be viewed "stupid mistake or bad judgement" it would be considered (depending on the country) child abuse and that might not mean full on sex, but being touched inappropriately!  A boy or girl of 15 is considered a child and a child  is not considered capable of "consenting" to sex or sexual contact so even if the girl said that she did not object, a in most countries a crime would have been committed.  The reason  its important is if such a thing came to the attention of the elders and they treated it as "two kids making a mistake" that could open the society to big  (and I mean huge, multi million dollar) liabilities.  

 

I think you sort of missed my point, but do appreciate where you are going. Thank you. 

 

My point was really in reply to the “if ever” portion of the policy, because the question can be raised: “should a brother or sister be permanently banned from having privileges because of having sexual intercourse at 18 with someone 2 or 3 years their junior?”. Should a person be forced to permanently register as a sex offended because of that? Those are valid questions, depending on the circumstances. 

 

This needs to be considered carefully. Personally, I don’t believe a man or woman should have to suffer permanently for something they did as a teenager if the offense was not malicious in intent. I believe society should consider the context like age and circumstances, and their reputation, degree of willfulness, etc. 

 

A similar issue has arisen in the sports world. A former college football player is being killed publicly because of racist tweets he made while in high school. Of course, any form of racism is inexcusable, but many are saying we should remember the guy was a teenager, though he clearly knew what he was doing. 

 

So so the question is: should that follow him to every job interview he goes on from now until he dies?

 

Its a complex situation. 

[Sequoia]

I talked to a friend that heard the letter read about this last night at her meeting.  We should be hearing it soon at my congregation.  I read the packet to myself yesterday and this morning to my blind mother.

 

 

[tekmantwo]

15 hours ago, Bob said:

My point was really in reply to the “if ever” portion of the policy, because the question can be raised: “should a brother or sister be permanently banned from having privileges because of having sexual intercourse at 18 with someone 2 or 3 years their junior?”

I know a family, Non Witnesses, where the 17yr old son had a 14 almost 15yr old girlfriend.  They had consensual sex.   She got pregnant 'sort of'...it was a tubal pregnancy, she had to have the operation to resolve this, had an issue on the table and almost died.

 

The son turned 18 around that time and was arrested as an adult for 'sexual crime with grievous bodily harm'..

and is on the felony 'must disclose' sex offender list, forever.

 

(I apologize in advance,  I know that I worded this poorly,  I have no intent to offend,  just couldn't think of better terms)

 

If this was a singular occasion, if there was never any other problems, I would not have a problem with this person holding a position or enjoying privileges. 

[Hope]

i'm thinking her family was mad at him and wanted him to "pay" in some way for the injury to their daughter.  not cool, imo.. and i agree - i'd have no problem with this man having privileges in a congregation.