Bible-Based Child Protection Packet Released

[carlos]

19 minutes ago, Fiona said:

1 tim talks about servants should ve free from accusations.
I dont see how any "brother" who has been criminally charged or even accused could serve as an elder lr servant.

Fiona, I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Do you mean "criminally charged or even accused" of child abuse or of any kind of accusation?

 

While the principle is valid, things usually are not that black and white. Anyone can make an accusation, proving it is something different. There's an older article that explains what "free of accusation" means exactly:

 

Quote

*** w90 9/1 p. 24 par. 5 Are You Qualified to Serve? ***
5 Irreprehensible; having fine testimony from people outside; free from accusation. (1 Timothy 3:2, 7, 8, 10; Titus 1:6, 7) When appointed and while serving, ministerial servants and elders must be irreprehensible, that is, free of blame and of any need to be reproved for a just accusation of wrong conduct or teaching. Untrue charges made by “false brothers” or others do not make a man reprehensible. To disqualify a man from serving in the congregation, a charge must not be frivolous, and it must be proved in harmony with Scriptural standards. (2 Corinthians 11:26; 1 Timothy 5:19) One appointed in the congregation “should also have a fine testimony from people on the outside, in order that he might not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.” If a man committed some serious sin in the past, he could be appointed only if he had lived down any reproach and made a good name for himself.

 

That last sentence applies to most crimes a person may have committed in the past, but not child abuse. In most cases of child abuse, even if they happened before that person became a Christian, that man will never be eligible for any appointment in the congregation, because sexual attraction for children is not something that disappears with time. The exception, as already explained, might be some very specific situations which, although legally considered "child abuse" do not really have to do with attraction to children.

[Fiona]

 
That last sentence applies to most crimes a person may have committed in the past, but not child abuse. In most cases of child abuse, even if they happened before that person became a Christian, that man will never be eligible for any appointment in the congregation, because sexual attraction for children is not something that disappears with time. The exception, as already explained, might be some very specific situations which, although legally considered "child abuse" do not really have to do with attraction to children.

Yes. Your right thats what i meant. But you explained that well. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Sequoia]

16 minutes ago, Fiona said:

Yes. Your right thats what i meant. But you explained that well. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

 

26 minutes ago, carlos said:

Fiona, I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Do you mean "criminally charged or even accused" of child abuse or of any kind of accusation?

 

While the principle is valid, things usually are not that black and white. Anyone can make an accusation, proving it is something different. There's an older article that explains what "free of accusation" means exactly:

 

 

That last sentence applies to most crimes a person may have committed in the past, but not child abuse. In most cases of child abuse, even if they happened before that person became a Christian, that man will never be eligible for any appointment in the congregation, because sexual attraction for children is not something that disappears with time. The exception, as already explained, might be some very specific situations which, although legally considered "child abuse" do not really have to do with attraction to children.

I just want to mention like I mentioned in another post that although many men and much less commonly women, who sexually abuse children are sexually attracted to them which is unnatural among other things including dangerous. 

 

However, some adults that sexually abuse children are not actually sexually attracted to them.  There are child molesters that do so for multiple other reasons including to have power over another person, a vulnerable person in particular. 

 

I bring this up again because in some of the recent posts here it was stated that the exception might be some very specific situations which although legally considered child abuse do not really have do with attraction children.  Well, if someone sexually abuses a child or adolescent without a sexual attraction, except perhaps the situations like the ones I mentioned in some cases. 

 

Such a person would not be allowed to have a responsible position in the congregation or any special privileges, whatever the person's motive for the abuse. 

 

Perhaps those posting the other messages realize this and if so I'm sorry that I misunderstood but I thought that this should be made clear.

Edited May 7, 2018 by JW2017

[Bob]

1 hour ago, Fiona said:

1 tim talks about servants should ve free from accusations.
I dont see how any "brother" who has been criminally charged or even accused could serve as an elder lr servant.


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

 

Preaching is a “crime” in Russia. Would a brother be free from accusation if he was jailed for preaching in Russia?

 

Secondly, being free from accusation doesn’t mean a brother cannot be accused. 

 

It means no VALID a charge of improper conduct can be charged against him (ex, was he recently reproved for serious wrong doing, etc). The Bible ultimately dictates whether or not a brother serves, not the criminal justice system. 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Bob

[Sequoia]

1 hour ago, Fiona said:

1 tim talks about servants should ve free from accusations.
I dont see how any "brother" who has been criminally charged or even accused could serve as an elder lr servant (FionA

 

 

 

If I'm understanding your second statement correctly Fiona;  "I don't see how any brother who has been criminally charged or even accused could serve as an elder or servant.  

You are saying that if any brother has been accused proven or unproven within the congregation even if unproven legally he should not be a servant or an elder.

 

First I will say that it is my understanding that if a brother is found guilty and convicted legally he cannot serve in a responsible position even if he hasn't been found guilty by the elders and hasn't confessed to the elders.  Also, in many countries including the United States although people don't always view things this way a person is supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Being accused or charged doesn't prove that a person is guilty and doesn't always mean that he is either.  If the organization doesn't allow those convicted to have responsible positions, this would be in harmony with the law and the brothers have made sure that their policy meets legal requirements;  Romans 13:1,5, Titus 3:1

 

Quote

 

Although usually children and teenagers are telling the truth when they say that they have been sexually abused, also usually adult victims that have grown up are telling the truth.  It is still the case that in five to ten percent of cases, the allegations are not true and in some cases false allegations are made by someone other than the victim.  Such as a parent falsely claiming that their child has been abused.  I do recognize, that the vast majority of allegations are the truth and that child abuse is often under reported.

Also, when handling matters in the congregation, the brothers do need to follow scriptural laws and principles just like the document mentions and has been mentioned here.  Consider 2 Timothy 5:19;  "Do not accept an accusation against an older man (elder) except on the evidence of two or three witnesses."  Looking at these and the other verses on this matter make this matter clear to me.

 

Consider also 2 Corinthians 13:1;  "On the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter must be established."  So they must at least usually establish that a brother isn't free from accusation, with two witnesses when handling matters within the congregation.  Again it does  not have to be to one and the same incident.  

Quote

 

 

 

I'm not sure why my last post formatted the way that it did.  I hope that it is understandable.

Edited May 7, 2018 by JW2017

[Old]

During an open police investigation, there may be enough bad publicity in the community that a brother may not be able to serve until he has been exonerated. 1 Tim 3: 2, 7. A Police investigation can take a long time. I am periphally involved with one case that has been ongoing for one and a half years. One baptized witness who refuses to talk about it and one distant worldly family member that won't testify unless someone else is willing to testify first.

[Hope]

16 hours ago, tekmantwo said:

I am familiar with a case of child abuse, my 6yr old daughter was raped a number of times over a 3 or 4 month span.

 

omg - how did you not murder that horrifying creature???  i cannot even imagine the fury and anguish... i don't even have words...

 

i am so... SO sorry for you and your family... may Jehovah continue to make you whole...  

[Hope]

12 hours ago, carlos said:

 

But those "two witnesses" are completely irrelevant for the secular proceeding. A person who makes an accusation of child abuse is always invited to report the issue to the authorities, no matter if there is any evidence of the abuse or not. This is the point that is systematically misrepresented by our opposers and the media. The elders will report the accusation if the law requires them to, otherwise they will leave the report in the hands of the victim's parents. In any case, of course, every individual elder and any other person who knows of the situation is free to contact the police, especially if the child is still in danger of further abuse.

 

 

 

Exactly.  Feel free to have such monsters arrested, prosecuted and thrown under a disgusting jail for their crimes (I've never believed it was the elders' responsibility to do that; the victims of the crimes report the crimes).  When they are convicted, I believe that would lead to them being removed from the congregation, anyway.

[Bob]

4 minutes ago, Hope said:

omg - how did you not murder that horrifying creature??? 

I do see why this makes you angry, but it might be best to remove youself emotionally from the subject. 

[Old]

2 minutes ago, Bob said:

I do see why this makes you angry, but it might be best to remove youself emotionally from the subject. 

Bob, I hope you are joking if so you still have time to edit in a smiley.  

[Hope]

8 minutes ago, Bob said:

I do see why this makes you angry, but it might be best to remove youself emotionally from the subject. 

 

I'm curious how someone is NOT emotional about such a subject.  I'm not a lawyer or judge presiding over a case, therefore, I believe expressing my feelings about various comments made here are not out of line.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Hope

[Old]

6 minutes ago, Hope said:

 

Exactly.  Feel free to have such monsters arrested, prosecuted and thrown under a disgusting jail for their crimes (I've never believed it was the elders' responsibility to do that; the victims of the crimes report the crimes).  When they are convicted, I believe that would lead to them being removed from the congregation, anyway.

We were not able to remove a convicted even though he confessed. A confession in itself does not qualify. He confessed to avoid confronting the witness (Not JW) and get reduced sentencing. While on parole we could legally prevent him from attending meetings, as a convicted child abuser is not allowed around children unless someone signs off for each occasion. We simply refused to sign. He has since fled the area.

[Sequoia]

8 minutes ago, Hope said:

 

I'm curious how someone is NOT emotional about such a subject.  I'm not a lawyer or judge presiding over a case, therefore, I believe expressing my feelings about various comments made here are not out of line.

I understand your emotions and I am I adult survivor of more than one type of child abuse myself.  I also know others some who are still children, some of whom are close to me that have been victimized by different forms of child abuse including sexual and physical abuse.   In some cases involving people close to me it was very extreme.

 

You do have to be careful about what you post on the internet though, especially when you start talking about murder which is scripturally and legally wrong under any circumstances even if you don't intend on actually doing that to someone.

 

Someone could panic if they saw that statement online.  But I do understand why you said what you said.   

 

I forgot to mention earlier, about the authorities.  They too have refined how they handle these situations are still trying to do so.  There is still room for improvement with them too.  In the past, they did not do nearly as well as they do now and in some ways things are still being handled wrong especially depending on what country you live or what region with in the country such as the United States.

[Bob]

21 minutes ago, Old said:

Bob, I hope you are joking if so you still have time to edit in a smiley.  

 

I am not joking, it’s just worth being careful about what you piblicly post on the internet, but I’ll just leave it at that. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Bob

[Hope]

i am not, nor is anyone going to murder anyone.

 

seriously???  :sigh:   

[Sequoia]

43 minutes ago, Old said:

During an open police investigation, there may be enough bad publicity in the community that a brother may not be able to serve until he has been exonerated. 1 Tim 3: 2, 7. A Police investigation can take a long time. I am periphally involved with one case that has been ongoing for one and a half years. One baptized witness who refuses to talk about it and one distant worldly family member that won't testify unless someone else is willing to testify first.

Thank You.  In  my comment about convictions I was referring to a brother not be allowed to have a responsible position permanently. 

3 minutes ago, Hope said:

i am not, nor is anyone going to murder anyone.

 

seriously???  :sigh:   

I didn't mean that you would seriously murder someone.

[ChocoBro]

15 hours ago, Bob said:

 

My point was whether or no the sin or crime is serious enough to warrant a permanent ban from having privileges in the eye of the organization. 

If facial hair can prevent you from having privileges in the congregation, why should having exhibited an extreme disorder like pedophilia not do so.

 

You don't ever "get well" from being a child molester, even though the sin can be forvigen. Even if a person were to improve in the course of a long time-span, I think it would be better not to entrust such a person with such responsibilities. Not as a punishment, but a protection for one thing, but also to prove the gravity of the matter.

 

12 hours ago, Fiona said:

1 tim talks about servants should ve free from accusations.
I dont see how any "brother" who has been criminally charged or even accused could serve as an elder lr servant.

Still there are crimes that don't weigh so heavily, so somebody who is imprisoned for tax fraud would possibly get reinstated as an elder after  a few years, if he showed genuine repentance. Also, think how many brothers were involved in gang violence before becoming Jehovah's Witnesses.

With a child molester, it is not the same, however. This is something that you just do not recover from, it is that severe.

 

As concerns the accusation thing, you are simply wrong. One individual accusation is not enough to merit any form of consequences, neither before the government nor in front of Jehovah's servants. There is a good reason the Bible has "the two witness rule". A little anecdote from friends from Spain: a brother was  accused of fondling a child but apart from the testimony of the child, there was no other witness or proof. However, under severe pressure, he decided to step down as an elder. A lot of people saw this as a form of admitting guilt. The rumours spread to the point that a worldly person assaulted him and beat him blind on one eye. A long time later, the child, whose family long since left the truth, stepped forward and admitted that he had fabricated the entire issue under pressure by his mother, who hated the elder and wanted to destroy his reputation. So you understand why Jehovah doesn't allow for the testimony of a single individual to have that much gravity.

[Sequoia]

53 minutes ago, ChocoBro said:

If facial hair can prevent you from having privileges in the congregation, why should having exhibited an extreme disorder like pedophilia not do so.

 

You don't ever "get well" from being a child molester, even though the sin can be forvigen. Even if a person were to improve in the course of a long time-span, I think it would be better not to entrust such a person with such responsibilities. Not as a punishment, but a protection for one thing, but also to prove the gravity of the matter.

 

Still there are crimes that don't weigh so heavily, so somebody who is imprisoned for tax fraud would possibly get reinstated as an elder after  a few years, if he showed genuine repentance. Also, think how many brothers were involved in gang violence before becoming Jehovah's Witnesses.

With a child molester, it is not the same, however. This is something that you just do not recover from, it is that severe.

 

As concerns the accusation thing, you are simply wrong. One individual accusation is not enough to merit any form of consequences, neither before the government nor in front of Jehovah's servants. There is a good reason the Bible has "the two witness rule". A little anecdote from friends from Spain: a brother was  accused of fondling a child but apart from the testimony of the child, there was no other witness or proof. However, under severe pressure, he decided to step down as an elder. A lot of people saw this as a form of admitting guilt. The rumours spread to the point that a worldly person assaulted him and beat him blind on one eye. A long time later, the child, whose family long since left the truth, stepped forward and admitted that he had fabricated the entire issue under pressure by his mother, who hated the elder and wanted to destroy his reputation. So you understand why Jehovah doesn't allow for the testimony of a single individual to have that much gravity.

Thank You for sharing.

 

In an Awake in October 8, 1993  in the Misconceptions section, it was brought out that children are telling the truth most of the time when they say that they have been sexually abused.  However, most of the time, doesn't mean always and the article stated at least 95% of the time.  Also I have heard from professionals that help victims of childhood sexual abuse including those that investigate and prosecute such serious and heinous crimes.  That up to 10% of allegations made by minors including children and teenagers are actually false.  So, true that means that most allegations made by young people are true, most allegations made by adult survivors are true as well. But not all of them.

 

Also Jehovah is wiser than humans and the elders must follow his laws and principles.  His word is clear on the two witness matter.  Of course I am under the impression that under some circumstances other forms of evidence may be submitted in place of a second witness such as DNA evidence and this is in harmony with the Bible.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by JW2017

[Bob]

51 minutes ago, ChocoBro said:

If facial hair can prevent you from having privileges in the congregation, why should having exhibited an extreme disorder like pedophilia not do so?

 

I assume you mean having a beard would bar one form having privileges, not facial hair. However, you are actually wrong about that. Having a beard is not an automatic disqualfier, depending on where you live:

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/402016684?q=beard&p=par

 

And I don’t think we should compare committing a crime with wearing a beard.

 

Quote

 

You don't ever "get well" from being a child molester, even though the sin can be forvigen. Even if a person were to improve in the course of a long time-span, I think it would be better not to entrust such a person with such responsibilities. Not as a punishment, but a protection for one thing, but also to prove the gravity of the matter.

 

I think you are putting words in my mouth. I never said one “gets well” from being a child molester, nor did the Slave in the policy I posted.

 

I recall saying that in very specific situations, like cases of statutory rape, can a publisher possibly have privileges. I even said in a typical child abuse scenario, where an adult male molests a very young child, he would be permanently barred from having privileges. 

 

I think you are misrepresenting me here. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Bob

[carlos]

YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE!

Friends, this is a public topic that anyone can see. Anyone who googles for "child abuse jehovah's witnesses" will be directed here. We think it is important to keep this topic public to counteract the lies widely spread by opposers.

 

This is the second time we've had to mention this. Yet it seems that some members are determined to sabotage it by starting silly arguments, bringing up negative stories or simply going off-topic. Please, stop at once!

 

If you have a disagreement with you wife you discuss it at home, not in front of the neighbors. We have lots of private areas where we can discuss personal subjects, but not this one. Please, let's all display the common sense to keep this thread informative, positive and on-topic. Thank you!

Edited May 8, 2018 by carlos

[ChocoBro]

4 hours ago, Bob said:

 

 

I think you are misrepresenting me here. 

The it seems I have misread your comment, or maybe you were speaking of a case of consentual "statutory rape" between two adolescents as opposed to a typical case of child molestation. In that case I am sorry

 

Also, sorry for hijacking the thread with a joke in extremely bad taste about the facial hair. Should have been far more tactful than that.

Edited May 8, 2018 by ChocoBro

[Shawnster]

23 hours ago, JW2017 said:

I'm sorry, I'm having a difficult time explaining what I mean to say.  Also I couldn't edit one word that makes it more confusing when I meant to say it applies not if applies.

You're worrying too much about this.  We understand what you are saying.  It's a difficult subject and this causes our attempts at treating this subject with sensitivity to become easily confused.

 

It's all good.

[Bob]

31 minutes ago, ChocoBro said:

The it seems I have misread your comment, or maybe you were speaking of a case of consentual "statutory rape" between two adolescents as opposed to a typical case of child molestation. In that case I am sorry

All is forgiven!

 

But you're right. That's what I mean. The typical case of child abuse is what I also believe warrants a permanent ban on privileges because it has to do with attraction to children, whereas the typical, blanket, legal definition includes teenagers of close age range that may simply be attracted to each other.  

 

In fact, I find the world hypocritical on this point. They encourage dating while young and unmarried, and say is OK to have sex because only "natural"  and its "wrong" to tell people to control themselves, while promoting all kinds of sexual freedom, but then wield pitchforks and perform witch hunts against anyone even accused of statutory rape and/or child sex abuse.

 

Then, they say our standards on premarital sex are "archaic" and "restrictive" and have no place in such a "progressive culture".

 

 

[annakot]

Glad to see this. Sometimes it takes the "superior authorities" to highlight a need in Jehovah's organization, and it takes Jehovah's organization to act upon it.

[Lance]

 No other organization has guidelines and requirements for parishioners.These have been practiced and published for decades. Now they continue to spell out how we view child abuse. Not only for our benefit but also for those of this world.