Jump to content
The World News Media

September 1, 2017 BOE Re: Protecting Minors From Abuse

Jack Ryan

By Jack Ryan
in Topics

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member
Jack Ryan Apprentice

Jack Ryan

Posted
  • Member
Posted

September 1, 2017 TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS Re: Protecting Minors From Abuse

Spanish version:

this appears to be a replacement for

August 1, 2016 TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS Re: Protecting Minors From Abuse

which in turn replaced

October 1, 2012 TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS Re: Child abuse

Seems that the new policy is slightly more proactive.

They've gone from a passive "Never suggest to anyone that they should not report..." to a more robust "Therefore, when the victim, his parents or any other person present to the elders an accusation of this nature, they should be clearly informed about their right to file a complaint with the authorities. "

A step, however tiny, in the right direction, at least.

------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure crossing out paragraph 19 of chapter 12 of ks10 is a step in the right direction. On the surface, it appears to be but notice what is being crossed out:

If you are asked, make it clear that whether to report the matter to the authorities or not is a personal
decision for each individual to make and that there are no congregation sanctions for either decision.

This is being replaced with:

they should be clearly informed about their right to file a complaint with the authorities.

Notice the elders aren't being told to make it clear to the parents that there are no sanctions for reporting. They're only mandated to tell the parents that it's their right to report to the police. Then the eldersare told to not criticize anyone for making that decision.

I can well imagine elders comparing the new instruction with what they're being told to cross out to see what the difference is and, when noticing that the new instruction does not say to tell the parents there are no sanctions for reporting, might conclude that they should not tell this to the parents. So I can see a conversation going like this:

Elders: It is your right to make a report to the police if you so desire.
Parents: But would that bring reproach on the congregation? Would that affect our standing in any way?
Elders: All we can say is that it is your right to make a report to the police if you so desire.

Parents go away thinking that the elders are legally required to tell them that it's their right to report but that their unwillingness to say what effect such reporting would have on their standing, might be a subtle way of hinting to them, by omission, that they should not report because there will be adverse consequences, and that maybe they're legally barred from explicitly saying so.

They should have replaced paragraph 19 of chapter 12 of ks10 with:

Be sure to clearly inform the victim and/or their parent(s) that reporting the matter to the authorities is a moral responsibility and that there are no congregation sanctions for doing so. (Leviticus 5:1; Matthew 22:39; Romans 13:1-4)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Views 1.1k
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

 Share
Go to topic listing



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • George88
      Can secular chronology be trusted?

      By George88 · Posted

      I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
    • BTK59
      Can secular chronology be trusted?

      By BTK59 · Posted

      I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes.
    • BTK59
      Can secular chronology be trusted?

      By BTK59 · Posted

      One issue with historian Flavius Josephus is that he suggests that the Royal Captain of the (Guard) can also be regarded as General Nebuzaradan. A confusion arises from Josephus' account of the captives mentioned in Jeremiah, as he claims that they were taken from Egypt instead of Babylon. Since Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Rilah, he directed his generals to lay siege to Jerusalem. This could potentially account for the numerous dispatches that Nebuchadnezzar would have sent to the west, but the considerable distance to Borsippa still poses a challenge. As a result, the Babylonians managed to gain control of regions such as Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Moab. The only territories that remained were the coastal cities, where the Egyptians held sway. King Josiah decided to form an alliance with Babylon instead of being under Egyptian rule. So, that part of the territory was covered until King Josiah was defeated.  It's interesting how they started back then in 4129, but still end up with the same conclusion with Zedekiah's Defeat 3522 607 B.C. 3419 607 B.C. even though their AM is different.  
    • BTK59
      Can secular chronology be trusted?

      By BTK59 · Posted

      Found it, thanks. You are correct.
    • George88
      Can secular chronology be trusted?

      By George88 · Posted

      In the era of the Bible Students within the Watchtower, there were numerous beginnings. It is essential to bear in mind that each congregation functioned autonomously, granting the Elders the freedom to assert their own assertions and interpretations. Most people embraced the principles that Pastor Russell was trying to convey. You could argue that what you are experiencing now, they also experienced back then. The key difference is that unity was interpreted differently. Back then it had value where today there is none. To address your inquiry, while I cannot recall the exact details, it is believed to have been either 4129 or 4126. Some groups, however, adopted Ussher's 4004. It is worth mentioning that they have now discarded it and revised it to either 3954 or 3958, although I personally find little interest in this matter. I believe I encountered this information in the book titled "The Time is at Hand," though it may also be referenced in their convention report. Regardless, this is part of their compelling study series 3. Please take a moment to review and confirm the date. I am currently focused on Riblah. The Bible Students who firmly believe that Israel is the prophetic sign of Armageddon have made noteworthy adjustments to their chronology. They have included significant dates such as 1947/8 and 1967/8, as well as more recent dates. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, according to their calculations, 2024 holds immense importance. The ongoing tension of Iran targeting Israel directly from its own territory amplifies the gravity of the situation. If their trajectory continues, the subsequent captivating event will occur in 2029, rather than as previously speculated, in 2034 by some.

  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.3k

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592
    Techredirector
    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.