A MONSTER in the room
Jah Fan

Fishers, IN

#181 Aug 3, 2012
Jace,
According to the chapter 7 par 20 it says they "may". If they do so they cannot give a local needs on abuse for at least a few weeks and be careful to not mention anything that might connect the wrongdoer and that type of sin (ch 7 par 23)
jace

Woodbridge, VA

#182 Aug 3, 2012
Jah Fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually public reproof is only for sins that are known by more than a few people outside of elder body and immediate family. Thankfully I was friends with an elder who wasn't good at keeping confidential and he would tell us who had been convicted of molesting children. He shared with all of the parents when a "brother" was privetly reproved for child rape. He was deleted as an elder for sharing.
this is why i opened up a thread just on the BOE letter that 3rdjw referenced

according to him, Adultry and child molestation are now either PUBLIC REPROOF OR DFING

Private and public in the past was often determined by -AS YOU MENTIONED- by who knew about it

unknow by anyone other than the folks in the room that night THE ELDERS COULD decide to handle it privately
other knew about it NON-JW AND JW it would be handled publicly

so i am interested to read his clarification on this issue
jace

Woodbridge, VA

#183 Aug 3, 2012
Jah Fan wrote:
<quoted text>
1) I have seen this not dealt with as they claim after 2002.
2) They still require two people to witness the abuse.
3) The shepherd book specifically brings out that a child's testimony can be accepted IF the elders believe that it has a ring of truth to it. In other words when a child makes an accusation against a respected brother they can ignore it if they don't believe it.
i understand what you are saying, but 3rdjw has indicated that there is NO PRIVATE REPROOF FOR CHILD MOLESTATION
the question i have is the reference material he cited ALSO list ADULTRY \

so is he saying that adultry-- CAN NO LONGER BE DONE WITH PRIVATE REPROOF- ONLY PUBLICE/TALK OR DFING

I WOULD LIKE TO get more info on the directive- to see whICH REPROOF IT WAS REFERRING TO
jace

Woodbridge, VA

#184 Aug 3, 2012
unlisted wrote:
it is Jace. we visited a prison while i was in college and no it is very difficult and some impossible, the talk on this thread with third witness and this Dreamweaver is disgusting as a woman wife mother and grandmother i would never want them near my family they do not get it... the old boys club attitude
YOU ARE correct about the boys club mindset
jace

Woodbridge, VA

#185 Aug 3, 2012
Hoodwinked wrote:
<quoted text> What's funny is they don't even see how bad they look to the rest of society...you know like judges and juries :) They are so use to only having those who think exactly as they do around patting them on the back that they have no idea the rest of the world think they're nuts!!
bingo, they just dont get HOW THEY SOUND
jace

Woodbridge, VA

#186 Aug 3, 2012
unlisted wrote:
but yet they have the bestiality thing.. it is not cause for divorce.. duh.....
i would not want these two anywhere near me.. in reading the stuff they are posting -- it seems as if they will defend this org to no end and no matter what they do..
remember the old days if a girl wore make up and short skirts and tight blouses...she was called a tramp or is she had a short dress on and was raped it was suggested she "asked for it because of the way she was dressed?"
that is what these two are giving the impression about this young lady who came forward. some how it was her fault..
YEP per these guys they would call it the GOOD OLE DAYS, when you could drag that stuff in court

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187 Aug 3, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't say it was ok.
.
. No.. it isn't okay.. yet the threads do not allow for your thoughts.. it only shows others your post...
jace

Woodbridge, VA

#188 Aug 3, 2012
Jah Fan wrote:
Jace,
According to the chapter 7 par 20 it says they "may". If they do so they cannot give a local needs on abuse for at least a few weeks and be careful to not mention anything that might connect the wrongdoer and that type of sin (ch 7 par 23)
point well taken, but this was only due to the legal dept protecting the org from slander suits is what were were told during elders school

it was explained to us that due to the ACTUALY ANNOUNCEMENT WORding IT PUT the society at risk and the timing of the talk put the society at risk

when i grew us the talk was GIVEN ON THE SAME night of the annoucment was made that 3RDJW WAS DFED FOR CONDUCT unbecoming a christian

then an elder would give a talk ON THE SAME NIGHT MIND YOU describe THIS CONDUCT THAT WAS UNBECOMING A CHRISTIAN, and not calling anyone name, but go wink wink as it were

so they changed it to a few weeks later, but everyone understond the talk applied to 3rdjw who was reproved a few weeks ago

so if th talk was about dialoging on the web with "apostates" everyone would know why 3rdjw is in trouble

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#189 Aug 3, 2012
Jah Fan wrote:
Jace,
According to the chapter 7 par 20 it says they "may". If they do so they cannot give a local needs on abuse for at least a few weeks and be careful to not mention anything that might connect the wrongdoer and that type of sin (ch 7 par 23)
JF~

Boy, THAT really sounds like making an announcement from the podium....all in the good fun of keeping the organization clean.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#190 Aug 4, 2012
Jah Fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually public reproof is only for sins that are known by more than a few people outside of elder body and immediate family. Thankfully I was friends with an elder who wasn't good at keeping confidential and he would tell us who had been convicted of molesting children. He shared with all of the parents when a "brother" was privetly reproved for child rape. He was deleted as an elder for sharing.
JF~

Ya! Way to clean up that organization! Doesn't 3rd keep bellowing that molesters are announced from the podium?

Pppffffttttt

Corinthian

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#191 Aug 4, 2012
jace wrote:
<quoted text>
do you know what the scientific data shows in this regards??
Jace~

Dreamweaver is correct. There is a can be technical difference between a pedophile and a child molester Pedophelia IS an orientaion...such as heterosexuality or homosexuality. A pedophile may NEVER touch a child, but still be a pedophile. Just as a homosexual may marry the opposite sex, and never have a homosexual relationship....they are still homosexually oriented. Just as a homosexual can not act on homosexual tendencies, pedophiles can also not act on pedophile tendencies. Not acting on it doesn't change the orientation.

A person who molests a child is not automatically a pedophile. Many molesters see children as easy targets, nothing more, and take advantage of the situational opportunity. They aren't sexually oriented towards children, they see an easy way to get sexual gratification while their primary "orientation" is towards adults of the same or opposite sex....they simply take advantage of the opportunity the innocence of children provides. I researched this a few years ago while discussing this with my JW cousin, incidentally. People misapply the term "pedophile". HOWEVER, that is not to say that pedophiles don't molest. Every child molester is a child molester, but not every child molester is a pedophile.

If you actually researched pedophelia and child molesters, you would find there is a difference. The scientific data of repeat offenders most likely shows that molesters are astute at finding opportunities and taking advantage of them for cheap thrills. The sick bastards.

I don't want my post to come off in ANY WAY as support or defense for pedophelia or child molesters. Both are abhorrent...I'm simply addressing the technical differences. I was molested by an aunt...I don't believe she is a pedophile...I think she was an opportunist. OTOH, my step-grandfather who molested me....he was a pedophile.

Corinthian

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#192 Aug 4, 2012
http://www.newdirectionsacs.com/sex-offender-...

Generally speaking, the public makes no distinction between a pedophile and a child molester.  Often times the terms are used interchangeable. There are, however, significant differences.

According to The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) of the American Psychiatric Association a pedophile is a person who:

Over a period of at least 6 months experiences recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally 13 years of age or younger).
The person has acted on these sexual urges or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulties.
The person is at least 16 years of age and at least 5 years older that the prepubscent child.
A major difference between a pedophile and a child molester is that the primary source of sexual gratification comes from being sexual with prepubscent children.  This is not true of the child molester whose primary source of sexual gratification comes from being sexual with an age appropriate consenting adult.

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Houston, TX

#193 Aug 4, 2012
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
<quoted text>
Dream_Weaver,
If it gets you through the night, please take note that my comments were not intended to inhibit what JESUS can do, chooses to do or has done.
My comments were said in relation to THE INTEREST OF PROTECTING CHILDREN.
We can pray that a pedophile repents. But SOMETIMES WORDS ARE NOT ENOUGH!!!
If you say to a pedophile “I forgive you since you appear to be repentant,” yet YOU FAIL to PROTECT THE CHILDREN, of what benefit is it TO THE CHILDREN?
Jesus! Don’t you understand the damage these monsters do to children? God! Help them!
Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
There's something rather important you're missing here. How did the elders acquire the information about the “Kendricks” in the first place?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode...

CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1030-1032

1030. As used in this article, a "member of the clergy" means a priest, minister, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church or of a religious denomination or religious organization.

1031. As used in this article, "penitent" means a person who has made a penitential communication to a member of the clergy.

1032. As used in this article, "penitential communication" means a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member's church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.
----------

This reminds me of what Russell Crowe said to Al Pacino in “the Insider:”

“Just so I know you know, when I talk to people in confidence, it stays that way.”

The tenets and protocols of Jehovah's Witnesses may call for a “third person” during a penitential communication, but it was understood by the Kendrick family that the measure of confidentiality commonly understood in Jehovah's Organization would be upheld by the elders that visited their home.

According to the trial transcript, Evelyn Kendrick wanted “to try to save her marriage.” She didn't want the police involved.

Q. And you said you did not report it to the police when she told you?
A. Not initially.
Q. Okay. Why not?
A. I thought it was an isolated incident. I thought maybe because he had been drinking. I wanted to try to save my marriage. And so I called the elders instead thinking that they could help us out.

Do you really think she wanted her family affairs broadcasted to the entire congregation? If publicly broadcasting “communications made in confidence” was incorporated into Jehovah's Witnesses child-protection policy, do you really think anyone sincere will tell you anything, let alone those insincere?
Jah Fan

Fishers, IN

#194 Aug 4, 2012
jace wrote:
<quoted text>
i understand what you are saying, but 3rdjw has indicated that there is NO PRIVATE REPROOF FOR CHILD MOLESTATION
the question i have is the reference material he cited ALSO list ADULTRY \
so is he saying that adultry-- CAN NO LONGER BE DONE WITH PRIVATE REPROOF- ONLY PUBLICE/TALK OR DFING
I WOULD LIKE TO get more info on the directive- to see whICH REPROOF IT WAS REFERRING TO
According to the shepherd book it puts that decision in the elders hand.

With adultery they are supposed to go ahead and make the reproof public if the innocent mate has not yet decided whether to forgive in case she leaves so that the congregation doesn't look down on them for leaving.

The book specifically says that they "may" make the reproof public with child abuse to protect the congregation.

What is interesting is that they make no bones about telling them to do certain things immediately, but basically only if there is money or lawsuits at stake.
Jah Fan

Fishers, IN

#195 Aug 4, 2012
Dream weaver,

Clergy confidentiality means they aren't supposed to tell anyone unless there is a clear indication that someone is very likely to be hurt by the person confessing.

This doesn't apply in the case of child molestation as there is a very real danger of abuse happening again.(scientific and sociological evidence has proven so again and again). This was especially true in the Kendrick case. The victim continued to live in the house as the abuser and the mother was clearly more concerned about the family's reputation then with the safety of her daughter.

Clergy confidentiality never applies to Witnesses because they keep nothing confidential and do not claim to be clergy. Let's forget about the regularity with which they share with their wives and focus on what they are required to do. They must share with the congregation coordinator EVERYTHING that might effect anyone's spiritual/physical/emotional state. The entire body will discuss anything remotely serious and make a report to the organization. In the Kendrick case the elder body, CO, and an unknown number of people at HQ were told. The only people that weren't told were the parents who needed to protect their children from this piece of garbage and the authorities (who ultimately failed to do their job here as well as is often the case in non-drug cases since those are the convictions which get them cash from federal government.)

How can anyone seriously be against the idea of protecting children from known child rapists?
MENAgirl

Cairo, Egypt

#196 Aug 4, 2012
The elders had enough doubt about him that they removed him from being a ministerial servant. If they believed the accusation to be fully w/o merit they would not have removed him NOR would they have kept any kind of watch over his actions(not that I think they actually monitored him in any way-I think it was a miscalculated lie). I also think that Contis parents were too wrapped up in their own issues to be aware of their daughter, which made her vulnerable to a predator who was likely fully aware of the issues.

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#197 Aug 4, 2012
Of Kendrick and Andrea Marvin Shilmer wrote: "Thirdwitness is speaking of action of a fully grown adult male...toward a 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL!!!" (Caps Marvin's)

Of Kendrick and Andrea Jace wrote: "GROWN MAN VS 13 YR OLD CHILD" (Caps Jace's)

These guys will say anything in hopes of making JWs look as bad as possible, even if it is UNTRUE. Andrea was not 13 years old. Take a look at the court evidence and police report. She was 15 years old and UNCHASTE.

This is exactly why the police did not consider Kendrick to be a dangerous monster. And so the police, DA, judge, child protective services, all of them together

1. Gave him no jail time
2. Did not put him on the sex offender registry
3. Let him go home with his victim
4. Slapped him with a mere misdemeanor.

This because she was a 15 year old unchaste promiscuous girl. Now I know that's some straight unpolitically correct talk, but thems the facts mam!
Jah Fan

Fishers, IN

#198 Aug 4, 2012
Third witness,

Please give evidence where the girls supposed promiscuity was
A) confirmed rather then just accused by her
molester and the elders
B) This played ANY role in the decision to consider it a misdemeanor

Otherwise I will just presume that you are just an ignorant b*+€# who thinks that a 15 year old girl had it coming. Your attitude isn't just politically incorrect, it is based on factual inaccuracies and demonstrates a sexually deviant attitude towards children.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#199 Aug 4, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
There's something rather important you're missing here. How did the elders acquire the information about the “Kendricks” in the first place?
…
.
Do you really think she wanted her family affairs broadcasted to the entire congregation? If publicly broadcasting “communications made in confidence” was incorporated into Jehovah's Witnesses child-protection policy, do you really think anyone sincere will tell you anything, let alone those insincere?
What the HELL is wrong with folks like you?

I HAVE NOT SUGGESTED those elders should have or needed to BROADCAST to the entire congregation the personal business of the Kendrick family!!!

I HAVE SUGGESTED those elders should have announced to the congregation that a MONSTER was IN THE CONGREGATION. Supposedly a REPENTANT MONSTER, but a MONSTER nevertheless.

I don’t give a rat’s patootie whether child molesters will tell elders anything. Child molesters are MONSTERS. That includes supposedly REPENTANT child molesters.

Got it NOW?

Elder DO NOT HAVE to give out NAMES and PERSONAL information in order to TELL parents and children that a MONSTER is IN THE ROOM.

Why on earth you think this is somehow inappropriate is beyond me to comprehend. Maybe you should talk to Jesus about it.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
Jace

Woodbridge, VA

#200 Aug 4, 2012
PaulWroteToMe wrote:
<quoted text>
Jace~
Dreamweaver is correct. There is a can be technical difference between a pedophile and a child molester Pedophelia IS an orientaion...such as heterosexuality or homosexuality. A pedophile may NEVER touch a child, but still be a pedophile. Just as a homosexual may marry the opposite sex, and never have a homosexual relationship....they are still homosexually oriented. Just as a homosexual can not act on homosexual tendencies, pedophiles can also not act on pedophile tendencies. Not acting on it doesn't change the orientation.
A person who molests a child is not automatically a pedophile. Many molesters see children as easy targets, nothing more, and take advantage of the situational opportunity. They aren't sexually oriented towards children, they see an easy way to get sexual gratification while their primary "orientation" is towards adults of the same or opposite sex....they simply take advantage of the opportunity the innocence of children provides. I researched this a few years ago while discussing this with my JW cousin, incidentally. People misapply the term "pedophile". HOWEVER, that is not to say that pedophiles don't molest. Every child molester is a child molester, but not every child molester is a pedophile.
If you actually researched pedophelia and child molesters, you would find there is a difference. The scientific data of repeat offenders most likely shows that molesters are astute at finding opportunities and taking advantage of them for cheap thrills. The sick bastards.
I don't want my post to come off in ANY WAY as support or defense for pedophelia or child molesters. Both are abhorrent...I'm simply addressing the technical differences. I was molested by an aunt...I don't believe she is a pedophile...I think she was an opportunist. OTOH, my step-grandfather who molested me....he was a pedophile.
Corinthian
You are 100 percent correct In terms of the use of the technical terms and meanings

But in everyday conversation If someone says to you and you have 2 young kids ----that the group home across the steet just got their first pedophile Resident.

Trust me ---the technical meaning to you and your neighbors with kids will NOT be hotly debated

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jehovah, the God of "Truth" 2 min Anonymous Brother 46
YES- People WILL get OUT of HELL! (Nov '15) 3 min ihveit 2,548
Shunning someone is a sin! 6 min BetheljudgmentDan... 20
Read below and say you believe they have the truth 29 min pcloadletter 273
continuation on michael and the resurrection of... 33 min BetheljudgmentDan... 95
Not one single quote from WTBTS that armageddon... (May '14) 38 min BetheljudgmentDan... 695
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael (Sep '14) 38 min imagoodboy 7,250
1914 52 min BetheljudgmentDan... 206
So far away 1 hr Irishdub 63
More from around the web