Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually the qualifications for elders are laid out in the Bible, first of all they must meet those qualifications, then they are appointed, that is not to say that they will continue to meet those qualifications. If for some reason it is found that they are failing to live up to strict Bible standards, their qualifications as elders are put under sc ...[text shortened]... are, 13 cases too much 4sure, but you cant touch us, we are too awesome and so are our elders.

"If for some reason it is found that they are failing to live up to strict Bible standards, their qualifications as elders are put under scrutiny and if they are found wanting, they no longer qualify to be elders and will be removed."

do you think the elders in the article will be removed? is not reporting child abuse to the police a reason to remove them?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b] "If for some reason it is found that they are failing to live up to strict Bible standards, their qualifications as elders are put under scrutiny and if they are found wanting, they no longer qualify to be elders and will be removed."

do you think the elders in the article will be removed? is not reporting child abuse to the police a reason to remove them?[/b]

no its up to the individual and their parents to report child abuse, the elders can only advise them to do so, unless they have actually seen the crime. I did not read the article, i shall merely reiterate our stance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its up to the individual and their parents to report child abuse, the elders can only advise them to do so, unless they have actually seen the crime. I did not read the article, i shall merely reiterate our stance.

it was the abuser who approached the elders and told them what he was doing. they didnt contact the police and refused to be witnesses in the court case.

surely that is against j.w. policy??

Originally posted by stellspalfie
it was the abuser who approached the elders and told them what he was doing. they didnt contact the police and refused to be witnesses in the court case.

surely that is against j.w. policy??

They should have instructed the abused and his or her parents to go to the police and there may be no legal framework which compels them to report the crime. What also is not stated is that they may have a legal requirement to maintain confidentiality and take it very seriously and it seems that they were unwilling to breach that, (I am sure that the same right exists in the case of lawyers or accountants that they need not disclose incriminating evidence for example in the financial improprieties of their clients) or in the case of catholic priests hearing confessions, therefore their refusal seems lawful although you can argue against its moral implications.

I generally never comment on articles like this is that you have only a single perspective and its been my experience that there is always two sides to the story and the truth somewhere in between.

Our policy on child abuse and reporting has been validated by the charities commission and I suspect that they are satisfied with it.

The real bone of contention is this here,

“Privileged communication between members of the congregation and ministers is an absolute right and duty and there is no power in law to breach such a confidence.”

the imperative being, there is no power in law, so they acted lawfully, but you can of course question the wisdom of withholding the information. The sensationalistic claims of the article are rubbish, there was not a cover up, they claim the right of privilege and the fact that the mans wife also died was irrelevant, usual tabloid junk for airheads to suck up.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
They should have instructed the abused and his or her parents to go to the police and there may be no legal framework which compels them to report the crime. What also is not stated is that they may have a legal requirement to maintain confidentiality and take it very seriously and it seems that they were unwilling to breach that, (I am sure that th ...[text shortened]... he fact that the mans wife also died was irrelevant, usual tabloid junk for airheads to suck up.

you said earlier that if an abuser told elders what he had done they would approach the victims parents rather than go to the police.....isnt that a breach of confidence????? make up your mind, can they tell other people or not? if they can tell parents why cant they tell police???? and whats stopping them from appearing in court?????

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you said earlier that if an abuser told elders what he had done they would approach the victims parents rather than go to the police.....isnt that a breach of confidence????? make up your mind, can they tell other people or not? if they can tell parents why cant they tell police???? and whats stopping them from appearing in court?????

It may well be, but the difference with Jehovahs witnesses is that the abuser is usually someone within the family and therefore counselling is given to the entire family or at very least those involved. You have as much information as I do, either they have the right to privilege as minsters of religion as the law states or they do not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It may well be, but the difference with Jehovahs witnesses is that the abuser is usually someone within the family and therefore counselling is given to the entire family or at very least those involved. You have as much information as I do, either they have the right to privilege as minsters of religion as the law states or they do not.

i applaud your people for counselling the whole family. but counselling will amount to nothing if the threat to the family is not removed. the elders should make it a priority to go to the police and have the abuser arrested. ive recently started working with victims of abuse (and abusers) the situations in which the abuser hasnt been taken out of the family leads to catastrophic results, especially with the future mental well being of the victim. i can think of no sensible reason for the elders not to report and not to appear in court.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i applaud your people for counselling the whole family. but counselling will amount to nothing if the threat to the family is not removed. the elders should make it a priority to go to the police and have the abuser arrested. ive recently started working with victims of abuse (and abusers) the situations in which the abuser hasnt been taken out of the f ...[text shortened]... ctim. i can think of no sensible reason for the elders not to report and not to appear in court.

this is the position as it stands,

Cases of alleged abuse are reported to secular authorities if required by local laws or as instructed by the local branch office. A press release issued in 2003 by Jehovah's Witnesses' Office of Public Information stated: "In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, the elders receive proper legal direction to ensure that they comply with the law."[2] The Watchtower has outlined the following policy: "Depending on the law of the land where he lives, the molester may well have to serve a prison term or face other sanctions from the State. The congregation will not protect him from this."[18] A 2002 memo to all congregations stated: "Our position is that secular authorities deal with crime while elders deal with sin."[3] Even where there is no mandatory reporting requirement, victims or others having knowledge of an incident of sexual abuse must not be discouraged from reporting it.[27]

Congregation elders are required to first contact the organization's legal department in cases of alleged abuse to establish whether there is a legal duty to report the sex crime to the civil authorities or not.[29] In Canada, elders were advised:[30]

There is a duty to report when one has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is abuse or a substantial risk of abuse and parents have failed to protect the child. The report shall be made forthwith to the local child welfare authorities. […] Elders must be aware, however, that once they have knowledge, they have an obligation. They cannot just hope that someone else will report. They must follow through quickly, and be sure that it is done."

The elders' previous manual, Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, stated: "Though it is not the responsibility of the Christian congregation to enforce Caesar's laws, the very nature of some crimes demands that they be reported to secular authorities."[31] A 1995 memo to elders stated: "Many states make it mandatory that elders report an accusation to the proper authorities but other states do not. In those states where such is required, oftentimes the parent, the guardian, or the accused person himself can do the reporting."[32] This stance was made public on the Society's official media relations website in 1997.[2]

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is the position as it stands,

Cases of alleged abuse are reported to secular authorities if required by local laws or as instructed by the local branch office. A press release issued in 2003 by Jehovah's Witnesses' Office of Public Information stated: "In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to ...[text shortened]... e was made public on the Society's official media relations website in 1997.[2]

was this passed to the elders from god?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
was this passed to the elders from god?

don't be silly

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I asked you because i know that those who claim to speak in tongues are fraudulent, because as Galveston pointed out, the gift was to be able to speak a specific language, not some gobbledygook, that you seem unaware is rather telling, shall we demonstrate to you where in the Bible it states that they were speaking specific languages rather than gobb ...[text shortened]... y those who profess to speak in tongues today do not speak a specific language but gobbledygook.

Good comment Robbie...

Originally posted by stellspalfie
was this passed to the elders from god?

No it had to come thru RJH first.... Ha!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I asked you because i know that those who claim to speak in tongues are fraudulent, because as Galveston pointed out, the gift was to be able to speak a specific language, not some gobbledygook, that you seem unaware is rather telling, shall we demonstrate to you where in the Bible it states that they were speaking specific languages rather than gobb ...[text shortened]... y those who profess to speak in tongues today do not speak a specific language but gobbledygook.

You do err, not knowing what is written. These verses contradict what you and Gman are professing...

1 Cor 14:2-5
2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.
NKJV

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You do err, not knowing what is written. These verses contradict what you and Gman are professing...

1 Cor 14:2-5
2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a ...[text shortened]... peaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.
NKJV

epic fail, you have still not addressed the fact that the Bible states that those who heard others speaking in tongues heard a specific language, their own language in which they were born, that is what the Bibles states, I produced the verses, why don't you simply address the fact instead of doing what the vast majority of evangelicals do try to avoid it by flirting from verse to verse in the hope that it will go away.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
epic fail, you have still not addressed the fact that the Bible states that those who heard others speaking in tongues heard a specific language, their own language in which they were born, that is what the Bibles states, I produced the verses, why don't you simply address the fact instead of doing what the vast majority of evangelicals do try to avoid it by flirting from verse to verse in the hope that it will go away.

I believe that was a one time phenomenon. Speaking in tongues was new, and God wanted some to hear what was being said.
Now, can you tell me why you ignore the verses I posted?