JOHN BUTLER

It says: "Depending on the facts of the actual situation, this COULD constitute sexual immorality". In other words if the actual situation involved intercourse/oral sex, then that would constitute sexual immorality.......(and would be grounds for divorce).

It's crazy to me that now a lap-dance is fornication/porneia. Which means it is also grounds for divorce!

I was sitting beside a friend who expressed his discontent over the explicit detail in a magazine "that kids are supposed to read as well"

I’d like to know under what facts they would not consider this sexual immorality. Like if the stripper wasn’t really into it so you didn’t feel you got your money’s worth?

Although this will leave open the question of what exactly gyrating means.... LOL

- truthful information's about all cases from past to today
- put free space for listeners to make own conclusions and possibility to express it in responding comments, letters, talks, etc.
- list of those who are dfd for molestation's 
- list of those who are sentenced by Courts for molestation's
- how much money was payed for various expenses  
- collectively asking for forgiveness, apologize to victims
 
I am sure how some of this points you would support too. :))    

The new rules now ALLOW Elders, are now there's the rub, ALLOW. It only allows them to, but if it is an accusation against a fellow Elder they might not want to report it to the outside authorities. So nothing gained. 
And if there are not Two Witnesses then elders may feel there is 'no case to answer' as there is no real proof. Remember that they have been indoctrinated for years. New rules might not make any difference to their attitudes. 

Um, Scripture, SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES ARE IN PLACE BECAUSE GOD WANTS THEM THERE. THEY ARE DOING GOD'S WORK IN THIS OLD SYSTEM OF THINGS. THEY ARE THERE TO PUNISH THOSE WHO BREAK THE LAW. 
Sorry it's all capitals but you seem a bit blind. 

I apologise, I didn't link your comment with TTH's comment. And I can now see where you were coming from.
Ops, sorry.  
 

(paragraph) 6 A sin against the congregation
"We do not tolerate in our midst individuals who unrepentantly commit wicked deeds and who bring reproach on the good name of the congregation."
Um, how is it then that some Elders have been found to have commited sex offencies against more than one child and a lot more than once per child, in a congregation ? 
Court cases prove this point. 

Paragraph 17. What is the role of the judicial committee?
" The elders do not interfere with law enforcement; they leave criminal matters to the secular authorities. "
But they may withhold paperwork / documents /notes, from the police or authorities, even when requested to hand them over. 

Any comments on JW Elders using Clergy Privilege to withhold information of child abuse ?
Just a paragraph form a report online :-
The two elders didn’t tell police. They, and the congregation, now face a lawsuit from the Delaware attorney general accusing them of violating the state’s mandated reporting laws. The defendants claim the elders were protected from having to report the abuse by a legal exemption for clergy.
Is this a massive loophole ? 

Yes but if there are not two witnesses then there will be 'no case to answer', especially if the accused is an Elder. 
And if there is 'no case to answer' then there will of course be nothing to report to the authorities. 
And if the victim continues to make complaint against the Elder, then the victim will be disfellowshipped for slander. 
I have the mag up online now. 
" 15 In the congregation, before the elders take judicial action, why are at least two witnesses required? This requirement is part of the Bible’s high standard of justice. "
Is this really the case in Child Abuse ? Does it say this in the Bible regarding Child Abuse ?
I think not. I think it refers to a disagreement between two adults. 
I do not think God or Christ would put this pressure on young children. 

I am sure you won't wish a cop living in your home. In any case it was not a serious suggestion by Tom.

But the cops might be immoral too, or even pedophiles also.Who knows. Would create a bigger problem.
 

Hopefully that has not happened.
Without weighing in on whether he is bad association or not, he is one of the very few who offered constructive criticism of CSA matters. Whether he should have done so on this forum is a matter for others to haggle over, but the fact is that he did and I benefited from it.
For example, the Philadelphia.com slimed JWs with a front page lead that must have been seen by everyone in the city and well beyond. It was too much for me.  I subsequently declared war on this sort of thing. I submitted a reply to them. This was a big deal for me, to reply at length to a prominent source and tell them they owed it to their readers to publish my reply as prominently as they published the slam. There was a chance that they would do so. I didn’t want to screw it up. I ran it by JWI privately, knowing he has Bethel experience, he reasons well, and he wants to see CSA matters resolved WITHOUT burning Bethel to the ground. (the solution of the opposers) He did not disappoint me. He made valuable suggestions, most of which I accepted.
What follows is what I sent to the Philly source, followed by the refined version that is an early chapter of TTvtAp.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/an-open-letter-to-the-philadelphia-inquirer-because-they-did-not-acknowlege-much-less-print-the-sent.html
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/four-incendiary-articles.html
So he helped me. A lot. I don’t care if he is bad association or not. If I was worried about bad association, I would not be here. Nor would you.
It takes a while to know the players & you do not know them yet. Both of us worked very hard to retain him on this forum. Besides, I am not sure that he is gone. As for JWI, he spots him everywhere as does the groundhog his shadow.
 I pleaded with @The Librarian (that old hen) that if for nothing else, Allen should be honored because he proves the resurrection.
As to your point about John being more obnoxious and still remaining here, THAT point is certainly valid.

S. Lett delivered message how WT and JW members are "holy people" who respecting Bible moral standards and teachings about sexuality. By that reason JW people condemns depravity as pedophilia. 
What S. Lett didn't said is, that WT policy and rules, instruction how to handle inside cases when own members molesting JW kids, are very questionable and how such weak, inadequate, misguided approach to pedophiles, shows that WT is not capable of solving problems in their own home. 
Another thing that S. Lett didn't said is, from where coming expression "permissive". Who, what ex-JW individual or group used terminology "permissive" in this context? What You-Tube video or individual letter accused WTJWorg for "permissiveness" about pedophiles? 
As i can conclude from YT videos i saw, ex-JW or pedophiles victims talking about wrong treatments of elders and WT rules that are in fact working in favor to wrongdoers and leaving victims without "justice", and even put victims to be as guilty part because they are not "able to prove accusations", or even contribute to be a victims.
Such WT policy can be seen as "permissive", and it is, no matter what was the intentions of WT Creators when making rules about how to handle and processing child molestation accusation. 
S. Lett, (with some other TV preachers on JWTV) made another manipulation on Public JWTV. Never told about Court cases and out of Court deals, and how much money WT gave, by Court decision or by settlement, to victims. Omitting to talk about it, on JWTV as worldwide instrument to share spiritual food and instructions to Brotherhood, WT leaders showed and still showing sort of "permissiveness", not so much to pedophiles, but to own Wrong Ideas and Teachings and to themselves as Pioneers who created bad administrative regulations on issue, and now they do not want to admit their own guilt.

The new rules now ALLOW Elders, are now there's the rub, ALLOW. It only allows them to, but if it is an accusation against a fellow Elder they might not want to report it to the outside authorities. So nothing gained. 
And if there are not Two Witnesses then elders may feel there is 'no case to answer' as there is no real proof. Remember that they have been indoctrinated for years. New rules might not make any difference to their attitudes. 

Um, Scripture, SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES ARE IN PLACE BECAUSE GOD WANTS THEM THERE. THEY ARE DOING GOD'S WORK IN THIS OLD SYSTEM OF THINGS. THEY ARE THERE TO PUNISH THOSE WHO BREAK THE LAW. 
Sorry it's all capitals but you seem a bit blind. 

Quote "The unsettling aspect of the CSA cases is that many chose not to do it because they thought they might be bringing reproach on God’s name." 
The unsettling TRUTH is that it seems that MANY were TOLD it WOULD bring reproach on God's name. Now who would tell them such things ? Elders maybe ? 
Quote "It is not easy to get between a mama bear and her cub. You make it sound like a walk in the park. "
Now i'm sure most of you do not believe a word I say, or even a word any victim says BUT It seems to have been proved in court cases that Elders take children on the ministry, and, Elders do private Bible study with children. 
The JW Org gives the appearance of being a 'Safe Place To Be'. A place where people can be trusted because they are 'serving God'. 
So, people trust others to spend time with their children. So yes it can be a 'walk in the park' for a prdophile. 
Quote "The two witness rule becomes irrelevant.. " How blind you pretend to be.
In places where reporting Child Sex Abuse is THE LAW, it would rely on that Two Witness rule.  Because the Elders would say 'no  case to answer' without Two Witnesses, so the Elders would say 'nothing to report'. 
And of course you end your comment with sarcasm, trying to belittle us that complain and to mock the situation.
Unfortunately i'm seeing that as typical JW stance now. 
But that W/t is proof that the GB are worried, not about people of course, about the money it's costing in fines. 

Why the heck is WT trying to assert the clergy-penitent privilege to allow elders to NOT report to authorities?
Exhibit A: (State of Delaware v. Laurel Delaware Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Joel Mulchansingh and William Perkins)[https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/superior-court/2016/n14c-05-122-mmj-0.html).
Relevant quote from the case, the JW crew being the defendants:
Does that sound like the organization is 'endeavoring' to report abuse? They are 'endeavoring' to legally NOT report abuse. That's how the hell they're trying to comply with secular laws.
I'm sorry for the language, but these *%&$*()*$ are writing articles to the general JW with the obvious intent of making it look like they're TRYING to report abuse and they're not. They're simply not.

And it took how many years for their "Guardians of the Doctrine" to realize things weren’t right with this issue?

But it is their job right? They are trained professionals,  right? Unlike any person called a wt elder. 

Sadly it has taken the secular courts in many countries to force this to happen. Not by the desire to protect,  not the pleas of the victims, and not because of what is right, it is solely because of the loss of money. 
 

is it ok for a JW fireman to rescue people from a burning church?
This is how JW's constantly think..... get real folks...