Evacuated

@JOHN BUTLER
First of all I want to say I am very sorry you had such terrible experiences as a child. I understand more now how this issue must affect you.
Also I think we’ve had quite a bit of misunderstanding here  as well. I am sorry I doubted the pedophilia  problem was the only reason you left JW.  You make a lot of accusatory statements  but you don’t back them up with facts.  I know, this would take a long time so here are just a few facts that I am familiar with; Yes, there is no doubt that some elders mishandled child molestation cases. I know of one personally in my old congregation in England which involved an influential elder.  When his disgusting behaviour was found out (he actually never had sex with his victims, but he was a groper) he was merely removed from his position as Elder but remained a full time pioneer.  This happened  sometime in the late 80’s. I was  a teenager busy with my teenage life so I didn’t pay much attention at the time. I just remember the notoriety and rumours surrounding this man. Even my mum told me some stuff about him. Anyway, a few months ago I got to talking to a friend on FB.  I will call her Jane. She had faded about 25 years ago and is no longer attending meetings etc. The conversation turned to a  mutual friend of ours from the same cong. and I said I had the feeling that her dad had abused her as a child and that is why she was messed up.  Jane then proceeded to tell me that when she was in her early teens this elder would grope her inappropriately while having Bible study with her. She never said anything to anyone then.  Some months later the same Elder made a big mistake by groping the breast of another friend of mine while she was breastfeeding her first child (at an assembly of all things!). When the father of that sister found out he went ballistic and said if he ever sees that elder he will kill him. (I remembered that).  This got the attention of the elders in the hall and they began to handle the matter. In the meantime my friend Jane did a #metoo and I believe another sister came forward as well.  Like I said, a judicial committee was held in another city, with the CO involved, but all that happened was the elder got stripped of his position. Jane told me that she had to sleep with the lights on for weeks in fear that this elder would get her because she ratted on him.  I didn’t know anything about this at the time. She also told me that she holds no grudge against the org. That they did the best they could in those days as it wasn’t the custom in society ( I mean society in general)  to deal with those things the same way as they are being dealt with now.  She told me her parents weren’t discouraged from going to the police, but they never went.  I guess because it didn’t involve rape.  (The father was not a JW).  Why I am telling you this real life story is because it highlights a few factors.
 1. Child molestation (sexual or otherwise) was not discussed in society in general some decades ago.
2. What happened and how/if things were dealt with in the congregation was very much a matter of how much fuss there was made. This depended on:
3. People. The congregations are comprised of all kinds of people, some very shy and others very outspoken. The father of the sister who was breastfeeding was very outspoken. My mother, if anything like this would have happened to me, would have been very outspoken, no questions asked she would have caused an almighty fuss. And if she deemed it necessary she would have marched to the police, no questions asked.  And she is a very spiritual and zealous JW and the elders respected her very much.
I am sure you have heard of the Candace Conti case while you were doing your research. The Conti case was a classic example of a dysfunctional family that was not fully aware of what was happening in their own lives, never mind that of their child (Candace).  My friend Jane’s parents were not bad, but they were different to my family. Had the elder groped me while having Bible study I would have gone straight to my mum and told her what happened. I know I would have done that because my mum and I have a very close and communicative relationship. In fact an uncle of mine (not a JW) groped me one day ( I was 14) and I went straight to my mum and told her about it. She went straight to her sister (my aunt, also not a JW) and told her what her husband did to me. So my aunt went straight to the uncle, furious. Needless to say my uncle never touched me again.
You see it takes all kinds of people who make up a congregation, and that is why no single case is the same, and why some cases never come to the fore until decades later, and why some cases drag on and never seem to get resolved.
What I take away from all this is that of course no elder or publisher or parent, or anyone in their right mind wants to shield child molesters. Of course the org. doesn’t want to shield child molesters.  No one does. (Why would anyone want a pedophile running lose in their congregation?! The elders have children too!) The only people that are protective of child molesters are those who are in the child porn and human trafficking industry.  And if you want to look at it from a very logical perspective, why would Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their ultra high moral standards, of all people, would want to willingly shield someone who was practicing the vilest of moral depravity?
For decades JWs have been publishing magazines on the dangers of moral decline and the dangers of child sexual molestations and took it even further than “stranger danger” by drawing attention to the fact that this danger can come from  people the child knows, and even from family members. I still remember that Awake magazine. Did the dysfunctional families that needed to read this information read it? Probably not....
There is no denying the child sexual molestation issue was not always dealt with in the correct way, but it seems none of the ideas (like not reporting to police) came from instructions from the org. but was decided on by the body of elders, or sometimes even just one dominant elder. In the past, the elders were not required to call the branch for advice like they are now, and they pretty much did their own thing. This is the reason why now elders have to call the branch as soon as anything like this comes to light, so that they get consistent  instruction on what to do.
And yes, I believe the ARC did us a good service. I believe it was because of them our child policies have become transparent across the board in the shape of the Child protection packet:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection
As for the two witness rule, well that is not much different to secular authorities implementation of "innocent until proven guilty". But notice in par 10 of the document it mentions this: "If an alleged abuser is a member of the congregation, the elders conduct a Scriptural investigation. This is a purely religious proceeding handled by elders according to Scriptural instructions and is limited to the issue of membership as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A member of the congregation who is an unrepentant child abuser is expelled from the congregation and is no longer considered one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (1 Corinthians 5:13) The elders’ handling of an accusation of child abuse is not a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter".—Romans 13:1-4.
So in view of that, the two witness rule applies only in a congregational setting. If secular authorities find enough evidence to convict said perpetrator, and this is where it gets interesting, then even if elders have not gathered enough evidence to support their decision to disfellowship or not disfellowship, then the fact that said perpetrator has been charged with sexual molestation will automatically warrant a disfellowshipping. So either way, the perpetrator will not escape punishment.

@Ann O'Maly Unfortunately you are digging into motive that cannot possibly be known from the information provided. You present an unproven and emotive claim as fact, and then draw conclusions based on that assumption. You also appear to be fuelling the fire of controversy with a statement about dedication/commitment to an Organisation
To  assert such an assessment of motive on the basis of a video that describes briefly an interaction between two persons unknown (to me) about an incident not witnessed (by me) is a step too far (for me). 
All I see (from the videos you cite) is a father exercising his parental right to withhold an maturity related privilege. I cannot accept your extrapolation of motive and strategy without actually speaking to the parties involved and assessing the event, the motives, the understanding, the outcomes etc,  What you are doing reminds me of Ahasuerus wrongly interpreting the intentions of Haman at Esther 7:8.
Obviously, bribing or coercing minors to dedicate themselves to Jehovah to obtain a drivers permit is unacceptable. It is also stupid, as it would render void that dedication anyway. On that basis alone, your interpretation of Anthony Morris's intention in relating this matter seems to me (on face value at least) highly implausible.

Just noticed I never got back on your post.
I think coercion and blackmail are too extreme as terms for what is going on in your hypothetical scenario. But I do see a father using his authority unwisely, unfairly, and unkindly. Unfairly particularly, because the level of maturity indicated by the son's sensible attitude to the seriousness of the marriage commitment has no relevance to his qualifying for permission to obtain a driver's permit.
As for the scenario's validity to the discussion on a minor prioritising working toward dedication over seeking a driving permit or vice-versa, I see absolutely no relevance at all. As previously stated: 
 

Bit like the fruitage of the sprit (of which love is mentioned) "Against such things there is no law". Gal.5:23.
Like so many of such questions raised in this forum, this is a matter for individuals to decide. 
 
Dugogodišnja sloboda.

This is the oldest argument. And the oldest lie is based upon it at Gen.3:4-5. It does need some qualification, as subtlety of meaning is an effective instrument in the wrong hands, as the arch-interferer is well aware.
However, I do agree with de-mything the nature of Jehovah's involvement in the affairs of men. He is no genie in a magic bottle, and neither does anyone, servant or otherwise, have a charmed life.
As the originator and definer of "freedom", Jehovah never "interferes" in the the affairs of men, but he does" intervene" in a such a way as to thwart the purpose and plans of those who seek to "interfere" with his. Part of the core message Christians proclaim in connection with the "kingdom of God" is a notification of this very fact.

.."he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’ . He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.” LUke 10:37-38.
Start from the Scripture. You can't go wrong.
 

Bit like the fruitage of the sprit (of which love is mentioned) "Against such things there is no law". Gal.5:23.
Like so many of such questions raised in this forum, this is a matter for individuals to decide. 
 
Dugogodišnja sloboda.

Bit like the fruitage of the sprit (of which love is mentioned) "Against such things there is no law". Gal.5:23.
Like so many of such questions raised in this forum, this is a matter for individuals to decide. 
 
Dugogodišnja sloboda.

(Genesis 9:6) 6 Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image He made man.
 (Proverbs 28:17) 17 A man burdened with bloodguilt for taking someone’s life will keep fleeing until the grave. Let no one support him.
 Both of these remedies would be difficult to achieve for a man taking his own life. So there is a difference in taking your own life and taking someone else’s life.
 (Revelation 21:8) But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and the sexually immoral and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This means the second death.”
 Murder is something willful and thought out. Note what the scripture says will happen to murderers.
*** w02 6/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
If someone commits suicide, would it be advisable for a Christian minister to give the funeral talk
….
Any future prospect for the dead is in the hands of Jehovah, and no one is in a position to say whether the deceased will be resurrected or not. The minister can concentrate on the Bible truths about death and offer comfort for the bereaved.
 =====
You seem quite capable of doing your own research.

I think I know where you are coming from on this, but the example needs a bit more thought.
In John 8:22 didn't the Jewish religious leaders accuse Jesus of being on a suicide mission? "The Jews then began to say: “He will not kill himself, will he? Because he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’’”
It seems a bit insulting to suggest that Jesus was on some sort of Kamikaze stunt. Even the term "suicide mission" seems to be wide of the mark in view of it's definition: "a task which is so dangerous for the people involved that they are not expected to survive."
It seems out of harmony with the thought of Psalm 16:10 "For you will not leave me in the Grave.You will not allow your loyal one to see the pit."
If Jesus had not been absolutely and correctly convinced of the resurrection in order for him to compete his mission, then surely he would literally have been "pitied more than anyone."?
The "known "suicide mission"" perception would only be in the mind of an unbeliever, surely?

Get some glass in yer hornrims!

I think I know where you are coming from on this, but the example needs a bit more thought.
In John 8:22 didn't the Jewish religious leaders accuse Jesus of being on a suicide mission? "The Jews then began to say: “He will not kill himself, will he? Because he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’’”
It seems a bit insulting to suggest that Jesus was on some sort of Kamikaze stunt. Even the term "suicide mission" seems to be wide of the mark in view of it's definition: "a task which is so dangerous for the people involved that they are not expected to survive."
It seems out of harmony with the thought of Psalm 16:10 "For you will not leave me in the Grave.You will not allow your loyal one to see the pit."
If Jesus had not been absolutely and correctly convinced of the resurrection in order for him to compete his mission, then surely he would literally have been "pitied more than anyone."?
The "known "suicide mission"" perception would only be in the mind of an unbeliever, surely?

Only thing is that he was killed by the Roman State, aided and abetted by the Jewish leaders and Judas (like a sheep to the slaughter). If he wanted at any time to commit suicide he would have jumped down from the battlement of the temple willingly. 

@Jay Witness asked:   Will people who have committed suicide get a resurrection?
Hmmm! ...............................Above my pay grade.  

You're outa touch my baby, my poor old fashioned baby........

it’s not our job to judge who will or won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands.—John 5:22, 27.

it’s not our job to judge who will or won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands.—John 5:22, 27.

Nevertheless, possible. I've never been one for what seems the straight(forward) path always, as it can often be the opposite, with an undesirable outcome. However I will acept that there could  be some in Corinth who did not share Paul's censure of that man's wrongdoing  in view of the  earlier tolerance.  

Nevertheless, possible. I've never been one for what seems the straight(forward) path always, as it can often be the opposite, with an undesirable outcome. However I will acept that there could  be some in Corinth who did not share Paul's censure of that man's wrongdoing  in view of the  earlier tolerance.  

Just wondering if this is the right slant here. It would seem your suggestion is that there is a majority, not unanimous. view in the congregation that this man was deserving of exclusion.
Could it not be read that the descriptive "majority" is actually a reference to those NOT engagaged in the immoral conduct as contrasted with the "minority" who were?

You know Jack .... I think it is hypocritical to the extreme that you are very concerned about the Kingdom Hall's networking system getting into YOUR laptop computer or devices, ...... yet you are indignant, and you seem to think you have a natural right to get into THEIRS.

@Jack Ryan 
Interesting to see that you highlight how the JW Elders in Japan are clearly unitedly following the direction of the Governing Body as per the letter of December 2, 2017 
 

Unfortunately, this stance is often a feature of hypocrisy. [cite any number of religio/political examples here].
However, I agree with the concept that humans, whoever they are, do not have the moral high ground ultimately. This belongs to Jehovah alone and I think this particular matter is an example of this.
We must not overlook the sobering fact that, at the present time, the words of Romans 13:3-4 still hold true regarding the secular authorities:
"For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad."

Most assemblies don't word it quite that way. I have seen only a couple that made my eyebrow raise a little.
I think most people don't realize how much it costs to run an assembly hall too.

Unfortunately, this stance is often a feature of hypocrisy. [cite any number of religio/political examples here].
However, I agree with the concept that humans, whoever they are, do not have the moral high ground ultimately. This belongs to Jehovah alone and I think this particular matter is an example of this.
We must not overlook the sobering fact that, at the present time, the words of Romans 13:3-4 still hold true regarding the secular authorities:
"For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad."