James Thomas Rook Jr.

Whoah!...... hang on here! What's everyone getting worked up about?
This is a semi-fictitious blog account about an anonymous persons' unverified experience of incidents, some years past, spoken to an ex-lawyer turned blogger, then written down by the said blogger with the prime objective of gathering clicks.
Spending time on debating supposed moral issues raised by this stunted and deformed  account makes about as much sense as taking seriously incidents presented by that other ex-lawyer turned blogger who has hosted a similarly themed video blog show.
His name escapes me at the moment???? He was actually born in the UK, but got popular on US TV...........who was he????. It'll come to me in a minute ...fake histrionics.....accused of inciting violence betweeen show participants....etc etc...  they're going to call him "Judge Jerry" soon.......................I got it!    Gerald Norman Springer. 

I apologize. It was not meant as an insult or name calling. It was a quote from scripture that the other member would understand. It will not happen again.

This is what I mean, Ben.  Your immediate reaction is to doubt the victim's story.  It's her story, she's the one who told it, not Jay Witness.  Jay linked to where the victim's story is.  
I truly do not understand how someone who was abused as a child could react as you have to Shelley's experience. Wouldn't you have wanted your story to be accepted as being true and wanted compassion and understanding instead of accusations of lying and slander; instead you took judgmental attitude, nitpicking about a word she used, which turns out to be the exact word she should have used taking her audience into consideration.

As a survivor of childhood abuse I am well aware of the long term effects.
I am not accusing the victim of slander. I am accusing the author.  I do not believe the original post to be authored by a victim. I believe it to be fiction designed to trap the ignorant and weak minded.
 

I do not condone abuse of any kind. If these things happened to this person it is truly appalling. There are plenty of people out there who would speak lies in an attempt to damage the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization. You seem interested in anything that would do just that. 
I do not claim that the organization is perfect, or infallible, or inspired. There have obviously been things that could have been handled differently. Any organization made up of imperfect humans will have its failings. It is a sad thing that people have been abused, and their abusers have used scriptural principles to hide their atrocities. In the end they will answer for their sins just like you and I will. It is quite possible they will pay a heavy price for their sins that have stumbled others.
Having said all that, I seriously doubt the validity of the original post based on the reference to hell, and I will always speak up in defense of the brotherhood when people like you attempt to twist things to suit your own agendas.

Out of HUNDREDS of JW men that I have met over 40+ years in the organization only TWO seemed metrosexual.
One left a homosexual lifestyle and became a JW ... the other left bethel to become a "flaming homosexual".
The % rate seems rather low to me.

I opened a service meeting part once with that experience of a hostile householder telling our brother to talk to his dog if he wanted to speak with anybody. Whereupon the brother knelt and did just that, after which he straightened up and told the householder:  “You’re dog wants a double-sub.”
Young Stevie, who nobody thought was paying the slightest bit attention, seemingly asleep, said to his parents: “What’s Brother Harley talking about? Dogs can’t talk!”

I would not be a good judge of that, even if I wanted to, as I am neither pleasant, nor refined, by choice.
My only claim is to be a Barbarian, interested in Truth and Justice, and fairness.
And I have no love whatsoever for "Big Brother", wherever, and in whatever form,  he may be found.
....   since we are extrapolating with fictional characters, may I remind you of Ferengi Rule of Acquisition No. 48 ... "The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife."
 
 

I prefer immersion for cereal, and sprinkles for bran muffins.

According to court transcripts, and testimony from Witness victims and their families, this is patently UNTRUE, 
Evidence from Australia, to California, to Deleware, to England supports this.
I am not calling you a liar, BillyTheKid46. because I know you believe this to be true.
People have been disfellowshipped, and THREATENED with disfellowshipping for taking such things to secular authorities, for the past 50 years or so that records have been kept.
I don't believe ANYONE at "face value", but I have seen a lifetime of agenda driven attitude that DOES contribute a vast warm  petri dish environment for this.
...and the cover dish is open.

...
 

Where is the fun in that?
lighten up ... you will live longer and be a lot happier.

Sometimes you eat  the Bear ...... sometimes the Bear eats you.
 

It's talking about pagan judges, judging on matters (disputes) that should be figured out by the congregation who use the Bible which is superior (God is judge) as their guide. They're not talking about "pagan" judges, judging a criminal case. Don't keep mixing the two up. Does it need to give specifics? It clearly says disputes. Of course unless like some elders you believe child molestation is a dispute....

Well you obviously didn't get it either! Because ALL of this was talking about disputes, such as business disputes, not crime. Crime is not a dispute; Theft is not a dispute. Rape is not a dispute. Child molestation is not a dispute. Murder is not a dispute. These are ALL crimes. The subject of the WT was not crime.
So John, if you had been an elder you would have applied it wrongly too!

Sometimes you eat  the Bear ...... sometimes the Bear eats you.
 

You can only temporarily "rent" draft beer!

The problem with the video is that the commentator (by that I mean the critic) is obviously slanting it towards child abuse. I am not saying it may not apply, but it is a general video about all areas of function. America is the land of lawsuits, and it forces one to protect oneself down to ridiculous minuscule specifics. What if this.....what if that..... Sometimes it's things that a normal person wouldn't even think of (well not a European person for sure). It was only recently that I found out that the reason many landowners put no trespassing signs up is not necessarily because they want privacy, but because they are worried about lawsuits. What if someone walking through their land twists their ankle on a twig? Yup, that person can sue. And the more money a defendant has, the better. So it makes logical sense to destroy drafts and notes which may be used as evidence against you. I would not want someone reading my drafts, they may get a completely wrong picture of what I am trying to say.
The important thing is that approved content is not destroyed. Those kind of records have to be kept. So the accusation that records have been destroyed needs to be specific. Were these drafts of records or content approved records? This is the question that the BBC report is asking. So far apparently the evidence is that content approved records have not been destroyed.

This is why Elders are admonished not to interfere with the secular authority's investigation.
So was the video of the brother telling Elders to destroy evidence because 'Satan is coming after the Organisation', true or false ? 

The key word is CERTAIN documents. The accusation is that these are documents needed by the commission. What if they are not?

What if a police officer is arresting you for being a drunk driver, and you only have a bad case of the flu?
Refuse to be taken to jail?
Same thing.

I don't think it gives specifics. And it talks about pagan judges, when God has put them judges in their place to do God's work as scripture tells us. So the GB / Writing dept' are actually going against God's rules. 

Thanks for posting that. It doesn't prove anything you said, in fact it indicates this may be "all apostate lies"
While the BBC’s report is correct that all Kingdom Halls were given direction about the destruction of certain internal documents, ..
 

That is my opinion, and I am sticking with it.
I can envision scenarios that, although rare ... make it the only common sense answer.
And all TRUE theology has to make good, basic common sense.

ANYONE who knows the TRUTH about God, his Christ, and his Kingdom can administer a valid Baptism to one who knows those same things.
THEORETICALLY, it would be valid for a five year old baptized person to baptize an eight year old, but then again, theoretically, a tomato is a fruit and a strawberry is a vegetable ... but wisdom is when you do NOT find tomatoes in your fruit cocktail.
So....um.... who was it that Baptized John the Baptist ?
Several years ago we had many photos of humanoid robots at some of the South American Bethels .... If we are baptizing 5 to 10 year olds without biblical precedent, authorization of Biblical example , perhaps the dedicated Bethel Robots (?)