JW Insider

I agreed with almost everything you said, too. But it struck me that the above quote was backwards. We have to practice what is mentioned in the following scriptures, and note what is mentioned in the article. (Not the other way around.)
Also, I was thinking about what the process is behind the Biblical counsel "do not be quickly shaken from your reason." This is the exact danger I mentioned earlier about how everyone was against all forms of organ transplant --and we were sure we had good reason for this-- but then, as quickly as a new article came out, every one of us was quickly shaken from those reasons, and most of us instantly accepted the new reasoning. We all believed we were using a Bible-trained conscience when we refused blood in all forms, even fractions. But then we were quickly shaken from our reason so that most Witnesses suddenly began accepting fractions. If we can be so quickly shaken from our reason, then we must not be following the Bible's counsel to question in order to make sure of all things. Therefore, it must not have been our own conscience in the first place that was real the reason behind our reasoning.
I think that most of us, at least at some point during our spiritual growth as Witnesses, would read that sentence just quoted, and instantly see it only as a warning not to spend time listening to anyone who says something that might point out a flaw in the teaching that currently comes from the visible organization. In context, this is exactly how the Watchtower is applying the idea. But we have to be careful that we don't use two sets of scales. What if the Bible has already answered the questions about blood fractions, for example, but we keep listening to subtle arguments and specious reasoning about blood fractions? What if we have become bloodguilty by accepting these subtle arguments and specious reasoning? What we have accepted, in general, might be perfectly good reasoning, but what if it isn't? What if it isn't questioned, precisely because we are always so quickly shaken from our reason every time a change is made?
Edited to add: I included the following comment, but it kept getting merged/attached with another post. I'm editing it back here:
I know what you mean. I over-reacted. I didn't think you had in mind exactly what I thought others might take from it.

You inferred even more from the comment than I expected. Agree with most of what you said. However the main point I wanted to stress was the danger of thinking upon something prohibited continuously. It might seem to be a simple point - like the fruit in Eden was simple. Fertility then causes the thing to look like something slight - that can be overrided, manipulated, changed, or even discarded. If you revisit the comment with that in mind you might agree.
If an angel or any one in authority (human or spirit) suggests to us to disobey Jehovah we should do the same. You know the scripture. How else will we be prepared to face Satan at the end of this system and at the end of the millennium? I think when we are dealing with anything that Jehovah says not to do, we should strengthen our resolve and dismiss anything else.
That is how I meant to bring James 1:14,15 into play. Remember Joseph fled. It does not only apply to sexual things where most people are weak. Like you I am not afraid to say unpopular things. My take does not have to be your take, but I thought I should bring that side to the discussion. Bro Rook even asked us if we were out of our minds, whether playfully or seriously, he has a point.

"REMINDER - We have to practise what is mentioned in the article and note what is mentioned in the following scripture. We are not stronger than Eve who was perfect."
 
Agree the above statement is better turned around. But the article has much scriptural counsel. We note first and then practice.
 
"If we keep listening to subtle arguments and specious reasoning, “twisted things” can sound as though they were straight." Quoted from w86 3/15 pp. 14-15
 
"What if the Bible has already answered the questions about blood fractions, for example, but we keep listening to subtle arguments and specious reasoning about blood fractions?"
Exactly my simple point about putting other things out of mind and listening to scripture.

They welcomed back Charlie Rose on CBSThisMorning. He’d been off a few weeks for heart surgery. His colleagues made a great fuss over him. Even Trump said ‘Welcome back, Charlie. We missed you.’ Even CBS, who hates Trump, ran the clip. Who doesn’t like it when enemies come together?

You know, I switched to CBS mostly because of him, but I liked him better personally when he stuck with PBS. There, he had freedom to interview newsmakers at any length he chose – sometimes 20 minutes, sometimes 2 hours. He’s perceptive in his interviews, and that talent can’t come across on razzle-dazzle network TV. Did he sell out? Yes and no. He didn’t give up PBS. He simply went for more exposure. Goodness knows I go for more exposure. I want to sell my books, which I like.

If anyone sold out, it is Larry King years ago. When I first heard of him in the 70’s, he was interviewing newsmakers for three hours on-air. The first hour was one-on-one. The second and third was moderating questions from the call-in audience. But he sold out to someone, and pretty soon he they had him doing only puff-pieces with celebrities, which aren’t as good.

Nonetheless, who am I to say? A person can do what he/she wants with his/her career. Sometimes people tire of the present and want to move on. Is that so wrong? They wouldn’t be able to (in my eyes) degrade unless they were up there in the first place. I was furious with Mary Tyler Moore for sinking the Dick Van Dyke show by leaving for a solo career. But why should she not? She made shows of her own, which I didn’t like as well. Not that hers were bad, it is just that Dick Van Dyke’s was so good.

But is there not an overall sad component to this? Charlie once stated he has enjoyed a wonderful career because he has been able to know so many newsmakers. Are they really worth knowing? I’ll take brothers and sisters in my circuit any day.

And surely there is also something tragic about hitting maximum exposure just as you know the clock is about to run out. It is why I value the JW faith, for only they explain how that came to be, and how it will be remedied.


 
 
 
 
 

Thanks. I catch your drift.
Christian love back at you, too.
Thanks.
 

Hi JW Insider,
Interesting point you have brought up regarding the blood issue and Bro Smalley.   I can see why he's "out of sorts" being in a position to defend a public policy which is quite different from a personal one.   Personally, I choose not to accept the fractions, but I'm 69 yo.   I have a copy of a news article from some years back (somewhere in my "stuff") regarding a lawsuit brought against the Society by a daughter of one of our sisters who died from apparent lack of blood.  The daughter (not a JW) maintained her mother didn't know her "options".   I have had a sense that this lawsuit changed the Branch's "education" on the blood issue.  Can you imagine having to defend the 2000 yo doctrine in a modern court with hostile attorneys chipping away with their worldly logic?   The fraction education could be the "agreed upon" correction defined by the courts to keep the Branch financially upright.  I worked for State government so I know how it works to a certain degree.  Fed would come in to examine how their funds are being spent, find violations and part of the reconciliation to avoid large fines  was to demonstrate to the Feds how the problem would be resolved with "education" on a certain policy.   Sometimes we're behind a rock and a hard place.  Satan likes that technique to pressure people to forego our strict belief system, not white to black but more into the grey area.   I look at the people donating blood and that's enough to turn me against the idea, then in a pint of blood you have many many donors.  I wonder about DNA from all those donors and how that plays into the issue.  What if they find even more info about our "human makeup" in the future.   There are lots of issues to be resolved,  Jesus has been given the responsibility to care for the congregation of Jehovah, so I let him know my concerns and then leave it to him to sort it out.   It's so very obvious we are coming to the end of human rule,  let's keep our focus on the Kingly government that will set matters straight.   Remember Aaron who started to doubt because Moses delayed on the mountain.  There was a refining process by Jehovah to let the Israelites and the mixed company get hungry, thirsty and wondering what happened to Moses (i.e. their leadership).   I wish you well and send my sisterly love,  S

Certainly not, but it is their expert opinion we want surely? Not someone else's half remembered; half made-up; half distorted memory of what they might think. (There's a lot of "halfs" there! I might have invented a trinity!)  

Could you explain exactly how you define the difference between replica and reproduction?
I notice that in your description of a Dead Sea Scroll item you are selling, you include the words:
I offer reproductions of Watchtower archives NOT replicas.  A replica may have changed texts or were replicated to look like the original. A reproduction, however, is an actual copy of the original photo or written script.
I understand that this refers to Watchtower publications and related books, not the DSS item.
Also, have you ever seen a Watchtower publication item for sale, either replica or reproduction, that had text changed? I have seen very sloppy quotes taken from Watchtower publications, but have never seen an altered replica or reproduction. If you have evidence of one, this would be very important to in addressing the common claim that non-JWs and ex-JWs have often altered original material to make the Watch Tower Society look bad.

Rather than being disturbed by one person's belief, it might be good to remember the basics in God’s word and strengthen ourselves to obey instead of looking for reasons to justify vacillation.
 
God’s requirement stated Noah of whom we are all descendents
 
 (Genesis 9:3, 4) Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.
 
God’s requirement under the Law
 
(Leviticus 17:10-12) 10 “‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. 12 That is why I have said to the Israelites: “None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood.”
 
(1 Samuel 14:33) So it was reported to Saul: “Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating meat with the blood.” At this he said: “You have acted faithlessly. Roll a large stone to me immediately.”
 
God’s requirement in the Christian dispensation
 
(Acts 15:20) but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.
 
(Acts 15:28, 29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
 
 Beware of Pretenses:  Doing one thing and teaching another.
 
11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?
 
 
Make your own decisions on conscience matters – it is not necessary to be vocal about it
 
 (Romans 14:1-4) Welcome the man having weaknesses in his faith, but do not pass judgment on differing opinions. 2 One man has faith to eat everything, but the man who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let the one eating not look down on the one not eating, and let the one not eating not judge the one eating, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand.
 
We must obey the letter and the spirit behind the Christian law.
 
 We must not only abstain from blood but we must carry out our obligations to warn others about the coming destruction of the wicked.
 
(Acts 20:25-28)   25 “And now look! I know that none of you among whom I preached the Kingdom will ever see my face again. 26 So I call you to witness this very day that I am clean from the blood of all men, 27 for I have not held back from telling you all the counsel of God. 28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.
 
David was not a Christian but we can learn from him.  He was serving the same God.
 
 (1 Chronicles 11:15-19) Three of the 30 headmen went down to the rock, to David at the cave of A·dulʹlam, while a Phi·lisʹtine army was camped in the Valley of Rephʹa·im. 16 David was then in the stronghold, and a garrison of the Phi·lisʹtines was in Bethʹle·hem. 17 Then David expressed his longing: “If only I could have a drink of the water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem!” 18 At that the three forced their way into the camp of the Phi·lisʹtines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem and brought it to David; but David refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah. 19 He said: “It is unthinkable on my part from the standpoint of my God to do this! Should I drink the blood of these men who risked their lives? For it was at the risk of their lives that they brought it.” So he refused to drink it. These are the things that his three mighty warriors did.
 
God is not going to change his personality or his requirements to match the level of difficulty we are contending with in this system, because his will is right. It is not God who is bringing the difficulty – it is Satan’s  system and our own imperfection. Jehovah will help us, and fortify us nevertheless. (Isaiah 41:10)
 
(Malachi 3:6) “For I am Jehovah; I do not change.
 
(James 1:17) 17 Every good gift and every perfect present is from above, coming down from the Father of the celestial lights, who does not vary or change like the shifting shadows.
 
(Romans 14:7, 8) . . .. 8 For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah.
 
 (Jeremiah 6:16) This is what Jehovah says: “Stand at the crossroads and see. Ask about the ancient roadways, Ask where the good way is, and walk in it, And find rest for yourselves.” But they say: “We will not walk in it.”
 
 
*** w07 3/15 p. 10 par. 1 Highlights From the Book of Jeremiah ***
6:16. Jehovah exhorts his rebellious people to pause, examine themselves, and find their way back to “the roadways” of their faithful ancestors. Should we not examine ourselves from time to time to see if we are really walking in the way Jehovah wants us to walk?
 
*** w12 11/15 pp. 6-7 “Teach Me to Do Your Will” ***
DAVID APPRECIATED THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE LAW
12 David’s appreciation for the principles reflected in the Law and his desire to live by them are also worthy of imitation. Consider what happened when David expressed his craving for “a drink of the water from the cistern of Bethlehem.” Three of David’s men forced their way into the city—then occupied by the Philistines—and brought back the water. However, “David did not consent to drink it, but poured it out to Jehovah.” Why? David explained: “It is unthinkable on my part, as regards my God, to do this! Is it the blood of these men that I should drink at the risk of their souls? For it was at the risk of their souls that they brought it.”—1 Chron. 11:15-19.
13 David knew from the Law that blood should be poured out to Jehovah and not eaten. He also understood why this should be done. David knew that “the soul of the flesh is in the blood.” However, this was water, not blood. Why did David refuse to drink it? He appreciated the principle behind the legal requirement. To David, the water was as precious as the blood of the three men. Therefore, it was unthinkable for him to drink the water. Instead of drinking it, he concluded that he should pour it out on the ground.—Lev. 17:11; Deut. 12:23, 24.
14 David tried to be completely absorbed in God’s law. He sang: “To do your will, O my God, I have delighted, and your law is within my inward parts.” (Ps. 40:8) David studied God’s law and meditated deeply on it. He trusted in the wisdom of Jehovah’s commandments. As a result, David was anxious to observe not only the letter but also the spirit of the Mosaic Law. When we study the Bible, we are wise to meditate on what we read and store it in our heart so that we can determine what pleases Jehovah in a particular case.

I think Melinda is rightly concerned that this does not turn into the kind of discussion that creates doubts that we are not ready to face, and I thought about that before posting in the first place, but made a decision to go ahead based on some of the very scriptural passages Melinda quoted. If I feel up to it, I might explain tonight or tomorrow, if I get a chance.
Hard to imagine him (Gene) diverging from the Society's view in any way. He was one of those who would not have varied from Watchtower doctrine by one iota back when the chronology doctrines were being questioned by many of his department colleagues. My close friends know my own feelings about chronology and the "doubled generation," but on the blood issue, the ones I contacted only knew that I had a couple questions about fractions. (Especially cryosupernatant. Although yesterday I just got the definitive answer to that one without contacting Brother Smalley.)
If I had to offer a best guess, I'd say the problem for Brother Smalley was exactly what JTR is showing in the cartoon above  (posted 3/9/17 9:55am EST). Remember, however, that this info about someone's personal beliefs is second-hand info, somewhere between advice and gossip. Even if true at one time, it might not be true at the moment. People change. But I wouldn't have put his name here if I didn't think this was an extremely serious matter that needs an explanation. Since this is really about life and death, then I think we all deserve more transparency. (Just as I think we need more transparency on the thinking that went into the doubled generation, child abuse procedures, etc.)
But I also have the impression that this now goes well beyond fractions and reaches another level (for Gene): that no one should have ever died unnecessarily over this doctrine. I can see how doubting fractions could lead to the latter view more easily than the latter view leading to the fractions doctrine. However, when I got the final answer to cryosupernatant an entirely new and very plausible explanation of his view just occurred to me. It's a bit complex to explain, however.
 

@Arauna Yes, that was a good article. Tying it to the Nazi era might play a bit on current public Russophobia, but it's an excellent point to make to show the terrible potential. I wish the author had stated in the actual article that the link went to the video of Russian authorities planting the literature. I'm sure more people would click on it, and understand the situation better, if it were worded better inside the article.

Funny how almost all bombers since the B52 have been designed to make military contractors rich. And yet the B52, old as it is, is still around and flying, while BILLIONS of dollars worth of military aircraft built since then have never made it off the ground.

The typical reaction after backing Trump for President.
Also Pope Pius XIII  (HBO Series)

Christ is head of the Congregations, even now things are being changed and removed. Maybe the apostasy will be starting soon or maybe already has? Listen to instructions perhaps you will be saved!
 3 Seek Jehovah,  all you meek ones of the earth,
Who observe his righteous decrees.
Seek righteousness, seek meekness.
Probably  you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger."
(Zephaniah 2:3) NWT   
 
Notice the Word "probably?" Let us see how things will change perhaps we will know closer to the end? Never give up on Jehovah, his Son will rule with justice and the wicked will be gone forever!
Psalms 37 the whole chapter I love. I also understand injustice and abuse. Jehovah protects me day and night! Never let go!
Remember, Christ died for you and I. That is true love. ?
 

This was my sister's experience. She was always told to err on the side of enduring abuse, even if it meant not going for needed treatment at a hospital - for violent abuse. Her husband, my brother-in-law, remained a ministerial servant after at least half-a-dozen complaints. My sister was disfellowshipped for finally "defying" the elders' recommendations and separating from her husband saying she had no intention of ever trying to patch things up with "mildness and submissiveness"

The average time between the abuse and the time of reporting that abuse is still about 30 years. So the kinds of forensics are quite different from a car accident, or what can be found in a "rape kit" for example.
 
I wanted to interpret that into the "circumstantial" evidence mentioned, too. Disappointing not to see this show up in documentation. Also disappointed to see so many "holes" in our own documentation that were so easily pointed out by the ARC. Also saw about three openings made in the Spinks/O'Brien testimony that could hurt us further. One was, of course, the huge discrepancy between in trying to define the age of "approaching adulthood" admitted to be 16-17 generally, then anecdotally to 15, and then later aligned with the age of baptism! It was fortunate that Stewart didn't realize that this places the age back to as young as 8 years old.
It adds an element that almost makes the congregational judicial matter moot. If the person is arrested and the matter becomes public, then there is already going to be a loss of congregational privileges. If there is a court case, how would it look if a judicial committee found the person "unchargeable" (not necessarily innocent) while the civil courts found him guilty. If the courts did not establish guilt, it is quite unlikely that the congregation could, yet we would be so wary of a repetition that the loss of position and privileges (along with probable monitoring to some extent)  would produce the appearance of guilt even if the accused were potentially innocent.

@Arauna Yes, that was a good article. Tying it to the Nazi era might play a bit on current public Russophobia, but it's an excellent point to make to show the terrible potential. I wish the author had stated in the actual article that the link went to the video of Russian authorities planting the literature. I'm sure more people would click on it, and understand the situation better, if it were worded better inside the article.

I've been involved in looking into matters of immorality (fornication, "loose conduct" etc) but have only seen a child abuse case from a distance. I would agree however that not all elders are the same. So I can't speak for the reaction to a case of child abuse, but I would certainly guess that you are right in that elders would surely place the safety of the victim first even if they could not prove that the accused was guilty.
But in areas of immorality, elders don't always agree on recognizing the victim. I've seen cases where two sinners were treated equally wrong, but have also seen cases where the majority of elders missed a victim-in-the-making or treated the victim with more punishment than the aggressor.
There's the all-too-typical case of a brother who takes advantage of a sister who lives alone, and offers to do things for her around her house, making sure that he gradually stays around later and later, stays for a meal and a TV show and finally "pushes the envelope" to see where a backrub or a massage might lead. There's the sister who has too much to drink and a brother claims to have been seduced. There's the sister-down-the-street who just happened to notice a brother's car parked overnight in "Sister Pioneer's" driveway. In that last case, we know that both parties to the overnight guest have been disfellowshipped for denying the sin, and thus being both unrepentant. That is surely a case where the elders decide without a heavy burden of proof (and only one witness!)
The case of the tipsy sister, I have seen blamed on the sister as seductress, so that hers was the greater punishment.
The brothers who worm their way into a single or widowed sister's home are usually both considered equally guilty even if it takes months for the prowling brother to discover the moment of weakness.
The exposure and discussion of these matters is making us all more aware and more attuned to the right action to take.
My wife, serving as principal of a high school with nearly 3,000 students has had to deal with this a couple of times. As a mandatory reporter she has been screamed at and begged not to turn in an incestuous abuser in one case, and a physically violent abuser in another. But it's the law. The best you can do sometimes is to get a social worker, or CPS rep to take over, but sometimes a mandatory reporter ends up breaking a family apart. It's the nature of the law, but more importantly, it's the nature of the crime.
Of course the most insidious thing about institutional response to following the rules about contacting local authorities, is that, especially in religious institutions, there is the expectation that no one will believe you. It is often a person taking advantage of their authority and position in the first place. This makes the victim expect that even civil authorities will do nothing. When a priest, elder, deacon, or branch overseer is the perpetrator, then it's even worse: the victim and victim's guardians expect not to be believed. Guardians, other elders, and most of the entire congregation aren't expected to really believe the victim either. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2017/mar/09/in-russia-the-persecution-of-jehovahs-witnesses-begins-all-over-again

Valid points made in AllenSmith's posting. 
The inconsistency and complexity of legal requirements in Australia was recognised by the ARC and the Society's affirming a desire for something consistent and simple was invited.
Compare the confusion in Australia:  
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect 
with that in the US: 
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/manda/ 
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/clergymandated/
where definition on who constitutes "clergy" is inconsistent or vague with only Guam making any sense, and where "clergy-penitent" privilege is abrogated or permitted depending on constantly changing state law.
This is compounded immeasurably when considered on a global scale. For Jehovah's people who aim to transcend the fragmentation of nations, operating in a united way in such a Babel-like confusion is an enormous challenge. Rom 13:1 demands respect for Caesar, but today there are many Caesars. Applying a global policy is impossible, hence region-specific instruction and the Branch contact requirement. 
Quite true, but no reason for a weak policy as some abuse comes to light considerably earlier. And surely the aim in part is to promote this?
Agreed. Left hand and right hand comparisons tempting here.
To be fair though, the intense scrutiny levelled against Jehovah's Witnesses in this situation would probably mean that anything submitted would be crticised unless virtually worded by the the ARC themselves. It was prudent to wait for the ARC comments before distributing the policy doc even if the proclaiming of the wisdom of doing so came across as a little self-promoting.
The fudged discussion on defining "inactivity" and "disassociation" was embarrasing. Is that included?
 
 

I've been involved in looking into matters of immorality (fornication, "loose conduct" etc) but have only seen a child abuse case from a distance. I would agree however that not all elders are the same. So I can't speak for the reaction to a case of child abuse, but I would certainly guess that you are right in that elders would surely place the safety of the victim first even if they could not prove that the accused was guilty.
But in areas of immorality, elders don't always agree on recognizing the victim. I've seen cases where two sinners were treated equally wrong, but have also seen cases where the majority of elders missed a victim-in-the-making or treated the victim with more punishment than the aggressor.
There's the all-too-typical case of a brother who takes advantage of a sister who lives alone, and offers to do things for her around her house, making sure that he gradually stays around later and later, stays for a meal and a TV show and finally "pushes the envelope" to see where a backrub or a massage might lead. There's the sister who has too much to drink and a brother claims to have been seduced. There's the sister-down-the-street who just happened to notice a brother's car parked overnight in "Sister Pioneer's" driveway. In that last case, we know that both parties to the overnight guest have been disfellowshipped for denying the sin, and thus being both unrepentant. That is surely a case where the elders decide without a heavy burden of proof (and only one witness!)
The case of the tipsy sister, I have seen blamed on the sister as seductress, so that hers was the greater punishment.
The brothers who worm their way into a single or widowed sister's home are usually both considered equally guilty even if it takes months for the prowling brother to discover the moment of weakness.
The exposure and discussion of these matters is making us all more aware and more attuned to the right action to take.
My wife, serving as principal of a high school with nearly 3,000 students has had to deal with this a couple of times. As a mandatory reporter she has been screamed at and begged not to turn in an incestuous abuser in one case, and a physically violent abuser in another. But it's the law. The best you can do sometimes is to get a social worker, or CPS rep to take over, but sometimes a mandatory reporter ends up breaking a family apart. It's the nature of the law, but more importantly, it's the nature of the crime.
Of course the most insidious thing about institutional response to following the rules about contacting local authorities, is that, especially in religious institutions, there is the expectation that no one will believe you. It is often a person taking advantage of their authority and position in the first place. This makes the victim expect that even civil authorities will do nothing. When a priest, elder, deacon, or branch overseer is the perpetrator, then it's even worse: the victim and victim's guardians expect not to be believed. Guardians, other elders, and most of the entire congregation aren't expected to really believe the victim either. 

Yes, true of course. But I think the point is that as JWs, the elders, (and any member of the congregation really), if they have reasonable evidence or a suspicion of child sexual abuse, they should report it to the authorities, like they would with the reasonable evidence or suspicion of any other crime.....
Possible. But still doesn't change what I said above.
By the way, you all might know this already, regarding today's hearing (case 54) copies of either the pdf or word docs are available for download on the ARC website.
This is an extract from the opening address regarding what happened with the 1006 alleged perpetrators who were never reported to the police:
Page 12-13
1.                In Case Study 29, Watchtower Australia produced 5,000 documents comprising, among other things, case files relating to 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950. Officers at the Royal Commission reviewed these case files and as a result the Royal Commission referred information in relation to 514 alleged perpetrators to police in accordance with its power under 6P(1) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902.

            Of the remaining 492 alleged perpetrators identified in the case files, officers at the Royal Commission determined that there was either   insufficient evidence in the case files to warrant referring matters to police or that the matters had already come to the attention of police.

 

It's more like 'forensic evidence' that counts as a 'second witness.'
However, where is that documented in the elder guidelines?

"Humility"   When a person is "known rich" or "looks rich" and buys a decent mode of transportation - many views that person as humble but when a person is "viewed poor" or "looks poor" and drives the same decent mode of transportation - many views that person as arrogant. This is not about wealth, but the perspective. Might there be a difference between the definition of humility vs personal view of what "suits" an individual?   In some countries, may locals view the minorities as "minorities"(incl. migrants from "poor" countries) and when these "minorities act" not as what they want to view them - many say that they "lack humility".   Many fell on the same trap back in the first century, many expected the messiah to be someone prominent, handsome like David and maybe very tall also like Saul but the scripture indicated otherwise. - for "No stately form does he have, nor any splendor; And when we see him, his appearance does not draw us to him. " (Isa 53:2) ft:" Or “there is no special appearance that we should desire him.” "and yet, he is a known carpenter and declaring that he is God's Son - " do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? " (John 10:36)   Now, we view Jesus to be humble because we know his position before he took a human form (Phil 2:7). But just imagine living in the time of Jesus - those Pharisees and Sadducees views him otherwise. (John 10:36)   Something to think about... (Lu 6:38; Phil 2:3)   http://www.jw-archive.org/post/135327348228/jesus-face-drawn-by-medical-artist-based-on

Or even with religious significance ... as the Organization has religious significance to the JW, does it not?
Give it time. 
Anyway, I was suggesting, in response to 'Is veneration of the cross a scriptural practice?', that veneration (or great respect, reverence) for an object of religious significance can occur in many forms. So I posed the question of whether it was a matter of degree to which one venerates a religious artifact and where the line might be drawn before scriptural principles are seen to be violated. Yes, maybe another thread.
It's OK. I'm not cross (geddit?).