Anna

And then there there this statement to the UN by Hamid Sabi. @JW Insider how credible do you see this as?

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

I listened to the account of an ex-Chinese woman: ..... he confessed to her that he was harvesting corneas from young healthy children.

The first thing that struck me is the "ex" factor, reminding me all too well of ex-JWs. (or ex- anyone for that matter). How much of their stories are the whole story? Are they telling us all the facts, or only select pieces?

I cannot imagine that there are "cornea less" children walking around in China. Sounds more like she couldn't stand her husband 😃

Edit: I suppose he killed the children

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

8 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Too often we focus on the accused and forget the other lives upended by this.

Until we see a conviction, we cannot assume that there were any.

Sorry for butting in, but I think she meant JTR's family too. I am sure JTR getting arrested has had a negative impact on them (his wife etc.), regardless whether he is guilty or innocent.

edit: Ok, I just saw she explained it...

4 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

the scriptures you partially quoted are for the Anointed, not for the Earthly ones.

It doesn't really matter does it? Are we to ignore good principles and advice just because they were not directly written to us? These are arrangements which help run things in an organized way in a congregation. Besides, most congregations do not have anyone who is annointed. It is logical that the principles that were  written down were originally only applied by the annointed, why, because everyone was annointed! That is not the case anymore, but the principles regarding  taking care of a congregation remain the same don't they? Or are you suggesting there should be no organanized way of doing things?

21 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No, but you can read her collective comments

I think Thinking thought you were talking about JTR, whearas in fact you were talking about Ann O' Maly 😂. Another classic example of how misunderstandings can happen. It stems from trying to be too diplomatic and not mentioning names. Sometimes it's good to be straightforward. One thing is sure, this thread is teaching quite a few lessons 😁

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

the case of Lindy Chamberlain and the child that was taken by a dingo...the cry ...A Dingos got my Baby....went around the world.

Yes (I remember the  movie, Lindy Chamberlain being excellently portrayed by Meryl Streep). It showed perfectly how people can be whipped up into mass hysteria over something that they have no idea about.....merely assumptions and  prejudice (in this case her religion) this experience and the one you mention of the poor brother, show what a daunting task the elders have in having to  be careful not to wrongly accuse someone. Because as you say, it can destroy lives when the person is actually innocent. It is as if we let out all the feathers in a pillow, and then try to put them back in. 

As for the situation with JTR, nobody that I am aware of passed any judgement on him, not even me, considering I (wrongly) thought he had been convicted.

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

The person who started this should hang their head in shame...

I know you mean well, but I am not sure what you mean by "started this"? You mean that somebody posted a link* to a probable explanation to his sudden departure from the forum? That’s all I can think of, because nobody expressed any negative or judgemental comments to do with JTR on this thread. On the contrary....

*the information in the link is accessible to the public, anyone can see it.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

@Anna  Sorry but i have to pick you up on this point >

Quote "It must be stressed though that NOW it is clearly in writing that sins are handled by the congregation,..."

Nothing is handled by the Congregation.  It is all handled by the Elders and Circuit Overseers etc. The congregation are told nothing. Unlike in scripture when it says 'take it to the congregation. 

Ok, if you want to nit-pick. But it is understood that since everyone, including, the elders, are the congregation, then when the Bible says take your grievance to the congregation, it means to those who have shepherding roles, rather than stand on a pedestal and tell the whole assembly of brothers and sisters including children. I can just imagine getting up on the platform and taking the mic and  announcing my accusation against another member. "Hear, hear, I have an announcement to make; br. 4jah did wrong, he did such and such and won't listen to me".  "Booo!" shout some, others say "can't be, surely not 4jah"? Nope, I think you can see that would not be the wisest option.

1Cor 14:40 But let all things take place decently and by arrangement. 

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers..

1 Peter 5:2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers....

6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

up in the upper right hand corner of the post. Do you have that?

Oh I sure do!!! Thank you, I never thought of looking there! Thank you!!!!

50 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Maybe the actual 'powers that be' aren't done making changes.

I hope so! The ability to edit is also gone (for me anyway). I need that, since after reading over what I have already posted I always find some nonsense that I have written that needs changing! (including grammar)

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The actual news media has long since set the example of relaying accusation as though it were conviction.

Very true. And although I am not news media (😀) I made that classic mistake of NOT reading properly, and assuming! Shame on me.

11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Anna, I found answer on your dilemma

Personally, I did not have a dilemma, I was just showing how there could be a dilemma because  the text is not clear. Of course, as you suggest, you would interpret this as meaning go to the elders. That is how I see it too. But, this could not be proved in court either way (that is what the courts found so frustrating) because the wording is so ambiguous and it could be argued that it means go to secular authorities. Unless you know the "culture" of Jehovah's Witnesses, then you understand it means go to the elders.

It must be stressed though that NOW it is clearly in writing that sins are handled by the congregation, and crimes are to be handled by secular authorities:  https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

The child would be 'pushed to one side' for the sake of retaining the Elder in his position.

I don't think it's about retaining the position, but more about fear of slandering the person. When there is notoriety surrounding someone in a responsible position then that position is usually removed. 

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

In my opinion, he meant, he would not report it

Yes, that is was what I was trying to imply.

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

innocent...imagine him coming here and reading all of this...

You don't know JTR like we do, he would totally understand.

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

I am gobsmacked  at how you have all expressed your personal opinions and posts like a mob of gossipy old  women...

You are right about one thing, these discussions should be moved to a topic of its own, as 4jah2me suggested, because none of us are now actually discussing JTR  (except for you). There was one comment with information about his current status, as all had been wondering what had happened to him, some fearing him dead. You may not have noticed, but most were quite fond of him and expressed sympathies. But now, this is no longer a thread discussing JTR, so it should be split into another thread. Unfortunately I don't know how to do that. 

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

something just of the internet is incredibly

It is not "just" of the internet, it is from a county sheriff's office. 

On 8/18/2020 at 5:16 PM, 4Jah2me said:

Here is my answer. I did what should be done.

I'm glad.

7 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

the Two Witness Rule could well have been used as an excuse to disbelieve the child

I think using the word excuse is unfair since no one wants to see a child harmed.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

it seems he has yet to go to trial???..

Yes. I had jumped the gun there and had him already convicted. I apologize. JWI mentioned that the trial has now occurred....

By the way my comment was not meant to be about JTR, I just used him as an example of what can happen in situations like this.

Whose Responsibility Is It? WT 97/8/15

"When elders learn about serious wrongdoing, they approach the individual involved to give needed help and correction. It is the elders’ responsibility to judge such ones inside the Christian congregation. Keeping a close watch on its spiritual condition, they assist and admonish anyone who is taking an unwise or wrong step.—1 Corinthians 5:12, 13; 2 Timothy 4:2; 1 Peter 5:1, 2.

But what if you are not an elder and you come to know about some serious wrongdoing on the part of another Christian? Guidelines are found in the Law that Jehovah gave to the nation of Israel. The Law stated that if a person was a witness to apostate acts, sedition, murder, or certain other serious crimes, it was his responsibility to report it and to testify to what he knew. Leviticus 5:1 states: “Now in case a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing and he is a witness or he has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error.”—Compare Deuteronomy 13:6-8; Esther 6:2; Proverbs 29:24".

Unfortunately, nowhere in this WT excerpt is there clear direction to whom this "serious wrongdoing" should be reported to.

One of the scriptures mentioned is Esther 6:2 where Mordecai reports a matter about two court officials plotting to kill the king, it is not clear to whom he reports the matter, but it was obviously to a secular authority. (logical, since the matter involved a secular king).

However, the other references from the Hebrew scriptures involve reporting to those under the mosaic law, and those from the Christian Greek scriptures involve fellow Christians in a congregation setting reporting “on the inside”.  So there doesn’t seem to be anything in the Bible about Christians reporting to those on the “outside”; i.e. the secular authorities.

When D. Ali, was questioned by the Australian Royal commission he was not quite sure what action he was supposed to take if he was told that a member of the congregation killed another member. (this is what @4Jah2me may have been referring to)

(transcript):

THE CHAIR:   Q.   If a different crime, to take the most  extreme, murder.  If you were told that a member of the congregation had killed someone else, would you report that  to the police? 

 A.   We would encourage the person to do that. 

 Q.   Would you do it yourself? 

 A.   No.  I would try very hard not to - not that I would  try very hard not to, but I would encourage the person continually to do that.  That's a decision they need to make. 

 Q.   What if the person wasn't prepared to go to the police, but they told you that they saw the killing  happen - what would you do? 

  A.   Am I being asked on the present day circumstances? 

  Q.   Yes. 

  A.   Yes.  I would take the action of ringing the branch and getting some legal advice on that. 

  Q.   You are living in Queensland, aren't you? 

  A.   Yes. 

 Q.   Do you have any knowledge of the law or legal obligations to report knowledge of crimes at all? 

  A.   Not - not really, no. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time and time again it has been remarked on by the courts and commissions such as the one above that nowhere in JW  publications was there any clear written direction on reporting crimes (which includes CSA) to secular authorities that could be referred to.*

It would also appear from Ali's remark ("Am I being asked on the present day circumstances"?) that in the past one would not seek direction from the branch to seek legal advice. (I am assuming that the legal department would be familiar with the "legal obligations" in Queensland to report crimes  and would have advised Ali to that effect). But I wonder what would happen "not" in present day circumstances......

* This as we know has now changed (thanks to the ARC) and the direction is clear for those who wish to report. Unless they are elders, since that is unfortunately contingent on mandatory reporting. But nevertheless, a massive improvement.

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Will he be expelled during his imprisonment or will JC summon him for questioning after serving his sentence?

I think it would be dependent on surrounding circumstances and handled on a case by case basis, as no situations are alike...I think, it may even be possible to visit the person in prison to establish some facts...

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Just for the sake of discussion.

If there is no confession of the defendant and if there are no two witnesses for a crime (not a sin) before the Court and if the Court convicts a JW member with prison time sentence, the question is: Can and on what basis a convicted JW member remain a member of the organization? May and on what basis be a Judicial Committee formed to discuss a convicted brother? Will he be expelled during his imprisonment or will JC summon him for questioning after serving his sentence? And similar. Perhaps you know some real life situations?

I can't think of any real life situations that I am personally familiar with. But from gathering information from various sources it seems that there is a clear separation of sin and crime.  A sin can be forgiven by the congregation, but the person still obviously has to be punished by secular authorities for the crime. I do know of an example, nothing to do with CSA but theft and fraud. My friend studied with the  man, and the man became JW. His sins were forgiven, because he repented and stopped doing those things. However, he still had to go to the police and give himself up to serve a prison sentence. So it might work similarly with someone convicted of CSA. If they admit to it, but are remorseful and repentant, they may be forgiven by the congregation, but will still have to pay for their crime. However, if they denied everything in front of the elders, but the authorities found evidence to convict him of his crimes, then I think that would serve as a reason to disfellowship. 

So its on the basis whether the convicted person was honest with the elders and has shown true remorse and signs of repentance, or if he denied and lied. 

4 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

you said because of course there are rarely any witnesses.  But the CCJW have always demanded two witnesses

I don't think you understood my comment. In context I said that usually it's one person's word against anothers, because rarely are there any witnesses, the point was: so who do you believe? Lack of witnesses creates a dilemma and fear of accusing someone wrongly. It's like if someone came forward and told the elders that 6 years ago you touched them inappropriately. There is no proof whether your denial is true, or whether their acusation is false.

The two witness rule is as good as "innocent until proved guilty". It is an aid to establishing guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

Of course as has been mentioned many times, the two witness rule plays no role in whether someone goes to the authoroties or not. It is only for the congregation and for the handling of the sin aspect of the crime, not the crime itself.

4 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

But the CCJW have always demanded two witnesses to CSA,

Not just CSA, but any accusation, to do with anything.

4 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

You also subtly brought out the point of the buddy buddy situation amongst Elders, protecting each other. 

Yes, sorry, correction, it was pre-trial. 

4 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

because of course there are rarely any witnesses.  I love it when someone says this. It blows the Two Witness Rule clean out of the water. 

How does it do that?