Anna

You are overthinking it John! I am just an ordinary sister. And I explained why I said "we".

Yes, they are. But not all ministers are considered clergy, because not all ministers are shepherds. So my saying "we" was still wrong.

The question above remains unanswered by the Society . It is answered. And I just answered it too. It's not rocket science James

Those who are considered clergy must obviously be those who are Shepherds (pastors, performing pastoral duty) of the congregation. I'm not a shepherd, so I'm not clergy.

Sorry! Re-quote: They, the Elders are clergy. My misquote came from how I view the Christian congregation, including the elders. I view it that we are all part of a family of friends. My bad.

If you want to get that technical, then probably yes. But I think secular authorities recognize the term Overseer, (or Church Overseer) so they may not find the need to resort to those labels.

But when we are dealing with secular authorities, we have to speak their language. In their eyes we are clergy. As per Miriam Webster: : Clergy: a group ordained to perform pastoral or sacerdotal functions in a Christian church. By the same token we do not call our organization a "church", but in secular speak we are a church. Miriam Webster: Church: a body or organization of religious believers: such as the whole body of Christians. (and a Kingdom Hall is a also a church (building) in secular speak)

You know John, sometimes people really do have their own opinion.

Couldn't agree with you more on this! However, it really is not a be all and end all solution, not for the victim. You know yourself that the police do not always act. So if elders were told to report to the police every time, it would actually be in the elder's interest to do so, but not necessarily in the interest of the victim. The elders could wash their hands clean off the whole situation by passing it onto the police. Which is great, no more civil lawsuits for the organization. Done. But reporting to the police does not always guarantee justice for the victim. In fact, where the victim wishes to keep it within the family, (for example if the perp. is one of the parents) then it could cause more heartache for all involved. Of course in all this it is only the perpetrator that should be the one who is punished. But it often doesn't work like that....

As Suzy says "A Jehovah's Witness" is grammatically wrong in English. And as Melinda points out it is a label. We are witnesses for Jehovah, we are HIS witnesses, plural. If we are talking about one person (singular) then he/she is either one of (all the other) Jehovah's Witnesses or "a witness for Jehovah". In some other languages it is grammatically wrong as well. For example how would you say in Spanish if someone asked in court whose witness are you. Would you say I am "John's witness", or "one of John's witnesses" (if there is more than one witness for John). Or would not say I am "a John's witness"?

Is there an option for a publisher, the one doing the accusing, to say which elders he wants on the committee? I don't think there is. Has the publisher got any say in who should handle the issue if the publisher feels the elders who are handling it are not suitable?

Ok, I will rephrase it. Why does a judicial committee not consist of the entire body of elders in a given congregation. A little bit of background info: This question was raised by someone who was concerned about justice being carried out correctly, especially if a situation involved one elder who was being accused. How does a judicial committee judge one of their "own", especially, if there is a possibility of bias due to obvious friendship above and beyond just a brother in the congregation. So for the purpose of an example, lets say the BOE of a congregation consists of 8 elders, one of whom had been accused of a sin, which if unresolved, could lead to a disfellowshipping, or at least the deletion of his position. So that leaves 7 elders who decide to form a judicial committee (on the grounds that the situation with the accused elder had not been settled). Why can't all 7 elders consist of the committee?

When a judicial committee is formed, why does it only consist of three elders (usually) but does not involve the whole body of elders? And is there a scripture this is based on?

I should have said it should not surprise us. You don't have to be in the world to be affected by it, otherwise you would have to be taken out of the world. No one is immune to Satan's propaganda. I am sure you are aware that not everyone in the org is who they claim to be. Just because someone is called an elder or claims to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't make them so. Those are Jehovah's Witnesses and elders in name only. But they are not the majority. It is the body of elders who assign two elders to look into a particular case. So unless the two elders acted on their own, the body of elders would have been familiar with your letter. You cannot get disfellowshipped unless a judicial committee is formed. The congregation would not consider forming a judicial committee unless the offended Christian (you) had taken steps one and two of Matthew 18:15, 16 and had initiated step three in Matthew 18:17. If asked, elders could participate in step two, but they do not represent the body of elders. If the matter proceeds to step three, any elders who were witnesses in step two could serve only as witnesses in step three. They would not be used to serve on the judicial committee. I trust you were not in a judicial committee. There is nothing stopping anyone from asking to speak to any and all elders if they wished, especially when you believed the elders assigned to look into your accusation might have been biased. That is if they were assigned. Did you follow the steps in Matthew? Because that is how God controls the situation.

So it's the size? Unfortunately this is to be expected with the kind of morality promoted by this world ruled by Satan. Disgusting things are going on and what's more disgusting is that people professing to serve Jehovah do some of these disgusting things. So let's put the blame where it belongs, on the abuser, not on those who are having to deal with it. The perpetrators are the ones who damage people's lives, the victims are the ones who have to live with it, the families are the ones who are broken apart because of it. I did not say most elders are corrupt. Most elders are good men. But it only takes a few bad apples to do an awful lot of damage. Can you explain what you mean please, not sure I understand

It seems that this ladies' biggest problem were her parents, and her relationship with them. It's a pity she blames the Bible and paints all of Jehovah's Witnesses with the same brush.

We have two situations going on here. One to do with the organization/GB, and the other of a personal nature. I was quoting a letter from the organization, and therefore I was referring to organizational direction when I said "Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation"? The accusations by opposers are that the Organization, by means of its instructions, protects child molesters. There is ample evidence from letters to the BOE and other instructions that this is not true. Then we have your experience, an entirely different matter. The organization/GB has no direct knowledge or ability to control what individual elders do or don’t do. You will agree with that surely? There can be corruption in the congregation, there is no doubt about that. But to blame the organization for it, and for the corrupt elders you talk about, is not exactly fair is it? And this is what you have been doing for the most part. Directing all blame at the organization/GB, and when someone defends the organization/GB you get upset. If it is truly as you say, then why didn’t you rely on Jehovah, who sees what man cannot see, and who will eventually reveal all that is hidden? Or have you lost trust in Jehovah too? You are not the only one who has experienced something like this you know. Our family and friends have also had to deal with corruption, favouritism and nepotism by elders in the past. Currently, many members of a congregation I know are leaving and going to a different hall because of a “dictator” elder. Publishers are nobody’s fools, and they will see what is going on and they will leave to go somewhere else. That is an option open to everyone. Will this elder receive the judgement many think he is due? Absolutely, sooner or later he will. Nothing is hidden from Jehovah. But as far as I know, nobody is blaming the organization/GB, and nobody has stopped going to meetings.

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. John, further to our discussion, here is a 2002 letter to the BOE in the UK. Although it upholds the two witness rule, which still stands today, notice that paragraph 7 states this: "Our position is that secular authorities deal with crime while elders deal with sin. To avoid a miscarriage of justice, elders must not interfere with, prevent, or impede any secular investigation into child abuse. The elders are directed to ensure that secular laws are adhered to. (Romans 13:1) To that end, they are instructed to contact the Legal Department at Bethel whenever they receive information from even one person who alleges that child abuse has occurred. When a report is received, guidance is given by the Legal Department to ensure that (1) the alleged victim, and other potential victims, are protected from possible abuse, and (2) that counsel is given to report crime to the proper authorities and to comply with any additional legal requirements. The elders know that it is the absolute right of the victim, his or her family, or anyone else, to report the matter to the authorities if they so choose. Galatians 6:5" As a side point; some critics assume that the reason the legal department is contacted is so that loopholes are found where one does not have to report. That is a very unintelligent thing to assume. For one, there are no loopholes. You are either mandated to report or not report. Regardless of which it is, the objective is always to prevent further abuse, and not propagate it, and if that means reporting to the appropriate authorities, then that is the advice that will be given. Two, since the objective is to prevent further abuse, (for the sake of the victims, and also for the sake of further reproach brought on the organization by the perpetrator, and lawsuits) why would one try to find loopholes to get out of it in the first place? Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation? https://faithleaks.org/wiki/documents/d/d7/20020711LTC_bi.pdf

I would say 2017, but If you asked those in 2003 they would probably say 2003 looks better. Styles change, it's what's in fashion at the time that matters to people. Would you ever wear these shoes ? They were considered the rage in 15th century Europe.

That is true.

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.

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....

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

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!

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, there is some debate and many unanswered questions as to whether this was a “change of policy” specifically intended by the Watchtower Society to prevent the Commission’s access. Watchtower branch officers in the UK claim that this was not the case – and there is some evidence to support their claim. On the other hand, the Watchtower’s critics claim that the instructions regarding document destruction were specifically designed to complicate and frustrate the Commission’s investigation. Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders did prepare a formal response to the BBC Radio 4 Broadcast (as read near the end of the program) that stated: “We are pleased to confirm that our direction to all congregations in England and Wales is compliant with the terms of the Goddard inquiry…” One would think that if this statement can be trusted, then Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders in the UK must have checked with the proper authorities before making such a claim. If Jehovah’s Witnesses elders and officers were compliant with the terms of the Goddard inquiry, and innocent of the charges made on the BBC broadcast – namely that they ordered congregations to destroy IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS – then the credibility of the accusers will certainly come under further scrutiny.