Anna

That is what happened. But NOT every elder was of that opinion. Those who were, based their reasoning on WT 73/11/15 and related topics to do with 1 Cor 6: 1-7. The brothers applied it too broadly and applied it to where it shouldn't have been applied! I have underlined the quotes that the elders applied, and then I highlighted in red the misapplication. Questions From Readers WT 73/11/15 ● Do Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a Christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?—U.S.A. The apostle Paul’s inspired admonition is: “Does anyone of you that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones? Or do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you unfit to try very trivial matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? Why, then, not matters of this life? If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down upon in the congregation that you put in as judges? I am speaking to move you to shame. Is it true that there is not one wise man among you that will be able to judge between his brothers, but brother goes to court with brother, and that before unbelievers? Really, then, it means altogether a defeat for you that you are having lawsuits with one another. Why do you not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?”—1 Cor. 6:1-7. Here Paul was showing the Corinthian Christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between Christians before secular tribunals. The judges would be men who were not governed by the lofty principles of God’s law and whose consciences were not trained through a study of his Word. As many of the judges at that time were corrupt and accepted bribes, Christians had little reason to believe that their judgment would be just. Paul referred to them as “unrighteous men.” Were Christians to take their disputes before such men, they would be ‘putting in as judges’ men whom the congregation looked down upon as lacking integrity. Then, too, in taking matters before unbelievers for judgment, they would, in effect, be saying that no one in the congregation had the wisdom to judge “matters of this life” among Christians. This was wholly inconsistent with the fact that spirit-anointed Christians as heavenly associate rulers of the Lord Jesus Christ would be judging, not only men, but also angels. And by dragging fellow believers before pagan judges, they would bring great reproach upon God’s name. As outsiders would be led to believe that Christians were no different from other people in being unable to settle differences, the interests of true worship would be injured. It would have been far better for individual Christians to take personal loss rather than to injure the entire congregation by bringing their disputes to public notice. In view of the foregoing, would dedicated Christians today go before secular courts if that were to injure the advancement of true worship or misrepresent it in the eyes of outsiders? No. Of course, as all other people, true Christians are still imperfect humans. They make mistakes, and problems arise in connection with business matters and the like. But differences of this nature ought to be settled within the congregation, for God’s Word provides the needed guidelines and there are men in the congregation who are well grounded in the Bible. However, if a Christian refuses to correct a serious wrong when it is made clear to him by elders serving in judicial capacity in the congregation, such a one would be expelled. This is in line with Jesus’ words: “If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” (Matt. 18:17) Thus, for example, one who defrauded his Christian brother or who failed to provide materially for his wife and children would find himself outside the congregation if he did not repent.—1 Tim. 5:8. The injured party could thereafter decide whether legal action should be taken in an attempt to force the guilty one, now disfellowshiped, to rectify matters. Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worth the time and expense as well as whether the congregation could still come into disrepute by bringing to public attention the actions of one of its former members. If the wronged Christian conscientiously felt that God’s name would not be reproached and legal action was definitely needed, he would not necessarily be acting contrary to the spirit of Paul’s counsel if he were to take to court one who was no longer a part of the Christian congregation. Jehovah God has permitted secular authority to serve as his instrument in bringing lawbreakers to justice, and in this case the one wronged would be availing himself of legal help after exhausting the intracongregational means to have the wrong corrected.—Rom. 13:3, 4. There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers. This might be to obtain compensation from an insurance company. In some countries the law may specify that certain matters have to be handled in a court, such as wills that may have to be probated by courts. But this does not create adverse publicity or bring reproach upon the congregation. In handling such legal matters that would not affect the congregation adversely, Christians can be governed by what they consider to be best under the circumstances. However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God’s Word on this matter, such one would not be “free from accusation” as a Christian. He would not be one who has “a fine testimony from people on the outside” of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So, the bottom line is; some elders thought that the act of letting authorities know that one of Jehovah's Witnesses is a child molester would bring reproach on the Congregation and Jehovah, and show that Jehovah's Witnesses were no different to anyone else. It's obvious that this was the case, otherwise the latest WT wouldn't need to clarify this by saying: "Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God’s name? No. The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God’s name. So obviously the Christian who reported was made to feel that way by some misguided elders. And some elders went as far as threatening disfellowshipping of the reporter for slander (if there was inconclusive proof about the perpetrator i.e. other witnesses). The other problem was that dispute never meant child abuse, because child abuse always was and is a crime. So this is why the latest WT also makes this point: "Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime." and also: " The absence of a second witness does not mean that the one making the accusation is untruthful. Even if a charge of wrongdoing cannot be established by two witnesses, the elders recognize that a serious sin may have been committed, one that deeply hurt others. So yes, some elders completely got the wrong end of the stick. This was evident when one of the elders testifying at the ARC embarrassingly said if he heard a report that someone in the congregation committed a murder, he would not report it to the police! 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.

Yes, I agree, that's how it should be, but as you mentioned, Lawyers want to go where the money is, and abusers probably don't have the kind of money they want. JW child abuse cases are attractive to them because of jw.org. Also, I didn't realise but many lawyers go hunting for cases. For instance someone I know is being sued by a credit card company and as soon as the lawsuit was filed with the court she has been receiving numerous letters from different lawyers who want to represent her. Apparently they go down to the courthouse to find cases. Similarly, child abuse lawyers go hunting for survivors so they can represent them in court. This was one reason I believe Zalkin wanted the names of all the alleged abusers held by the org. so he could sift through them and find anything that he could use for himself. And once they find a "suitable" survivor, they no doubt persuade her/him to the effect that they shouldn't feel bad about suing, since they will be suing the organization, and the organization has plenty of money. Then they (the lawyers) go about finding ways to incriminate the org. It's all about making money, but often the survivor comes off worse, especially when there is a settlement. I believe the lawyers take the biggest lump, and since with a settlement there is also a gag order, the survivor can't even complain about how little they got. It's all a big scam and all about lining the lawyers pockets. There is no justice really. The only justice will be with Jehovah. So when someone says "wait on Jehovah" when it is apparent that nothing that can be done for the moment, then that makes perfect sense. Of course it goes without saying that that should never be used as an excuse not to do anything.

I do not know if the ARC did or didn't submit these findings to their legal brief. What I do know is that those letters had a very limited audience. Regular publishers had no idea about these letters, they had no idea how elders were supposed to handle these situations. They were completely in the dark. As a consequence, regular publishers were at the "mercy" of the Elders. The ARC changed that. Now everyone knows the procedure and can be on the same page. It's a pity this transparency didn't happen sooner.

His name is Lloyd Evans. He used to be in the same circuit as me when I lived in England. I may have bumped into him when he was still a kid, but I never knew him personally. He lives in Croatia now. I don't know how he makes a living because all he does is campaign, make youtube videos, and writes. He did publish a book "the reluctant apostate" but it has bad reviews from his fellow apostate buddies....

Just noticed this post John. Yes, I acknowledge the org. has made mistakes, and I am sure no Witness on here would deny that the org. has made mistakes, why, even the org. itself acknowledges it has made mistakes. But you on the other hand are saying that the org. is tantamount to Satan's spawn. I don't think that.

I've given up now, as I am sure you will shortly. But what I do want to know from you @John Butler is any news on your report to the Police?

The only shatterhand I know is "Old Shatterhand", a character in western novels by German author Karl May. He is the German friend and blood brother of Winnetou, chief of the Mescalero tribe of the Apache.

Obviously it's aimed at everyone, otherwise the elders would receive this information in the form of a letter to the body of elders. So I don't know what point you are trying to make...?

The "Keep yourselves in God's Love" book page 223. This is from the 2008 edition. This book was studied in the form of a question and answer at the book study, and is a book that is studied with those wishing to get baptized. Unfortunately, as you say, some chose not to go to the authorities because of worry of reproach, and host of other worries (https://1in6.org/get-information/common-questions/why-do-adults-fail-to-protect-children-from-sexual-abuse-or-exploitation/) Even as late as 2014, one of the elders testifying at the ARC expressed similar sentiments to one of the two adult survivors who wanted to testify, by asking her: "why would you want to drag the organization through the mud?". To keep child sexual abuse from the authorities however has never been JW policy. But Tom, you can't reason with the unreasonable. Thankfully, as we know, the ARC turned out to play a key part in what we all see as a welcomed improvement. Not so much in our policies, but in their clear transparent presentation to ALL Jehovah's Witnesses (and anybody else who is interested).

True heroes, those who do not give up what they stand for despite torture etc. only seem to exist in movies, for the most part. And then there are Jehovah's Witnesses.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The ARC was not a court proceeding. G. Jackson was asked by the ARC to represent the GB. Gerrit Losch was not asked by the court to represent the GB. It is always easier to run from trouble than to face what trouble may come. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have its approval. Rom 13:3 Think about the case. Did the Watchtower "do what is good" to begin with? I am sure you have something specific in mind when you ask that. What is it? As far as I know it is not the GB's objective to be concerned with anything being sound from a human stand point. Something being "sound" from a human point of view doesn't guarantee it is right, nor that God agrees with it. Which "illogical" doctrine are you talking about? I do not subscribe to Perl Doxsey's interpretation of scripture

So who runs Watchtower?

This had nothing to do with "testifying" for the organization but everything to do with being summoned under wrong assertions. If you testify under certain statements made about about you, then you are agreeing that those statements are true. You cannot do that if those statements are false. It would be like if I was asked to testify in court under the assumption that I was a 6ft black male doctor in his 70’s, whereas the truth is I am a 5ft white female secretary in her 20's. It would be wrong to testify under those erroneous assumptions and I would have to make a declaration to quash that summons by stating that I was NOT a 6ft black male doctor in his 70’s. Gerrit Losch was summoned by the plaintiff (his lawyer) to appear in court under wrong assumptions about him. And you can see by Losch’s declaration what those assumptions were, and they were not correct. The judge was obviously satisfied that under the correct description of Losch’s function, it was not useful to ask Losch to appear in court. Had the judge decided Losch’s participation as helpful to the case even after the declaration, he would have not accepted Losch’s declaration as relevant. (When spelled with an "umlaut" it's Lösch, if you do not use an "umlaut" it should be Loesch)

You talk as if Losch can act on his own, as if he personally had something to do with that case. Why would he be in trouble? As I said, if the court (the Judge) was not happy with his declaration they would have summoned him to testify. And he would have gone.

For Christ's sake; yes, you do. Not in court

You obviously do not understand how the legal system works. It's not some kind of discussion at the kitchen table. It is very specific, with rules and regulations and you have to be very exact. You do not go beyond what you are asked to do. Because the court was satisfied with his declaration, he was not asked by the court to testify, nor to represent anyone. Here is the declaration in full:

The declaration is legal speak and is absolutely correct from a legal point of view. Gerrit Losch has never been a corporate officer........employee.......etc. of WT, and as an INDIVIDUAL he has never had or has authority to make or determine any policy for WT or any other department. This can only be done collectively as the GB with all 8 members participating.

True, I shouldn't have made it sound like every witness thought that, it's just practically every witness with children in the 80's that I have known that said it. It became a "phrase".

Now don't let that get to your head, because you ain't nothing until you have at least 300K followers on Instagram

Sometimes you make me think you have been living under a rock. I don't know what you mean by unfavorable messages, but it is clear that every Witness generation has been living with the thought that "our children won't make it to high school", it doesn't matter whether this is the 20's 30's 40's..............80's 90's.... you get my drift. Perhaps this is a good thing as it keeps everyone on their toes, but it can also backfire, like crying wolf one too many times. Being ready at all times doesn't equal putting a date or time period on it.

He does that too

It depends for how long this would be. I am assuming just for a short time.....few years?.....So I think we would manage just fine! As long as we keep to the laws and principles that make up the foundation of the Bible that all JWs are familiar with, and encourage, remind, and support one another in upholding these standards. Also most JWs have a Bible trained conscience that operates with or without having access to a Bible.

Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence, in a general sense, hypocrisy may involve dissimulation, pretense, or a sham. Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles. Hypocrisy is never clear. Regardless of your accusation of hypocrisy on the part of the elders or the organization, it is clear to the victims, parents of the victims and others who wish to report the allegation to the police isn't it? So even if rogue hypocritical elders claimed otherwise, it is clear to everyone else right? And it stands to reason then, when those victims/parents/others are confronted by rogue hypocritical elders who try to silence them, those victims/parents/others will be able to point to paragraphs *14 and 15 of the May 2019 Study WT. No questions asked. And also the elders will read in their shepherding book that ....."One who reports an accusation to the police, the court, the elders, or others who have authority to look into matters and render a judgment would not be viewed by the congregation as guilty of committing slander. (it-1 p. 990) This is true even if the accusation is not proved". It seems like it's only you, and a few others on here has a problem with it. It's a little worrying because it almost seems like you are wishing the elders will act against these clearly stated instructions in the wt, and shepherding book like you are not happy that the victims and others are assured that they are entitled to report even if they cannot prove it (two witnesses). * Par.14......Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime. Par 15: Elders assure victims and their parents and others with knowledge of the matter that they are free to report an allegation of abuse to the secular authorities. But what if the report is about someone who is a part of the congregation and the matter then becomes known in the community? Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God’s name? No. The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God’s name".

Yes, historical according to time. Doesn't matter that the court case happened "today" because it was discussing a historical case that happened: Well, then those elders don't have a leg to stand on do they? paragraph 14: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/love-justice-face-of-wickedness/ " Elders assure victims and their parents and others with knowledge of the matter that they are free to report an allegation of abuse to the secular authorities. But what if the report is about someone who is a part of the congregation and the matter then becomes known in the community? Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God’s name? No. The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God’s name". Does anyone need it clearer than that??? Also: @JOHN BUTLER In chapter 12 of the 2019 shepherding the flock book is this statement: "One who reports an accusation to the police, the court, the elders, or others who have authority to look into matters and render a judgment would not be viewed by the congregation as guilty of committing slander. (it-1 p. 990) This is true even if the accusation is not proved".

You are talking about a historical case. I am talking about today. Even if that were the case, this has nothing to do with the authorities handling the matter and convicting the perpetrator. After all, that is what we want isn't it? For the perpetrator to be put on a sex offender registry, (and possibly serving time in prison) so that everyone, including the general public, are warned and protected from further harm.