Anna

You are obviously saying you are not fault finding or criticizing, just stating facts. Some people don't like to hear facts, especially if it goes against what they believe to be true. Nobody likes to be called out. The wisdom for you is to say your piece, and leave it. A bad idea is to keep harping on about it like you are the judge of all things. Don't think people don't hear you, they do, and it's up to them to process it. I am not talking about forums like this one, you can harp on about things to your hearts content here, I am talking about face to face with people.

Don't you know it! lol

You are taking yourself too seriously John. You should know TTH sense of warped humour by now.

Yes, I noticed that too. I think this is the same pattern of reasoning as in AW 7/09 "Is wrong to change your religion".

I agree!

To a certain extent yes. But we will never know what is being discussed behind closed doors. I would say it doesn't matter, it's not our business, but it is, because it affects everyone of us. (When I get around to it I want to make this a topic in the closed club, here is not the best place)

I guess that's because those individuals fooled the elder body into thinking they were repentant. It obviously wasn't because the elder body wanted more children to get molested.

I just want to pipe up here. The internal struggles ARE what shaped "what Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done" . I know, and I agree, we do't want to focus on the negative. But in my personal opinion it helps to know these things sometimes because it helps us become more grounded in reality, rather than what we think is the reality, and then get disappointed, to the point of being stumbled. I don't know if I have explained that very well. I'm not talking about fault finding or criticism. Just reality.

July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205)  For anyone who wants to read the whole article in context: https://ia801406.us.archive.org/23/items/WatchtowerLibrary/magazines/w/w1943_E.pdf

But isn't this based on facts? Or are you saying it wasn't Fred who wrote these things, but someone else in the writing department? But even if that was the case, Fred would sanction everything before going to print, so he would have had to agree with it.

Not to everyone.

Well that is not what we were talking about. You said the victim is afraid to come forward. Maybe that is a little technicality you maybe should have mentioned earlier but didn't. But as you said, when someone knows, there is nothing stopping them from reporting it In your own words: Finally, they finally get it that it is the wrong doer who is the bad guy and not the reporter And as for your argument that this is just lip service because of the two witness rule, then no, the two witness rule only applies in order to form a judicial meeting. No one has to have two witnesses to bring it to the authorities. I don't have time for anymore of this rubbish, just going round in circles. You either have a hard time comprehending, or you are purposefully taking my time up.

Then we are in agreement. Whether you have been accused of slander or not makes any difference to the secular authorities. So that shouldn't worry you. Plus you are no longer JW. But what does it tell you that the Police haven't got back with you yet?

OMG! How are you going to report it if you don't know about it????

We are talking about real life, you said it yourself: therefore as you say: "If nothing is said and no one knows anything, then yes on your technicality there is nothing to report" And that's all that I was saying. It wasn't my technicality was it? Read your quote above*

Ok. What would you do if the victim doesn't speak out?

Do you think secular authorities need some kind of proof? I am sure you know they do. You have experienced that yourself. Let's think of a hypothetical case. Let's say a single mother of a child, whom she knows well, notices that her child has been acting strangely recently. She becomes suspicious something is not right, and eventually her mother's instincts tell her someone has been messing with her child. She has no idea who, or she might have suspicions. She talks with her child, and eventually the child tells her that elder "touchy-feely" has been putting his hand up her skirt. She finds out more details, like perhaps since when, and how often and, where. All this depends on the age of the child of course. What do you think the mother should do now?

This was not what we were discussing. We were talking about the elders being mandated or not mandated to report. What you have mentioned above has nothing to do with that. And I have no idea why you would think I thought it was ok for the victim not to report, if I wouldn't know there was even a victim in the first place? How can anyone do anything if they don't know about it? The perpetrator is not going to say anything, is he? What you have described happens in ALL spheres of society, religious or non religious. Then leave crimes to the police instead of covering them up! Report the crime and THEN deal with the sin. Who is covering up? If it is not up to the elders to report (by law) then it is up to the victim/survivor/family/friends/ or anyone else (like John Butler) to report. If these people do not want to report, as I have already mentioned, it is their right not to. And if it is someone other than the victim/survivor, they will have to consider whether or not they will honor the wishes of the victim/survivor who does not want it reported.

Well then what is your point? If the victim doesn't speak out, then there is nothing to report, is there? And if someone has reasonable suspicions, then they can go to the secular authorities and the elders can't they? like I said, the elders etc. are concerned with congregational matters. With regard to law enforcement, that is obviously left up to the relevant competent authorities. I do not see anything in that article stating otherwise.

Of course two witness rule has no influence on how secular authorities will handle the case. The two witness rule is merely applicable in a congregational setting, ie. the judicial committee.

You are missing the point completely. The WT has to make this situation clear, and it has all to do with the victims /survivors rights. This is because unless there is a requirement by law for elders to report, the reporting can be left up to anyone else, the victim, the victim's parents, the victim's family or anyone who learns of the abuse as per par 14. If the law says the elders are mandated to report, then the elder has to report even if the victim, the victim's parents, the victim's family or anyone else does not want them to report it. It's the same with child protection agencies and social workers. In states or countries where those people are mandated to report, then they have to, regardless whether the client wants it or not. In fact when counseling a victim/survivor the counselor has to warn them that they will have to report anything the victim/survivor tells them. Then it is left up to the victim /survivor to disclose or not to disclose. It has everything to do with confidentiality and the rights of the victim/survivor. Not every victim/or survivor wants it reported, so if it is not mandated by law, as an elder/counselor you are leaving that right to the victim/survivor, but in order to be able to do that, you have to be clear on what the law says first! So again I repeat: This is because of the confidentiality and rights of the victim/survivor not because the elders are trying to get out of reporting.

I know some brothers who will use very similar expressions with very specific things to do with assignments for KH cleaning for instance. This is only a slightly exaggerated example; "Jehovah's direction is to use the swifter rather than a mop and bucket to clean the floor in the restrooms". Some people just have a knack....

Yes.... I know, I know. He obviously had strong opinions. Perhaps he was covinced these opinions were guided by holy spirit? But were his intentions bad? I think you said everyone at Bethel though he acted haughty and self righteous, and that that was just his way. I wonder how he was received at his final calling. I wonder if he is speaking beyond the veil to the new "kids on the block", telling them not to make the same mistakes. Perhaps he already did, through, Raymond's book

Of course I agree with everything you say, and I am sure GJ would too. He obviously didn't want to go into so much detail. The last part of your quote would have no doubt made a good impression on the commission as it could have been linked to the child abuse issue and its resolution. You are probably thinking of the misapplication of scripture which led to problems for the worldwide body of Witnesses in the past. I think now though these are being considered much more, and I would say lives are changed for the better. But this can also be a matter of opinion, because some things are still being judged as a "law" rather than a principle and left to be a matter of conscience.

Excellent point!