Anna

As far as I am aware we haven't mentioned you once John, sorry. But we can change that, how about the topic "John the cry baby" . And you are funny with your assumptions. You don't take a break. Remember though that members of the "closed club" still comment here too.

It's called the "closed Club" . Are you able to read the rules of the club? If yes, then you will notice you do not qualify. That's just life John, and that is the prerogative of the club's owner. He can determine who gets to join. I can't join our local golf club, because I don't qualify. As for your other sentiments, well you are assuming a lot. You have no idea what we cover in there. Same goes for @Shiwiii just assuming things. But that seems to be what you guys do.

What justice did you get?

If I remember right, I think it was @Srecko Sostar who I asked.

Except that the policy does support reporting to the police

It is not a problem, it is exactly how it is. The jurisdictional system in a congregation deals with sin, the Jurisdictional system of the Government deals with crime and both can be applied to the same instance at the same time. In the case of child sexual molestation, it is both, a sin and a crime. So both jurisdictional systems are needed. It might seem like that. But if you read the context, and other scriptures which talk about this subject, then it becomes clear that for Christians, God is to be obeyed above anyone: Acts 5:29: "In answer Peter and the other apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men". For example, secular law does not prohibit Adultery or fornication. However God does. So, as you say, there are two parallel jurisdictional systems. One is religious, based on sin (adultery and fornication are a sin), the other one is secular, based on crime (adultery and fornication are not a crime). That is why Paul was able to say: "After all, it is none of my business to judge outsiders. God will judge them. But should you not judge the members of your own fellowship? As the scripture says, “Remove the evil person from your group.” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13). These would have been personal disputes between two brothers (or sisters) that did not involve a sin or a crime. It would be better if these brothers could handle this between themselves peacefully, rather than get "worldly" courts to judge who was right and who was wrong. Possibly. But in any case, we can be sure that ultimately God will judge everyone (Romans 14:12) If you were an elder, what decision would you make?

No Nooo! Police being involved or not involved has nothing to do with the molester being repentant or not repentant. Again, remember: The elders’ handling of an accusation of child abuse is not a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter.— This applies whether the elders disfellowship the molester or not. Par. 11 Follows from par 10: 10. Child abuse is a serious sin. If an alleged abuser is a member of the congregation, the elders conduct a Scriptural investigation. This is a purely religious proceeding handled by elders according to Scriptural instructions and is limited to the issue of membership as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A member of the congregation who is an unrepentant child abuser is expelled from the congregation and is no longer considered one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (1 Corinthians 5:13) The elders’ handling of an accusation of child abuse is not a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter.— and then: 11. If it is determined that one guilty of child sexual abuse is repentant and will remain in the congregation, restrictions are imposed on the individual’s congregation activities. The individual will be specifically admonished by the elders not to be alone in the company of children, not to cultivate friendships with children, or display any affection for children. In addition, elders will inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with the individual. Remember the Elders responsibility is the spiritual well being of even the molester. The molester may have been released from prison, he may be on a sex offender registry, he may have social restrictions, he may be attending special counseling. But If there are clear signs that the molester is repentant from a Biblical stand point, then the Elders cannot deny him his right to be in the congregation. This does not exclude police involvement. The police can be involved at any stage in this process (with prison, counseling, social restrictions etc.). In fact I personally know a brother who is on a sex offender registry for something he did in the past. So the police were very much involved. He even went to prison for 6 months. He is still a member of a congregation. This is why Christ died for us, so that no matter how bad the sin/crime, we have a chance of forgiveness.

I think we have a misunderstanding here, out of context. The elders are responsible for the flock in a spiritual way, but do you think if someone would try to physically assault someone inside the congregation they would just stand by and not do anything? They will help, and if necessary call the police. So in context, the elders are going to help someone from physical (or sexual) harm inside the Kingdom Hall, not just the elders, but any brother or sister will try and help. But if there is a problem outside the congregation building, for example domestic violence inside a home, then the elders will let the police handle that.

Not really. The police also monitor a sexual predator that has been released from prison. How do you think the police do it? Do you think they are with the person 24 hours a day 7 days a week? Of course not. There are various degrees of how a person can be monitored. Prison is the best way. The other ways depend on the reasonable ability of the ones doing the monitoring. For example the elders will be alert to anything going on in the congregation or congregation activities. But they will not sit inside his house, or go shopping with him. Neither will the police.

See my comment to John about the same question. Is it enough? I don't know. What I do know is that the goal is to protect children. As you say, there may be laws on what you can and cannot do. But regardless, I am sure you will agree, no one wants children to be harmed. What I do know is that if a perpetrator moves to another congregation, their record card is sent to the new congregation, and all those details will be on that record card.

So do you think that because only parents with minor children are informed, that 'so and so' is a danger to children, i.e. is a sexual child molester, it will not become common knowledge in the whole congregation? Come on, you know better than that . Short of announcing from the platform that 'so and so' is a pedophile, this is another way of letting the whole congregation know. And yes, that is the goal, that someone determined guilty of child sexual abuse is reported to the police in order for the rest of the community to be protected. In America, such a person is put on a sex offender registry for life, and anyone can find their name and address. Also these people are not allowed to live within a certain perimeter of schools and other child facilities.

For secular police not, you are right. But for inside "Police", victims must have two witnesses. No change, no progress. This is not good, because Bible told us about examples where you do not need two witness for making "justified" allegation/accusation. Srecko, it is still irrelevant. It does not matter. The ultimate goal is that the perpetrator does not molest any more children. How this is done, whether by the police, the elders, or both does not matter. Remember, the handling of the matter by the elders does NOT replace the handling of the matter by the authorities.

The problem with that reasoning is that what has to happen for time to tell? Another child is molested? Do we "sacrifice" another child so when that happens we then know for 'sure' this person is a danger and needs to be constrained in a more effective way? (i.e. prison and counseling etc.). In cases of child sexual molestation, unlike other judicial cases (adultery, fornication etc.) the congregation will be informed according to the new guidelines: par. 11. If it is determined that one guilty of child sexual abuse is repentant and will remain in the congregation, restrictions are imposed on the individual’s congregation activities. The individual will be specifically admonished by the elders not to be alone in the company of children, not to cultivate friendships with children, or display any affection for children. In addition, elders will inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with the individual. https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

@Shiwiii @Jay Iza @Srecko Sostar please read carefully what @JOHN BUTLER posted on November 18th 2018: and ask yourselves,: should John report this to the police and/or social services? Or is it just me, @Outta Here and @JW Insider and (maybe others like @Arauna @TrueTomHarley)who think John should report it? I have been given this information :- Somewhere between 18 months to 2 years ago, a young man that is a member of Honiton Congregation (my ex congregation) committed a sexual offence against a young girl that would have been around 7 or 8 years old at that time.. The young man was visiting the home of this child and he went up to the girl's bedroom and asked the girl to have sex with him. I do not think that sexual intercourse took place but from the information that I've been given, he laid her on the bed and got on top of her and 'humped' her as if he were having sexual intercourse with her. The incident was reported to the Elders and the police were not informed. I have no idea what action the Elders took but the congregation were not informed. The young man ( who's name I have ) would have been in his very early twenties at the time, but his mental age is lower. He is a bit slow in learning things and possibly has mental disorders. That is not meant as an insult, but i do know this young man personally and he does act a bit strange sometimes and frightens people. The young man's father was a single dad of three children ( i knew this man quite well ), but he invited a foreign lady (a sister in the JW Org) over to the UK, and they married. The marriage did not go well as the woman wanted to 'be the boss'. They split up and she went back to her country of origin. But then she came back to have a 'second try' at the marriage. I do not know the marriage situation at this time. However the whole issue would have been totally upsetting for the three children, especially for this young man that found it difficult to cope with some situations. The person that gave me this information, in my opinion, is completely trustworthy, and once again in my opinion, would not have any reason for making up a 'story'. As I was given the young man's name, and i know the young man and his father, it all seems quite genuine to me. Now i come back to the duty of care. For, in my opinion, it is the duty of anyone that has any information concerning child abuse to report it to the police. This could be just a one off incident, but it could be the start of a young man becoming a pedophile. I honestly don't know where my duty is here. The young girl that was the victim of this assault may need help getting over the situation. The information was also that the father of the victim does not want 'any trouble'. Hence he did not want the police involved. That helped the Elders to keep it secret, well almost. Now this young man may commit sexual assault again, within the JW congregation or outside of it. And that young lady will be in fear of him and yet still have to attend that Kingdom hall where she will see him every week. So should i report what i have been told to the police or not ? Of course I would have to tell the police it is only third hand information. BUT, if the police could get hold of the 'records' / paperwork from the Kingdom hall regarding the incident, then it would be proved as true. I do not expect that the Elders would willingly hand over paperwork, so I've no idea how it would work out in the end. But it's my actions that I'm concerned about here , my responsabilites. What should i do ? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John, I know that at least three people, including myself advised you to go to report this to the police or social services and we were disturbed and still are that you are so reluctant to go. It is obvious to me that this "young man" may pose a real danger to children. I do not wish to be insulting either, but it is well known that people with mental retardation tend to have a higher than normal sexual drive and they may not have the same moral restraints as other people. The rest of the post can be found here:

You have absolutely no idea how this works in the real world do you? Having 20 years worth of child abuse accusations is of absolutely no use to the authorities unless the survivor/victim makes a report to them first. When a report is made to the authorities by survivor/victim it is taken to court and the courts ask for any reports made, then the reports are handed over.

It's not a laughing matter and it's not that simple. It would be great if it was! By your comment I can see that you have never had any experience with something as complex as this. In fact it shows me you have absolutely no idea. Why don't you at least do some reading up on the subject, to educate yourself, before you make thoughtless sweeping statements like this. Here are a few things to start you off: https://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics-articles/To_Report_or_Not_To_Report%3A_That_Is_the_Ethical_Dilemma/ http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1999-04243-002 https://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&category=industry news&id=172:the-importance-of-being-earnest-ethics-and-child-abuse-reporting https://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/childadolescent-psychiatry/mandatory-reporting-of-child-abuse/article/802017/ Before you say that these articles apply to social workers, therapists only, you need to realize that disclosures made to elders are no different, and that elders experience the same dilemmas because the information given to them may be the same as that given to social workers, therapists etc.

What nonsense. Has it not occurred to you that just as you are concerned about slander and defamation, then so are the elders. You know you cannot just nilly willy hand out confidential information about others. So you are not willing to do it yourself, to go that extra mile, why? You don't know anything about the information the elders have in your congregation at all. You don't even know whether they went to the police or not. Everything you say about your elders and the case are just assumptions. And you just keep making one excuse after another for why you will not go to secular authorities. If you don't want to go to the police, or the elders, why don't you at least go to social services? I mean I am hoping you are worried about the perpetrator molesting someone else. Or are you not worried?

Yes, WT always hands over any necessary confidential documentation pertaining to a case. WT will not hand over confidential documentation that has nothing to do with a specific case. The supreme court agreed with WT on that. (Any $4,000 fines per day were reversed and removed). One more thing on that Srecko; the lawyer Zalkin has hundreds of files (in his words) from WT in his office, that he is not allowed to show to anyone by law*. So WT have given him many more documents, more than he needed. * why doesn't he make them public if it would help victims? Because he would immediately lose his license as a lawyer for breaching the confidentiality law. (or as you say secret). So he doesn't want to risk that of course.

That's why I said: But my response and reason for giving this example was because you wanted to know: " if it is so as this declaration No 10 say, than WHY elders must contact Legal Department first on how this purely religious proceeding must continue. ??

Yes. No argument against that.

You are funny. This is what we have been talking about. When the law of the land "the authorities" obligate a person who has heard of an allegation of CSA to report to the authorities, then JWs will report to the authorities. You are the one that brought it up

Do you have to be told?? I thought you said one does not have to be told these things. Even the police do not tell a survivor/victim they have to talk to them (the police).

Of course not. You were the one making the point.

Yes. And that is what they will try to do.