Anna

5 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

And a willingness to change for the better is a good thing. I would respect the org if it would acknowledge its errors and make necessary changes. But the organization seems set in its ways. 

It has acknowledged its errors and is making changes.

26 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

They are supposed to be protecting the flock from predators. So, elders have a moral responsibility as Christians to protect the flock, and that is the case regardless of what the law of the land says.

To be fair,  it's not always possible is it?

26 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

There is absolutely no reason why elders need an allegation to be Scripturally substantiated in order to report to the police,

Officially the Elders might not feel they can do so, but anyone else can! Or if the Elder is a father of a daughter who he suspects has been molested by someone, that elder can go to the police as well. It's only when elders are involved in an official judicial decision where they have been approached by the parents of a victim, they may not report if they feel there is not enough evidence, however the victim or parents can.

26 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

It's hard to imagine that elders sat on allegations of sex abuse and allowed predators to prey on congregations for years. I don't know how that sits well with your Bible-trained conscience.

Indeed it's hard to imagine, therefor I will logically deduce that this wasn't deliberate, but rather a mistake that has been going on for decades in all institutions, including government institutions and the courts. If you read the articles I posted the links to you will begin to understand. NO ONE deliberately, and with malicious intent allows a child to be molested.

40 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

governments are scrutinizing the religion's policies. And this has gotten the attention of the media.

Governments are scrutinizing their own policies because they have been found inadequate.

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/violence/clinical-response-csa/en/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20816521_Incest_victims_Inadequate_help_by_professionals

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ411733

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/18/justice-secretary-urged-to-rewrite-child-sexual-abuse-guidelines

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/808730

https://www.ovc.gov/publications/factshts/monograph.htm

https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/04_02_07.pdf

And lots more, too many to post...

@Srecko Sostar

Testimony of G. Jackson at the ARC Public hearing 14/08/2015

(This is the word doc. version of the transcript, but it's easy to find in any format when you search key words such as "mandatory" or "easier")

P.15966

G. Jackson: “The point being, here, another aspect that an elder needs  to consider is he does not have the authority to lord it over or take over control of a family arrangement, where a person - let's say it is a victim who is 24 or 25 years of age - has a right to decide whether or not they will report that incident. They also respect the family arrangement that the appointed guardian, who is not the perpetrator, has  a certain right, too.  So this is the spiritual dilemma that we have, because at the same time, we want to make sure that children are cared for. So if the government does happen to make mandatory reporting, that will make this dilemma so much easier for us, because we all want the same goal,that children will be cared for properly”.

P.15967

G. Jackson: “But the point I was trying to make, Mr Stewart, is there are other scriptural factors that maybe make that a little complicated, and it would certainly be a lot easier if we had mandatory laws on that”.

The written word cannot convey emotion, but when I watched that part of the transcript, G. Jackson said it in a pleading, urging tone of voice. I can cut and post that part of the video here if anyone wants.

P.S.

On page 48 of the report you posted,  BCG, the victim apparently made this statement: "BCG told the Royal Commission that in her view it was essential that uniform mandatory reporting laws be introduced across Australia to apply to organisations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses in order to protect children".

This is such a silly and misleading statement. It makes it look like a “special” mandatory law has to be applied to the Jehovah’s Witness orq. to make them comply with the law, because they are so uncooperative. Mandatory reporting means mandatory to anyone. This is why G. Jackson said if mandatory reporting was implemented across the country it would make the job a lot easier for everyone as evident from the transcript. But in this report, there is no mention of that.  Only this silly comment above. That smells of bias to me!

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

3 hours ago, Anna said:

Right.

 

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Please, show me place where G. Jackson said that, that i would be able to check for myself, thanks! 

Just give me a couple of hours. Just starting on dinner.

28 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

That's why G Jackson pleaded to the ARC to make their laws uniform, which would make JWs job so much easier - it would be across-the-board policy, with no room for misunderstanding or misapplication, and it wouldn't matter if a given family head wanted to avoid airing his family's dirty laundry on the 11PM News.

Right.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

I agree with most all that you are saying, except many children are abused by a parent; a parent they thought they could trust.  Also, I was abused as a girl by someone in the extended family. Because my parents thought so highly of the individual, I never had the heart to tell them of my abuse that lasted years, even though I had an especially close bond with my father.  They died not knowing the sordid truth about my abuser.

I am very sorry to hear that .  I did not dismiss the possibility of a parent being the abuser. It is the saddest of all the abuse cases and unfortunately the most common. It is a betrayal of trust of the worst kind. Only the God of justice will put things right.  

3 hours ago, Witness said:

It places blame on the incapable victim, should they be molested, by depicting an image of a child with her hand up, to her would-be rapist

I have to disagree with this.  Just because you are a child, doesn't mean you are incapable, talk to parents everywhere and they will tell you children can be very capable! When that child has a strong emotional bond with their parent, and knows they can trust a parent, even if they do not fully understand something, then they will be more than eager to listen to that parent. Especially small children (as they get older they have their own ideas). It's interesting to see that worldly attitudes tend to focus on the cure rather than prevention. How much better is it when a child does not even have to experience such a traumatic event, rather than having to spend years in psychological counseling. How much better is it when people prevent diseases by living a healthy lifestyle, rather than spend the rest of their life visiting doctors and taking pills.  A child who is taught that certain actions that some people do are wrong, they tend to run and tell their parent on them if they identify it. That, coupled with vigilant parents who do not leave their children unattended and who recognize the signs of suspicious behavior on the part of someone who is interacting with their child, then that child's safety is almost guaranteed. But of course you can't expect that sort of discipline from everyone, especially not when they are dysfunctional in some way, or if they do not value God's laws. Regardless of anything though, blame is never put on the victim.

You can't rely on training a rapist not to be one, but you can train yourself not to be a victim.

9 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

get in is some kind of trans

Really? Is that what you really believe?

11 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

For WT "bible scholars" it is easy, i agree.

I wasn't taking about that, I meant that it was easy for me to reply.

WT "Bible scholars" also have to personally apply what they say.

And then there are the nice experiences where celebrities become worshipers of Jehovah to the point of abandoning a self gratifying lifestyle in order to help others get to know Jehovah too.

https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODIntExpTransformations/pub-jwbvs_201612_1_VIDEO

https://www.newsday.co.zw/2015/06/mateo-hangs-up-guitar-turns-to-god/

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WT representatives were told many times that they would not change what is "proved by Bible" or what is "supported by Bible". And we all know how that was ended many times.

Well that's an easy one What they changed must have not been proved or supported by the Bible then, even when they thought so at the time. The great thing about changing your mind is it can happen even when you say you will NEVER change it

By the way, the two witness rule does not necessarily mean you have to have two literal eye witnesses to the same instance. The two witness rule can be translated to mean reliable evidence. You will agree that most secular judicial authorities require reliable evidence. Innocent until proved guilty.

Also, there is confusion when it comes to child sexual abuse. In that case there are two judgements, one a spiritual/congregational one and the other a criminal/secular one. It is logical that if a supposed perpetrator is convicted by secular authorities, then that will immediately affect his standing in the congregation even if the congregation felt there wasn't enough evidence prior to that.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

God said to Rookie: "Go down to Nineveh and kick some butt." 

So Rookie proceeded to board a nuclear-armed ship headed for Tarshish and slipped a few nukes into his holster. In time, God sent a big fish to make trouble. "Die, sucker!" Rookie screamed, as he blew the beast to smithereens.

Rookie approached Nineveh and the gates were closed. So he cut them it two with blasts from his guns. King Ninny wet himself as Rookie put a gun to his temple. "You feel lucky today, punk?' he sneered. "Well, do ya?" King Ninny ran to the intercom. "Attention all Ninevites. Mayday! Mayday! Rookie is in town! Get that sackcloth on!

Rookie slammed his gun back into its holster and popped open a nice cool beer to enjoy under the gourd tree. God said: "That King Ninny got those people to straighten out and fly right. I'm not going to smush anyone."

"Oh, for crying out loud!" Rookie cried in disgust. "Are you wimping out on me?"

 

Wow, your life and ministry workbook looks different to mine last night!

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Quality   is another topic. If never ending changes of doctrines, instructions, interpretations some of us want to call as "success" - let it be.  

 

Does anyone remember watching the first Diehard movie and liked that part where it suddenly dawns on John McClane that Alan Rickman is nothing but a common thief? Well I hate to say it, but through all that talk, JTR is nothing but a common cowboy. He should have been born in the Wild West in the 1800's where he would have come into his own, and nobody would have held it against him. He looks a bit like John Wayne. Ok, I know he was an actor.

Who even writes that crap?

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I spent hours and hours listening official video records from ARC in 2015. Here/There all viewer are been, and today also can be able, to hear and see (to hear and see, audio-visual is very important) "first-hand evidence" from all involved and called to present their testimony in front Commission and public as well.

I too watched the ARC hearing and read the transcripts.

I saw a cloud the other day that looked like Jesus

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

Honestly, the organization needs to be 100% transparent right now about their child abuse policies, because we act as representatives for them when we go out

One thing we need to remember is to stay objective. Just because ex-witnesses whip up countless cases and horror stories does not mean the situation is as extreme as it sounds. I can afford to say this because I am a nobody. It doesn't matter if someone accuses me of cover ups  etc. I am not the Org. However the org. cannot said anything like this even if it is true.  Of course one abused child is one too many, and of course even one case should not be minimized. But I can afford to say that in my whole time as a JW, in many congregations in several countries I have not come across this problem, and believe me this problem does not stay hidden, Witnesses do talk and gossip and word gets around pretty quickly. Not only that, but I have seen elders and ex-elders who would have information admit they have not come across one case. Even one ex- member of the GB admitted that the problem is not extreme and that he himself was not personally aware of a single case. Evidently there have been and are cases. There is such a plethora of people from all kinds of social backgrounds and levels of spiritual maturity in the worldwide brotherhood that it makes it statistically impossible not to have cases of child sexual abuse, sad as it sounds. The other thing is acquiring facts about these cases. As I already mentioned above, these are extremely hard to come by, and without knowing facts, we cannot really make a fair judgement...

Apparently, there is a  handbook on child abuse guidelines which are made available to any publisher who asks for one. Has anyone done this? I haven't since I no longer have small children.

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

I would just say I have no control over the organization's legal policies and that I would always report to the police.

Good answer.

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

Surprisingly, a man did show up at my former kingdom hall asking about the child abuse to elders. They had to lock the doors after that.

Sounds suspiciously like an ex-member I'm afraid..

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

There is a rumor that Leah Remini may focus on Jehovah's Witnesses as a spinoff of her show on Scientology.

I heard about that, but I haven't heard about Dr. Phil. It's good to remember that these shows are there to attract an audience and to make money. I am not saying this because I don't believe there is a problem. You probably know by now that I have delved into this area quite extensively already.

There are two faces to the reporting on child abuse. The one we see mostly is the one presented to us by the media which as we know only has limited time and space to cover everything, and sensationalism is what sells. Then there are the facts. Facts are extremely hard to come by because often such information is not easily available. The best kind of facts regarding a particular case are those we can obtain through court transcripts some of which are thousands of pages long, but even then, there are some facts that are inadmissible in court.

Just as an example, here is an extract from a court transcript dealing with two proposed witnesses to testify against the WT. Note how the judge ascertains their value in this particular case (Victoria Boer vs WT 2003). Bare in mind that these two witnesses are two of the "go to" people used by ex-witnesses in cases against JW child sexual abuse, and what they say on their websites or books is considered to be accurate information regarding the policies of JWs:

<During the course of the trial, the plaintiff sought leave to present evidence from two witnesses about certain characteristics or practices of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization in situations similar to this one. I ruled such evidence to be inadmissable, with reasons to follow.

[27] The first witness, Professor James Penton, is an historian and the author of a book entitled Apocalypse Delayed . Mr. Mark, on behalf of the plaintiff, intended to elicit evidence from Mr. Penton with respect to his conclusions about various characteristics of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the way women are treated within that faith and the functioning of Judicial Committees. Professor Penton’s evidence would be based on his research and would constitute opinion. He does not have first-hand evidence. However, Mr Mark did not deliver notice of his intention to call an expert on this topic and did not serve an expert report on the defense as required under the Evidence Act , R.S.O 1990, c E23. That alone is fatal to the plaintiff’s request to call this evidence. The defence would have been caught by surprise with no opportunity to prepare, nor to call its own evidence to rebut the evidence of Mr. Penton.

[28] In any event, I am by no means satisfied that expert evidence of this nature would have been admissable in respect of these matters. It seems to me that I am in a position to determine the relevant facts to the particular matters before me without the assistance of an expert on these matters.

[29] The second witness proposed by the plaintiff is Barbara Anderson, who was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in New York from 1954 until her recent disfellowship (ejection from the faith). The plaintiff proposed to elicit evidence from Ms. Anderson as to her knowledge of how sexual abuse of children is dealt with within that religion and of cover-ups of abuse within that society. Most of Ms. Anderson’s proposed testimony would be hearsay. The plaintiff argued it would be admissable as similar fact evidence that the actions of the defendants in this case was part of a design, rather than negligence.

[30] The general test for the admissibility of similar fact evidence in a civil trial is derived from Mood Music Publishing Co. v DeWolf Ltd .; [1976] Ch 19, 1 ALL E.R. 763 (C.A.) In that case, Lord Denning stated, at page 127 (Ch)

…in civil cases the court will admit evidence of similar facts if it is logically probative, that is if it is logically relevant in determining the matter which is in issue; provided that it is not oppressive or unfair to the other side; and also that the other side has fair notice of it and is able to deal with it.

[31] The proposed evidence from Ms. Anderson fails this test on every front. First, it is not logically probative of any issue before me. Whatever may have been Ms. Anderson’s personal experience with the Jehovah’s Witness faith, and whatever information she may have gleaned about how child abuse cases were dealt with elsewhere, she has no evidence whatsoever about the Toronto or Shelburne congregations or any of the individuals in this case. Further, even her information about Watch Tower generally relates to that organization in the United States. There is nothing about her evidence that would assist in the very specific findings of fact I am required to make about what happened in the case before me.>

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

 It's concerning to me that more and more people are coming to associate the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses with child abuse.

I doubt this is true. In ex- JW circles definitely, but I have to this date never met anyone who mentions this issue door to door, or anywhere else. Just because ex- JW sites are full of this doesn't mean people in general associate us with this problem which is rife in every circle of society. In our neighborhood I counted 8 within a 3 mile radius, with one who has been convicted of sexual assault of the 1st degree on an 8 year old and he lives down the street from my house. Bare in mind these are convicted offenders, there are more who haven't been convicted, very much for the same reasons as some JWs are not convicted....

49 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

Why are they not respecting the superior authorities? How does giving this namelist violate our beliefs?

You need to ask those who make this decision.

The formal ruling according to the court of appeals document dated Nov. 9, 2017 page. 39 (the link to the document posted by Witness above)

"On the record before us, we are satisfied that the superior court's order was not arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. To the contrary, the superior court has shown great patience and flexibility in dealing with a recalcitrant litigant who refuses to follow valid orders and merely reiterates losing arguments. We therefore affirm".

Therefore the fine stands.

10 minutes ago, Elisabeth Dolewka said:

on trouve toujours à critiquer......le monde est rempli de critiques .tu ouvres ta tv et voilà

 C'est pourquoi il est important d'établir la vérité ...

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Because, they said, "We must explain you what is truth and how you need to understand this truth" :)))))))   

We have a choice whether we listen t them or not don't we?

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This and more of this are as some kind of tool how to direct people in particular direction and policy. 

That is ok if we do not have a preconceived idea about which direction we want to go, but rather go the direction which we find is the most agreeable with the entire contents of the Bible, whether we like the direction or not.  What is the point of seeking truth if we are not willing to be objective?

2 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Have they paid?

I don't think the order ever went through because the WT appealed the decision. If I do enough digging around I may be able to find out what the final result was.

OK. Dug around a bit and found  out the appeal was heard 11th October 2017 and the appellate court has 90 days to issue its formal ruling. Watch this space