Anna

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....

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!

Sometimes you eat  the Bear ...... sometimes the Bear eats you.
 

Fake News...Fake News!!

You can only temporarily "rent" draft beer!

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.

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

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!

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.

 

I believe it works that the lawyers charge a certain percentage, no less than a third. However, costs of the trial come out of the client’s share, not the lawyer.
Legal costs can be astronomical. “Expert witnesses” of various sorts do not testify for free, nor do any sort of private investigators, nor fact-finders, but often make a very lucrative living out of so testifying. 
Everyone has their hand out, and I have heard of cases (anecdotal evidence only, and unrelated to CSA) in which the client’s net share is very small indeed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's very true that government (police, investigators, prosecutors, judges, child protection services, etc.) often fails to do their job correctly. 
True again. It's so typical of lawyers to go after an institution when it's not even the fault of an institution, just because that's where the money is. As you know, this goes for a lot of legal issues, even those unrelated to child sexual abuse. Of course, if it can be shown that an institution had hidden the abuse to protect their own assets (coach, priest, cardinal, bank account) or to protect their institution's reputation (a college, a football team, a diocese, a religion) then there should be culpability. In some few cases these vultures swoop in to exact a kind of punishment where the "system" failed, but there is no real justice for all, because this very much a 'hit and miss' process. 
There are cases against the Watchtower that really have absolutely nothing to do with the Watchtower, and should focus just on getting justice for the victim from the abuser. And there may be cases where congregation elders have made a mistake that has nothing to do with their training as elders and they should have known better. Some of these cases should have nothing to do with the Watchtower Society or the organization.
True. Powerful and monied interests can be leveraged on behalf of both persons and institutions, and that can make even good police investigative work meaningless. Victims are typically poorer and abusers can use their own power and influence to buy attorneys that can bully those victims. Victims can be talked into exonerating the abuser, or settling cases with a sack of money and a gag order.  I have a feeling that the HBO documentary on Michael Jackson which may be aired next month will show how money can buy the kind of lawyers and threats that protect abusers. Acosta/Epstein is another case in point.

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.

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.

I would be lying if I said I wouldn’t accept payout for merely being TrueTom.
When the rules of the game change, you can hardly blame the small players for adjusting to accommodate them. There was a time, I think you will remember it, too, when nothing was so crass as for lawyers to advertise. It was against their universal code of conduct, possibly even against the law. It explains the phrase “ambulance chaser” - you actually had to chase an ambulance to sign up a client before another lawyer did. You couldn’t just broadcast to the whole wide world that you were scouring the earth for clients.
Someone dear to me was sued several times with regard to rental property, in another matter that had a very long statute of limitations. When what proved to be the final lawsuit came in, the person sought to make defense through his own lawyer. That lawyer contacted several times but could not get a response from the firm bringing suit. Finally that firm admitted that they were having a hard time locating their client. In other words, they were leaving no stone unturned in desperately seeking business and had finally found “aggrieved” ones who’s cases were so tenuous that they couldn’t even be bothered to show up.
This may be your interpretation. I have seen many disfellowshipped ones go through the process and return. Nobody looks down upon them. It causes pure joy to the congregation that normal association may soon resume.
Think of it as a game, if you like, admittedly silly in some respects, but forced upon humans because they cannot read hearts. It is like a teen I knew very well who was disfellowshipped. He lived in the family home throughout. When on one super-cold morning he parked in the KH lot and strode toward the building without a coat, I broke all protocol and said “I know that there’s no contact and all, but did they even have to take your coat?”
He liked that one, and in not too long a time he was reinstated.

I don’t admire him. I use him. And I think he is okay with that.
I also have sought to understand him.
If anything, I admire you & and a few other very similar personas, for the tenacity to defend the current governing arrangement, which I also defend. But admiring or not admiring has little to do with anything. If my goal is to admire and not admire and to demonstrate my loyalty or lack thereof, then I hang out exclusively with the real flesh and blood people of my circuit, who all like me, barring perhaps a few who think me a windbag. (but how can they be faulted for that?)
He spills a lot of dirt. I would never spill the dirt that he does. And lest John B start frothing over this, it must be pointed out that everyone everywhere in every field of activity has some dirt that they could spill. It will always be a question of whether they choose to do it or not.)
But the fact is that he is not going away. So how do I come to grips with that? Should I simply repeat ‘Liar! liar!’ when the tone of his writing does not suggest lying? Notice what I said (and you quoted):
I didn’t say that his information was accurate. I said that HE deems it accurate. I didn’t say that John was right. I said that there were times when HE thought he was right.
There is much I like about JWI, but also much I don’t like. I think he is too swayed by the pretentions of journalism that the cockroaches disappear when you shine the bright light of journalism upon them. I think they just go somewhere else, leaving the illusion that something has been solved, which presently enough generally turns out to be but an illusion.
I hate to say it. I really really really really hate to say it, but I think someone I might truly like in person is @James Thomas Rook Jr.if you could only muzzle him, which seems unlikely at present. He is unpretentious, and that is a quality I am drawn to.
The Internet is not the congregation. You cannot make it behave as though it is. Brothers look like fools when they insist upon it. In a sense of strict organizational loyalty, none of us should be here, you no more (or less) than JWI. (or me)
I hope that the brothers enjoy what I write, but rarely are they my main intended audience. Nor, when I address villains, are they my intended audience. It is the unaligned & often misinformed people that I seek to address, and the relative success or futility of this will probably never be known.) To that end, I sometimes distance myself from certain loyal ones who declare their loyalty (often with heat) but otherwise bring little to the table. (and I don’t think of you as one of them- you bring plenty to the table) In real life, I would hang out with them. But the Internet is not real life.

This is true for every book, with the exception of my own, where each new word is a refreshing delight.

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).

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).

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