Anna

I have a great deal of tolerance with people in general, but vulgarity should be limited to those who cannot think well enough to express themselves without it.  Thinking  correctly is hard work, and many are lazy.
I cannot imagine the Apostle Paul ministering to a bunch of sailors at a seaport dock, using the same language as he would use from a podium at the Sanhedrin ... there is a time and a place for EVERYTHING.
In mortal hand to hand combat, verbal expressions have somewhat more "energy" than reading poetry during a picnic.
I find vulgarity offensive ... because it means , generally, I am in a conversation with a stupid person, not because I am personally offended by the vulgarity.
But getting back to the "Dog" theme ... dogs DO have a sense of Justice and fairness. I have five dogs who wait patiently to be hand fed treats, because they know they will all be fed the same amount... and when I discipline them, their hurt feelings are only momentary.
When I get angry I can scare paint off of walls, but when I change my tone of voice, they run to me to be petted and consoled.
.... but to be safe, I do not tell them how much life insurance I have.
 
 
 

To quote Sean Connery as James Bond in the movie "Goldfinger":
" ..... Never was a man more misunderstood! ..... "
I understand this, as with my size and appearance, and to avoid being misunderstood by curious neighbors ... I cannot dig holes in my back yard at night, in the rain, with a flashlight.
 

Limmy, you have to know the players here. Admin is not a Witness. The Librarian is, but he is certainly not a typical one. Call him avant- garde. Few Witnesses here are typical. This is not Bethel. Apostates, real and imagined, are free to come and go. And JTR would make Rambo blush.

Very wise strategy Mr Butler. He who fights and runs away etc.....
Your conduct in this at present classes you quite squarely with the people you condemn. You're seeming to be cut in the same spineless, self-saving mode. And the little children? ...Why , just let them suffer. 
You might be thinking that turning your back on those whom you define as ones who "have the full information" might in some way exonerate you, but really, you are just seeming to fill up the measure of Zeph.13:4.
Yes, that is your assessment. You're just grasping at straws here. You don't really know how I have been trained, or who trained me. 
Anyway, I don't think you are a bad man Mr B. at the moment. You leave yourself too exposed for that. I think  Anna has you pretty well taped on this so I'm going to live up to my tag here. You've had your advice and chosen to ignore it.

This is why witch hunts based on humor rumors is so very important for local entertainment.
 

This is going round in circles and getting boring. And it is totally off topic. 

I believe what you mean to say is ‘the stake of the problem.’

No need to get cross about it .
 

Hey, stop "dragging" me into this!

What in the world would make you think that? With the possible exception of @Anna, who may be a high-ranking brother in drag, I think it is most unlikely that anyone is UNLESS they are malcontents working for the other side.
One can never know for sure, because the Internet is the land of the liars.
All comments that I have seen, the ones that have stayed on-topic, that is, have been focused on human matters, if not individual rights. I’ve not seen any that have addressed God’s stated insistence on preserving a clean people for his name.

?? The info you have provided???
You feel condemned? The problem is that you are presenting the same charcteristics as those you condemn others within the congregation for having. You may not actually intend this, but you seem to be doing the same thing as those you yourself condemn . So, that would lead to the conclusion that you are self-condemning. But I don't think that is what you are aiming at, is it?
??? I thought you said:
 

The official line on this in the UK is:   "You don’t need to be sure that a child or young person has been abused - it’s OK to report a suspicion."  https://www.gov.uk/report-child-abuse
and this reassurance if you report to Childline on 0800 1111: "The ChildLine number won’t show up on your phone bill if you call from a landline or from most mobile networks."
Your reticence to get involved is understandable, but you have revealed such a lot about the matter in this, a public forum, along with your various allegations against "elders" whom, you say, have more responsibility than you do, that it would seem that the reticence "horse" has actually bolted.
As made clear, the UK police line on this matter is "there is a moral duty on everyone of us to report to the police any crime or anything we suspect may be a crime".
Your concern regarding evidence is unfounded, as the police have a duty to investigate any report of "suspicion". It is up to them to decide if there is evidence or not to substantiate it.
It is all so easy to do, and can even be done anonymously. I don't understand your shrinking back from what is your moral responsibility, regardless of that of anyone else.  I would have thought, given the tone of your allegations against others, that you would proudly proclaim your "doing the right thing" in the matter of reporting allegations of child sexual abuse.
But, so far, all these reasons and justifications you list seem like more of the mealy-mouthed excuses of others on non-reporting  to which you attribute your withdrawal from the Witnesses. I am sure that wasn't your intention?
To stay (rather tenuously ) on topic, this kind of discussion would seem to be a pretty good reason why  those who wish to debate such matters in a congregational setting would be better shunned.

My only dispute with the disfellowshipping policy is being TOLD "how to treat loved ones living outside the home" by means of videos. No matter how I slice it, I cannot see what is right about TOTALLY  ignoring a loved one and the loved ones innocent children (grandchildren) for years. The Israelites, under the mosaic law, were to stone those who broke God's laws, parents were to stone their children. Is this our version of stoning? The question is, were the Israelites also to stone the children (grandchildren) of someone who broke Gods law?
Why was stoning done away with? What was to happen with those who would have previously been stoned now that stoning was no longer practiced? Is there specific admonition by Paul which deals with family? How would we be breaking our loyalty to God if we treated our loved ones like we are supposed to treat our neighbors, tax collectors and those of the nations?  Didn't Paul say we should treat ones who have left as tax collectors? 
I would not advocate my views unless I was specifically asked about them. But I know how I would treat my son if he got Df'd. and it wouldn't be as is "recommended" in the video.
 

OK......So what if one day it was discovered that the accused has molested again. How would you feel if you could have perhaps prevented it? They would be talking about you on apostate forums saying this John Butler knew about it and didn't say anything. How would you defend yourself? Excuses? You ARE starting to sound as bad as the elders. 

Excellent point

My only dispute with the disfellowshipping policy is being TOLD "how to treat loved ones living outside the home" by means of videos. No matter how I slice it, I cannot see what is right about TOTALLY  ignoring a loved one and the loved ones innocent children (grandchildren) for years. The Israelites, under the mosaic law, were to stone those who broke God's laws, parents were to stone their children. Is this our version of stoning? The question is, were the Israelites also to stone the children (grandchildren) of someone who broke Gods law?
Why was stoning done away with? What was to happen with those who would have previously been stoned now that stoning was no longer practiced? Is there specific admonition by Paul which deals with family? How would we be breaking our loyalty to God if we treated our loved ones like we are supposed to treat our neighbors, tax collectors and those of the nations?  Didn't Paul say we should treat ones who have left as tax collectors? 
I would not advocate my views unless I was specifically asked about them. But I know how I would treat my son if he got Df'd. and it wouldn't be as is "recommended" in the video.
 

My only dispute with the disfellowshipping policy is being TOLD "how to treat loved ones living outside the home" by means of videos. No matter how I slice it, I cannot see what is right about TOTALLY  ignoring a loved one and the loved ones innocent children (grandchildren) for years. The Israelites, under the mosaic law, were to stone those who broke God's laws, parents were to stone their children. Is this our version of stoning? The question is, were the Israelites also to stone the children (grandchildren) of someone who broke Gods law?
Why was stoning done away with? What was to happen with those who would have previously been stoned now that stoning was no longer practiced? Is there specific admonition by Paul which deals with family? How would we be breaking our loyalty to God if we treated our loved ones like we are supposed to treat our neighbors, tax collectors and those of the nations?  Didn't Paul say we should treat ones who have left as tax collectors? 
I would not advocate my views unless I was specifically asked about them. But I know how I would treat my son if he got Df'd. and it wouldn't be as is "recommended" in the video.
 

OK......So what if one day it was discovered that the accused has molested again. How would you feel if you could have perhaps prevented it? They would be talking about you on apostate forums saying this John Butler knew about it and didn't say anything. How would you defend yourself? Excuses? You ARE starting to sound as bad as the elders. 

Expelling is Biblical. That's true. But what is the method and are Christians under some kind of rule of law that needs to be applied uniformly in all situations? What if it was a principle that is good, but the way it was executed even in Bible times turns out not to have been a Christian method.
For example, the Bible allows for a husband to disfellowship his wife. (The Bible never allows for a wife to disfellowship (divorce) a husband, by the way.) But are we under Mosaic rules for divorce just because it is Biblical? In fact, Jesus said that even though it was Biblical, it wasn't what Jehovah really wanted.
(Matthew 19:7, 8 )  7 They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. Jesus doesn't say Moses wasn't inspired when he made the Biblical concession for divorce as one of the laws in the "perfect" Law covenant. But Jesus rejects this particular "jot and tittle" of the Law as a mere concession for human hard-heartedness, especially because it was being misused in practice.  "Hard-heartedness" is a form of having "no natural affection." (See my earlier post on this topic.)
There is an even more obvious case where the Governing Body now rejects something that is definitely Biblical. In the Bible, it's OK to "beat" your children, physically. When asked about this, GB member Geoffrey Jackson, in front of the Australian Royal Commission,  said that the GB now believe that the "rod" of correction is not a physical rod, but that it is the "virtual" rod of righteous corrective discipline. Of course, what do we then do with the Mosaic Law that says that if you beat your slave to death that there is no punishment as long as it takes the slave a day or two to die? (There is a punishment if the slave dies within in a shorter time period.)
(Exodus 21:20, 21) . . .“If a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one dies by his hand, that one must be avenged. 21 However, if he survives for one or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is someone bought with his owner’s money. The way in which the point was made in front of the ARC was for the GB member to avoid this Scripture:
(Proverbs 23:13, 14) 13 Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die. 14 With the rod you yourself should beat him, that you may deliver his very soul from Sheʹol itself. Instead, he used another verse, from the previous chapter, which was more ambiguous:
(Proverbs 22:15) 15 Foolishness is tied up with the heart of a boy; the rod of discipline is what will remove it far from him. Of course, all of these verses use the same Hebrew word for "rod/stick" and the same Hebrew word for "beat/smite/strike." Same word for "rod" or "stick" is used here too:
(Proverbs 26:3) 3 A whip is for the horse, a bridle is for the ass, and the rod is for the back of stupid people. I'm not in favor of the physical beating of children. There are times when the principle is correct, but the methods used were "hard-hearted." The Governing Body says we have updated our understanding to that of the world here, and I think everyone knows that Brother Jackson is not so stupid as to think that the Bible was not really referring to physical beatings with these Hebrew expressions. It's time we progressed in our understanding of what it means to disfellowship, too. 
You've argued that other religions see familial DFing, for example, as Biblical. But so what? In other religions they might still beat their children, beat their wives and servants, promote racism, divorce on any ground, and promote a lack natural affection, too.

I heard a little about the Canada fiasco only on this forum, and it seemed so ridiculous that I assumed it was a couple of mentally imbalanced JWs, and that most of the story was inexplicable because it was from their perspective. Have to admit that I never read the newspaper accounts. Seemed like a waste. I was surprised that someone put so much "professional" effort into this video -- over something that was probably (similarly) ignored by most.

Witness, I don't remember ever giving you an upvote before on any topic, but I can tell from the way you took this issue seriously, and from how well you wrote the entire last response, that you are sincerely concerned about handling the word of God aright, and thinking deeply about the issue here.
Naturally, I don't agree with everything you say --especially the degree to which you take exception to WT practices-- but I was surprised at how closely your response matched the way I was about to respond to Tom on this same topic. Your first point was to make clear that the way in which DFing is handled among JWs has caused serious problems among us, and serious harm to former associates, spiritual damage to both the expelled and those perpetrating the type of DFing that we practice. The way we treat families has become evidence to others that we are not a group of people known for love among ourselves, and that we often show "no natural affection."
Of course we dismiss the way we treat the dismissed and point to how much love we have among those of us who remain faithful to the organization. But this always reminds me of these verses:
(Matthew 5:46-47) 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? You are aware of the recent push to encourage us to have even less natural affection among family members by encouraging total emotional blackmail through the DFing process. This has started up again in the last couple years from videos shown at meetings and assemblies, and similar counsel. We should immediately think of how Paul told Timothy about the kinds of things Timothy should expect in congregations of the first century because it had been predicted that in those last days Timothy would see persons "having no natural affection." But there is an interesting point Paul made in this context that is usually overlooked:
(2 Timothy 2:23-3:5) 23 Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights. 24 For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed. Perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him to do his will. 3 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, . . , 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, . . . puffed up with pride, . . .  5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. What is missed is that Paul told Timothy to reject foolish and ignorant debates, but also to turn away from these people who showed "no natural affection" in those last days. This is the way that the principle of DFing actually works among Christians. It's about turning away from the people, even brothers, who show no natural affection. It's not about a congregation always being in total agreement about the exact rule by which someone is greeted and another person is not greeted, or someone can eat with us and another person cannot. In fact, this doesn't ever mean that we reject the chance to speak about spiritual things with such persons, it's just that we don't share in their conduct. We avoid their influence on us, and we avoid associating in such a way that we could give others the impression that we have joined in their conduct or support their conduct. We don't become influenced by their wrong, and show restraint in engaging with them when we are the ones personally wronged.
In other words (I think it's rare, but) if we do witness a misuse of the DFing process that promotes "having no natural affection" then it is up to us to disengage and disassociate from that kind of behavior even when it is being promoted by elders in our congregation or in the worldwide congregation. We can't completely disfellowship our elders from their responsibility, but we can avoid giving the impression that we agree with these practices. Just as we avoid joining in association with a person who calls himself a brother who is a known drunkard, reviler, fornicator, etc. We should be willing to speak out against the kind of videos we have seen recently which praise a person for avoiding familial contact with their own brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers. Of course, when it comes to those who no longer call themselves a brother (or sister) in the congregation we can treat them just as we would any other sinner or tax collector; we are in no danger of giving the impression that we support their conduct, because they are not even claiming to be related to us in the faith. 
In fact, in the other place in the NWT where the expression "no natural affection" is used, we have an additional idea in the context:
(Romans 1:28-2:2) . . .God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting. 29 And they were filled with all unrighteousness, . . . . disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, and merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God—that those practicing such things are deserving of death—they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are, if you judge; for when you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in harmony with truth, against those who practice such things.

From what I can gather here about you, I think that most of the 130 do not believe you are evil, and probably do not wish to treat you badly, but as you say, they THINK they are following the rules. Also, they will not merely treat you this way just because they feel you were concerned about the "child abuse" issue. If you have told the whole story then it is pretty clear that you are treated as someone who has formally disassociated, and we are told to treat that person the exact same way as someone who was disfellowshipped. (I think that is an abuse of power by the way on the part of the WTS policy.) It's probable that someone has added a few other "details" for the ears of the congregation, real or imagined. The more likely concern is that you have somehow become a spiritual danger because you are actively seeking out false information from apostates to spread it among the congregation in order to sow divisions and contentions. Many in the congregation must believe that your current motive is to promote such apostasy, even if you are personally still "salvagable." They are told that to treat you like this is a way to save you. 
I personally would not follow the rules in this regard when it is a person I have known and if I feel that my continued association is more likely to be scriptural than unscriptural. There have been two persons where my opinion of them and my association with them didn't change a bit after they were disfellowshipped. One stayed out and one came back. I don't advertise this to the rest of the congregation, for fear of stumbling others, and for my own fear of the same kind of unscriptural disciplinary treatment that others have been subjected to.
But there is also a certain kind of friendship we build up with others that goes beyond rules and regulations. We show a certain type of loyalty (loyal love) to the other person, and they to us. In the Bible, if David had become a murderer and an adulterer, Jonathan would have still loyally stuck by him. "There is a friend that sticks closer than a brother." (Prov 18:24)  I have seen several friendships like this, and would hope that no human rules would ever get in the way. I had a roommate at Bethel who joked that his friend who had recently been invited to Bethel, was like this. He claimed that even if he murdered someone, that this friend would never change. I thought about that and decided that he should move out and room with this arriving friend. 
If we truly have love, even for our enemies, we should have no problem dealing with tax collectors and sinners. How much more should we show love to someone who is in dire straits for a reason we already understand and one we can help them understand. This does not mean that I would go out of my way to seek out such a person, unless I was sure I could help them feel better with some encouragement. Often they truly put themselves in a situation where the best thing they  to do is to find their way back into the organization and I will often encourage that. But I would never encourage family members to disfellowship themselves from that disfellowshipped person.  It has been rare, but as I said, I have had a couple of occasions to "break the rule" in this regard.
 
I like a lot of what the GB and the JW org are doing, and I love many of my fellow associates in the congregation. But, YES, I really mean it. Speaking out is what I am doing right now. I often speak out against unscriptural policies, or discuss them here to help make sure whether my own reasoning is wrong. I don't have to speak out in front of my local congregation, nor do I cause divisions. I speak out on this forum, and I will sometimes speak frankly and honestly with people who approach me in person. I also send a couple letters a year to the GB and JW org. For the past few years, these have been anonymous. I have used this site to try to formulate the scriptural reasoning behind these letters.
I have already spoken out against abuse and bad policy in this regard for about seven years now -- not just on forums but in person. This is why I cannot completely understand the treatment you are getting. At several opportunities over the last 30 years, I have spoken out against a policy of tolerating spousal physical abuse against wives, because my own sister had an experience like this with the usual requested cover-up from authorities and hospital personnel. I have even turned in a young 20 year old brother who showed serious problems in this regard at gatherings. He is not quite a person of full mental capacity, but this won't matter to an abused sister who would feel traumatized if he takes these types of actions any further. And it's quite possible he already poses a criminal danger when not in public. There should be heightened awareness of these problems to protect all potential victims, and where necessary, secular authorities and law enforcement need to be involved.

So what about it, punk? Ya feelin lucky today?
I think my next project will be to introduce @JOHN BUTLER to @Jack Ryan and duck out the back door while they get to know one another.
"Now TrueTom, knowing that the one part was made up of atheists but the other of malcontents, cried out in the WorldNewsMediaForum: “Men, brothers, I am a believer, a son of believers. Over the hope of the existence of God I am being judged.” Because he said this, a dissension arose between the malcontents and the atheists, and the assembly was split. For the atheists say that there is neither resurrection nor angel nor God, but the malcontents accept them all.  So a great uproar broke out, and some of the scribes of the party of the malcontents, though not John Butler, rose and began arguing fiercely, saying: “We find nothing wrong in this man, but if a spirit or an angel spoke to him—.” 

By the way, did you get that child abuse issue you were talking about sorted? The Childline suggestion seemed to be a way you could keep personally out of the frame and still get some practical advice on the matter remembering that there could be children at risk. How did you get on with that? You did get on with that didn't you?
 

Surely a response would be a better one. Last I recall Jesus was no assassin according to Matthew 16. Therefore the overall seriousness of what Jesus entrusted should be taken into consideration, that is - unless you adhere to a watered down form if Christianity as the majority of the US and the EU adhere to. Because last I checked, Jesus isn't the ice man, the muffin man or the so called jolly Christ as some paint him to be, on the other side of the spectrum, regarding a man killed recently, people seem to paint Jesus to a sole race, proclaiming he has no care for those of another race. He is the Christ, the one of whom God enacts his purpose, will, justice and order through; for he is God's only begotten-son.
 
That being said, surely you can make a better response, to this I wait.