Anna

Can you use this?

@TrueTomHarley  They do seem relentless don't they? 
I also notice they never seem to publish what they actually believe as an alternative. Probably because they don't actually have a set of belief systems in place yet for themselves..
Many modern JW's haven't experienced other well-read biblically minded people actually question their beliefs as we used to 40+ years ago. Most of them shy away because they aren't "always ready to make a defense" or as eloquent with words as you are Tom. 
I'm very positive that @JW Insider personally remembers being confronted many times with John 1:1a and a host of trinitarian discussions at the doorstep in decades past that are more rare now.
@admin I love how you made the videos auto-play... but I think your links to other topics somehow got messed up. Could you look at that?

No. I do not think your take is correct. 
There is no way proscecuting authorities are not going to know what religion you came from, and this will make "problems" for them regardless of what you say. That is especially true when young men of that religion routinely refuse military service as they come of age. It won't matter what they say - the fact that they come from a certain religion will cause problems for that religion in the eyes of YU government.
He was probably giving you your highest chance of success, for the Bible is more respected in the country than is the JW religion. Attach your refusal to the highest cause possible if you want to maximize chances of success.
 

Can't we have  JW

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...

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.

The crux of the problem is that our policies were always more preventive focused and proactive as you say, and less cure focused.  We naively assumed that if we educate the friends on how to avoid child sexual abuse in the first palace, then all will be solved, there will be no victims. That was the ideal situation of course, but was however not taking into account the fact that not everyone was going to, or even capable of applying this advice.
I am trying to  be fair and I have no problem admitting we’ve had to eat humble pie because we thought our child protection was the best, because it focused on prevention. Indeed what’s better than that? In theory it was very good, and that’s because it was assuming that every parent and child applied all that advice that was put out there. But of course in practice this wasn’t the case, and so these preventative measures did not always achieve their goal because they were not always applied. So now, we have to revise the preventive idea and supplement it with getting justice for those for who it is too late, the victims, making disclosure as comfortable as possible, and ensuring punishment for those who committed the crime including limiting access to congregants.  And that all is a whole different ball game, but I trust we are doing our best because we do not want any of our children to suffer.

The crux of the problem is that our policies were always more preventive focused and proactive as you say, and less cure focused.  We naively assumed that if we educate the friends on how to avoid child sexual abuse in the first palace, then all will be solved, there will be no victims. That was the ideal situation of course, but was however not taking into account the fact that not everyone was going to, or even capable of applying this advice.
I am trying to  be fair and I have no problem admitting we’ve had to eat humble pie because we thought our child protection was the best, because it focused on prevention. Indeed what’s better than that? In theory it was very good, and that’s because it was assuming that every parent and child applied all that advice that was put out there. But of course in practice this wasn’t the case, and so these preventative measures did not always achieve their goal because they were not always applied. So now, we have to revise the preventive idea and supplement it with getting justice for those for who it is too late, the victims, making disclosure as comfortable as possible, and ensuring punishment for those who committed the crime including limiting access to congregants.  And that all is a whole different ball game, but I trust we are doing our best because we do not want any of our children to suffer.

@Noble Berean all the policies we have on our website thus far are THESE.  But I have a feeling that's not what you meant. Did you want to see some kind of "confession"? Like the number of pedophiles or sexual predators there are among Jehovah's Witnesses?

@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!
 

The crux of the problem is that our policies were always more preventive focused and proactive as you say, and less cure focused.  We naively assumed that if we educate the friends on how to avoid child sexual abuse in the first palace, then all will be solved, there will be no victims. That was the ideal situation of course, but was however not taking into account the fact that not everyone was going to, or even capable of applying this advice.
I am trying to  be fair and I have no problem admitting we’ve had to eat humble pie because we thought our child protection was the best, because it focused on prevention. Indeed what’s better than that? In theory it was very good, and that’s because it was assuming that every parent and child applied all that advice that was put out there. But of course in practice this wasn’t the case, and so these preventative measures did not always achieve their goal because they were not always applied. So now, we have to revise the preventive idea and supplement it with getting justice for those for who it is too late, the victims, making disclosure as comfortable as possible, and ensuring punishment for those who committed the crime including limiting access to congregants.  And that all is a whole different ball game, but I trust we are doing our best because we do not want any of our children to suffer.

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

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...

You are right. Crime is crime. Sorry. If we are discussing backing the dumptruck of toxic waste into the river, it is very important that you post your story of the guy caught littering. 
 
It is not good. No one says otherwise. But it is also not very specific - nor is it rape. If it was, he would have been convicted of it.

Bathroom is down the hall and to the left.

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.  

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.

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.  

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.  

Well the statement at De.19:15 is pretty explicit.
If we read De. 22:25-27, it says the sexual crime is the same as a murder (presumably also unwitnessed by an independent party). Now I know a corpse is a silent witness of a sort, but the testimony is a little obscure, and without clarity, it would be difficult to convict, so there were a number of arrangements in place to deal with that situation.
However,  leaving that to one side, in the case of a sexual crime, the victim is one witness who might be able to testify; the circumstance seems to provide some circumstantial evdence. Is there any suggestion of how Jehovah could serve as a witness (which he surely could)? In Jesus case he did actually testify verbally from the heavens. In the case of David and Bathsheeba, he served as a witness sending Nathan. Just wondering, as Deuteronomy is rather sparse? There is some danger of a false accusation which presumably is a reason for the 2-witness rule in the first place. Any records or ideas shedding light here?
But please forgive me. This is veering off topic again. i will withdraw until the subject is discussed separately.
I have posted it here in case some constructive information can be contributed:
 

No I don't actually. I remember this:
(1) Have you recognized yourself as a sinner and needing salvation from Jehovah God? And have you acknowledged that this salvation proceeds from him and through his ransomer, Christ Jesus?
(2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for redemption have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to Jehovah God, to do his will henceforth as that will is revealed to you through Christ Jesus and through God’s Word as his holy spirit makes it plain?
But I might add that this did not relate directly to my dedication vow which I made sometime earlier and actually not in those words.
I don't think anyone who has really accepted Christ's ransom and on the basis of this has dedicated themselves to Jehovah God would actually recite some clause like statutory marriage vows or something. Or is that something that you had to do?

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/
 

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.

 

Really? Is that what you really believe?
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.