Anna

I would say always rather than often. This is how they progress to the abusive action without detection. I am hard pushed to think of a reason why I should not consider these perpertrators to be the most devious, dangerous, and pathetically evil criminals on the planet.
This is not a fair assessment. This is not about culture and belief with JWs. This is about procedural inadequacy due to naivety. You should know better @Ann O'Maly.

Well, not really. In this system there is very little you can do without money. Even God's word recognizes that money is for a protection. I can see why such actions you describe would be prudent. If we take it to its grass roots, and remember Satan is the ruler of this system, then he could very well be using the world's systems (legal or otherwise) to incapacitate or halt the work of the Witnesses. To survive in this system, in the sense that the Witnessing work can carry on, you have to beat the system at its own game. So what you have said about the reasons the GB perhaps not wanting to participate makes complete sense, and I never thought about it that way. The problem some have with that is that they immediately assume "following the money" means someone is lining their pockets, sipping Sangria on a private island, while others are suffering.
 
P.S. Although brother Rook swears all the money is being pooled into HQ so that Br. Morris can buy a Rolex and Br. Herd his blingy cuff links......

Well, not really. In this system there is very little you can do without money. Even God's word recognizes that money is for a protection. I can see why such actions you describe would be prudent. If we take it to its grass roots, and remember Satan is the ruler of this system, then he could very well be using the world's systems (legal or otherwise) to incapacitate or halt the work of the Witnesses. To survive in this system, in the sense that the Witnessing work can carry on, you have to beat the system at its own game. So what you have said about the reasons the GB perhaps not wanting to participate makes complete sense, and I never thought about it that way. The problem some have with that is that they immediately assume "following the money" means someone is lining their pockets, sipping Sangria on a private island, while others are suffering.
 
P.S. Although brother Rook swears all the money is being pooled into HQ so that Br. Morris can buy a Rolex and Br. Herd his blingy cuff links......

I agree, but what I would propose would still be incomplete in terms of encompassing so many different possible circumstances, and I don't really want to think about all these possible circumstances. Also, the ideas I would incorporate have mostly been discussed already, in a general way at least, and have mostly already been recommended by the courts in some form, too. If I have some time to fill some of the gaps, I might join a separate discussion about this. The gap I still have is in the nearly arbitrary age definitions that one might start out with. There is no Biblical definition of what defines a child vs young adult vs adult. But there are some common sense ideas, which will always be subject to exceptions. A congregation or any church institution should choose elders who have common sense, and therefore have the ability to make sensible exceptions when necessary. That's one of the reasons for the intended level of qualifications and life experience and other requirements for elders that is suggested in the Bible (Timothy, Titus, etc). We should never expect the Christian congregation to start forming legalistic procedures, but we should expect the Christian congregation to continue looking for ways to deal with every problem in the most loving and efficient way possible.
I'm not surprised, though. The sons of darkness may know more about taking care of such problems than the sons of light do.
(Luke 16:8) 8 And his master commended the steward, though unrighteous, because he acted with practical wisdom; for the sons of this system of things are wiser in a practical way toward their own generation than the sons of the light are.
In general, JWs are not lawyers, so we don't meet up with as many related cases as certain types of lawyers would. Even if we try to collect info on a lot of cases and put it in one place, we can't always have the expertise to make proper inferences about them. In general, JWs also do not work in law enforcement, social work, psychology, or other professional medical fields. So we don't necessarily have enough of those kinds of experts to call together into one place for the purpose of combining expertise through discussion in order to come to some helpful conclusions. Besides, among JWs, some of these persons would be women, and we are a patriarchal organization. There are people in authority in other places who have the power and resources to bring a lot more minds together. I have even heard that Barbara Anderson was asked to go to the Vatican because the Vatican was interested in what processes could be implemented to protect more victims.
Because of their experience, the ARC, for example, was able to point out several clear flaws in our sets of documents. Of course, finding fault is a lot easier than coming up with a comprehensive solution. And even a supposed comprehensive process solution doesn't mean it will really work all that well when imperfect people implement it.
And, yes, of course we should be more proactive in looking for ways to protect all persons, in all parts of society, even showing that we love our enemies.
I think the principle from Luke 16:8 might answer a portion of that question. I can also think of lots of other ways in which people who are "babes as to badness" might find themselves out-leveraged and shown up as weak in courts of law. It happens all the time. This is not a direct defense of the current problem however.
(1 Corinthians 14:20) 20 Brothers, do not become young children in your understanding, but be young children as to badness; and become full-grown in your understanding.
It's true that we want to represent ourselves in a manner worthy of calling ourselves "God's people." But it has never been true that "God's people" did not have weaknesses and faults.
I didn't assume it was mostly from the assistance of ex-JWs. I do sense some participation however.
He made some powerful and relevant points. But you are right. Shunning is practiced by some religions much more strictly than in ours. I don't see a Biblical requirement for shunning in the way many JWs still practice it. I think that, except for a few rare cases, the Biblical reasons given for shunning don't really apply to the types of persons that JWs tend to shun.

The average time between the abuse and the time of reporting that abuse is still about 30 years. So the kinds of forensics are quite different from a car accident, or what can be found in a "rape kit" for example.
 
I wanted to interpret that into the "circumstantial" evidence mentioned, too. Disappointing not to see this show up in documentation. Also disappointed to see so many "holes" in our own documentation that were so easily pointed out by the ARC. Also saw about three openings made in the Spinks/O'Brien testimony that could hurt us further. One was, of course, the huge discrepancy between in trying to define the age of "approaching adulthood" admitted to be 16-17 generally, then anecdotally to 15, and then later aligned with the age of baptism! It was fortunate that Stewart didn't realize that this places the age back to as young as 8 years old.
It adds an element that almost makes the congregational judicial matter moot. If the person is arrested and the matter becomes public, then there is already going to be a loss of congregational privileges. If there is a court case, how would it look if a judicial committee found the person "unchargeable" (not necessarily innocent) while the civil courts found him guilty. If the courts did not establish guilt, it is quite unlikely that the congregation could, yet we would be so wary of a repetition that the loss of position and privileges (along with probable monitoring to some extent)  would produce the appearance of guilt even if the accused were potentially innocent.

We must not think from our own perspective only.  There are many people in Jehovah's organization that come with a lot of baggage.  Some have never learnt to say " I love you" and others do not know how to show love - they have to learn this.  They may be in Jehovah's organization being healed from a bad life and they learn slowly how to communicate and show love.  One does not change overnight all the problems you had before by being baptized... so many are still on the road to learn.
I was talking yesterday to a very nice young brother on field service.  He must be 32 years old.   He is seriously in love with a sister and he is troubled by the fact that Swedes do not show gushy feelings.  The love of his life is Spanish (people who show their feelings).  So he told me that a friend (not Swedish) gave him the advice to spill  his tremendous love for this sister and to be honest with her. But it is giving him sooo much pain to do this....he may never get to the point to do this.  
This gave me insight in how different cultures can be - that a young man is so stifled in his communication to tell a girl he is crazy over her.   Yes - communication is the life blood of any good relationship and especially in marriage. 
I was happy recently when I saw a photo of my son and his wife on Facebook and he declared to the world that she is his "best friend."  We must be best friends (one can tell your best friend anything and trust them with the revelations) as well as husband and wife.
 
 
 
By the way - I can add a few more sagely comments from husbands to the list above - but I may offend some!

Yes, true of course. But I think the point is that as JWs, the elders, (and any member of the congregation really), if they have reasonable evidence or a suspicion of child sexual abuse, they should report it to the authorities, like they would with the reasonable evidence or suspicion of any other crime.....
Possible. But still doesn't change what I said above.
By the way, you all might know this already, regarding today's hearing (case 54) copies of either the pdf or word docs are available for download on the ARC website.
This is an extract from the opening address regarding what happened with the 1006 alleged perpetrators who were never reported to the police:
Page 12-13
1.                In Case Study 29, Watchtower Australia produced 5,000 documents comprising, among other things, case files relating to 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950. Officers at the Royal Commission reviewed these case files and as a result the Royal Commission referred information in relation to 514 alleged perpetrators to police in accordance with its power under 6P(1) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902.

            Of the remaining 492 alleged perpetrators identified in the case files, officers at the Royal Commission determined that there was either   insufficient evidence in the case files to warrant referring matters to police or that the matters had already come to the attention of police.

 

Rather than being disturbed by one person's belief, it might be good to remember the basics in God’s word and strengthen ourselves to obey instead of looking for reasons to justify vacillation.
 
God’s requirement stated Noah of whom we are all descendents
 
 (Genesis 9:3, 4) Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.
 
God’s requirement under the Law
 
(Leviticus 17:10-12) 10 “‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. 12 That is why I have said to the Israelites: “None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood.”
 
(1 Samuel 14:33) So it was reported to Saul: “Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating meat with the blood.” At this he said: “You have acted faithlessly. Roll a large stone to me immediately.”
 
God’s requirement in the Christian dispensation
 
(Acts 15:20) but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.
 
(Acts 15:28, 29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
 
 Beware of Pretenses:  Doing one thing and teaching another.
 
11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?
 
 
Make your own decisions on conscience matters – it is not necessary to be vocal about it
 
 (Romans 14:1-4) Welcome the man having weaknesses in his faith, but do not pass judgment on differing opinions. 2 One man has faith to eat everything, but the man who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let the one eating not look down on the one not eating, and let the one not eating not judge the one eating, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand.
 
We must obey the letter and the spirit behind the Christian law.
 
 We must not only abstain from blood but we must carry out our obligations to warn others about the coming destruction of the wicked.
 
(Acts 20:25-28)   25 “And now look! I know that none of you among whom I preached the Kingdom will ever see my face again. 26 So I call you to witness this very day that I am clean from the blood of all men, 27 for I have not held back from telling you all the counsel of God. 28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.
 
David was not a Christian but we can learn from him.  He was serving the same God.
 
 (1 Chronicles 11:15-19) Three of the 30 headmen went down to the rock, to David at the cave of A·dulʹlam, while a Phi·lisʹtine army was camped in the Valley of Rephʹa·im. 16 David was then in the stronghold, and a garrison of the Phi·lisʹtines was in Bethʹle·hem. 17 Then David expressed his longing: “If only I could have a drink of the water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem!” 18 At that the three forced their way into the camp of the Phi·lisʹtines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem and brought it to David; but David refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah. 19 He said: “It is unthinkable on my part from the standpoint of my God to do this! Should I drink the blood of these men who risked their lives? For it was at the risk of their lives that they brought it.” So he refused to drink it. These are the things that his three mighty warriors did.
 
God is not going to change his personality or his requirements to match the level of difficulty we are contending with in this system, because his will is right. It is not God who is bringing the difficulty – it is Satan’s  system and our own imperfection. Jehovah will help us, and fortify us nevertheless. (Isaiah 41:10)
 
(Malachi 3:6) “For I am Jehovah; I do not change.
 
(James 1:17) 17 Every good gift and every perfect present is from above, coming down from the Father of the celestial lights, who does not vary or change like the shifting shadows.
 
(Romans 14:7, 8) . . .. 8 For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah.
 
 (Jeremiah 6:16) This is what Jehovah says: “Stand at the crossroads and see. Ask about the ancient roadways, Ask where the good way is, and walk in it, And find rest for yourselves.” But they say: “We will not walk in it.”
 
 
*** w07 3/15 p. 10 par. 1 Highlights From the Book of Jeremiah ***
6:16. Jehovah exhorts his rebellious people to pause, examine themselves, and find their way back to “the roadways” of their faithful ancestors. Should we not examine ourselves from time to time to see if we are really walking in the way Jehovah wants us to walk?
 
*** w12 11/15 pp. 6-7 “Teach Me to Do Your Will” ***
DAVID APPRECIATED THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE LAW
12 David’s appreciation for the principles reflected in the Law and his desire to live by them are also worthy of imitation. Consider what happened when David expressed his craving for “a drink of the water from the cistern of Bethlehem.” Three of David’s men forced their way into the city—then occupied by the Philistines—and brought back the water. However, “David did not consent to drink it, but poured it out to Jehovah.” Why? David explained: “It is unthinkable on my part, as regards my God, to do this! Is it the blood of these men that I should drink at the risk of their souls? For it was at the risk of their souls that they brought it.”—1 Chron. 11:15-19.
13 David knew from the Law that blood should be poured out to Jehovah and not eaten. He also understood why this should be done. David knew that “the soul of the flesh is in the blood.” However, this was water, not blood. Why did David refuse to drink it? He appreciated the principle behind the legal requirement. To David, the water was as precious as the blood of the three men. Therefore, it was unthinkable for him to drink the water. Instead of drinking it, he concluded that he should pour it out on the ground.—Lev. 17:11; Deut. 12:23, 24.
14 David tried to be completely absorbed in God’s law. He sang: “To do your will, O my God, I have delighted, and your law is within my inward parts.” (Ps. 40:8) David studied God’s law and meditated deeply on it. He trusted in the wisdom of Jehovah’s commandments. As a result, David was anxious to observe not only the letter but also the spirit of the Mosaic Law. When we study the Bible, we are wise to meditate on what we read and store it in our heart so that we can determine what pleases Jehovah in a particular case.

A good sense of humor covers a multitude of beards though!

Valid points made in AllenSmith's posting. 
The inconsistency and complexity of legal requirements in Australia was recognised by the ARC and the Society's affirming a desire for something consistent and simple was invited.
Compare the confusion in Australia:  
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect 
with that in the US: 
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/manda/ 
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/clergymandated/
where definition on who constitutes "clergy" is inconsistent or vague with only Guam making any sense, and where "clergy-penitent" privilege is abrogated or permitted depending on constantly changing state law.
This is compounded immeasurably when considered on a global scale. For Jehovah's people who aim to transcend the fragmentation of nations, operating in a united way in such a Babel-like confusion is an enormous challenge. Rom 13:1 demands respect for Caesar, but today there are many Caesars. Applying a global policy is impossible, hence region-specific instruction and the Branch contact requirement. 
Quite true, but no reason for a weak policy as some abuse comes to light considerably earlier. And surely the aim in part is to promote this?
Agreed. Left hand and right hand comparisons tempting here.
To be fair though, the intense scrutiny levelled against Jehovah's Witnesses in this situation would probably mean that anything submitted would be crticised unless virtually worded by the the ARC themselves. It was prudent to wait for the ARC comments before distributing the policy doc even if the proclaiming of the wisdom of doing so came across as a little self-promoting.
The fudged discussion on defining "inactivity" and "disassociation" was embarrasing. Is that included?
 
 

Yes, true of course. But I think the point is that as JWs, the elders, (and any member of the congregation really), if they have reasonable evidence or a suspicion of child sexual abuse, they should report it to the authorities, like they would with the reasonable evidence or suspicion of any other crime.....
Possible. But still doesn't change what I said above.
By the way, you all might know this already, regarding today's hearing (case 54) copies of either the pdf or word docs are available for download on the ARC website.
This is an extract from the opening address regarding what happened with the 1006 alleged perpetrators who were never reported to the police:
Page 12-13
1.                In Case Study 29, Watchtower Australia produced 5,000 documents comprising, among other things, case files relating to 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950. Officers at the Royal Commission reviewed these case files and as a result the Royal Commission referred information in relation to 514 alleged perpetrators to police in accordance with its power under 6P(1) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902.

            Of the remaining 492 alleged perpetrators identified in the case files, officers at the Royal Commission determined that there was either   insufficient evidence in the case files to warrant referring matters to police or that the matters had already come to the attention of police.

 

Yes, true of course. But I think the point is that as JWs, the elders, (and any member of the congregation really), if they have reasonable evidence or a suspicion of child sexual abuse, they should report it to the authorities, like they would with the reasonable evidence or suspicion of any other crime.....
Possible. But still doesn't change what I said above.
By the way, you all might know this already, regarding today's hearing (case 54) copies of either the pdf or word docs are available for download on the ARC website.
This is an extract from the opening address regarding what happened with the 1006 alleged perpetrators who were never reported to the police:
Page 12-13
1.                In Case Study 29, Watchtower Australia produced 5,000 documents comprising, among other things, case files relating to 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950. Officers at the Royal Commission reviewed these case files and as a result the Royal Commission referred information in relation to 514 alleged perpetrators to police in accordance with its power under 6P(1) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902.

            Of the remaining 492 alleged perpetrators identified in the case files, officers at the Royal Commission determined that there was either   insufficient evidence in the case files to warrant referring matters to police or that the matters had already come to the attention of police.

 

All witness testimony requires some level of interpretation does it not? No less so 'forensic evidence' surely. That's where the professional input comes in.
Prompt reporting to the authorities would (hopefully) enable due attention to be given to safety of actual and potential victim(s) and initiate the appropriate type of investigation to deal with the criminal element of the matter. Let's face it, if you found someone hit by a car in the road, you would call for professional help immediately to deal with both injury and safety, as well as investigating the cause, would you not?
In the case of abuse, the spritual side could then proceed, greatly facilitated if there was a witness issue. However, if an arrest had taken place there may well be challenges to the progressing of a judicial matter from the congregational standpoint.
Not sure I recall this aspect ever being discussed, let alone documented, although there was vague reference to circumstantial evidence in the form of "trauma" serving as a "witness" in both Case Study 29 and 54.
As for the inevitable "slagging" of secular authorities that occurs in discussion threads on this matter, this serves about as much purpose as that done in connection with JW attempts to handle this heinous crime and, quite frankly, for me, obscures the real issue, which is the protection of children and the successful prosecution of those who abuse them.

I think it does to a point. But regardless whether it does or not, if a professional opinion finds the alleged perpetrator guilty, then he/she will be dealt with accordingly and the brothers can then also act accordingly. The problem arises when a suspect is not reported to the authorities and the brothers try and establish facts by themselves....the brothers really should not try and investigate, and should report it to relevant authorities as soon as possible. 
So what I want to say is that I think the two witness rule will become irrelevant and will only be used in congregational judicial settings when secular authorities find the perpetrator not guilty.

It’s impossible for us physical beings to even imagine what it’s like to be a spirit being. Those who will go to heaven won’t know until they get there. Obviously it’s a totally foreign dimension to us, hence anthropomorphic expressions are helpful. However most of Christendom’s adherents imagine heaven like what physical paradise earth will be; trees, streams, mountains etc.One of my Bible studies, a scientist, knew that a spirit universe couldn’t be anything like a physical universe. It’s scientifically impossible. She told me that she could never understand how people could think that when they went to heaven they would be playing cards with their grandpa.....and the harp. I guess she forgot that not everyone thinks like a scientist. The strangest thing of all is that the Mormons believe that the physical person, literally flesh and blood, will go to heaven....(and own a planet) I don't think even the Catholics think that, but they do believe they will have wings

It’s impossible for us physical beings to even imagine what it’s like to be a spirit being. Those who will go to heaven won’t know until they get there. Obviously it’s a totally foreign dimension to us, hence anthropomorphic expressions are helpful. However most of Christendom’s adherents imagine heaven like what physical paradise earth will be; trees, streams, mountains etc.One of my Bible studies, a scientist, knew that a spirit universe couldn’t be anything like a physical universe. It’s scientifically impossible. She told me that she could never understand how people could think that when they went to heaven they would be playing cards with their grandpa.....and the harp. I guess she forgot that not everyone thinks like a scientist. The strangest thing of all is that the Mormons believe that the physical person, literally flesh and blood, will go to heaven....(and own a planet) I don't think even the Catholics think that, but they do believe they will have wings

It's been very interesting following Eoin and JWInsider's conversation, and some insightful thoughts from Comfortmypeople. All raised some good and valid points. This topic is probably exhausted, (and some new ones started) but I would just like to express a few thoughts. It seems clear that there is no doubt that oversight and leadership is inevitable and necessary in order for an international organization like ours to stay united in the same mind and in the same line of thought (1 Cor 1:10) otherwise we would be no different to Christendom. To believe that each congregation should be autonomous (as some opposers have suggested) is foolish because this would never work. Although congregations have their own unique personality and chemistry, the teachings are always the same. It is remarkable really, that you can travel halfway across the world and end up with same lessons like at home, just in a different language. So I would say the question isn't so much in the shepherding i.e. the organizational structure, but rather in the interpretation of scripture. Are we to follow the interpretation of scripture of a body of men, even though we know this interpretation might not be correct? This was the main thought I was trying to raise, and indeed this is one of the biggest bones of contention with our opposers, as we know.... It is understandable if we take it at face value; why should some men dictate what we are to believe?  Or why should we believe what some men are telling us to believe? Especially if we know they can err, just like any one of us can err. And we can also see where they have erred, partially by their own admission and partially from experience. JWInsider touched on this subject a number of times and brought out that this (relying exclusively and unconditionally on the words of the GB) would actually be unscriptural.  Is it not the responsibility of each Christian to make sure that they are in line with the scriptures as far as we can understand them and in the most core and fundamental areas? (make sure of all things) Do we need to have the scriptures partially digested for us and then spoon fed? Didn’t Paul say we should grow in spiritual maturity and eat solid food?  In fact we would be foolish if we were to take every utterance by the GB/Slave as “gospel truth”. But is there really a problem with that? “Witness” tried to suggest instances where the GB/Slave have caused damage by what they said. (and Comfortmypeople has mentioned some in his new topic). It’s easy to point a finger, but is there any substance to that claim, besides mere opinion? In my many years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I have not had any reason to be distrustful of the GB. What did change though was that as the years have gone by, I have developed a more balanced and reasonable attitude towards them.  My main issue I guess is what Comfortmypeople brings out in this topic so I will just move over there and see where it's going...

In the past months, there have been quite a few study articles with regard to the GB/Slave. I am trying to get an overall  understanding of 2 particular WT articles on this one topic, so that two quotes from the WTs harmonize. 
Today's WT study (Nov 2016) p.15 par.9:  "Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives.’"
And
WT Feb.2017 p.26. par.12 " The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870".
It seems that the key to making sense of these 2 seemingly opposing quotes is in the above paragraph if we continue reading: " Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food".

I served 20 years in a city congregation that was two thirds black. There were several sisters with unbelieving mates, and some of those mates had issues. One would spend weeks at home where life would be 24/7 bliss. Then he would disappear into the streets for more weeks. Nobody knew if he would return or not. When he did, his wife always took him back.

His wife asked me to give his funeral talk. Though most avoided assignments like this, I relished them for the challenge of offering comfort amidst horrendous circumstances. I mean, when a guy gets knifed to death on a strange doorstep while seeking drugs, how do you put a smilely face on that?

“Jimmy had some hang-ups,” I said, “and it is likely those hang-ups had something to do with his death,” I told mourners at the Metropolitan Funeral Home. “We all know it. We might as well say it. Only then can we begin to offer comfort. Like all of us, Jimmy was a combination of strengths and weaknesses. You never know for sure which will win out and sometimes you say ‘there but for the grace of God go I.’

Look, this system is rough and it destroys people. When that happens, you don’t go moralizing over it. These were Bible type people, most of them not ours, so I read a lot of scriptures. But I also went heavy on his good traits, for he did have some. Few in the audience knew that he had graduated at SUNY Brockport and that he was a skilled pianist. I told of the happy times he would play piano at home.

I didn’t know how to conduct myself at the Metropolitan Funeral home. It was not my culture. I gathered that much was expected from the preacher (me) who conducted the funeral. I told the funeral director that I didn’t want to do it, for it would be phony. I would give my talk, sit down, and they could take over and I would do whatever they said. He told me that after his remarks I should lead everybody out the front door.

After his remarks, I led everyone out the front door. When I was almost there, I turned around to find they were way behind me all moving like snails. Of course they were way behind me all moving like snails – they had a casket to carry. I hadn’t thought of that. I doubled back and led them out at a snail’s pace, and felt a little uncomfortable doing so.

My most emotionally rewarding moment? When a Rochester police officer, approached me with tears in his eyes to thank me for speaking well of his brother. Emotional reward is all that counts. Though I have given many funeral talks, I have never charged a dime, as is the way with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I relate the event not to draw attention to myself. It was emotionally fulfilling giving the talk. It is emotionally fulfilling again telling of it.

Yes there have been victims - as I said before - in every organization where children are you will find that this happens in secret.  It is heartbreaking.  But because you work in this field you are focusing just on one organization which you seems to dislike.  Please keep in mind this organization has put steps in place to curb this as much as possible and has corrected errors which it has made in the past.... it did not act fast enough to the new laws that were put in place in the first world countries (and only a few countries enforce it). 
I personally know of a case where a young boy had only touched his cousin in an inappropriate place out of curiosity and the father went to a lawyer- who reported it to authorities.  This young boy was put into a reformatory at age 13 with his reputation ruined for the rest of his life.  This is how the law can also overreach.  There are two sides to every story.... and therefore one must acknowledge that human laws are just not sufficient to curb all wickedness..... and bring true justice.
The alternative is to spy on everyone and create a police state situation. And this is the reason I said above that God assures us that there is a future life and all the injustices of the "past" and present" will be dealt with personally by Him. One either believes that God is going to do this  - or not. We cannot help 'all' people who have suffered from this crime BUT.... they are being reached by the Kingdom message.  If their pain is very great they can find consolation and comfort from Jehovah's promises.
Many people only focus only on the 'now - the present'  and not on these promises.  If you are one of these people, I then suggest you start fighting religions where it is part of their religion to allow "thighing"  of young children already at the age of one year (the practice of sex on young children without penetration) - that is, if you really want to accomplish something and clean up all dirty" organizations and sexual crimes on earth.  Become an activist for all the children in Africa who are raped on a daily basis with no-one to stand up for them.  Or focus on religious organizations that are still moving their clergy around even though there now are new laws being put in place to assist them.  Do not focus on the one organization who is really trying to be aware of the problem while not excluding anyone with "repentance" to attend a meeting.  Or are you hardline on this too..." once a criminal - always a criminal" label"?
I personally do not believe that molesters reform easily - but there may be a few who do - and therefore I understand the measures that has been put in place by our organization.
I have told this incident before on this forum: a friend of mine brought a young boy to the meeting without his mother accompanying him. Afterward an elder called her and told her that it was a "fine" thing to bring him but she must not do it again.  She must be cautious and careful because people can turn around and accuse her of child molestation.... A simple act of kindness can turn into a nightmare.
Most people in the organization are "clean" as you said  but Jesus himself said that there would be people within the congregation that will be "enemies" of the congregation and will bring reproach on it through their (secret) behavior. This is why God promises that these will receive their due from Him - all those who do NOT have the mark of survival given by the angel with the "inkhorn" will perish.  This angel is Jesus who is leading the "marking work" - and he knows all things that go on in secret.

I don't mean to be negative, although it is a good video, in my opinion though I've always thought that depicting the "bad guy" as a monster type looking thing is a little misleading (for the children at least) because it makes it look like the "bad guy" is going to be easily identifiable, because.....well he LOOKS bad, and acts CREEPY, whereas in reality a sexual predator grooms his victims and appears very nice to the children, and others. Many times the child molester is a member of the family. The children might be looking for someone sleazy, and might be thrown off guard if the person is a "nice" brother in the congregation, a friend of the family, or even sadly a parent. I might be wrong, just my thought...

No. The idea was more of a mess than I thought at first. It's a humbling task, and I'm not cut out for it. Through my own small attempt, I could tell that Brother Jackson must have put some real effort into the same kind of task. I'm sure you felt that too. But I also felt that something prevented him from getting too pro-active about making it comprehensive.

Yup. As soon as I wrote that, a hundred different scenarios raced through my head, as you say, 50 shades of grey and some. This is what the whole child sexual abuse affair is about, 50 shades of grey. I should have perhaps clarified that and used a different description…..something like: most human beings hate the thought of a child being sexually abused.
I agree with you totally of course. The problem is with the fact that it’s not that simple to identify sexual abuse. It’s not like murder, where we have an obvious victim, (a body), and obviously a murderer. But even then, in many cases, the murderer is not found. Without concrete proof, everyone is innocent…..until proved guilty. I remember following the Casey Anthony case, to me, all the signs were there that she killed her two year old daughter, but the Police could not prove it. So she got some prison time for lying, and now is free.
By the way, did you ever manage to put together a draft of what you thought might be the best policy for us when handling child sexual abuse? I know we talked about it a while ago when the ARC first started. You had some ideas of what you thought should be done. I did too, but never put anything together. It looks like we will be seeing a new policy soon, come the hearing in March, and I wonder if it will look like anything we would have come up with….

 

No. You are not rambling. Your points make perfect sense and show good heart.
Look, there are some who are genuinely aghast at child abuse and participate with good thoughts. But there are also some liars whose concern over chlld sexual abuse is probably not a sham, but it is clearly secondary to their greater goal. They use it to further that goal.
It's greatly time and energy consuming to battle the liars on what is a here today - gone tomorrow internet thread. They're all welcomed here, which I find - odd. Unless I am up for a brawl, I, like you, will not do it. (But sometimes I am up for a brawl)
Eventually, it's all going to go against us. We know that. Jesus followers will be hailed before courts. Why? So they can receive Good Citizenship plaques? Or will it be so as to defend themselves before persons 'lyingly saying every sort of wicked thing' about them? (Matthew 5:11) But the bad guys will always win in this system of things. When Jesus appeared before Pilate, he didn't sweet talk his way out of it, did he?

You misunderstood me. I did say (reporting child abuse) "will free the elders to concentrate more on helping the victim spiritually, and leave the rest to the authorities". I did not mean elders would investigate the crime. If, lets say a parent, suspicious of their child being sexually abused by someone, approaches an elder with that concern, it is logical that the elders should ask some questions. (Unless of course the parent already volunteers enough information which convinces the elders something might be going on). It wouldn't be right for the elders to contact the authorities with every allegation of child abuse  (read this paper) unless they have a reasonable evidence themselves to suspect something (whether that is based on information from a parent/other member of the congregation or the victim) Of course the parent/other member of the congregation can bypass the elders and go straight to the police. Once the allegation is reported to the relevant authority, by the elders or others, then if the alleged perpetrator is a congregation member, and especially if they hold some responsibility, the elders do have to act in a congregational manner since the alleged perpetrator is now no longer "irreprehensible" even if the accusations are eventually proved wrong. What about the victim and their family? Do the elders have to wait until what the authorities establish? This may take months. In the meantime, surely the elders should be able to perform pastoral work, especially at a time where it might be needed the most. I understand why it is important not to interfere with professional work, but the elders cannot just ignore the family and the victim. No doubt there will be guidelines published on what the elders should and what they shouldn't talk about so as not to inadvertently hamper investigation.....
Policies are no good if they don't work in practice. Read this interesting report (first posted by CMP)
Because the right and responsible thing might not necessarily be to report every allegation of child sexual abuse. Why do you think it has taken states this long to make reporting mandatory? Think about it.