Anna

Yes, we have discussed this on the forum before. I think this issue is taken to be viewed from the secular perspective only. They, the secular authorities, designate JW elders as having a clerical role as ministers (of religion). Therefore, under official circumstances, such as in a court of law, elders are viewed as "clergy". Whether they themselves, or the congregation view them as clergy in the traditional sense or not is irrelevant in these secular circumstances. (JWs view everyone who is baptized as minister, but obviously there is a distinction between roles and obligations, since elders also have the role of oversight and shepherding). I think in secular terms the word elder falls under the umbrella of clergy, despite the fact that our "clergy" do not hold matters confidential (as you and pudgy pointed out) to the same extent as a Catholic priest for example.

Legislators obviously have not made an exception to who exactly should be viewed as clergy. They have not, as far as I know, added a clause which says JW elders should not be viewed as clergy because they are not the same as Catholic priests and do not view confidential disclosure in the traditional sense. By law, they fall under the same umbrella regardless of differences of application by the particular religion.

If I remember right, the plaintiff in a recent lawsuit tried to use the difference of elders and clergy to his advantage by arguing that elders cannot be viewed as clergy because their brand of “confidentiality” includes a whole body of elders and the HQ. However, the judge deemed this irrelevant because he said it is a religions right of how they (JWs) apply their beliefs, and that it wasn't the courts business to tell a religion how to run their religious affairs, and then on that account make exceptions to secular rules. In the courts eyes an elder was clergy, period.

In saying this, I personally believe the org. should refuse the designation of clergy by secular authorities as applying to them. But I am not sure if this is possible legally? It might not be.
In any case, if it is possible, then I think they should do it. But law is so complex, rigid, and impersonal and doing something that is not according to the law can have bad repercussions down the road, even for an innocent party.

The JWs have been trying to, actually imploring, legislators to change the law and make ALL clergy mandatory reporters (all over the world). This is what all victims want too. Perhaps this is the real answer to solving the problem…. 
 
 
 
 
The law forbids him to use it.  
I don't think the WT org. has the right to publish it or give anyone else the right. These papers involve specific cases, most of which have not even been proven, but are allegations (and these allegations would have to be proved as fact in court). To publish anything like this....well I am sure you can see this would be very wrong. Zalkin is not interested in publishing, (against the law anyway) as much as he is interested in wining specific cases. But unless a victim asks him to do so, he cannot open a case. So he has no choice but to keep the files locked up.

Yes, we have discussed this on the forum before. I think this issue is taken to be viewed from the secular perspective only. They, the secular authorities, designate JW elders as having a clerical role as ministers (of religion). Therefore, under official circumstances, such as in a court of law, elders are viewed as "clergy". Whether they themselves, or the congregation view them as clergy in the traditional sense or not is irrelevant in these secular circumstances. (JWs view everyone who is baptized as minister, but obviously there is a distinction between roles and obligations, since elders also have the role of oversight and shepherding). I think in secular terms the word elder falls under the umbrella of clergy, despite the fact that our "clergy" do not hold matters confidential (as you and pudgy pointed out) to the same extent as a Catholic priest for example.

Legislators obviously have not made an exception to who exactly should be viewed as clergy. They have not, as far as I know, added a clause which says JW elders should not be viewed as clergy because they are not the same as Catholic priests and do not view confidential disclosure in the traditional sense. By law, they fall under the same umbrella regardless of differences of application by the particular religion.

If I remember right, the plaintiff in a recent lawsuit tried to use the difference of elders and clergy to his advantage by arguing that elders cannot be viewed as clergy because their brand of “confidentiality” includes a whole body of elders and the HQ. However, the judge deemed this irrelevant because he said it is a religions right of how they (JWs) apply their beliefs, and that it wasn't the courts business to tell a religion how to run their religious affairs, and then on that account make exceptions to secular rules. In the courts eyes an elder was clergy, period.

In saying this, I personally believe the org. should refuse the designation of clergy by secular authorities as applying to them. But I am not sure if this is possible legally? It might not be.
In any case, if it is possible, then I think they should do it. But law is so complex, rigid, and impersonal and doing something that is not according to the law can have bad repercussions down the road, even for an innocent party.

The JWs have been trying to, actually imploring, legislators to change the law and make ALL clergy mandatory reporters (all over the world). This is what all victims want too. Perhaps this is the real answer to solving the problem…. 
 
 
 
 
The law forbids him to use it.  
I don't think the WT org. has the right to publish it or give anyone else the right. These papers involve specific cases, most of which have not even been proven, but are allegations (and these allegations would have to be proved as fact in court). To publish anything like this....well I am sure you can see this would be very wrong. Zalkin is not interested in publishing, (against the law anyway) as much as he is interested in wining specific cases. But unless a victim asks him to do so, he cannot open a case. So he has no choice but to keep the files locked up.

Further about the situation with Zalkin.
From one website:
"He Zalkin) also has four years of redacted documents locked in a filing cabinet in his office. The judge’s protective order prevents him from saying how many documents he received or describing what they reveal about child abuse in Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations.
“It’s very frustrating to have seen what I’ve seen and to know what is going on in this institution and this organization,” he said. “It’s very frustrating when I’ve got a gag in my mouth. It’s pretty hard. We’re trying our best to expose this truth, and they’re doing everything they can to interfere with that effort, to block that effort.”
Who put the gag in his mouth? The judge.
And if you don't mind me saying, what has he seen, as he claims? And what does he know about the "institution"? In reality he knows nothing, only what he has heard or seen written down.  He is just saying words that will impress lay people, people who don't know much about JWs or the law. He himself knows, as a lawyer, he could never divulge information in these documents. He would lose his license immediately.

Yes, we have discussed this on the forum before. I think this issue is taken to be viewed from the secular perspective only. They, the secular authorities, designate JW elders as having a clerical role as ministers (of religion). Therefore, under official circumstances, such as in a court of law, elders are viewed as "clergy". Whether they themselves, or the congregation view them as clergy in the traditional sense or not is irrelevant in these secular circumstances. (JWs view everyone who is baptized as minister, but obviously there is a distinction between roles and obligations, since elders also have the role of oversight and shepherding). I think in secular terms the word elder falls under the umbrella of clergy, despite the fact that our "clergy" do not hold matters confidential (as you and pudgy pointed out) to the same extent as a Catholic priest for example.

Legislators obviously have not made an exception to who exactly should be viewed as clergy. They have not, as far as I know, added a clause which says JW elders should not be viewed as clergy because they are not the same as Catholic priests and do not view confidential disclosure in the traditional sense. By law, they fall under the same umbrella regardless of differences of application by the particular religion.

If I remember right, the plaintiff in a recent lawsuit tried to use the difference of elders and clergy to his advantage by arguing that elders cannot be viewed as clergy because their brand of “confidentiality” includes a whole body of elders and the HQ. However, the judge deemed this irrelevant because he said it is a religions right of how they (JWs) apply their beliefs, and that it wasn't the courts business to tell a religion how to run their religious affairs, and then on that account make exceptions to secular rules. In the courts eyes an elder was clergy, period.

In saying this, I personally believe the org. should refuse the designation of clergy by secular authorities as applying to them. But I am not sure if this is possible legally? It might not be.
In any case, if it is possible, then I think they should do it. But law is so complex, rigid, and impersonal and doing something that is not according to the law can have bad repercussions down the road, even for an innocent party.

The JWs have been trying to, actually imploring, legislators to change the law and make ALL clergy mandatory reporters (all over the world). This is what all victims want too. Perhaps this is the real answer to solving the problem…. 
 
 
 
 
The law forbids him to use it.  
I don't think the WT org. has the right to publish it or give anyone else the right. These papers involve specific cases, most of which have not even been proven, but are allegations (and these allegations would have to be proved as fact in court). To publish anything like this....well I am sure you can see this would be very wrong. Zalkin is not interested in publishing, (against the law anyway) as much as he is interested in wining specific cases. But unless a victim asks him to do so, he cannot open a case. So he has no choice but to keep the files locked up.

Yes, we have discussed this on the forum before. I think this issue is taken to be viewed from the secular perspective only. They, the secular authorities, designate JW elders as having a clerical role as ministers (of religion). Therefore, under official circumstances, such as in a court of law, elders are viewed as "clergy". Whether they themselves, or the congregation view them as clergy in the traditional sense or not is irrelevant in these secular circumstances. (JWs view everyone who is baptized as minister, but obviously there is a distinction between roles and obligations, since elders also have the role of oversight and shepherding). I think in secular terms the word elder falls under the umbrella of clergy, despite the fact that our "clergy" do not hold matters confidential (as you and pudgy pointed out) to the same extent as a Catholic priest for example.

Legislators obviously have not made an exception to who exactly should be viewed as clergy. They have not, as far as I know, added a clause which says JW elders should not be viewed as clergy because they are not the same as Catholic priests and do not view confidential disclosure in the traditional sense. By law, they fall under the same umbrella regardless of differences of application by the particular religion.

If I remember right, the plaintiff in a recent lawsuit tried to use the difference of elders and clergy to his advantage by arguing that elders cannot be viewed as clergy because their brand of “confidentiality” includes a whole body of elders and the HQ. However, the judge deemed this irrelevant because he said it is a religions right of how they (JWs) apply their beliefs, and that it wasn't the courts business to tell a religion how to run their religious affairs, and then on that account make exceptions to secular rules. In the courts eyes an elder was clergy, period.

In saying this, I personally believe the org. should refuse the designation of clergy by secular authorities as applying to them. But I am not sure if this is possible legally? It might not be.
In any case, if it is possible, then I think they should do it. But law is so complex, rigid, and impersonal and doing something that is not according to the law can have bad repercussions down the road, even for an innocent party.

The JWs have been trying to, actually imploring, legislators to change the law and make ALL clergy mandatory reporters (all over the world). This is what all victims want too. Perhaps this is the real answer to solving the problem…. 
 
 
 
 
The law forbids him to use it.  
I don't think the WT org. has the right to publish it or give anyone else the right. These papers involve specific cases, most of which have not even been proven, but are allegations (and these allegations would have to be proved as fact in court). To publish anything like this....well I am sure you can see this would be very wrong. Zalkin is not interested in publishing, (against the law anyway) as much as he is interested in wining specific cases. But unless a victim asks him to do so, he cannot open a case. So he has no choice but to keep the files locked up.

Yes, we have discussed this on the forum before. I think this issue is taken to be viewed from the secular perspective only. They, the secular authorities, designate JW elders as having a clerical role as ministers (of religion). Therefore, under official circumstances, such as in a court of law, elders are viewed as "clergy". Whether they themselves, or the congregation view them as clergy in the traditional sense or not is irrelevant in these secular circumstances. (JWs view everyone who is baptized as minister, but obviously there is a distinction between roles and obligations, since elders also have the role of oversight and shepherding). I think in secular terms the word elder falls under the umbrella of clergy, despite the fact that our "clergy" do not hold matters confidential (as you and pudgy pointed out) to the same extent as a Catholic priest for example.

Legislators obviously have not made an exception to who exactly should be viewed as clergy. They have not, as far as I know, added a clause which says JW elders should not be viewed as clergy because they are not the same as Catholic priests and do not view confidential disclosure in the traditional sense. By law, they fall under the same umbrella regardless of differences of application by the particular religion.

If I remember right, the plaintiff in a recent lawsuit tried to use the difference of elders and clergy to his advantage by arguing that elders cannot be viewed as clergy because their brand of “confidentiality” includes a whole body of elders and the HQ. However, the judge deemed this irrelevant because he said it is a religions right of how they (JWs) apply their beliefs, and that it wasn't the courts business to tell a religion how to run their religious affairs, and then on that account make exceptions to secular rules. In the courts eyes an elder was clergy, period.

In saying this, I personally believe the org. should refuse the designation of clergy by secular authorities as applying to them. But I am not sure if this is possible legally? It might not be.
In any case, if it is possible, then I think they should do it. But law is so complex, rigid, and impersonal and doing something that is not according to the law can have bad repercussions down the road, even for an innocent party.

The JWs have been trying to, actually imploring, legislators to change the law and make ALL clergy mandatory reporters (all over the world). This is what all victims want too. Perhaps this is the real answer to solving the problem…. 
 
 
 
 
The law forbids him to use it.  
I don't think the WT org. has the right to publish it or give anyone else the right. These papers involve specific cases, most of which have not even been proven, but are allegations (and these allegations would have to be proved as fact in court). To publish anything like this....well I am sure you can see this would be very wrong. Zalkin is not interested in publishing, (against the law anyway) as much as he is interested in wining specific cases. But unless a victim asks him to do so, he cannot open a case. So he has no choice but to keep the files locked up.

If I'm not mistaken, sharing some information, especially when it pertains to privileged and private information is not legal. I'm not even talking about sharing information about a perpetrator, I'm talking about the victim/survivor. Zalkin is sitting on a pile (he says about 100) of cases given to him by the org. which he is not allowed to use or make public by law. They are locked up in his safe. 
Also, I do not think the existence of such documentation/records has ever been denied.
 

If I'm not mistaken, sharing some information, especially when it pertains to privileged and private information is not legal. I'm not even talking about sharing information about a perpetrator, I'm talking about the victim/survivor. Zalkin is sitting on a pile (he says about 100) of cases given to him by the org. which he is not allowed to use or make public by law. They are locked up in his safe. 
Also, I do not think the existence of such documentation/records has ever been denied.
 

Withholding information from people who are not entiteled to it is not lying. For example, would you tell someone who wants to harm your family, where your family is hiding? I am sure you would not. You may even purposefully send them in the opposite direction. 

They were mountains in my back yard. I was always tripping over them, I had to weed whack around the base, the local teenagers would congregate on the dark side to smoke pot, and they were a general eyesore.
I prayed and prayed that they be moved. I don’t care where you put them, I said, I just want them gone. Next day I looked out the window and they were nowhere to be seen.

Withholding information from people who are not entiteled to it is not lying. For example, would you tell someone who wants to harm your family, where your family is hiding? I am sure you would not. You may even purposefully send them in the opposite direction. 

Withholding information from people who are not entiteled to it is not lying. For example, would you tell someone who wants to harm your family, where your family is hiding? I am sure you would not. You may even purposefully send them in the opposite direction. 

Love the Derry Girls, lol

Withholding information from people who are not entiteled to it is not lying. For example, would you tell someone who wants to harm your family, where your family is hiding? I am sure you would not. You may even purposefully send them in the opposite direction. 

Your long-winded replies show you have a pride problem. If the GB needs disciplining, Jehovah will be the one to give it.
Jude 9

And responded to like a person who doesn't take counsel.
"A man repeatedly reproved but making his neck hard will suddenly be broken, and that without healing." - Proverbs 29:1

Then why do you want me to worry about my English and your ability to understand my bad grammar?  

BTW - My favorite character 
 

Aren’t I hearing the song from her:
”Regrets, I’ve had a few, but then again too few to mention.
My foes, theirs I accrue, for which I want your full attention.” ?

Let's stay on topic, shall we? Let's dive into your defects. Maybe we can help you stop doing whatever it is your keep doing? We can't until you ask for help. Remember, asking for help is a strength, not a weakness. It's a baby step, but I know you can do it.

And you have none to concern yourself with?
Can you even name a defect you have which you've struggled with, but you keep sinning anyway?

You make it sound like the literature has zero scriptural support. It's commentary on scripture. You might not agree with the application, but it's not as if it's just completely made up. I don't dwell on the extreme interpretations and I don't think too many do. 

Well it's clear that a lot have processed whatever they're processed and decided that staying was better than leaving. Look at all the Catholics who are still Catholics after the chronic and ongoing mess of pedo-priests. 

Point is that none of the people complaining about the GB actually are in their congregation and it's a waste of time chasing real or imagined deficiencies of other people you don't know when you just look in the mirror and realize you have your own homework to do.