Kick_Faceinator

Wrong choice of words. Yes, i am Member in this Club.  If I want to leave a comment in this club or on some other page, then it is logical that I have to log in. Does that make me a “member” who swears allegiance?  If you do not want to loosen your perseverance, feel free to continue in the same scenario. I don’t mind if people want to see where I left a comment or tagged a video with “like”.
Perhaps you have some sort of a OCD in this matter (as in Glasgow case too), as our other member of this club, Arauna, would say. Waiting for your (long) response. 
One of our case studies examined the responses of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to allegations of child sexual abuse. We also held an institutional review hearing to provide an opportunity for the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to inform us of its current policies and procedures in relation to child protection and child safe standards, including responding to allegations of child sexual abuse.
As of 31 May 2017, of the 4,029 survivors who told us during private sessions about child sexual abuse in religious institutions, 70 survivors told us about abuse in the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of the victims we heard about, 80.0 per cent were female. The average age of victims at the time of first abuse was 8.4 years. Of the 53 survivors who told us about the age of the person who sexually abused them, 44 survivors (83.0 per cent) told us about abuse by an adult and 12 survivors (22.6 per cent) told us about abuse by a child. A small number of survivors told us about sexual abuse by an adult and by a child. The vast majority of survivors who told us about abuse by an adult perpetrator said they were abused by a male adult.
Of the 65 survivors who told us during private sessions about the role of a perpetrator, 26.2 per cent told us about child sexual abuse by family members. This was considered to be within our Terms of Reference when the sexual abuse was reported to and handled by the religious institution. We also heard from survivors about other perpetrators including volunteers (13.8 per cent), lay leaders (9.2 per cent) and other adults who attended the religious institution (9.2 per cent).
As part of our case study, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation provided us with files containing allegations, reports or complaints of child sexual abuse. They provided us with documents relating to at least 1,800 children and over 1,000 alleged perpetrators.
Institutional responses to child sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witnesses
Our case study regarding the Jehovah’s Witnesses showed that the organisation dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse in accordance with internal, scripturally based disciplinary policies and procedures. We found that at least until 1998, individuals making complaints of child sexual abuse were required to state their allegations in the presence of the person against whom the allegations were made. The ‘two-witness’ rule applied – that is, wrongdoing could only be established on the basis of testimony from two or more ‘credible’ eyewitnesses to the same incident (or strong circumstantial evidence testified to by at least two witnesses or testimony of two witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing). Allegations were investigated by elders, all of whom were men and had no relevant training.
We found that in deciding the sanctions to impose and/or the precautions to take in relation to a known or suspected perpetrator of child sexual abuse, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation had inadequate regard for the risk that the person might reoffend. Alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse who were removed from their congregations as a result of allegations of child sexual abuse were frequently reinstated. We found no evidence of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation reporting allegations of child sexual abuse to police or other civil authorities.
During our case study we heard from survivors of child sexual abuse that they were not provided with adequate information by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation about the investigation of their allegations, felt unsupported by the elders who handled the allegations, and felt that the investigation process was a test of their credibility rather than that of the alleged perpetrator. We also heard that victims of child sexual abuse were told by congregational elders not to discuss the abuse with others, and that if they tried to leave the organisation, they were ‘shunned’ or ostracised from their religious community.
Contributing factors in the Jehovah’s Witnesses
We considered a number of factors that may have contributed to the occurrence of child sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witnesses or to inadequate institutional responses to such abuse.
The Jehovah’s Witness organisation addresses child sexual abuse in accordance with scriptural direction, relying on a literal interpretation of the Bible and 1st century principles to set practice, policy and procedure. These include the ‘two-witness’ rule as discussed, as well as the principle of ‘male headship’ (that men hold positions of authority in congregations and headship in the family). Scripturally, only men can make decisions. Other scripture-based policies include the sanctions of reproval (a form of discipline that allows a perpetrator to remain in the congregation), disfellowshipping (exclusion or excommunication as a form of punishment for serious scriptural wrongdoing), and shunning (an instruction to the congregation not to associate with a disfellowshipped person). As long as the Jehovah’s Witness organisation continues to apply these practices in its response to allegations of child sexual abuse, it will remain an organisation that does not respond adequately to child sexual abuse and that fails to protect children.
We recommend that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation abandon its application of the two-witness rule in cases involving complaints of child sexual abuse (Recommendation 16.27), revise its policies so that women are involved in processes relating to investigating and determining allegations of child sexual abuse (Recommendation 16.28), and no longer require its members to shun those who disassociate from the organisation in cases where the reason for disassociation is related to a person being a victim of child sexual abuse (Recommendation 16.29).
We welcome the inclusion in the recently published Child safeguarding policy of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia of a requirement to report child sexual abuse to civil authorities in cases where elders consider that a child may still be at risk of harm. The Jehovah’s Witness organisation should also amend all of its policies and procedures relating to child sexual abuse to ensure that this requirement is included.
Which of these was posted on the WTJWorg official site for JW members to read? Did they post a link like you did at this club?

Many religions have 'spread the word of God' throughout this Earth.  I cannot say that any of them have done it properly.
The JWs have spread Watchtower lies and given false dates and false promises. How can you pretend that it is 'true worship' ?   They lied about the 'Superior Authorities' mentioned in Romans. They lied about "Millions now living will never die", because they all died.  So many false dates for Armageddon just to frighten people into the Org.  They contiue to lie about the GB being the F&DS, and continue to tell the Anointed 'not to meet together for prayer or Bible Study. That is directly against the instruction from Jesus Christ.  They continue to baptise people into the Org and do not obey the instruction about baptism. 
BUT YOU are frightened of the truth about your Org and it's Leaders, because you worship those 8 men who have power and control over you.

Telling the truth about your GB, their lawyers, and the lies told in the Watchtower magazines, has nothing to do with hate or OCD. 
Your words were :-
 When I read Revelation, I see doom and gloom for those not offering up pure worship to Jehovah and SURVIVAL for those who do worship in Spirit and truth,,
You were talking about PURE worship. You yourself know that the GB, the Watchtower and JW Org are NOT PURE. 
THat is not hate Arauna, it's truth. 

This is quite funny because I think @Witness has been saying that Armageddon in spiritual, for a long time. 
We've all known this scripture for many years. You are not bringing anything new to the table here.
Doesn't this contradict the idea of 'hiding in your inner rooms' ?  
Isaiah 26:20
Berean Study Bible
Go, my people, enter your rooms and shut your doors behind you. Hide yourselves a little while until the wrath has passed. 
And it also doesn't fit in with  " then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them," .. If the wicked lived to see God's servants living passed 70 / 80 years, then the wicked would not have beed 'suddenly destroyed'. 
Rambo, I don't know what 'extra' knowledge you think you have, but half of it does not make sense because it contradicts itself.  
Jesus Christ has ALL authority, and only He will guide those He choses to guide. I think you, Rambo, are a blind guide.

Oh, I see.  As if what I write here isn't enough to give you a clue  🙂  "I am doing" the preaching work that I share with others.  This preaching is to "my people", "Israel" and to those with them. (Matt 10:23; Rev 11:1-3; 18:4-8; 14:6-12)  This is what I do. Matt 10:16-25  I would hope the scriptures shared already, would answer "because".  

https://www.castanet.net/news/Vernon/346544/Judge-orders-stay-of-Jehovah-s-Witnesses-constitutional-claim-on-privacy-of-records
Who gets to decide the constitutionality of privately held church records is at the centre of a court and privacy commission battle being waged by the Jehovah's Witnesses and two former members.
A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ordered a stay of proceedings in a case in which the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada sought to challenge British Columbia's privacy laws, saying the matter is best decided by the privacy commission.
The church had refused to turn over personal records sought by former Jehovah's Witnesses Gregory Westgarde and Gabriel-Liberty Wall.
Justice Janet Winteringham gave her decision in Vancouver on Monday.
It involves former members of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Coldstream and Grand Forks who wanted their personal records turned over to them after they left the church.
The congregations refused the requests, claiming the records were confidential and that compelling production violated their constitutional rights.
Church elders John Vabuolas and Paul Sidhu have proceedings underway before B.C.’s privacy commissioner on the matter, and Winteringham wrote in her decision that the court challenge versus B.C.'s attorney general be stayed pending the outcome of the privacy inquiries.
Vabuolas is an elder in the Grand Forks congregation, where Gabriel-Liberty Wall requested disclosure of his personal information in March 2020. Wall was baptized in February 2012, moved to the Grand Forks congregation in 2014, and formally resigned from the church in 2017.
Sidhu is an elder in the Coldstream congregation, where Gregory Westgarde requested his records in October 2020. About August 2009, Westgarde "made known to the elders he no longer wished to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses."
Sidhu described Westgarde’s departure from the church as "unequivocal," despite a trio of elders offering spiritual guidance.
"Based on our internal canon law, a brief summary of this decision, our efforts, and (Mr. Westgarde’s) response was placed in a confidential file under lock and key," Sidhu wrote in a deposition.
According to the litigants, "As a part of their spiritual duties, elders may create records about their congregants, particularly as it relates to their religious standing as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The plaintiffs allege B.C.’s privacy legislation does not recognize or respect the confidentiality of these records created in relation to the elders’ spiritual duties and as such violates their constitutional rights."
The Watchtower sought to stay the privacy inquiries and let the court decide the matter, but the judge disagreed, staying the civil suit against the attorney general's ministry, pending the outcome of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner hearings.
The elders maintained that PIPA "violates their constitutional rights of religious freedom, freedom of expression and freedom of association because the legislation fails to protect confidential religious communications and records."
It seems to be all about power and control, but I would have thought a person should be entitled to have their records as why would the Elders still need them anyway ? 
Yes I know it's all about diferent laws in different places.  Perhaps I should ask for my personal information here in UK, and see what result i get  

The scriptures are exposing the man of lawlessness that stands in the Temple of God. 2 Thess 2:3,4 The abomination of desolation/disgusting thing of Matt 24:15,16 is this act of lawlessness.  End time prophesy has to do with the trampling of God's priesthood/Temple by the Beast/the elder body that "stands where it does not belong", as counterfeit priests and who rule, judge, and spiritually "kill" the anointed. Rev 13:5-7,15.  This is nothing new that I haven't already stated numerous times on this forum. 
The scriptures give evidence, but it seems that even presenting God's word is viewed as "bloviating".  It is not an act of being "holier than thou", it is relying on God's word to give us truth and not on the word of men who twist and change Jesus' teachings, to fit their selfish desires.  

“Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, 16 do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your [f]understanding (“hearts”) being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power 20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality[g] (“rule”) and [h]power (“authority”) and [i]might (“power”) and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.
22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.”  Eph 1:15-23
 
This happened in the first century.  It is utter blasphemy to say Jesus was not reigning in the first century.  1914 has Satanic roots, and is the downplaying of the glory, authority, power, might and dominion, of Jesus Christ.  (Gen 3:15; Dan 7:25; 2 Thess 2:1-3,9-12)
There is NO scripture that states Jesus didn't have this ruling authority until 1914. None.  It is the fabrication of men fallen away from the guidance of God's spirit -  leading to their foolishness, and stiff-necked arrogance that dwells their hearts. 
JWs treasure this lie - TREASURE IT, as if it is solid gold.  
 
1914
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I have never said Jesus is the Almighty God.  I don't believe in the trinity.
 

You must mean Eph 1:18, in the NKJV, which your leaders once said they liked that translation.  So, the problem must lie with you??  
"Saints" in this scripture:
ἅγιος hágios, hag'-ee-os; from ἅγος hágos (an awful thing) (compare G53, G2282); sacred (physically, pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially, consecrated):—(most) holy (one, thing), saint.
Many times it is translated simply as "holy", or as "holy people" - 
"To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father [a]and the Lord Jesus Christ."  Col 1:2
"To God’s holy people in Colossae, the faithful brothers and sisters in Christ: Grace and peace to you from God our Father."  NIV

One other thing, I'm not a prophet, but I do help a prophet spread the message to God's holy people/
saints/anointed/ "Israel" and those with them. (Matt 10:23; Mark 13:27; Rev 11:1-3;18:4-8)  I suppose its a modern-day comparison to the relationship Jeremiah had with Baruch. (Jer 36:4)  Or, Elijah with Elisha.  (1 Kings 19:19)   
Matt 17:11; Mal 3:1-4; 4:5,6
 

This would only confirm that WTJWorg's claims, that GB and the elders are guided by a holy spirit that should reveal all "satanic traps" to them, are empty. So, JW members are not (fully) equipped with “spiritual armor” from Ephesians 6, but equipped with many empty doctrines.

Yes Srecko, hence I truly believe that an organisation needs to be guided by True Anointed ones that are inspired by God's Holy Spirit through Christ. 
But JWs here don't believe in such things ever happening. They don't believe that God can have a clean organisation. 
JWs here have no true faith in God at all. Their faith is only in the things seen, such as the GB, Warwick and Ramapo. They have proven that they cannot handle spiritual matters. 

If I'm not mistaken, there is an even more significant difference between them. A Catholic priest does not form a Judicial Committee of 3 priests, nor does he make a decision on transgression and bring punishment, but as a kind of advocate “liberates / forgives” sins in the name of God, expecting the sinner to be a penitent and no longer commit sin. Is such practice, from both side, good or bad? 
A sinner can be “thankful” if word of his behaviour does not spread further. But this is a criminal act (CSA) and it is no longer an important question whether the perpetrator will feel "embarrassed", but how to help the victim.
For JW elders, it should not be decisive how a Catholic priest acts and how they are treated by the Law and the Court. JW elders, because of their view that they are “true servants of God” placed by God in a leadership position, should have a more enlightened knowledge of merciful and just action / reaction for both parties involved. "Forgive whenever you can, punish whenever you need to." 

But I keep coming back to the point that here in the UK we have had two investigations. The Charity Commision and the IICSA. What are the authorities doing in the USA ? What investigations ? 

Do you know how, in which way and after how much time "random folks" become JW members?

I focus on them because they are the official channels, not just hearsay. I have also given information to the IICSA and had direct emails from them and from Police departments. Perhaps I'm slightly more involved than most people think, but I don't tend to spread it all over the internet. 

There are some good historical quotes on jwfacts from past Watchtower mags and books,  on the act of disfellowshipping.  
Such as..
"Down in Goa the papers have carried notices that anyone having various books by Judge Rutherford would be excommunicated. What a bunch of mean and unmanly scallywags! Remember the blind man who was healed at the pool of Siloam, that when the man told the religious fellows where to get off they excommunicated him (John 9; 34, margin), and his parents before that had feared being put out of the synagogue by the "Jews". Isn't that the same cowardly action of the clergy in these days towards those who desire to have their eyes open and to "see"? "We'll excommunicate you!"" Consolation 1937 Nov 17 p.5
"Satan's organization sails under the high-sounding name of "Christendom". It boasts of a membership of over 500,000,000 persons. Its members are in bondage to creeds, customs, rites and ceremonies; they dare not disown these or criticize or expose them. To do so would bring down on their heads taunts, reproaches, disfellowship and persecution. Many thousands of the Lords people are held in these denominations as prisoners, afraid to express their disapproval of the creeds, methods and customs of the organization. Watchtower 1930 Oct 1 p.301"
Interesting that they say this  is a practice of "Satan's organization".  (Rev 13:1,2,4-7,10,11,12,15)
 
 

https://jw.support/disfellowshipping/    This is interesting reading. 
Lets start from those early Christians in the 1st century.  When did they become known as Christians ?  Was it whilst Jesus was still alive or was it after his resurrection ?
Who was it that called those early 'disciples' Christians ?  Did they call themselves by that name ? 
And now an important question. Did any human have the authority to tell another human, "You are no longer a Christian". 
Was being a 1st century Christian, being a part of a human Organisation ?  So was it possible to turn a person out from it ?  
Did a 1st century person need permission to preach the word of God ? 
At this point we should remember the account whereby the disciples complained to Jesus that some 'outsiders' were preaching and healing in the name of Christ. 
Mark 9:38-41    Whoever Is Not Against Us Is for Us   Jesus allowed others to do good deeds in His name.  Just the opposite of disfellowshipping or shunning. So, when the JW Org / Elders disfellowship someone, what exactly are they disfellowshipping them from ?  What scriptures and what authority do those Elders use to give themselves permission to disfellowship someone ?  Do the Elders presume they have authority to judge a person and to say that such a person in 'no longer a Christian' ?  Do JWs presume that only they are Christians, therefore anyone who is not a JW cannot be a Christian ?  Jesus used the Samaritan man as an example of a Non Jew that did the will of God by showing kindness / mercy to a Jew that needed help. Jesus was speaking to the Jews who at that time hated the Samaritans. They were almost 'at war' with each other.  But Jesus was showing that a Non Jew could be pleasing to God. Unfortunately the true meaning of that parable has been lost because people do not understand the hatred that was there.  BUT, there is a message there for JWs. If only JWs would seek it and find it.  So what about a person that leaves the JW org ? In the eyes of the GB, Elders et al, a congregant that leaves the Org is a deliberate sinner. So does the GB / leaders / Elders et al, think that the congregant that has left, is automatically 'no longer a Christian' ?  And what about the congregation memebers where one has left ? Do ALL the congregation really want to SHUN the one that has left ? Exactly what scriptures do congregation memebers use to give themselves reason to SHUN a person that has left the Org ?  I've been reading Watchtower quotes which say that each congregant must make up their own mind through their own conscience, to SHUN or not.  But what action would be taken against a congregant that did not SHUN someone that had left the Org ?  I suppose an important question here would be. Do JWs here honestly think that every person that leaves the JW Org, is 'no longer a Christian' ? If that is so then it would seem that JWs believe that only the people in the JW Org are able to serve God.  So then JWs become anti-'non-JWs'.  That would be in line with the Jews being anti-Samaritan, whereas Jesus was not. 

They will say it's persecution by Satan.

We need to wait to see if GB will look for “holes in the law” and then try to avoid or delay meeting its obligations to victims. You know, maybe GB is waging a "theocratic war" and has maneuvers on the "battlefield."

"It just goes to show you. It's always something. If it's not one thing, it's another." - Roseanne Roseannadanna

Dead, or very seriously wrinkled.
Every day, I try to smush a large bug ... then Ah has da edge!
 

Yeah ... that boat sailed a LONG time ago, and scaremongering is now painfully obvious, except to the terminally dull.
Besides .... the Scripture clearly warns against EXACTLY what BroRando is doing, referring to such ones as false prophets.
Painfully obvious, and painfully transparent.
At least, it appears he is not collecting money for his Yosemite Sam act.
If he is ... I hope he is getting it in Pudgycoin.
Remember the Pudgycoin motto! - "Pudgycoin, the digital currency for those who can't tell the difference!" (tm)

Oh dear another doom and gloom picture, to frighten people. It looks like something from a scary movie  
And oh dear again. BR in back on the 1914 horse, but I think that horse died long ago. 
And now 2034 is no longer THE year, but a beginning of something ? 
And the 120 years of Noah ? Guessing again by putting thoughts into scriptures that God never put there. 
BR, it seems you are a scare monger wanting attention for yourself. 
Shame I'll never know, as I will be long dead before 2034 .