b4ucuhear

"But I never heard any facts for sure about the molestation charges, although it was a well-known rumor." This brings to mind an interchange you and I had last year regarding information that may come out in mid 2016. It seemed from your response that you were leaning toward the idea of some potential homosexual encounter. The person I had In mind in my statement was in fact Leo Greenlees. I of course, knew about the "purported" charges of child molestation, but more recently a person who had been a well-known elder died, leaving an envelope stating it should not be opened until after his death. In the letter he made the accusation that Leo had molested him when he was younger. (Not the same individual who was involved in 1984 as far as I know since this elder was already an adult and elder by that year). In any event, to the extent that all of this is true, Leo would have already been a practicing child molester prior to his being appointed on the GB (although of course, the GB wouldn't have appointed him if they had known). Naturally, in the current climate of things, these types of things could prove "difficult" for current members of the GB who are aware of the details if governmental authorities get nosy. "The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected." I agree with you on that, since I know a number of brothers who have been disciplined for child molestation in various congregations. All of them have been faithful brothers for many years now without incident. But a potential problem with that type of weakness is the rate of recidivism that can accompany that type of behaviour. Naturally, there are some very thorny legal issues associated with appointing a person with such a history and whether he would even potentially offend again. My take on this is that even though information on certain websites (which we should avoid) may have some truth or even be completely true, my faith in and dedication to Jehovah is not dictated by the choices other humans make - regardless of what "position" they may have in "the organization." They too are imperfect, not miraculously inspired and make mistakes and have poor judgment at times. Kinda' like all the rest of us. But even with all of that, it's as close to pure worship and accomplishing our Christian mandate to preach the good news of the Kingdom world-wide as is possible to find today. You won't find brothers accomplishing that, regardless of how intellectual their reasoning may appear. Who is "walking the walk" as to the preaching work the Christian congregation was formed for? Im still not sure however, if there was more news we might expect regarding what you had suggested last year.

Excellent! Thank/you Ann.

While it's true to say that at times, men at various levels of authority within the organization live with a "do as I say, not as I do" ethic and get away with things the rest of us don't, I'm seeing this post as a non-sequitur - "it does not follow." Although there might be more specific information that has not been included here, from what has been included, I think he is going beyond the scope of his reference in asserting "they secretly sponsor select bethelites to obtain these very “worldly” qualifications, using funds donated by some of the simplest Witnesses..." It is my understanding from what is referenced above, they were looking for people who ALREADY HAD these qualifications beforehand (as opposed to "sponsoring" or funding them in order to now send them to university to obtain those same qualifications). That was a common practice in Bethels some time ago, but currently that does not appear to be the case - although it may be required now in some exceptional circumstances. It seems a main concern of theirs was that people with EXISTING qualifications also were seen to have spiritual qualifications also in order to be asked. As for: "if you are an appointed person – Elder, Ministerial Servant, pioneer – and you attend university, your (spiritual) qualifications automatically come under review." I have heard that said, but I can't find where. It's not in the elder's book or Organized book, or in any recent magazine articles (up to 2014) as far as I can tell. Yet I persistently hear that said/quoted. I would be interested in knowing the source of this information - because I've heard it quite often. Is this a clear direction from the FDS or yet another "could be" that has been turned into a law? Im not saying there is no basis for the statement or that there is nowhere to find it officially, but just that I haven't been able to find any definitive statement regarding that. Anybody?

"Cautious as serpents innocent as doves." That's why not everyone uses their real name in public discussions - there will always be someone who will be offended by something, and some of them can make trouble for you. Actually I was surprised you held out this long considering some of the things that have been discussed. That being said, even when I disagreed with something you said, I always respected it as something from the heart. Your posts were also some of the most humorous I've read as well - especially the captioned photos. Your elders were likely doing what was expected of them within the organizational framework and were likely sincere with your best interest at heart (giving them the benefit of the doubt). But if there is one thing I love, appreciate and respect above all else is that even when facing what for others would be faith-destroying realities they would rather look the other way to or pretend don't exist, you have maintained your faith in Jehovah and recognize where lies "the only game in town." You have faced the "unvarnished truth" and are still standing. You now have a tested quality of faith that you won't find among "head-in-the-sanders" - no matter how righteous they may appear in their own eyes. As I've mentioned before, hang in their, you are not alone. - "he that has endured to the end will be saved..."

After reading your post, I read mine over and can see where it may have been a bit confusing. To be clear, I was dealing with REINSTATING (not removing) individuals who had been wrongly disfellowshipped by men who had something to hide and we reinstated them immediately when we had the facts. There was no mention in my reply that "as an elder you (we) in 'many cases' wrongly removed/dis fellowships brothers." I believe I expressed that this type of situation is the exception rather than the rule - "relatively rarely." I say "relatively" rarely because while rare in comparison to the total number, it is far more than most people would be comfortable with and not all that unusual if you've had enough experience.

As has been correctly mentioned, there are a number of factors that come into play. The notoriety of the infraction, the gravity of it, the level of repentance... There is another point that could be made here that elders in particular may want to be careful over. I have personally been on committees and know of more than several other cases where the person was wrongly removed or disfellowshipped. When they moved to another congregation they maintained their innocence and that they were wrongly removed/disfellowshipped. Since it was assumed that the originating letter was factual, it appeared the individuals were not humbly accepting discipline from Jehovah and remained disfellowshipped for years. It became apparent however that the brother was doing everything he should and was faithful. To make a long story short. The originating later was not truthful, it was malicious and we reinstated the brother immediately. Sometimes removal or disfellowshipping has been used as a club to keep whistleblowers quite. In one case the whole body that originated the removal/bad letter regarding the whistleblower was disfellowshipped for being involved in some very bad/immoral behaviour - as it was found out years later he was telling the truth - but it had been his word against theirs. That is not to put into question the scriptural foundation of disfellowshipping unrepentant wrongdoers, but simply to realize that as humans, this is at times an imperfect process and at other times - although relatively rarely, used for nefarious purposes. For those who do experience the type of things most wouldn't even want to hear about, remember who is the final judge and our dedication and loyalty is to Jehovah despite what well-meaning although imperfect (or at times wicked) men may do. For those (most) others, remember that whom Jehovah loves, he disciplines. Appreciate loving scriptural counsel as a gift (even if temporarily painful) that will put you on the path to everlasting life.