Anna

I think you should apologize to him, as he is not on the other side, but merely on "The Far Side" and allowances have to be made for that, surely

Please re- read what I said about the Governing Body, I never said they NEED to wear "big boys pants" (I blame @TrueTomHarley, his style of writing rubs off on me sometimes all I could think of was a metaphor) I said they already DO, therefor they don't need someone like you, (or anyone for that matter) to defend anything, since you yourself do not have the complete facts either. They are competent and capable of caring for things such as these and have been since Russell's time. When you came on here you asked someone to briefly explain what the Royal commission was about. I sent you a link, to which you replied that you would rather read the Bible than read through all that stuff. So I read through all that stuff for you, sacrificing my time reading the Bible, so that you wouldn't have to. It is true, maybe I should not have underlined those parts, I should have left you to form your own conclusions instead of letting you know what I thought were important points. Otherwise I am not aware of anything that I said which should make you feel you had to defend the society. Perhaps you too misunderstood what I said. One of the beneficial things I learned on here is to really try and READ carefully what other people have written, and try and get the sense of it. It seems we both missed the sense of what the other one was trying to say.

I for one share your view, but there are some who don't, and then what could have been a worthwhile discussion, whereby those who participate offer their opinion without judging the other persons opinion and mutually come to some beneficial conclusion, turns into a one sided lecture and/or ad hominem attack which basically grinds everything to a halt. If everyone did that there would be no point of a discussion forum.

@Nicola you seem to be writing an awful lot of stuff considering you think we should not be discussing any of this. And you are awfully bossy telling people what they should or shouldn't do.

I respectfully disagree with you there. Children are the parents responsibility, and as long as the child lives under the parents roof then the parents have the right to expect certain behavior from their children no matter how old. I am not saying that "pressuring" is the right thing to do, but it is certainly the right and duty of the parents to expect their child to accompany them to what they consider to be an important part of their upbringing. When the children understand that this is what is expected of them until they leave home, then this should not cause any mental dissonance. I was not being critical of the society

That's exactly what I wondered

Judging the mother and telling her what she should or shouldn't do with her son is wrong obviously. But it is the other parents right if they decide they do not want their children to associate with the son for fear of bad association. It all depends on the situation. I have experienced quite a few cases like this, where the unbaptized teen decides they no longer want to attend, but it went hand in hand with also not wanting to associate with members of the congregation outside of the meetings either, but rather choosing worldly friends with whom they could go and do their "worldly things" as is the case when one wants to quit the truth. However, many decide to quit their worldly ways and come back and that is when they will find much support (or should). One of the unbaptized sons of a single sister in our congregation stopped going to meetings and went to live with his girlfriend. He and his girlfriend came to the memorial this year and everyone was very nice to both of them. The son looked completely at ease, talking with his former friends and they talking with him. The sisters even took his girlfriend under their wing and invited her to go to cross fit with them. I don't know where this will end, but the son knows that if he wants to come back any time, he will be most welcomed. And for just one of his steps in the right direction, the friends will take two to meet him more than half way. If someone has been abused, and chooses to stay away from meetings the friends will try and encourage that one and show them mercy, but you will find as a rule it is the abused person who doesn't want that either. They are the ones who want to quit associating with Witnesses period, regardless of whether they are at the Kingdom hall or not. What’s better, to humbly accept counsel even if it may be unjustifiably harsh or unfair, or to try and make excuses or minimize the situation? You know the answer. I agree, the ARC were handling things from a secular point of view, and therefore found it difficult at times to understand our Bible based view. But again, the only objective here is to protect the children and find a balance between what the secular view is and Bible principles. I think the GB wear big boy’s pants and we need not worry about them and feel we need to run to their defense. I do not think they have been too upset by the investigation and about being corrected, and do not need our sympathies or protection. Nothing bad has happened. A few insufficiencies were found which needed correcting. There are insufficiencies in all strata of society and regularly need to be assessed and revised. Also in our organization, and it has been the case as you know. Of course this is Satan’s world and so humans will never achieve a perfect solution, and neither will we as an organization because we too are imperfect. Being unfairly imprisoned, and being sexually abused and raped as a child is quite different, at least in my opinion.

".... Moscow, May 2, Interfax - The Russian Orthodox Church sees Jehovah's Witnesses as a dangerous sect and has supported the ban imposed on it in Russia. "This is a sect, totalitarian and harmful at that. I am well aware of this because I have had an opportunity to speak to former adepts of this sect more than once," Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Synodal Department for External Church Relations, told a program shown on the Rossiya 24 (VGTRK) TV channel. Jehovah's Witnesses members are dangerous because they approach people in the street and offer them their literature, introduce themselves as a Christian organization, while their activities are based "on manipulating consciousness, and they erode the psyche of people and the family," the metropolitan said. In addition to that, adherents of Jehovah's Witnesses "warp the teachings of Christ and misinterpret the Gospel," he said. "Their doctrine contains a lot of false teachings. They do not believe in Jesus Christ as the God and the Savior. They do not recognize the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, they cannot be called Christians," the metropolitan said. . http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=13749

I don't think it's in the Royal Commissions interests to "twist" things because their concern is to find the best possible solution for child protection and in order to do that they need facts. Their concern is not to malign the Witnesses, they are not Apostates. I don't know if you are aware that we were only one out of many other institutions that were investigated. Very true, we don't have all the details. But the Commission had all details, both from the victims and the "society" and was therefor able to handle it within that framework. It has nothing to do with "speaking against the society", this involves facts. I hasten to say, but I think that is exactly what may have happened in this case. You must also remember that the situation with child sexual abuse is unlike any other - "eventually" may give enough time for another child to be abused, so I don't think "Jehovah letting them know eventually" is really applicable here. It is not like it concerns an adjustment in understanding prophesy, or even facts of immorality between two adults coming to light. We are talking about protecting innocent children. So we may actually be helping the Australian government to get their act together as well. I guess we should not view this as a battle between "us" and "them" but this should be a mutual effort with the ultimate aim of protecting children.

It goes deeper than things mishandled at elder level, which of course is true as well, but some of our policies needed changing too, or made more clear, and the proof of that is that a new Child Safeguarding policy has been written up (2017), which is available to elders, but publishers also if they ask for it. I am not sure if this is the case in the USA yet, but definitely in Australia and I think the UK as well (not 100% sure about that though) but will be available in all countries eventually. In addition to what you have already read, here is a summary of the points brought up by the Commission which they felt needed changing: (This is an extract of what I thought were the most pertinent points, page 61-69) 1.General practice of not reporting child sexual abuse to secular Authorities. Although the Jehovah’s Witness organisation instructs elders to comply with mandatory reporting laws where relevant, there was no evidence before the Royal Commission that the organisation has any general policy requiring or advising elders to report child sexual abuse to the authorities when not required to do so by law, even in cases involving a child complainant. Mr Toole and Mr O’Brien both told the Royal Commission that there may be some circumstances in which there would be a need for elders to report child sexual abuse to the authorities. However, the Royal Commission heard evidence that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation has no specific policy or procedure instructing elders to report to the authorities where a child has been sexually abused, that child or other children remain at risk of abuse and there are no other means of protecting that child. In our view, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation should always report allegations of child sexual abuse to authorities where a complainant is still a minor at the time that the abuse comes to the attention of the organisation or where there are others who may still be at risk at the hands of the alleged abuser. In the case of a complainant who is still a minor, the organisation’s justification that it is a survivor’s ‘absolute right’ to make the report themselves is wrong and does nothing to protect that child and other children from sexual abuse. 2.Complainant to face abuser What the documents and Mr Spink’s testimony suggest is that since about 1995 the Jehovah’s Witness organisation has reviewed its policy and contemplated circumstances, at least at the investigative stage of the process,in which a complainant of child sexual abuse may be exempt from the requirement that they face their abuser. However, the documentary evidence only contemplates application of the exemption if the complainant is a child at the time of making their complaint It is clear – and Mr Geoffrey Jackson, a member of the Governing Body, agreed – that there are no circumstances in which a complainant of child sexual abuse, whether they are a child or an adult, should be required to make their allegation in the presence of their abuser. Any such policy would be inherently wrong because of the inevitable further trauma to a survivor, regardless of their age, that will invariably result from being in the presence of their abuser. The documented policies and procedures in evidence before the Royal Commission do not make clear that a complainant of child sexual abuse must never be required to confront their abuser. Given that the oral evidence before the Royal Commission was that this confrontation is no longer a requirement in cases of child sexual abuse, the written policies and procedures that Jehovah’s Witness elders are required to adhere to should clearly state this. Similarly, members of the organisation more generally should be advised in writing of the specific exemption from the requirements in cases of child sexual abuse. 3.The two-witness rule The two-witness rule remains a current procedural rule that is applied today within the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in all cases of complaints of ‘wrongdoing’, including child sexual abuse. Child sexual abuse invariably occurs in private, where the only witnesses to the abuse are the perpetrator and the child victim. Mr Spinks accepted that this is the case. Both Mr Geoffrey Jackson and Mr Spinks also acknowledged that allegations of child sexual abuse are almost always justified and that this fact is reflected in the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s own publications on the subject. Regardless of the biblical origins of the two-witness rule, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s retention of and continued application of the rule to a complaint of child sexual abuse is wrong. It fails to reflect the learning of the many people who have been involved in examining the behaviour of abusers and the circumstances of survivors. It shows a failure by the organisation to recognise that the rule will more often than not operate in favour of a perpetrator of child sexual abuse, who will not only avoid sanction but will also remain in the congregation and the community with their rights intact and with the capacity to interact with their victim. The Watchtower & Ors submitted that the two-witness rule is not a danger to children because, even if there are not the requisite two witnesses to authorise elders to take action, elders will nevertheless ensure that precautionary measures are in place to protect the complainant and other children in the congregation.As discussed in section 7.6, on the basis of the evidence before the Royal Commission,we do not consider that the precautionary or protective measures available within the Jehovah’s Witness organisation are sufficient to protect a child victim of sexual abuse or other children in the community when the child victim is the only witness to the abuse and the perpetrator does not confess. The Jehovah’s Witness organisation should revise and modify its application of the two-witness rule, at least in cases involving complaints of child sexual abuse. 4.The absence of women from the process Mr Geoffrey Jackson said that the organisation’s ‘decision-making arrangement ... is based on the headship principle that we have in the family and in the whole Jehovah’s Witness community as a whole that Scripturally the men make the final decisions’. Mr O’Brien and Mr Geoffrey Jackson both told the Royal Commission that women could nevertheless be involved in the investigation of an allegation of child sexual abuse and that a survivor need not present their allegation directly to three elders. Mr Jackson said that, if elders cannot talk to a victim because to do so might traumatise the victim too much, two women close to the victim may take the victim’s testimony and convey it to the investigating elders. The Jehovah’s Witness organisation should explore ways in which women can be involved in the investigation and assessment of the credibility of allegations of child sexual abuse. This will offer survivors a choice about who they divulge the detail of their abuse to. 5. No clear provision for a support person The documented policy of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation on support of a survivor witness during a judicial committee hearing appears to be that no ‘moral support’ is allowed. However, Mr Spinks told the Royal Commission that, today, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation does allow a person complaining of child sexual abuse to have a support person present. Under the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s current documented internal disciplinary process, it is not clear that a survivor of child sexual abuse would be allowed to have a person or persons present with them for support during that process. The organisation should formally document its stated policy of allowing a survivor to have a support person or persons present in the process if a survivor chooses that. 6. Sanctions and risk management The Jehovah’s Witness organisation currently deals with perpetrators of child sexual abuse through assessment of how repentant they are. A genuinely repentant perpetrator may be allowed to stay in the congregation (and in their family) but will be subject to the sanction of reproval. An unrepentant perpetrator may be disfellowshipped (or expelled) from the congregation (but will remain in their family) until they can demonstrate that they are genuinely repentant. Mr O’Brien accepted in evidence that, unlike child protection authorities, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation does not have the power to intervene in a family situation to ensure a child is protected. Since it is the policy and/or practice of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation not to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police or other authorities other than if required by law to do so: • if a known abuser is found to be repentant and for that reason is merely reproved, the abuser remains at large in the congregation and the community • if a known abuser is disfellowshipped and not otherwise dealt with by the authorities, the abuser remains at large in the community. Mr Spinks told the Royal Commission that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation understands the risk of reoffending, but he agreed that the processes used by society generally to evaluate that risk are not used by the organisation. He gave evidence that elders do not formally consider the risk of reoffending, other than reliance upon the word of the perpetrator, when they assess the degree of repentance of a perpetrator of child sexual abuse.Therefore, a decision to reprove a person, rather than expel or disfellowship them from the congregation, involves no objective consideration of the risk that that person might reoffend. The Royal Commission considers the management of the risk of reoffending to be an essential factor in the development of an institution’s policies and procedures on the protection of children from sexual abuse. There is no evidence before the Royal Commission that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation has properly considered that risk in developing its precautionary measures for dealing with known or alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse. This suggests a serious lack of understanding on the part of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation about the nature of child sexual abuse and the risk of reoffending, and it places children within the organisation at significant risk of sexual abuse.

Nicola, I don't have time right now, but I will try and give you a brief summary tomorrow

You can read it all for yourself in this report from the Australian Commission regarding Jehovah's Witnesses HERE I had similar feelings as a 9 year old when I spent some time with an older sister that my mom knew. My mom was studying at the time, and this sister told me so much about Jehovah. I felt it very deeply that this was the truth. I didn't get baptized till I was 18, but if I had got baptized then, at 9 years old, nothing much would have changed.

Nudism (in nudist camps) is not equated with immorality as far as I know. It is possible, if humans had not sinned, they would have remained nude, or if not nude all the time, nudity would not have been inappropriate, so someone could reason that the nudist colony type of nudism is like being back in paradise. Well put

This is what I always say when the friends start quibbling over how short is too short on a skirt, or how tight is too tight on some pants. Perhaps all that would be solved if we were all naked

I think she means would he now, as a 10 year old, understand the implications if at some point in the future he decided to disassociate.

Yes, I agree, he worded it poorly, but whoever put the video together was wanting to make sure we believed he worded it very well.

Yes, so the stories go....I have read them too on apostate websites and would not vouch for their reliability. On the other hand, the experiences I know of, I know of personally. There are many more than those I have mentioned, from more than one congregation, and more than one country. Yes, that’s exactly what I meant, as I am sure @Ann O'Maly realized I cannot possibly mean living exactly as Jesus did, including wearing similar clothes (where would one draw the line anyway?) I must admit, though, the vision of millions hanging on stakes made me giggle, despite the gruesomeness of it. But just by way of an example, the other day we watched a movie (The Intern) about a mother who had built a successful business, but as her company grew, she started realizing it was taking up more and more of her time and was infringing on her relationship with her husband, (who was a house husband) and child. In fact their marriage did suffer, as the husband embarked on an extra marital affair. In the end she decides her career is not worth more than her marriage or her young daughter. She is about to give the reins of her business to a new CEO, BUT, and this is the point, the turn of events that transpire is that her friend Ben encourages her NOT to give up her position as CEO and her husband “realizes” that in order for his wife to be truly happy and fulfilled, she needs to carry on with her business and tells her he will support her to stay as the head of her company. Ding ding...happy ending. This is not the only movie where the hero or heroine pursues THEIR own interests, often at the cost of the interests of others, and apparently the “noble” thing for the others is to encourage and support them in their selfish pursuit and self fulfillment. This is completely the opposite to what Christ taught. Christ taught we should put his interests first. Paul confirmed this when sending Timothy to the Philippians: “For I have no one else of a disposition like his who will genuinely care for your concerns. For all the others are seeking their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ”. (Phillip. 2:20-21) In fact this ME attitude is a “sign of the times” as in the past many put their own wants on hold in order to take care of an aged parent or some other responsibility. But today, self sacrifice is definitely not the way to go. So a brother or sister pursuing a career in order to realize self fulfillment and gains for themselves is not putting "Kingdom interests" first. However, if such is done with a theocratic goal in mind, or if such is balanced in a way where "Kingdom interests" do not suffer, then there is absolutely no reason for anyone doing that to be sanctioned. I have not known it. I have a similar experience to Eoin. My mother, a very faithful sister, encouraged my husband at the time to go to college to get some kind of qualification. He got a degree in engineering while a ministerial servant. (edit: oops, sorry, I already mentioned this once, but wasn't sure whether I actually posted it, or merely thought about posting it, haha) I think that's all I need to say as Eoin pretty much covered everything else very well, but one more thing I will say: I second that!

Oh no, not another one! A friend of mine sent me the first fake news about Trump offering the Witnesses asylum. This is how our conversation on messenger went: Me (initial enthusiasm): "Wow! Thank you for sharing"! (10 minutes later) "I am finding out that now that this may be fake news" Friend: "What makes you think so?" Me:This has been posted 5 days ago already and anything Trump says is reported on other news sites and so far I have not found anything about it at all in any of the serious news sites. This website looks untrustworthy. If there is anything else I find out about it I will let you know Friend: OK Friend next day: I just found out that it's not fake mail. Trumps son in law married to Ivanka , he handled the sale of the New York properties. He spent a great deal of time at Bethel and knows what J.W.s is all about. I think they bought some of the properties in Brooklyn. That came from the N.Y. News paper. FYI. Me: What came from the N.Y. news paper? Friend: The fake mail. It's not fake Me:So the report about Trump warning Russia about banning Witnesses and giving Witnesses asylum in the States you read in a N.Y. news paper? Friend:I didn't read it. One of our brothers let our friend know about it. We know friends in Bethel. They keep in touch. That article about trump was real news. Me: Ok, could you please ask them which news paper was it. I'm just interested. Thanks Friend: OK Needless to say she never got back to me about that, but sent other news articles (this time from reputable news sites) unrelated to this Trump thing, but related to the Witnesses in Russia. I am just posting our conversation as an example of how some of us get easily sucked into this kind of thing. "I have friends who have friends who know friends in Bethel and they said...she said" kind of thing. But there is absolutely no concrete evidence for anything...Perhaps this is good in a sense that we can all learn not to be hasty in accepting "news", or anything for that matter until we have solid evidence it is true. Although the Bible itself gives that very advice, we still seem to have a hard time applying it, as we have seen with the plethora of fake news surrounding the Witnesses in Russia, which friends were spreading as supposed "facts".

The context here is making a decision to disassociate or not disassociate as an ADULT, therefor making an informed dcision about disassociation and knowing the implications will be shunning. As regards baptism, he was saying that this applies to baptised persons, who know that once baptised, you can get disfellowshipped or disassociate (for whatever reason) on the contrary, those who are not baptised cannot get disfellowshipped or disassociate regardless of age. So as a (baptised) ADULT person (regardless of when you got baptised) and a victim of child sexual abuse, you will know that "the consequences of disassociating yourself will be shunning". THAT was the point being made. It had nothing to do with WHEN one gets baptised. Notice this was omitted from thesubtitles which would have given the context of what he was talking about: "here is somebody, who as an adult, or approaching adulthoid is making that decission" (what decission? The decission to get baptised? NO we are talking about disassociation here, so the decision about disassociation, and being aware the consequences will be shunning) As he goes on: "that the consequences of disassociation will be shunning". Omitting pertinent information which gives context is typical for those who want you to misunderstand.

Trust no one, trust nothing

What is incredible to me, is that fake news is allowed to pose as real news. This particular piece was very well disguised, posing as Fox News, and easily overlooked that it was not. It was a lot simpler in the days before the internet to identify physical newspapers, because all papers were well known, and tabloids in particular were know for sensationalism. I never forget the headline in one in the UK: "Man raped by giant cabbage". You know ANY kind of news from THAT newspaper is for entertainment only. With online news it's a little bit more difficult if you are not familiar with all the news website as there are so many, and new ones are popping up all the time. This particular one had apparently only been in operation for a few months. So you can't be blamed for making a mistake @bruceq. I fell for it too at first.

A sister sent me this a few minutes ago all excited. Thankfully the cynic that I am, only sent it to my husband and no one else. Then I went on line to do some research because it sounded just too crazy (but you never know with Trump). No one else was writing about it, I thought that was strange, but then at the back of my mind there was that connection with JWs through Jared Kushner...... So how did you find out it was fake? @bruceq P.S. On top of that Trump apparently saying that he invites any JWs to seek asylum is just a stretch too far. I can just imagine any Russian Tom Dick and Harry becoming JW just so they can move to the US and live the high life. Even Trump, with his craziness, surely would not open up a can of worms like that.

I hasten to be so bold as to say you know nothing about the situation of the victims, only perhaps the two that were in the ARC hearing, and one of them I remember thinking was very odd, as the victim was already 16 when her abuse started. I don't want to minimize the criminal and disgusting behavior of the perpetrator, but the victim was hardly a child. Her whole testimony sounded odd. Again, we only have two disclosures where we can hear of what happened from the viewpoint of the victim. One of them I already said sounded odd. In any case, what I said was that no KNOWN perpetrator would be allowed to continue his vile acts. I get a little tired of going over and over the same thing again and again with people whose main interest is to criticize how this or that was handled when they themselves were not even there, and when all they hear is testimonies from ex-witnesses who undoubtedly have a hidden agenda. There are many victims who have remained JW. Maybe those are the ones who would give us a more truthful and unbiased testimony as to how these things were handled. In saying that, there are certain aspects that have to, and have changed in the handling of child abuse within JWs. But the Witnesses are not the only ones. Experts in child abuse are also constantly revising and updating their recommendations on the handling of child abuse. It is a work in progress for the whole of society in general.

Just browsed some more on that website and came across this. Looks like Putin isn't taking his advice. Putin's Adviser called the Jesus commandments a pledge to the country's success 04/19/2017 Russia will achieve economic growth and technological progress if it lives by the behests of Jesus Christ, said Sergei Glazyev, an adviser to the president of the Russian Federation on regional economic integration issues, Christian Telegraph reports according to the Christian Megaportal invictory.com. "If we act as Jesus instructs, love each other, do good, keep the commandments and live in a divine way, make sure that our state policy and structure are in accordance with the Orthodox values, then I am sure it will work out," he explained during an appearance on the television channel "Tsargrad". "There will be economic growth that the government can not find at all now, and the technical progress that scientists are constantly talking about, will be present in every home," Glazyev added. According to him, most citizens of Russia consider themselves as Orthodox Christians. http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue28074.html

I was looking for you comments @Arauna and @Eoin Joyce and I see the "Russian" Librarian is he culprit