Anna

The problem is you know just enough to get confused. You do not have all the facts nor knowledge, just bits and pieces from various sources. Not only that, but also twisted information. It's like when opposers say Br. Lett said that child sexual abuse in the congregation are all apostate lies. When in fact he said that the JWs supposedly not caring about child sexual abuse are apostate lies. One says that we deny there is child sexual abuse, and the other says there is sexual abuse and we do care about it. Big difference.

Parents are the ones who give consent to anyone, whether it be an Elder, a ministerial servant or a publisher to study the Bible with their child and/or go in service. It is a private arrangement and agreement between the parent and the relevant person. Everyone is educated at the meetings, including the children who should sit with their parents. If someone else is "teaching their children" or if children are sitting with someone else besides their parents, then that is by the parents own arrangement. As regards the ministry, that is a grey area because the ministry can be considered "church activity" this is especially the case when someone who is not the parent, assigns the child to work with someone else (Candace Conti). As far as I know, this no longer happens. But people still make their own arrangements, for example little Johnny might ask to work with little Davie and his dad because they are buddies. Like I said, there is no institutional program with MS or elders involved. If it happens, then it is outside the congregational arrangement, and at the discretion* of the parents. *the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation. And CC is wrong when he applies "It takes a village to raise a child" to the spiritual raising of children. That is exclusively the parent's/guardian's responsibility.

No, I did not say this was fake news. It is true.

If I may butt in here. Srecko's first language is not English. Also @Srecko Sostar, when someone says "Don't imagine...something" it does not literally mean that the person saying this is accusing you of illusions, it's just a phrase that essentially means : "don't think....you are the only one....etc. (Zar ne mislite. Nemoj misliti da jesi...)

4Jah2me already alluded to this in his previous comment, not sure if I should post this in this topic. It's merely informative: We will join the redress scheme in Australia after all. https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/03/03/jehovahs-witnesses-redress-scheme/ Worth noting: “Jehovah’s Witnesses did not voluntarily join because we object to the assertion that the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses assumes responsibility for children,” the group said. “Our objection is based on the fact that the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses does not and has not sponsored any activities that have resulted in children being under its care, custody, supervision, control or authority.” (Children have ALWAYS been the responsibility of the parents. Plain and simple).

And we all know who you are 😂

Are you kidding me? She is the patient who begged the most. He keeps mentioning my name, and calling me apostate, maybe it's because I'm totally ignoring him 😂

@Thinking Here is a 2002 letter to the body of elders. 13 years before the ARC hearing. 2002 child abuse letter to BOE.pdf Edit: I want to add that what the ARC mainly achieved is transparency in the congregation. Before, it was only the elders that received specific guidance and policies. The publishers were largely ignorant of how they were to handle abuse when it happened. Members were guided on how to avoid and prevent abuse, which was great, but since the abuser works very carefully, and cleverly, in many instances it was not enough, the abuser deceived everyone. And then not everyone applied the guidance either. Now all members of the congregation can be on the same page with regard to how to handle sexual abuse when it happens. N.

The whole world screwed up. It was because the way things were done back then, that the ARC had to be set up. There are no loopholes in Jehovah's law, however, because of loopholes in secular law we were not able to do things properly. Arauna is right when she says that years ago there was no effective secular system in place whereby children were protected from CSA. This had become such a massive problem, so much so that it could no longer be ignored, and finally (!) secular authorities are addressing this "what had been a hidden problem for centuries (probably). And yes, I agree completely that thanks to the ARC our policies have changed. Like you, I watched all of the sessions (live). I also have experience of how one case was handled in our congregation. I would say it was typical of how many other cases were handled too. It was all about not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name, and a misapplication of 1 Corinthians 6:7. But the WT never advocated that this scripture applied to serious matters such as CSA, it always applied it to business dealings. But somehow the brothers applied it to everything, including CSA. This is WHY it had to be clarified in the May 2019 WT study article: "Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God’s name? No. The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God’s name".

Back to the topic of CSA There is absolutely nothing one can do to control what members do in the privacy of their own homes, or other people's homes, regardless their status in the congregation. Elder "oh so nice" at the KH could be touching Jane, his 6 year old daughter every night during bedtime story time. Ministerial servant "extra helpful" could be touching Tommy, his 12 year old Bible student, while conducting a Bible study with him at his home, with the unsuspecting single mother in the next room; grateful that she could approach a servant to help her with the fatherly task of educating her fatherless son. None of these things the congregation or JW org can be held responsible for. It would not stand up in court. This is why in the case of Candace Conti, for example, it was so important for the court to establish that she was molested during field service, because that was recognized as a church based activity, which the congregation could be held responsible for. Years later, when Jane and Tommy have reached adulthood, they finally disclose their abuse. Not to the elders, but to the media. And later file a lawsuit. What is the congregation/JW org. supposed to do? I am not saying the case of Jane and Tommy happens in all cases. Not at all. There are many various scenarios. But the case of Jane and Tommy are based on true stories that actually happened. Then we have other cases where suspicions of a persons vile acts were reported while the victim was still a child (unfortunately that does not happen very often as children rarely disclose) and usually these cases are reported to the police by the parent. Often times the police don't do anything! If the parent only reports it to the congregation, then the elders have to use their judgement to verify the facts. This is the only time it's possible for the elders to screw up. They may not believe the child or think the child may be exaggerating especially if the perpetrator denies. The child may be saying the truth, and the perpetrator may be a liar. The case gets put on the back burner. A year later the perpetrator molest another child, who says nothing, then another child, who also says nothing...until we have several children who have been molested by the original perpetrator. Now THIS is BAD indeed. Years later one of the victims comes forward and takes the case to court. Now it looks as if we harbor pedophiles. But in fact it's because the elders screwed up, made a mistake in judgement, not because they believed the guy was really a pedophile, but because they did not believe he was a pedophile. Big difference. Bad mistake, no doubt about it. So you are barking up the wrong tree when you are trying to find fault with the JW organization but really, it is a problem with the organization's members (elders, servants, publishers) when they do bad things in secret. At the KH everyone can put on an act, but who you really are becomes manifest in private. The organization has no control there. Sometimes, even with simple things, the congregation overseer's job is comparable to trying to herd cats. Trying to motivate people to cooperate is a nightmare sometimes. And bad people will do what they want, and of course they will do it in secret, and when chalenged they will deny and deny. How would you handle that?

Habakkuk 1:2-3 How long, O Jehovah, must I cry for help, but you do not hear? How long must I ask for help from violence, but you do not intervene? Why do you make me witness wrongdoing? And why do you tolerate oppression? Why are destruction and violence before me? And why do quarreling and conflict abound? We're all familiar with Habakkuk's plight and we can add our own sentiments; "how much longer do we have to watch people suffering because of the things he mentioned, but also because of disease, starvation, old age etc.". My mother in law is 90, and is in severe pain from arthritis every day. Two of my friends died a horrible painful death from cancer. Small children dying of cancer and other diseases... everywhere you look there is SO much anguish and suffering. We ask the same questions as Habakkuk did 2600 years ago.... and Jehovah has had to watch mankind's suffering since the inception of sin. I have to keep reminding myself that Jehovah is the wisest being in the universe, also just and kind. Only he knows the perfect time to step in. Then also if we compare a lifetime of suffering of 80 years or so, and then eternity of mental peace and happiness and physical health, the suffering then is short lived and pales into insignificance. It's a little easier to bare things if you know they are temporary....

Love reading your experiences! We have discussed this issue a number of times on here. Jehovah reads hearts. Also, what about all those people who have never heard the good news? And since time does not stand still, there will always be those who have never heard, because people are being born and living through the stream of time, so people will not all be in exactly the same position when Armageddon comes. There will always be someone who may have accepted the truth had they learned it sooner, but then Armageddon came....will Jehovah say sorry, too late?....For sure he will not because he is a just and loving God. So when we say only baptized JWs will be saved, it cannot be true...

No, you love this, that's why you're always trolling on here

Grrrrr, that is so sad, and I would say unnecessary. But of course we are not masters of an other's conscience, so no one can judge him for that (I am not saying you are ) and say it was totally unnecessary. But, the ironic thing is, how was his conscience formed? Was it through the Bible, or was it through the interpretation and understanding of some men who have erred in the past over a number of things? It's obviously the latter, and that's the sad frustrating, and unnecessary part. I know, I know....I'm preaching to the choir...

I feel the same. I am completely convinced there is a creator and that he has revealed things he wants us to know in the Bible. I believe that some of the things that we cannot seem to reconcile at the moment (pertaining to creation and scientific evidence, such as carbon dating, the supposed age of man and civilization, predators....etc.) will be revealed, and we will have that face palm moment as in "duh, of course"! Ummm.....say no more. I have been wrapping my head around it for some time now, with the help of JWI. I still owe him a reply, actually, it will be more questions.... Thank you for sharing your experiences, very interesting and encouraging! 👍🤗

Whenever I get a pang of conscience, I think; it's ok, Tom's on here! 😂🥳🤪💃

Yes that is true, but it doesn't mean someone can't raise a question regarding something that appears not as serious as those things you mention. I think it is a fair question though since the Bible clearly condems gluttony. I merely gave my opinion. Now I have found this article in a Question from readers in the 2004 WT: https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20041101/Questions-From-Readers/

@xeroCezar Chavez is just a trouble maker who delights in calling people names, I would say he is a bit of a troll....

“Both official reports and media often confuse ‘institutional’ abuse in religious settings and abuse happening in families that happen to be religious.” HF "Next move will be to hold Walmart responsible for abuse that has occurred among their shoppers"- True Tom Yes, I would say that is the crux of the matter.

And as everyone knows, calling for harm to anyone is against all internet rules globally.

That's utter rubbish. Please @The Librariantell us, why was @JOHN BUTLER removed?

What are you talking about? Nobody is saying anyone should avoid the anointed. You can accept the anointed without inquiring about their anointing surely? Or do you need them to talk to you about their anointing before you accept them? As for talking to them about how they feel about the truth, why on earth should you not be able to do that?

It didn't used to be like that though. We had a sweet old anointed couple in our congregation back in England, in fact we were in their book study group and he was the conductor. Anyway, if one were to think of a perfect example of what one imagines the anointed to be, he and his wife were it. They were no different from any other faithful and spiritual brother or sister. But things were different back then, there wasn't the taboo surrounding anointed ones like there seems to be today. Everyone just accepted they were anointed and that was it. We could talk about it. In fact my mum asked the brother once how does he know he is anointed, what happened when he realized he had the calling? He told her that before, he was looking forward to living on paradise earth, and then this changed, and he had this unrelenting desire to be with Jesus in heaven. He didn't feel special, and he didn't question it, he just accepted it. He did admit though it was difficult to explain. I think today, "political correctness" has crept into the congregation too. Also, as has been discussed, there is some uncertainty about who really IS anointed today. Perhaps being discreet and minding our own business avoids situations where we might be questioning some "crazy" sister. We had one "anointed" sister in another congregation who would go around with a lit lighter muttering "I see you".

I have noticed they are getting a little chubby, that does tend to happen with age. I would by no means call them obese though. Plus, as I mentioned, you don't know people's circumstances. In any case, I am wondering why, if you have such an aversion to them, you even know what they look like lately. Do you have an unhealthy obsession with them?