Anna

As Suzy says "A Jehovah's Witness" is grammatically wrong in English. And as Melinda points out it is a label. We are witnesses for Jehovah, we are HIS witnesses, plural. If we are talking about one person (singular) then he/she is either one of (all the other) Jehovah's Witnesses or "a witness for Jehovah". In some other languages it is grammatically wrong as well. For example how would you say in Spanish if someone asked in court whose witness are you. Would you say I am "John's witness", or "one of John's witnesses" (if there is more than one witness for John). Or would not say I am "a John's witness"?

@Jay Iza If English is not your first language then it may sound strange.  What is more strange is putting the indefinite article, "a" before a personal name.  As in "a Jay's witness".  As I type this, my computer is correcting the phrase by striking out the a.  I guess the only reason it doesn't when I type "a Jehovah's Witness" is because the term is recognised as a label now.  

THEY CAN!
Lets' put the congregation and the elders' families on hold for commitees to do their work!
Bur really, it isn't necessary, isn't required, they do not want to, you can think of other reasons yourself surely.
There is no rule that says they can't and no rule that says they must. Or were you seeking one that says they must? The body of elders delegate to a commitee and agree on its members. And that commitee doesn't have to be only 3 and nor does it have to consist only of local brothers.
If this is the case, get elders in that have no friendship bias, and if that didn't happen, there is an appeal process.
Not sure what the problem is here??
I do not think there is any point in getting to anecdotal or hypothetical examples here.
There is no rule on numbers for a judicial commitee other than 3 at least,, and no restriction on who they are, other than qualified. Practical violations of this are a matter for the appeals process.
 

It is not a rule:
km Sep 77:
A judicial committee need not be limited to three members. The Scriptures do not give any specific number of older men who handled cases of wrongdoing in the early Christian congregation. Older men who served in the community during Israel’s history may have heard cases according to their availability at the city gate. For example, Boaz selected ten of the older men of the city to hear the matter he had to present. (Ruth 4:1, 2) However, everyone in the community was under the Law covenant arrangement then, and this added to the number for whom the older men were responsible. Within each congregation today, the number would not be that great in most cases, so three would usually be sufficient to have on a judicial committee. Where the gravity of what is involved warrants having four or even five experienced men to serve, this may be arranged.
 

I have known MANY elders whose children have "left the Truth", because their fathers paid more attention to congregational matters than their own children.  There is such a thing as "theocratic" burnout.
And that fire has an insatiable hunger.

I should have said it should not surprise us. You don't have to be in the world to be affected by it, otherwise you would have to be taken out of the world. No one is immune to Satan's propaganda. I am sure you are aware that not everyone in the org is who they claim to be. Just because someone is called an elder or claims to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't make them so. Those are Jehovah's Witnesses and elders in name only. But they are not the majority. 
It is the body of elders who assign two elders to look into a particular case. So unless the two elders acted on their own, the body of elders would have been familiar with your letter. You cannot get disfellowshipped unless a judicial committee is formed. The congregation would not consider forming a judicial committee unless the offended Christian (you) had taken steps one and two of Matthew 18:15, 16 and had initiated step three in Matthew 18:17. If asked, elders could participate in step two, but they do not represent the body of elders. If the matter proceeds to step three, any elders who were witnesses in step two could serve only as witnesses in step three. They would not be used to serve on the judicial committee. I trust you were not in a judicial committee. There is nothing stopping anyone from asking to speak to any and all elders if they wished, especially when you believed the elders assigned to look into your accusation might have been biased. That is if they were assigned. Did you follow the steps in Matthew? Because that is how God controls the situation.

We have two situations going on here.  One to do with the organization/GB, and the other of a personal nature. I was quoting a letter from the organization, and therefore I was referring to organizational direction when I said "Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation"? The accusations by opposers are that the Organization, by means of its instructions, protects child molesters. There is ample evidence from letters to the BOE and other instructions that this is not true.
Then we have your experience, an entirely different matter.  The organization/GB has no direct knowledge or ability to control what individual elders do or don’t do. You will agree with that surely?  There can be corruption in the congregation, there is no doubt about that.  But to blame the organization for it, and for the corrupt elders you talk about, is not exactly fair is it? And this is what you have been doing for the most part. Directing all blame at the organization/GB, and when someone defends the organization/GB you get upset.  If it is truly as you say, then why didn’t you rely on Jehovah, who sees what man cannot see, and who will eventually reveal all that is hidden? Or have you lost trust in Jehovah too?  You are not the only one who has experienced something like this you know. Our family and friends have also had to deal with corruption, favouritism and nepotism by elders in the past. Currently, many members of a congregation I know are leaving and going to a different hall because of a “dictator” elder.  Publishers are nobody’s fools, and they will see what is going on and they will leave to go somewhere else. That is an option open to everyone. Will this elder receive the judgement many think he is due? Absolutely, sooner or later he will. Nothing is hidden from Jehovah. But as far as I know, nobody is blaming the organization/GB, and nobody has stopped going to meetings.

As a survivor of childhood abuse I am well aware of the long term effects.
I am not accusing the victim of slander. I am accusing the author.  I do not believe the original post to be authored by a victim. I believe it to be fiction designed to trap the ignorant and weak minded.
 

The WTS has not given anyone an "out." The policy on reports of sexual assault has always been to investigate, and allow the complaintent to go to the authorities if they feel it's necessary to do so. Sadly there have been cases where families have been told my a misinformed elder, or even a bad elder, to keep it "in house" and not involve the authorities. These are the failings of imperfect men I spoke about earlier. The WTS itself is not liable for these actions because their policy has always been to help families dealing with these kinds of things. 
To answer your question about using terms easily understood: yes that's what witnesses do. How do most people understand the word hell? The original post was meant to stir people's emotions. That poor woman who feared eternal torment because of her awful parents and their awful religion. Just another lie easily believed by people like you. 
I will no longer speak to you on this subject. I stand by my belief that the original post is slanderous. You are free to believe what you want. 

Well you obviously didn't get it either! Because ALL of this was talking about disputes, such as business disputes, not crime. Crime is not a dispute; Theft is not a dispute. Rape is not a dispute. Child molestation is not a dispute. Murder is not a dispute. These are ALL crimes. The subject of the WT was not crime.
So John, if you had been an elder you would have applied it wrongly too!

That is true.

It's talking about pagan judges, judging on matters (disputes) that should be figured out by the congregation who use the Bible which is superior (God is judge) as their guide. They're not talking about "pagan" judges, judging a criminal case. Don't keep mixing the two up. Does it need to give specifics? It clearly says disputes. Of course unless like some elders you believe child molestation is a dispute....

Well you obviously didn't get it either! Because ALL of this was talking about disputes, such as business disputes, not crime. Crime is not a dispute; Theft is not a dispute. Rape is not a dispute. Child molestation is not a dispute. Murder is not a dispute. These are ALL crimes. The subject of the WT was not crime.
So John, if you had been an elder you would have applied it wrongly too!

Sometimes you eat  the Bear ...... sometimes the Bear eats you.
 

Fake News...Fake News!!

You can only temporarily "rent" draft beer!

The problem with the video is that the commentator (by that I mean the critic) is obviously slanting it towards child abuse. I am not saying it may not apply, but it is a general video about all areas of function. America is the land of lawsuits, and it forces one to protect oneself down to ridiculous minuscule specifics. What if this.....what if that..... Sometimes it's things that a normal person wouldn't even think of (well not a European person for sure). It was only recently that I found out that the reason many landowners put no trespassing signs up is not necessarily because they want privacy, but because they are worried about lawsuits. What if someone walking through their land twists their ankle on a twig? Yup, that person can sue. And the more money a defendant has, the better. So it makes logical sense to destroy drafts and notes which may be used as evidence against you. I would not want someone reading my drafts, they may get a completely wrong picture of what I am trying to say.
The important thing is that approved content is not destroyed. Those kind of records have to be kept. So the accusation that records have been destroyed needs to be specific. Were these drafts of records or content approved records? This is the question that the BBC report is asking. So far apparently the evidence is that content approved records have not been destroyed.

The key word is CERTAIN documents. The accusation is that these are documents needed by the commission. What if they are not?

The key word is CERTAIN documents. The accusation is that these are documents needed by the commission. What if they are not?

Well you obviously didn't get it either! Because ALL of this was talking about disputes, such as business disputes, not crime. Crime is not a dispute; Theft is not a dispute. Rape is not a dispute. Child molestation is not a dispute. Murder is not a dispute. These are ALL crimes. The subject of the WT was not crime.
So John, if you had been an elder you would have applied it wrongly too!

That is what happened. But NOT every elder was of that opinion. Those who were, based their reasoning on WT 73/11/15 and related topics to do with 1 Cor 6: 1-7. The brothers applied it too broadly and applied it to where it shouldn't have been applied! I have underlined the quotes that the elders applied, and then I highlighted in red the misapplication. 
Questions From Readers    WT 73/11/15
● Do Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a Christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?—U.S.A.
The apostle Paul’s inspired admonition is: “Does anyone of you that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones? Or do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you unfit to try very trivial matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? Why, then, not matters of this life? If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down upon in the congregation that you put in as judges? I am speaking to move you to shame. Is it true that there is not one wise man among you that will be able to judge between his brothers, but brother goes to court with brother, and that before unbelievers? Really, then, it means altogether a defeat for you that you are having lawsuits with one another. Why do you not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?”—1 Cor. 6:1-7.

Here Paul was showing the Corinthian Christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between Christians before secular tribunals. The judges would be men who were not governed by the lofty principles of God’s law and whose consciences were not trained through a study of his Word. As many of the judges at that time were corrupt and accepted bribes, Christians had little reason to believe that their judgment would be just. Paul referred to them as “unrighteous men.” Were Christians to take their disputes before such men, they would be ‘putting in as judges’ men whom the congregation looked down upon as lacking integrity.
Then, too, in taking matters before unbelievers for judgment, they would, in effect, be saying that no one in the congregation had the wisdom to judge “matters of this life” among Christians. This was wholly inconsistent with the fact that spirit-anointed Christians as heavenly associate rulers of the Lord Jesus Christ would be judging, not only men, but also angels. And by dragging fellow believers before pagan judges, they would bring great reproach upon God’s name. As outsiders would be led to believe that Christians were no different from other people in being unable to settle differences, the interests of true worship would be injured. It would have been far better for individual Christians to take personal loss rather than to injure the entire congregation by bringing their disputes to public notice.
In view of the foregoing, would dedicated Christians today go before secular courts if that were to injure the advancement of true worship or misrepresent it in the eyes of outsiders? No. Of course, as all other people, true Christians are still imperfect humans. They make mistakes, and problems arise in connection with business matters and the like. But differences of this nature ought to be settled within the congregation, for God’s Word provides the needed guidelines and there are men in the congregation who are well grounded in the Bible.
However, if a Christian refuses to correct a serious wrong when it is made clear to him by elders serving in judicial capacity in the congregation, such a one would be expelled. This is in line with Jesus’ words: “If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” (Matt. 18:17) Thus, for example, one who defrauded his Christian brother or who failed to provide materially for his wife and children would find himself outside the congregation if he did not repent.—1 Tim. 5:8.
The injured party could thereafter decide whether legal action should be taken in an attempt to force the guilty one, now disfellowshiped, to rectify matters. Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worth the time and expense as well as whether the congregation could still come into disrepute by bringing to public attention the actions of one of its former members. If the wronged Christian conscientiously felt that God’s name would not be reproached and legal action was definitely needed, he would not necessarily be acting contrary to the spirit of Paul’s counsel if he were to take to court one who was no longer a part of the Christian congregation. Jehovah God has permitted secular authority to serve as his instrument in bringing lawbreakers to justice, and in this case the one wronged would be availing himself of legal help after exhausting the intracongregational means to have the wrong corrected.—Rom. 13:3, 4.
There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers. This might be to obtain compensation from an insurance company. In some countries the law may specify that certain matters have to be handled in a court, such as wills that may have to be probated by courts. But this does not create adverse publicity or bring reproach upon the congregation. In handling such legal matters that would not affect the congregation adversely, Christians can be governed by what they consider to be best under the circumstances.
However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God’s Word on this matter, such one would not be “free from accusation” as a Christian. He would not be one who has “a fine testimony from people on the outside” of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the bottom line is; some elders thought that the act of  letting authorities know that one of Jehovah's Witnesses is a child molester would bring reproach on the Congregation and Jehovah, and show that Jehovah's Witnesses were no different to anyone else. It's obvious that this was the case, otherwise the latest WT wouldn't need to clarify this by saying: "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. So obviously the Christian who reported was made to feel that way by some misguided elders. And some elders went as far as  threatening disfellowshipping of the reporter for slander (if there was inconclusive proof about the perpetrator i.e. other witnesses). The other problem was that dispute never meant child abuse, because child abuse always was and is a crime. So this is why the latest WT also makes this point: "Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime." and also: " The absence of a second witness does not mean that the one making the accusation is untruthful. Even if a charge of wrongdoing cannot be established by two witnesses, the elders recognize that a serious sin may have been committed, one that deeply hurt others.
So yes, some elders completely got the wrong end of the stick. This was evident when one of the elders testifying at the ARC embarrassingly said if he heard a report that someone in the congregation committed a murder, he would not report it to the police!
Q.  If a different crime, to take the most extreme, murder.  If you were told that a member of the congregation had killed someone else, would you report that to the police?

A.  We would encourage the person to do that.

Q.  Would you do it yourself?

A.   No.  I would try very hard not to - not that I would try very hard not to, but I would encourage the person continually to do that.  That's a decision they need to make.

 

I believe it works that the lawyers charge a certain percentage, no less than a third. However, costs of the trial come out of the client’s share, not the lawyer.
Legal costs can be astronomical. “Expert witnesses” of various sorts do not testify for free, nor do any sort of private investigators, nor fact-finders, but often make a very lucrative living out of so testifying. 
Everyone has their hand out, and I have heard of cases (anecdotal evidence only, and unrelated to CSA) in which the client’s net share is very small indeed.

I do not know if the ARC did or didn't submit these findings to their legal brief. What I do know is that those letters had a very limited audience. Regular publishers had no idea about these letters, they had no idea how elders were supposed to handle these situations. They were completely in the dark. As a consequence, regular publishers were at the "mercy" of the Elders. The ARC changed that. Now everyone knows the procedure and can be on the same page. It's a pity this transparency didn't happen sooner.

Yes, I agree,  that's how it should be, but as you mentioned, Lawyers want to go where the money is, and abusers probably don't have the kind of money they want. JW child abuse cases are attractive to them because of jw.org. Also, I didn't realise but many lawyers go hunting for cases. For instance someone I know is being sued by a credit card company and as soon as the lawsuit was filed with the court she has been receiving numerous letters from different lawyers who want to represent her. Apparently they go down to the courthouse to find cases. Similarly, child abuse lawyers go hunting for survivors so they can represent them in court. This was one reason I believe Zalkin wanted the names of all the alleged abusers held by the org. so he could sift through them and find anything that he could use for himself. And once they find a "suitable" survivor, they no doubt persuade her/him to the effect that they shouldn't feel bad about suing, since they will be suing the organization, and the organization has plenty of money. Then they (the lawyers) go about finding ways to incriminate the org. It's all about making money, but often the survivor comes off worse, especially when there is a settlement. I believe the lawyers take the biggest lump, and since with a settlement there is also a gag order, the survivor can't even complain about how little they got. It's all a big scam and all about lining the lawyers pockets. There is no justice really. The only justice will be with Jehovah. So when someone says "wait on Jehovah" when it is apparent that nothing that can be done for the moment, then that makes perfect sense. Of course it goes without saying that that should never be used as an excuse not to do anything.