Anna

Nothing against your uncle, but I have noticed quite frequently friends making illogical and contradictory remarks such as this. I wonder if upon reflection they realize that what they've just said makes no sense at all, but just leave it at that. I am guilty of this too by the way. Or are they genuinely so blinkered? Or is it just a saying. No need to answer. This is merely a rhetorical question 

Excellent point

Excellent point

Yikes! I said nothing about "proof" in either a situation of nations slinging accusations, nor did I even say that sexual abuse can be proven by hidden info that only trained experts can recognize. Proof (and by that I suppose you mean incontrovertible or overwhelming evidence) is rarely a part of sexual abuse allegations, except in extreme circumstances (multiple eyewitnesses, rape kits, video, DNA). Usually, a predator leaves only victims who he (or she) believes will never come forward to complain. (Most young victims don't complain until many years later -- based on fear, threat, "guilt," lack of understanding, lack of trust in any confidants.) But he often leaves circumstantial evidence based on patterns of grooming the victim(s), patterns of characteristics among the types of victims chosen, patterns of controlling the victims, patterns in the methods to gain time alone with victims. These become things to watch out for when trying to protect our children from suspected predators, too. But predators evolve their methods and may try dozens of "patterns."
There is nothing that can re-define child abuse "proof."
No. They need to understand such situations better for nearly the opposite reason. So they can understand the complexities, and know why they are not relying upon themselves to make legal and criminal determinations. Also, they can have more empathy for all involved, and realize that the perpetrator is going to be an expert liar, and will appear completely innocent. They should also realize that the victim will, more often than not, appear to be a complete liar, appear "guilty" of something, with inconsistencies in the story, his or her memories, timelines, etc. They may appear hateful and spiteful and unchristian, while the perpetrator may appear godly and humble and caring and concerned. They should realize what I said above about the unlikelihood of "proof" of any kind.

This is actually a valid musing. I see the outrage regarding the child abuse issue as an evidence of one of the last sparks of morality in a dying and corrupt civilisation. 
This issue has extraodinary emotive power in many circles. Despite the prevalence of institutionalised wholesale abuse in the form of abortion; confused censorship; inadequate, inconsistent legislation; resistance to proper investigation; recruiting of child-soldiers; human trafficking; inequitable access to food, medicine, education, and whatever else one cares to list, there's nothing so attention grabbing as accusations of child abuse and/or the suggestion that such depraved and appalling behaviour should be tolerated and allowed anywhere.
In the light of the Scripture's presentation of Christians as prime targets of a spiritual enemy, with toxic influence far more dangerous than Novichock, why should we think their institutions would be immune to infiltration by that most insidiously deceptive of all criminals, the child abuser? Or why would individuals within their ranks be any less susceptible to the torrent of living-room piped,  immoral effluent found on the internet? Even a most conservative estimator of this content, Dr. Ogi Ogas, commented "Fourteen per cent of searches and 4% of websites devoted to sex really are very significant numbers, when you stop to ponder it." And then of course , in birth itself there is no religious discrimination in it's apportioning of genetic malfunction.
But that spiritual enemy is expert at fanning sparks of humanity into flames of bigotry and intolerance as he aims his fiery missiles into the unwary and unguarded hearts of hapless men. By means of this issue, he reduces rational, decent humans into prejudiced, unreasonable witch-hunters, clawing at each others throats, trading accusation and insult, deflecting attention to any one but the real enemy, whilst his worm-like minions advance unchecked, the cries of his victims continue, as if unheard.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/18/cases-of-child-sexual-abuse-up-31-says-nspcc
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-and-resources/research-and-resources/statistics/
http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/media-kit/national-statistics-child-abuse
https://www.statista.com/statistics/639375/number-of-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us/

I have wondered why this topic has such blow back. We victims or those who commit the acts , on this forum are neither served either way. In reality, the elders, are not policemen, when they are confronted with abuse, they must have a confession from the one who,has committed the deed, the one affected should take the matter to the secular authorities. A child should have the power to be listened to by these authorities and have the one who has done this to them brought to justice. The opportunity that a child could in fact lie, is there, but there should be the ear for the child other than parents or the elders. Ones who,would have the authority to move on what the child has stated has occurred. I did in fact take it to the secular authorities after telling my parents, and he was both arrested and removed from his office. Yes, they wanted it done another way, but my father wanted him dead also. This way saved that person life and my father's. And my own sanity! I didn't go into a hole to hide. I also,did not wait on those I realized could help me.

I see the same thing, and it's usually overkill. It's often not limited to just wanting to have a serious discussion about process and practice and doctrinal issues. Some is out of anger at the organization, obviously, and therefore includes typical spite from ex-JWs. Some is out of the iconoclastic desire to tear down something that is essentially good but they perceive it as claiming itself to be "perfect." But there is little chance of this being discussed thoroughly among JWs in a congregational setting, or in a monthly broadcast. There is little chance that JW.ORG will ever include a comments section. So this is still about as good a place as any I know to discuss it with others who might wish to put some depth and thought into fixing it.
Perhaps it does. And perhaps your point is true.  But a scale can balance rotten fish with rotten vegetables. It would still be good to know if the counterpoint is valid.

Allen, Your point should be the same as mine, and it would be a shame (literally) if it is isn't. I understand as well as anyone why you think that a knee-jerk reaction to protect the reputation of the organization is so important. I've been there myself. And sometimes that reaction is correct and on-track. But there are times when justice is more important than protecting a reputation. When we put ourselves on the side of justice we are defending Jehovah's reputation, and this is better for the organization, too, in the long run. There are times when unrighteousness should be exposed. It is short-sighted to think that we are defending Jehovah's name by covering up what is bad. 
So, my point is that the problem is bad, because every instance of child abuse is bad -- even if our statistics are better than someone else's. If you don't think the problem is bad, then I don't trust that you are are doing everything you can to reduce the problem. We should advocate for children. We should advocate for justice. And we need to do more about this reputation we have earned, as an organization, for trying to hide the extent of the problem. It makes us look like we would prefer ignoring or hiding the problem rather than admit that the problem is bad.
I don't think your insult has any basis. You say that people like me threw incorrect information out there without first understanding secular law. I can't speak for what others know or don't know about secular law, but I saw no instances where your insult applied to anything I said on the subject. I don't recall anything JTR said on this subject, but I do recall several of the things Anna said, and I don't think either of us stated anything incorrect or conflicting with respect to secular law. Both of us, as I recall, discussed the value of Brother Jackson requesting a legal change with respect to a consistent requirement for reporting, in all cases, which would resolve a large portion of the inconsistencies. As I recall, we both discussed this long before you yourself mentioned that you also agree with Brother Jackson's recommendation as a resolution for many issues.
If you really think I said something incorrect, I welcome the correction. But with you it's usually just bluster, obfuscation, vagueness, and braggadocio. I hope this isn't more of the same.
I don't condemn the Watchtower for inaction. I have long stated that the Watchtower Society has made many excellent changes with respect to these crimes in the past decade especially, and even some good changes to policy and procedure in the last two years. Perhaps you think you are trying to impress an audience who doesn't know any better when you make up false things about people you don't seem to want to get along with. If you have facts, that's great, but please leave aside all the acting and histrionics.
There are not many way to make sense of that statement of yours. The trouble seems to lie in your attempt to fit too many untruths in a single sentence without thinking clearly about the issue. To be clear I am not excusing anything. I am "blatantly" trying to get to truth of the "90% claim." If you have any facts to add, great! As you can see, you probably weren't thinking clearly at all when you said I was "condemning the use of other religious statistics." I was the one who just recommended the use of other religious statistics for comparison.
If you don't like this topic, Allen, you are free to avoid it, but please don't fill it with untruths for your own purposes.

I don't like to draw the line at just well loved and "special" animals. I can't wait for all the roaches and spiders and ticks and fleas who have ever died to also come back. After all, there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.

When I bring in folks like @Vic Vomidog, @Dr. Adhominem  Dr. 'Hammer' Urubi, and @Top Cat O'Malighan, I can almost write in the tenth person.

I don't think so. Which guy do you mean?
Having said that, it really doesn't matter. If you leave a record of loyalty to Jehovah, slapping back hard at villainous reasonings, and even people when they make themselves synonomous with them, also not chit-chatting with determined enemies of the truth as though they were chums, yet not saying vile things yourself, and even showing some kindness and empathy wherever the situation might warrent it, I'm not sure how you can go wrong, even if the guy is phony.
There was someone here who said he was a brother coping with homosexual tendencies some time ago. He painted himself very distraught. I think he said he had contemplated suicide at one time. I spoke with him at some length, as did several others here. But I always thought he could be just putting us on. It doesn't matter. If you sketch a character convincingly enough, you provide good opportunity for dealing with such a character, whether you are real or not.
It's not like I feel I'm being Perry Mason here, you know. Nothing here is real, necessarily. Real or not, people provide a good opportunity to develope communication skills appropriate to both friend and foe.
If you mean John, I don't think I've been gullible. Why would you think I have been? But even if I have, it hardly matters. I certainly mess with people's minds enough when I determine they are up to no good. If I am to stay here I must have that liberty. If someone turns the tables on me now and again, why should I complain? But I don't think it of John. He struck me as genuine, though you never know.
 

You have much stature, Trom, and I appreciate that, but I have learned not to say such things. Even when they are gone, there is no saying they might not come back. I don't like to make it personal.
Someone may say "you don't?" because I have pushed back hard at times, even 'slapping' some. But I try to never go personal, and I think proof that that can work is the conciliatory note from John. Now, he is gone for now, but it is not necessarily permanent, and we might have made it so by going after him personally.
 

If they wanted to hide it, wouldn't it have been easier to not even document it? Or if it was documented, wouldn't it have been better to destroy it?
There were no specific laws on how to handle child sexual molestation put in place by governments for a long time. It is relatively recently where governments have begun to investigate this problem in an effort to implement effective remedies.
As far as I am aware Zalkin has many of the documents already, but has been ordered by the court to keep them confidential, and locked up. I am no lawyer but it's evidently not just a simple matter of handing over documents that's the problem. 
How you think the GB apply this to pedophiles makes no sense. How would "hiding" the truth about pedophiles protect the organization? The principle of "hiding the truth from enemies" or from those "who had no right to know" was to protect lives. Pedophiles, just like any other Witnesses who are Witnesses in name only, bring shame to the org. but nobody is that naive to believe that these individuals do not exist within the org. and hopefully no one is that dumb to believe that such individuals are purposefully protected and shielded from punishment. 

If they wanted to hide it, wouldn't it have been easier to not even document it? Or if it was documented, wouldn't it have been better to destroy it?
There were no specific laws on how to handle child sexual molestation put in place by governments for a long time. It is relatively recently where governments have begun to investigate this problem in an effort to implement effective remedies.
As far as I am aware Zalkin has many of the documents already, but has been ordered by the court to keep them confidential, and locked up. I am no lawyer but it's evidently not just a simple matter of handing over documents that's the problem. 
How you think the GB apply this to pedophiles makes no sense. How would "hiding" the truth about pedophiles protect the organization? The principle of "hiding the truth from enemies" or from those "who had no right to know" was to protect lives. Pedophiles, just like any other Witnesses who are Witnesses in name only, bring shame to the org. but nobody is that naive to believe that these individuals do not exist within the org. and hopefully no one is that dumb to believe that such individuals are purposefully protected and shielded from punishment. 

Giannis 
You sound frustrated, Maybe its the language that is insufficient.
Anyway, apologies if I misunderstand you due to that.
With regard to the latest points you raise.
Giannis: In ancient Israel the congregation of Israel knew everything about everyone.
I find this statement too extreme. The Awake you quote is interesting, but only as a comparison between Mosaic and American legal standards. 
Obviously, Israel was a sovereign state with a judiciary, as is the USA. So there are legitimate comparisons in their legal systems, the right to public trial being one of them. However that provision does not substantiate your statement. In fact, even today there are situations when the public is excluded from legal procedures.
But, as Paul made clear in Rom 13, currently "Caesar" or the state "bears the sword" and serves as Gods's minister for good or bad toward his servants. We are all relatively subject to Caesar's laws and, as far as secular matters are concerned, generally, public trial is still a provision of that system should we fall foul of the law or indeed be a victim of crime.
So you do have the right to a public trial today..in "Cesar's" courts.
However, the Christian congregation is a spiritual arrangement and actually is not constituted as a sovereign state in the way of ancient Israel or the modern USA.
Elders have a responsibility to keep the congregation spiritually and morally clean, and also to keep Jehovah's name and the name of His Son clear of reproach. This will necessarily mean dealing with wrongdoers, making assessments regarding wrong conduct, taking action to clear out badness from the congregation, and helping repentant ones regain spiritual health. At times, this may include mediation between congregation members to maintain peace in the congregation. @JW Insider has adequately outlined reasons for confidentiality in an earlier post in this thread. 
Where the breaking of Cesar's law is a component of errant behaviour amongst congregation members, then victims are completely at liberty to invoke the provisions of that system (bearing in mind Paul's counsel at 1 Cor. 6:6-8). Indeed, there may well be a legal obligation to refer such matters to the one "that bears the sword".
Is this the account you refer to?
To take a true-life illustration of recent months: A certain youth professed to be a Christian minister. Yet he was carrying on homosexual acts with professed friends of his. When he found it expedient to travel to another part of the country he missed his homosexual friends. So he wrote one of them threatening to expose him if he did not come to where he lived so that they could continue their homosexual relations. But it was not long before this young professed Christian made some overt acts that exposed him and today he is under a ban of at least three years from any Christian congregation of Jehovah’s people.
 
This article discussed the hardening power of a practice of sin and the account illustrates the lengths a person could go to and the consequence when following such a course. I can't see any reason why further explanation would be required here, other than saying that the reference is 46 years old. Hopefully, that person learned, albeit the hard way (1Cor.5:5, 13), and has since been restored to the congregation. 1 Cor 6:9-10.
I think @JW Insider has indicated above how you could go about making your grievances public. You seem to have already embarked on this course anyway.
I do hope you can resolve your issues without cutting yourself off.

All the more reason to apply the scriptures I suggested.
You cannot find the true picture from anecdotal evidence.
The Awake article is interesting but only as a comparison between Mosaic and American legal standards. I am not sure it supports the idea that  " In ancient Israel the congregation of Israel knew everything about everyone."  (my italics). I would need more specific examples for that conclusion. The statements in the article are not supported by examples.
What scriptures give you the Christian right to a "public trial"? And, if permissible, may I ask, what have you done to require such a trial?

It is not possible to support these statements with fact.
Yes to both. However, with regard to following scripture, in the spirit of Apollos. Acts 18:24-28.
Where is the scriptural proof of a requirement to indiscriminately publicize the reason for disfellowshipping or dissasociation?
Have your elders used 2Tim.2:23 or Titus 3:9 to support their dislike for your questions? Have they attempted to provide answers to them?. I suspect even if they have, you have not been satisfied, as your many posts in this forum seem to indicate.
Why not apply the principle in Ps.4:4? It's all about attitude really. (Compare Ph. 3:15, the principle, not the immediate subject matter).
I recommend the advice provided by JW Insider quoted below:
I would also add that the work of preaching the good news of Jehovah's established kingdom in the hands of His anointed king, Christ Jesus, should be the main focus of our efforts at this time. I would add that to the list of activities in JW Insider's comment above.
For many honest-hearted ones, getting to know Jehovah and his son Jesus, learning about the ransom, the kingdom, the truth about life, death, sin, getting free from the deceptive domination of Satan in their lives, and coming into association with the worldwide congregation of Jehovah's people, is the best thing thing that could ever happen to them. And, if media reports are anything to go by, it appears that there are greater opportunities in your country to share the good news of the kingdom than many others of us have at this time.
I do hope you can resolve your difficulties, if not your questions.
Do you have this saying?
Ας μην καίμε τα χλωρά μαζί με τα ξερά. 

@Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης,
I do not know any specifics of your particular situation or the situation in your congregation. No matter what the case, Jehovah knows your heart, and no humans or organization actually holds the final word of judgment. What I can say is that I'm aware of why there was a time when we once announced the reasons for disfellowshipping or disassociation. Then it turned into "conduct unbecoming a Christian" or "so-and-so no longer wishes to be associated . . . " often with a related talk given within a week or so, designed to remind the congregation of the need to remain morally clean, and the specific worldly or immoral elements the congregation had shown vulnerability to were usually emphasized. 
It should be obvious why this has changed. We do not wish to embarrass the person over a specific wrong or reason that they may later wish the congregation had no specific knowledge about. Most persons disfellowshipped are somewhere in a process of repentance. The elders do not believe the process is ever perfect, but they especially do not want to create a situation where a person might regret having everyone else know what weaknesses they overcame. There are issues of fairness and justice to consider when a congregation may know all about one party in a wrongdoing but nothing about a second party to the same wrongdoing.
I don't think I need to spell out all the ways that one person may be hurt more deeply due to the unfairness of allowing a different level of information for two different persons where the wrongdoing may have been equal. The other side of that coin, is the case where two persons were involved in the same wrongdoing, but one person was much guiltier than the other, yet the announcement sounds pretty much the same for both. The best solution has appeared to be the minimization of all announcements, allowing persons to keep more privacy and dignity.
Perhaps in your case, you wish to "give a witness" about why you are choosing to disassociate. Because you have been a Witness, your motivation is understandable, but you are asking for an opportunity to explain yourself in ways that might be considered detrimental to the spiritual well-being of the congregation. The elders are there to take care of the spiritual interests of the whole congregation. Most persons do not join a Christian congregation to get a sermon from someone who disagrees with the teachings that they joined to hear more about. You don't go to a meeting to have your belief system torn down, but to be built up. If you feel you have important points to make, why not write a book, or write to elders, or branch personnel, or go on the Internet, so that the congregation in general will have a choice as to what kind of information they risk exposing themselves to.
 
 

Why you want this is your business, not ours. If any one will gossip then they are no better than you, really. Your beef was the same I had with Jehovah himself for the death of my father because the system had not come yet. I was so pissed. But why was I angry? My father erased his debt of sin by his death and will awaken at the hearing of Christ voice during the resurrection. Also why would I want him to extend his life here, suffering with cancer, wasting away in pain truly not living, when Jehovah has promised a life so much better. Think of what you are saying. What mediators? They are just guides, showing us that path Jesus told us to take that would lead to eternal life. I want to stay on it because in Jehovah's love I will be able to see both of my parents again.
 When Jesus choose the apostle's, they were not perfect, fussing and arguing most of the time. Peter was headstrong thinking he was all that, but when the stick hit the fire, he denied his Lord and Master 3 times, how do you feel he felt when he caught eye to eye contact with Jesus when that cock crowed?
 Those who have the responsibility the same as those apostle's then, have to watch over us, make mistakes do we grumble, point out those mistakes and cry foul wanting to leave? Leave where? Their mistakes points us to what better place? Judas betrayed Jesus, did the others leave due to his mistake? Peter denied Jesus, did the others deny him when Jesus himself forgave him and Peter went on to serve faithfully till his death?  And when the Gentiles became part of the congregation, there were many new changes, for Paul had to set standards to meeting arrangements. As we grow, diverse with different cultures and continue to love one another as a true brotherhood, we will find we will change. If God's Word is alive should not his organization be also, vibrant with ones different but the same in our worship of Jehovah? 
Would not want you to go based on what you are saying, but do not stay either. Make up your mind and heart, it is Jehovah we are serving, so should you. And it's in his love we want to be. That is the road that leads to life. Any other will not get you there. It's a tributary leading off into destruction. I know been there and back. I can said from first hand experience. So I call to you, as I have. Read your Bible, ask the questions, pray about it, humble yourself to Jehovah's way, not our own way. That's what Satan did, right? Be like Paul and reason from the scriptures. Most of the questions you have will go away, for you will have answered them before you speak them out loud! Have a good evening my friend!

I looked at several of your posts and some of them appear to take outdated issues, or overblown issues, and treat them as if they are currently having a direct effect on people. I think Melinda Mills pointed out that you were making an issue out of a prior incorrect view on the exact definition of porneia. But this issue would usually only have been of a practical concern for a few months before the wrong idea was corrected. (Edited to add: the issue arising from an improper understanding had been there for many years, but I'm told that it was rarely invoked, and a big issue was only being made out this for a few months, and that it was the very raising of the issue that also helped raise concerns about changing the practice.) Similar issue with being disfellowshipped over transplanted organs. I had specifically asked a person who would have known about all the decisions about disfellowshipping over that issue, and he told me it only happened a couple of times. (There is a tendency to be lenient when a person is suffering and might die from a rejection anyway. Also there was a strong belief in those days that even if a blood transfusion was not necessary for an organ transplant, that you had to agree to the possibility of accepting one, which is still a serious offense.)
At any rate, what is the rush to disassociate? Can you not find love in the brotherhood? Do you personally have to think of humans as your "mediators"? I believe there is room for a lot more diversity of thought, as long as you can keep a clean conscience, and avoid causing divisions by insisting on a view that others find unacceptable. Over time, many of the views that opposers have held, have finally been accepted. We are not here strictly for a set of doctrines, we are here to find opportunities to love and care for our friends, relatives, family, and extend that same love to those related to us in the faith (our spiritual brothers and sisters). 
 

This has no place in controversial posts. This is the reality of the organization. 1000s of unreported sex case allegations.

This is excellent
The only honest response is "bring it on!"
Can you see how this applies?: 
“Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. In the same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?"
Matt.12:25-26

Let's not do whataboutism. The organization has frequently used the pedophile cover ups in the catholic church and secular institutions to support their moral superiority and divine backing. So should we now accept that this organization is no better than them? Isn't the whole point that our org is BETTER than these other religions/organizations because we are a spiritual paradise?
I understand that child abuse is a problem that cannot be stamped and is present in all large organizations. BUT the organization has done itself no favors by doubling down on their messed up policies which have allowed abuse to continue in congregations. And they have been completely zip-lipped with their own members--refusing to be transparent about this ongoing problem. JWs are owed transparency on this matter. It's the least they could do.

...... may I suggest that as the issues are debated, that full and complete quotes IN CONTEXT be provided to strengthen one's points being asserted .. with citations for check-able references..
Bad scholarship is still scholarship ... but it is bad in that it is designed to deceive... or deceives by default.
Try to be clear enough so that the evidence or fantasys asserted are irrefutable, as if what you write will be used in a court of law to either exonerate you ... or convict you of a Capital Crime, and if you fail, you will be impaled butt first on a wooden stake while still alive.
The hours of our lives are too painfully few to suffer fools ... or in good conscience ... be a fool.
 
 
 

Fair enough. I'm looking forward to a substantive discussion when you get the time.
AlanF