....and like Forest Gump said "... and that's all I am going to say about that."

[TrueTomHarley]

Nobody (except one) worked harder to point the finger at others. What are we to make of that?

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@TrueTomHarley Why do you talk in riddles ? 

[Anna]

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Just for the sake of discussion.

If there is no confession of the defendant and if there are no two witnesses for a crime (not a sin) before the Court and if the Court convicts a JW member with prison time sentence, the question is: Can and on what basis a convicted JW member remain a member of the organization? May and on what basis be a Judicial Committee formed to discuss a convicted brother? Will he be expelled during his imprisonment or will JC summon him for questioning after serving his sentence? And similar. Perhaps you know some real life situations?

I can't think of any real life situations that I am personally familiar with. But from gathering information from various sources it seems that there is a clear separation of sin and crime.  A sin can be forgiven by the congregation, but the person still obviously has to be punished by secular authorities for the crime. I do know of an example, nothing to do with CSA but theft and fraud. My friend studied with the  man, and the man became JW. His sins were forgiven, because he repented and stopped doing those things. However, he still had to go to the police and give himself up to serve a prison sentence. So it might work similarly with someone convicted of CSA. If they admit to it, but are remorseful and repentant, they may be forgiven by the congregation, but will still have to pay for their crime. However, if they denied everything in front of the elders, but the authorities found evidence to convict him of his crimes, then I think that would serve as a reason to disfellowship. 

So its on the basis whether the convicted person was honest with the elders and has shown true remorse and signs of repentance, or if he denied and lied. 

[Anna]

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Will he be expelled during his imprisonment or will JC summon him for questioning after serving his sentence?

I think it would be dependent on surrounding circumstances and handled on a case by case basis, as no situations are alike...I think, it may even be possible to visit the person in prison to establish some facts...

[Evacuated]

On 5/22/2020 at 4:06 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

With whatever time I have left, it is going to be my life's challenge, so I bid each of you so long, and hope you stay closer to Jehovah than I did. 

Don't know if you will have time or inclination to read posts at present James. I have enjoyed some of our exchanges, especially when you have shared some technical insights, or glimpses of your anarchic sense of humor. And I must admit to a sense of achievement when getting your occasional "like" to a comment.

I am sorry if you have fallen on hard times. I hope you are able to get through things.

Please apply your own advice: "stay closer to Jehovah than I did". Start getting close to Jehovah.... now! This is a God who can retrieve people from the grave even. He will help you though the pits now...if you let him. Use Psalm 139 for meditation. Stay focussed James. 

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, Anna said:

 A sin can be forgiven by the congregation, but the person still obviously has to be punished by secular authorities for the crime. I do know of an example, nothing to do with CSA but theft and fraud. My friend studied with the  man, and the man became JW.

Yes, thanks, i recall such examples from magazines, about people who done crime while was "worldly" people. But i was interested more about experiences about actual JW members who committed crime and how elders/congregation had deal with it.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@Srecko Sostar  Is it my imagination or is there evidence that one Elder said that he would not go to the authorities even if a brother confessed to murder. 

I find it funny that @Anna says " A sin can be forgiven by the congregation, " because the congregation are not given an option. The GB / organisation /  Elders make the decisions and the congregation is told what to do. Even though the scripture tell us at Matthew 18 v 17 

 “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. ¹⁶  But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. ¹⁷  If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. 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.

But the CCJW do not follow scripture. Everything is kept hidden from the congregation. So how can Anna say that " A sin can be forgiven by the congregation, " when the congregation have no information. 

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

But the CCJW do not follow scripture. Everything is kept hidden from the congregation. So how can Anna say that " A sin can be forgiven by the congregation, " when the congregation have no information. 

Yes, i understand. If elders make decision about, that sin is forgivable, than congregation follow direction.

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Is it my imagination or is there evidence that one Elder said that he would not go to the authorities even if a brother confessed to murder. 

I am not sure..., who said that?

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Is it my imagination or is there evidence that one Elder said that he would not go to the authorities even if a brother confessed to murder. 

I don't remember that, and I'm sure I would have remembered if I had seen it. I have heard of Catholic priests who say they have heard such confessions and would not go to the authorities, however.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 8/19/2020 at 11:38 AM, 4Jah2me said:

I haven't judged JTR

No offense, but isn’t this a first for you? I think Anna raises a good point—if it is someone you know, and thus can see as more than one-dimensional, it makes a difference. Someone else, you posted headlines of being a “sex beast,” despite the touching offense (more serious than this case) being decades in the past and never repeated. “One would think that Epstein and Maxwell would have taught that source what a “sex beast” was,” I mentioned, and you disagreed. 

People are many-faceted. They are not just one thing. If it is judged that JTR has done wrong, there will be a price to pay. Hopefully thereafter he will get his life back on track. I wish him well in that regard. 

On 8/19/2020 at 11:38 AM, 4Jah2me said:

The Two Witness Rule was used as an excuse not to believe Children when they reported CSA to parents and / or Elders.

This is a ridiculous statement. All it means is that there is sometimes not enough evidence upon which to take action. Why don’t you suspend evidence altogether? If anyone is accused of anything, off to jail they go.

It is all irrelevant anyway. There is no reproach in reporting an abuser to police that he has not already brought upon himself—this was made absolutely clear in that WT of last year, studied by the whole congregation. Thus, regardless of what the congregation does, secular authorities can investigate and possibly punish with their own enhanced methods—examining hard drives, for instance.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/02/the-reproach-of-child-sexual-abuse-falls-on-the-abu.html

The problem of a “culture of insularity” has been solved. If anyone thinks an abuser has pulled the wool over the eyes of elders, there is no stigma in going to outside authorities, as that study article makes clear.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@TrueTomHarley  The problem of the 20 + year database in America that the GB or their Lawyers are keeping hidden still exists. Unless I am behind the time and the GB have already handed it over to the Superior Authorities. 

Quote "No offense, but isn’t this a first for you?"  I don't know if i have judged individuals of the CCJW of any sexual offence. I have judged the GB as a 'body' and i have uploaded info' from news articles. I have also said that ALL paedophiles are 'sex beasts', because of the damage they do emotionally to children and maybe physically too. 

As for JTR, it seems he is charged with pornography.  As I've no idea exactly what was involved and it is none of my business, then I do not judge him personally. 

Now the viewing of such pornography does not harm the child, but how was the pornography constructed. It could be that 'innocent' photographs were used and photoshopped to pretend that sexual abuse was taking place. Or it could be that sexual abuse was actually taking place. If a person was to be paying / buying such images or film, then it would be encouraging perverts to continue making such images or film.  In my opinion therefore if a person buys pornography it is promoting pornography being made.  But if the pornography is freely available online, although still not good, it is not being directly promoted. 

Quote "I think Anna raises a good point—if it is someone you know, and thus can see as more than one-dimensional "

I answered Anna on this by tagging her in a different topic, as It seemed to be totally off topic from here. Unfortunately I don't know how to link topics or comments.  My answer to Anna was that I have been in contact with the IICSA, here in UK, about a situation concerning people I do 'know', and they are passing the information over to the Police. In truth do we actually 'know' anyone ? We think we know people. 

Quote "This is a ridiculous statement. All it means is that there is sometimes not enough evidence upon which to take action. Why don’t you suspend evidence altogether? If anyone is accused of anything, off to jail they go."

Tom, you have linked two things here.  You have linked the Elders decisions, with the Police / Courts decisions.  It seems that secular authorities can work from different 'evidence' than the Elders work on. If you link this with what else @Anna was saying about "Sometimes it must be so difficult to comprehend the whole situation, especially if we know the person well and he is a "really nice guy". Now if the Elders have to judge a child's words against a 'fellow Elder', when they think the 'fellow Elder' is a 'really nice guy', then the Two Witness Rule could well have been used as an excuse to disbelieve the child. But the Police and the Courts are not emotionally involved like the Elders are. So the Police and Courts can take a neutral perspective. 

Quote: The problem of a “culture of insularity” has been solved. 

insularity

ignorance of or lack of interest in cultures, ideas, or peoples outside one's own experience. 

 

Totally different topic.