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

[Thinking]

On 8/19/2020 at 5:20 AM, Anna said:

I suppose this can be a lesson for all of us, especially the likes of John Butler (pity he isn't around anymore). As an experiment, I try to think of someone I know well and am really close to. They have always been a loyal friend, always there for me. Then I imagine another adult person I know, tell me my friend did something bad to them when they were a child. How would you feel?
It's easy for us to judge elders for mishandling matters and say why didn't they do this or that. 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". It's someones word against an other's, because of course there are rarely any witnesses. It must be especially difficult when it is an adult survivor that comes forward years later, a long time after the alleged crime . Who do you believe? Surely those must be repressed memories that are somehow skewed. They must have misunderstood, got it all wrong. Surely brother "really nice guy" wouldn't do anything like that!
The fact is, people who do these things usually ARE "really nice people".
A lot of different factors come into play when an accusation is made against someone, including not wanting to be wrong. What if the brother IS actually innocent, and we drag his life through the mud? He has a wife and children, and is that really nice guy.
It's easy for us, behind our computer screens, to shout; hang him!

But what are we doing now? I don't see anyone shouting hang JTR. No, we are all sad over the situation. But we know he has done these things because he has been convicted, there must have been proof. Now imagine there is no proof. Just an accusation, and not against a person on a forum (whom we don't really know) but against someone we know personally, someone who is a "really nice guy".....now try and handle that.

I know a number of people who have been convicted and later proved to be innocent...I don’t know what is going on here...and I’m not going to comment on this because I don’t have proof of anything....it seems he has yet to go to trial???....

[Anna]

Whose Responsibility Is It? WT 97/8/15

"When elders learn about serious wrongdoing, they approach the individual involved to give needed help and correction. It is the elders’ responsibility to judge such ones inside the Christian congregation. Keeping a close watch on its spiritual condition, they assist and admonish anyone who is taking an unwise or wrong step.—1 Corinthians 5:12, 13; 2 Timothy 4:2; 1 Peter 5:1, 2.

But what if you are not an elder and you come to know about some serious wrongdoing on the part of another Christian? Guidelines are found in the Law that Jehovah gave to the nation of Israel. The Law stated that if a person was a witness to apostate acts, sedition, murder, or certain other serious crimes, it was his responsibility to report it and to testify to what he knew. Leviticus 5:1 states: “Now in case a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing and he is a witness or he has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error.”—Compare Deuteronomy 13:6-8; Esther 6:2; Proverbs 29:24".

Unfortunately, nowhere in this WT excerpt is there clear direction to whom this "serious wrongdoing" should be reported to.

One of the scriptures mentioned is Esther 6:2 where Mordecai reports a matter about two court officials plotting to kill the king, it is not clear to whom he reports the matter, but it was obviously to a secular authority. (logical, since the matter involved a secular king).

However, the other references from the Hebrew scriptures involve reporting to those under the mosaic law, and those from the Christian Greek scriptures involve fellow Christians in a congregation setting reporting “on the inside”.  So there doesn’t seem to be anything in the Bible about Christians reporting to those on the “outside”; i.e. the secular authorities.

When D. Ali, was questioned by the Australian Royal commission he was not quite sure what action he was supposed to take if he was told that a member of the congregation killed another member. (this is what @4Jah2me may have been referring to)

(transcript):

THE CHAIR:   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. 

 Q.   What if the person wasn't prepared to go to the police, but they told you that they saw the killing  happen - what would you do? 

  A.   Am I being asked on the present day circumstances? 

  Q.   Yes. 

  A.   Yes.  I would take the action of ringing the branch and getting some legal advice on that. 

  Q.   You are living in Queensland, aren't you? 

  A.   Yes. 

 Q.   Do you have any knowledge of the law or legal obligations to report knowledge of crimes at all? 

  A.   Not - not really, no. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time and time again it has been remarked on by the courts and commissions such as the one above that nowhere in JW  publications was there any clear written direction on reporting crimes (which includes CSA) to secular authorities that could be referred to.*

It would also appear from Ali's remark ("Am I being asked on the present day circumstances"?) that in the past one would not seek direction from the branch to seek legal advice. (I am assuming that the legal department would be familiar with the "legal obligations" in Queensland to report crimes  and would have advised Ali to that effect). But I wonder what would happen "not" in present day circumstances......

* This as we know has now changed (thanks to the ARC) and the direction is clear for those who wish to report. Unless they are elders, since that is unfortunately contingent on mandatory reporting. But nevertheless, a massive improvement.

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

it seems he has yet to go to trial???..

Yes. I had jumped the gun there and had him already convicted. I apologize. JWI mentioned that the trial has now occurred....

By the way my comment was not meant to be about JTR, I just used him as an example of what can happen in situations like this.

[Anna]

7 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

the Two Witness Rule could well have been used as an excuse to disbelieve the child

I think using the word excuse is unfair since no one wants to see a child harmed.

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, Anna said:

Whose Responsibility Is It? WT 97/8/15

"When elders learn about serious wrongdoing, they approach the individual involved to give needed help and correction. It is the elders’ responsibility to judge such ones inside the Christian congregation. Keeping a close watch on its spiritual condition, they assist and admonish anyone who is taking an unwise or wrong step.—1 Corinthians 5:12, 13; 2 Timothy 4:2; 1 Peter 5:1, 2.

But what if you are not an elder and you come to know about some serious wrongdoing on the part of another Christian? Guidelines are found in the Law that Jehovah gave to the nation of Israel. The Law stated that if a person was a witness to apostate acts, sedition, murder, or certain other serious crimes, it was his responsibility to report it and to testify to what he knew. Leviticus 5:1 states: “Now in case a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing and he is a witness or he has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error.”—Compare Deuteronomy 13:6-8; Esther 6:2; Proverbs 29:24".

Unfortunately, nowhere in this WT excerpt is there clear direction to whom this "serious wrongdoing" should be reported to.

The text from the magazine is written in a way that shows some ideas. Who should do what and why? It seeks to show the separation of "church from state", "spiritual from secular". And in this way, vague and unclear, the possibility is left for the organization, through other instructions, both public and only for the eyes of elders, to make rules and solutions in accordance with the circumstances and current framework of an event and time and internal policy. And in some situations to invoke the “rights” enjoyed by members of the clergy, the “sworn enemy” of God and Truth and God’s earthly organization i.e. WTJWorg.
From the parts of the text of the WT magazine you put, a difference is expressed in which it is clear that WTJWorg has what it claims it does not have. The existence of a class of clergy and laity. The text states that: "When elders learn about serious wrongdoing, they approach the individual ....  On contrary: But what if you are not an elder and you come to know about some serious wrongdoing ...The Law stated that if a person was a witness to apostate acts, sedition, murder, or certain other serious crimes, it was his responsibility to report it and to testify to what he knew.

Anna, I found answer on your dilemma. Text itself speaking about this context: Elders, not an elder, another Christian and then made comparison with guidance from  Old Israel Law.  Message is clear to whom JW member need to give report. It is also clear from other JW church teachings, and members in this way or another "know" answer, that they need to report matter to elders. Text said "Law" referring to Bible law. Next words are "serious wrongdoing" and especially "apostate act"  and "sedition". From this is very clear that State have nothing with doctrinal things and opposition inside religious organization. 

But writer of text mixing this part of "serious wrongdoing" with other serious things: murder, or certain other serious crimes,. This other things JW member is obligate to report also. To whom? To elders. Well, this WT text show complete "separation" from secular state and show how elders  have to deal not only with "sins" but also with "crimes" too. Text named that with wording "serious wrongdoings" and in numbering few of serious wrongdoings they put "murder" in it and "other serious crimes". This showing tendency that WTJWorg want to have complete power over JW people (and all other people in the future) to judge them not only for "spiritual transgressions",  but for all sort of acts that are known from human history. 

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, Anna said:

Yes. I had jumped the gun there and had him already convicted. I apologize. JWI mentioned that the trial has now occurred....

By the way my comment was not meant to be about JTR, I just used him as an example of what can happen in situations like this.

I’m not having a shot at you ..and I know you didn’t do this ..(and I’m going to address this to all brothers and sisters here)......but to post a brother or anyone’s photo up without absolute bullet proof evidence.. ...something just of the internet is incredibly serious....this is not how Jehovah handles his judicial matters at all...so why are we all talking on this with out evidence....

Personally I would think the moderator better jump on this...and those of us that claim to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses better pull our heads in and  shut  our mouths.....remember how Jehovah acts on such incidences and not judge a matter before all the evidence has been gathered....

I have seen what false accusations or misunderstood trials etc has done to a man...and woman...it’s absolutely cruel...and if a person is guilty...then same thing applies...

If this brother did this...then let the courts handle it...and we mind our own businesses ...we DO NOT KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR DETAILS...

This sort of thing puts this forum down In to the gutter

PROVERBS 18:13 NLV

Sprouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish 

Message Bible ...Proverbs 18:13 

Answering before listening is both stupid and rude.

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

something just of the internet is incredibly

It is not "just" of the internet, it is from a county sheriff's office. 

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, Anna said:

It is not "just" of the internet, it is from a county sheriff's office. 

Which also says that the person may be guilty or innocent and being charged means nothing at this point ...

Even if he is guilty in the end....shame on all those who threw their hats in the ring...before it  was legally morally and spiritually decided.

This is none of your business nor mine...never alone being a topic of discussion by brothers and sisters on a public forum...

why would any of you do this?....where are your senses...

I am gobsmacked  at how you have all expressed your personal opinions and posts like a mob of gossipy old  women...

Talk about shafting someone before a trial...sheesh...hate to have you as my friends ...

One would have to be very ignorant to think everything that comes out of the Sheriff  office is true..and wow ..with a mug shot as well....

Let him have his trial....let him defend himself or not defend himself...

if he is guilty so be it...if he is innocent...imagine him coming here and reading all of this...

I don’t know what is going on but nor do you..so I would advise the moderator to take down all  of these posts until his trial is over...

 

 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

but to post ...without absolute bullet proof evidence.. ...something just of the internet is incredibly serious....this is not how Jehovah handles his judicial matters at all...

It wasn’t exactly a lover of Jehovah who did this, and for better or for worse, the mission statement of this website is (apologies to the Washington Post) “Theocracy Dies in Darkness.”

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Talk about shafting someone before a trial...sheesh...hate to have you as my friends ...

Point well made. 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Thinking seems not to be thinking. And if they are sooooo very upset and disgusted then why are they even commenting or reading it ?

None of us have judged James and I don't think any of us will.  But in some ways things have been put into perspective here. ......................

@Anna  I think the ARC case you quoted must be where I got that information from, Thank you.

However he did say, at first, that he would not report murder. 

" THE CHAIR:   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. "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my opinion that when a person is put on the spot like that, then what they first say is the truth from their standpoint. In my opinion, he meant, he would not report it. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

20 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:  the Two Witness Rule could well have been used as an excuse to disbelieve the child

Quote @Anna " I think using the word excuse is unfair since no one wants to see a child harmed. "

This is where I use the expression ' Collateral Damage '.  The child would be 'pushed to one side' for the sake of retaining the Elder in his position.  And if you add the 'good buddy' / 'nice guy' syndrome to it, it would be very likely to happen. 

What i find funny is that JWs on here keep saying that the Elders and the GB are just ordinary humans like anyone else, but when i point out the things that ordinary humans do then it seems the JWs suddenly think that the Elders and the GB are not just ordinary humans. 

 

 

[Anna]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

I am gobsmacked  at how you have all expressed your personal opinions and posts like a mob of gossipy old  women...

You are right about one thing, these discussions should be moved to a topic of its own, as 4jah2me suggested, because none of us are now actually discussing JTR  (except for you). There was one comment with information about his current status, as all had been wondering what had happened to him, some fearing him dead. You may not have noticed, but most were quite fond of him and expressed sympathies. But now, this is no longer a thread discussing JTR, so it should be split into another thread. Unfortunately I don't know how to do that. 

[Anna]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

innocent...imagine him coming here and reading all of this...

You don't know JTR like we do, he would totally understand.