Full Disclosure:
I am an active (2-4 hrs/month) 3rd Generation JW hovering under the radar. Been posting here for 10 years. Not a JW apologist but truly look at myself and, as they say, "fair and balanced." I find the whole Judicial Committee system and policy of secrecy horrible and needs to be changed. I have never been abused nor anyone in my close family. In some ways I see how the recent ruling can help bring needed changes to JW policy. Those who have seen my postings (over 2,700) know that 75% are satirical, humorous or just take a light view of the situation we are in.
However .... wow .... this should get things going .... based on the timing of events and laws in effect at that time, I really don't understand totally what the Society did wrong in this case.
Many here don't realize that the policy of the Society, back when I was a kid in the 1960's, was to do EXACTLY what many want today; make the wrong-doing public to the congregation. Some here, like myself, will remember at the end of the Service Meeting, an announcement would be made that Bro. Jones or Sister Smith has been disfellowshipped or put on "probation" for a year for committing fornication, adultery or whatever the sin was. There was no sugar-coating. What the person did was announced to the entire congregation.
Eventually, numerous lawsuits for Slander and Libel developed.
I'm not certain of the exact dates, but sometime in the 70's the exact sin was no longer disclosed but rather just that the person was disfellowshipped or publicly reproved for "conduct unbecoming of a Christian."
More lawsuits.
Now, there is no public mention of what the sin was in any situation.
My point is, the Society (and other religions also) got sued for making the sins public to the congregation. When they keep the information secret (Elders only) we have the situation we are discussing now in which the Elders knew but the congregation in general did not.
Is this a "damned if you do or damned if you don't" situation to be in ???
If a person moves into the congregation, should his/her "resume" be presented to the congregation ???
Again, I find the general secrecy policy horrible. I have always felt that Judical Committee meetings should be recorded and "sealed" as is typical in many courts. Those who have an interest in the case (perhaps in a similar situation) would have access to the information. In this way, if a person felt he/she was wronged in any way, there would be a permanent record of the proceedings.
Anyway, what should the Society (or any other Organization) do when a known pedofile (or other serious sinner) is in or moves into the congregation ???
I am really torn on this.
Rub a Dub