ComfortMyPeople

Well I got an answer from the brother with connections to Chile and elsewhere in South America, but it's very hard to believe. The answer is so odd that I hate to offer it yet as an explanation.
So I also called about 12 different KH numbers, including an Assembly Hall number and the main number for Chile on JW.ORG (which matches the number on the "infamous" letterhead). I recorded the messages I got on each number. Some rang 'forever' and some had "no service" messages, and two had recorded messages after which I could have left a call-back number, but didn't. I am still going to have to call again next week, to attempt further verification.
The friend I met with definitely knows about the Internet "hoopla." The son-in-law who was a Circuit Overseer there has come back to the USA more than once with his wife (my friend's daughter) due to a medical condition treated here. They have gone back, but each time to a different assignment, sometimes in different countries of South America. So I couldn't get an exact response about "a firsthand" experience with the topic in Chile since 2014. Neither of his daughters (or sons-in-law) are currently in Chile. 
So here was the answer that still needs more verification (mostly because I find it hard to believe). He stated it very matter-of-factly, and didn't seem to see a problem with it at all.
Circuit Overseers are evidently told to strongly encourage the display of the flag on specific mandatory days ONLY in those areas where there have been past legal issues in the area regarding enforcement. Enforcement is not uniform, even though it applies to all buildings. Other circuit overseers have been told to strongly discourage the display of the flag on the premises of a KH, with certain exceptions regarding property ownership by individuals volunteering a property's free use as a KH.
I asked about why he thought an inconsistent policy would be encouraged. His answer to that question was what really seemed more disconcerting:
"Because if some congregations do and some don't, the government will see that this is a matter of conscience, and will realize that they [local JWs] aren't being ordered to handle the matter one way or another [based on a directive] from the [Watch Tower] Society."
I didn't have the heart to point out that this is a strange way to prove that something is really a matter of conscience.

It depends on each individual person ... that's why in the Christian Congregation ... we are encouraged to develop a TRAINED conscience, depending on insight and rationality.
The tattoos mentioned in the Bible refer to markings that would identify one as a member of a band of barbarians, soldiers, religious groups, clan, tribe, or cultural background. ... anything that would show fealty, association or legionship with elements of human or spiritual association CONTRARY to the principles and concepts of that approved by Jehovah God.
It is embodied in the FIRST of the Ten Commandmenta ... which in principle covers the entire subject of tattoos.
You have to use some common sense ... which in perusing and perusing a religious agenda ... is NOT all that common.
Under the Christian "rules", we no longer have to sacrifice animals on an alter ... we can eat Bar-B-Que and pork chops, and a LARGE list of other things forbidden by COMMON SENSE to benefit mankind in its collective infancy years when thinking about societal safeguards was almost completely unknown, collectively.  
There is a difference between knowing a "rule" or regulation .. and knowing or NOT knowing the mind of God, and WHY he decided to restrict this, that or the other thing.
Now, since Jesus has expounded on the underlying PRINCIPLES of the Law ... we should slowly, more and more each day, understand WHY Jehovah wants, or wanted ... or even CARED about what we do, or used to do.
That's why we HAVE a conscience.
I think tattoos  are ugly, and inappropriate, and don't have any, although I am sometimes fascinated by "possibilities", and I am curious and ask about other people's INK when I see them. They usually appreciate the interest.
They think it looks good, and it certainly attracts attention.   Sometimes people are so terribly starved for human attention that they will do all kinds of stuff to try and get some .... necessary to many people as food, water and air is.
The uglier a person is, the probability is that they NEED permanent makeup.
Or some really serious plastic surgery.
 
 
 
 

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.

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

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.

 

Thanks for sharing this, Jack. I have a friend who has been involved with the setting up of jw.org from the beginning and he knows that they have spared no expense to make sure the site is never hacked. Internally, the WTS and related corporations also distribute multiple versions of documents with hidden identifying tracking information buried in them so that if one is leaked it will be easy to narrow down the department or even the person, hopefully, from whom it was leaked. It's a shame that the WTS needs to put so much time and resources into tracking leakers, but it is the right of any corporation to take any measures deemed necessary to protect corporate interests.
The shame, in my opinion, is that the WTS and related corporations have produced any documents or videos that would be embarrassing to have distributed, or even critiqued. If one is humble, critique should be welcomed, requested and even promoted. Distribution of any WTS content by any means (e.g., news channels, social media channels, apostate channels, underground channels, and official channels) should all be encouraged. This assumes, of course, that nothing embarrassing or secret or underhanded is ever produced. As a corporation that can take pride in the message being given to the world, any and all means of allowing that content to be freely shared should be appreciated. And, as stated, if the producers of the content are humble, they will appreciate any type of questions and criticism, too.

n a bizarre battle between two corporate superpowers, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has filed a motion for contempt against Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg for failure to produce documents and logs identifying an individual Facebook user. The individual, known as Jose Antonio Gutierres Garcia, maintains a popular pro-Jehovah’s Witness Facebook page, and has shared or posted hundreds of Witness images, videos, and links.
The case was initiated on October 12th 2018, when Watch Tower Associate General Counsel Paul Polidoro submitted a DMCA subpoena to the Southern District of New York. On October 16, Judge Cathy Seibel signed the subpoena, directing Facebook to produce the identity of the person behind the Facebook account.
However, Facebook failed to yield to the subpoena, which has resulted in an ongoing war over compliance. After multiple attempts by Watch Tower to force Facebook to deliver personally identifying documents and logs, attorney Polidoro wrote a three-page letter to Judge Seibel on January 24th, 2019, requesting a pre-motion conference along with sanctions against Facebook for its “willful disregard” of the court order.
Among the demands enumerated in the January letter, Polidoro asked the Judge to penalize the defendant, Facebook, a sufficient daily monetary fine as a punitive measures for non-compliance.

The irony of Watch Tower’s attorneys demanding monetary fines for failure to produce documents is not lost on the readers of JW Survey or the public at large. In multiple California child abuse lawsuits filed by the Zalkin Law Firm, Watchtower of New York (the property-holding corporation of Jehovah’s Witnesses) has been sanctioned for its refusal to turn over a database of documents revealing the extent of its child abuse epidemic.
In the case of Osbaldo Padron versus Watchtower, the court imposed a $4,000 per day fine on Watchtower for its non-compliance. The fines accrued for more than a year before Watchtower settled the case in a private agreement with the plaintiff.
On January 29th 2019, Watch Tower of Pennsylvania futher argued its case by issuing a Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Contempt against Facebook, Inc.
This seven page document details its case against Facebook and was filed by the Southern District of New York clerk on February 1st, 2019.
Watchtower versus Facebook On page four of the Memorandum, Watchtower attorney and church elder Polidoro writes:
“ARGUMENT FACEBOOK SHOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT AND ORDERED TO COMPLY WITH THE DMCA SUBPOENA”

“This Court can and should hold Facebook in contempt for its failure to fully comply with the properly-issued DMCA Subpoena served by Watch Tower. First, upon receipt of a DMCA Subpoena, 17 U.S.C. § 512(h)(5) directs that service providers “expeditiously disclose to the copyright owner . . . the information required by the subpoena, notwithstanding any other provision of law and regardless of whether the service provider responds to the [infringement] notification.”
The complaint escalates in intensity on page 6, declaring:
“Facebook’s complete disregard of the judicial process raises the concern that the evidence sought by Watch Tower has been, or will soon be permanently lost. Service providers typically retain user activity logs ontaining the information needed to identify an infringer for a limited period of time. See Polidoro Decl. at ¶ 7. Once that user data is deleted, there isno other means of linking the infringing activity with the person responsible for the infringement. Id. In Digital Sin v. Does 1-176, the court highlighted this concern stating, “expedited discovery is necessary to prevent the requested data from being lost forever as part of routine deletions by the ISPs.” 279 F.R.D. 239, 242 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (granting ex parte motion to take expedited discovery from third-party Internet Service Provider to identify an alleged infringer of a copyrighted motion picture).
Facebook’s blatant disregard of this Court’s authority and the judicial process warrants an order of contempt and a requirement to produce the information required by the subpoena immediately or by a deadline to be set by the court. If Facebook again fails to comply with the subpoena, the Court should order that Facebook pay a fine in an amount to be set by the Court for each day that it fails to comply with this Court’s order.” –  
[bold, italics ours]
The January 29th Affadavit included Exhibit B, which identified the principal parties behind Facebook, naming CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Secretary Dave Kling, and CFO David Wehner, along with their place of business address.
Watch Tower Exhibit B Filed January 29th 2019 Watch Tower issues over 40 additional subpoenas

During the course of research into the Watchtower battle with Facebook over alleged copyright infringement, JW Survey has uncovered dozens of documents and cases filed by Watch Tower’s principle attorneys since 2017, all targeting individuals who have posted photos, publications, or videos on numerous social media and web sites, hosted largely inside the United States.
Watch Tower’s chief strategy includes scouring the internet for “infringing” materials, which include, but are not limited to photos, documents, and videos which Watch Tower has produced using an all-volunteer workforce.
Once located, Watch Tower’s attorneys determine whether the individual behind the offending account is an “apostate.” If they believe the person might be connected to insider leaks, or if they have posted already-leaked information, Tower attorneys initiate DMCA takedown measures.
Watch Tower does not stop at DMCA content removal, however. Their legal team next files a DMCA subpoena to identify the alleged infringer/s in an attempt to obtain all personally identifying information related to the individual who posted on one or more social media or web sites.
DMCA Subpoena Cover Page
In the Facebook case cited here, Watch Tower’s subpoena includes the following language:
“YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, and electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material:”
“All identifying information, including subscriber registration information, the name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), any electronic mail addresses associated with the infringing Facebook account displaying the name, “Jose Antonio Gutierrez Garcia (Gran Muchedumbre)”, and any logs of Internet Protocol addresses including time stamps used to access the subject account or to upload the artwork available at the following URLs :”

[URLs provides on subpoena. Bold, italics ours]
The language above has been replicated in more than 40 unique cases launched by Watch Tower since 2017, with subpoenas being handed out like candy to a litany of social media and web site providers. The organizations include following:
Facebook Reddit Google/YouTube Microsoft One Drive Go Daddy Instagram Sound Cloud Digital Ocean Scribd In the majority of cases, Watch Tower has achieved its legal intentions by bullying social media sites into compliance, forcing them to turn over the personal details of members, who for the most part are ill-equipped to oppose the legal machine of a multi-billion dollar religious corporation.
There are however exceptions to the pattern of DMCA takedowns, followed by exposure of the “alleged infringer.” The Facebook case here cited is one of two cases where non-compliance has resulted in an excessive show of legal force by Watchtower. In the Facebook case, it is not clear whether Facebook has intentionally opposed the subpoena issued by Judge Seibel, or if the subpoena was misdirected and overlooked by Facebook.

Either way, Watch Tower’s blazing-guns response has made it clear they mean business and will stop at nothing to expose anyone deemed a threat to its religious corporation.
Watch Tower’s Legal Department

The orchestrated attacks on the “infringers” have become a driving passion for Watch Tower’s legal department, located primarily in its Patterson New York complex. Already laden down with an abundance of child abuse cases and other legal concerns, Watch Tower has allocated its top attorneys to this issue, including their legal Overseer Phillip Brumley, along with Paul Polidoro and Mario Moreno.

Polidoro is most noted for his appearance before the Supreme Court of the United States in the 2002 case of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society versus Village of Stratton Ohio, where Watchtower won the right to cavass from door to door without purchasing a permit from state or local authorities.
Brumley, like many of the other members of the Jehovah’s Witness legal department, is a congregation elder. His education was paid for by Watch Tower, with the intent of grooming him to oversee Watch Tower’s expanding global legal departments.
In a 1991 speech, Brumley discussed the legal wranglings of Watch Tower and stated that apostate Witnesses have never prevailed against the organization in a court of law. Brumley said:
  The cases against apostate infringers has risen swiftly since 2017, when numerous leaked videos and documents surfaced, leaving Watch Tower scratching their heads, wondering how sensitive information was escaping their global network of trusted Witness Elders, Ministerial Servants, Circuit Overseers and Branch Committee members.
However, the recent cases do not represent the first time Watch Tower has initiated legal action against a web site. In 2005, the religious organization filed suit against the owner of watchtower.ca, demanding $100,000 (Canadian) and compliance with a detailed list of demands, including the surrender of the domain and all information posted on the site.
The legal bullying tactic worked, and the case was settled out of court, with Watch Tower taking control of the domain.
More recently, the legal fires have been re-ignited with the appearance of dozens of web sites and social media accounts devoted to creating transparency and exposing the internal practices and documents of the Jehovah’s Witness organization.
Most members are largely unaware of the secret Elder’s Manual, Branch Organization guidebook, and the hundreds of Body of Elders’ Letters used to manage the internal affairs of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Among the sites attacked by Watch Tower are AvoidJW.org and the site you are reading now, JW Survey. On February 23rd and February 27th 2018, both sites received lengthy, threatening letters from Watch Tower’s legal department demanding that they cease and desist the dissemination of material they consider copyrighted. They do not regard the use of their material on web sites or on video platforms “fair use.”

YouTube has been hit the hardest by Watch Tower’s repetitive subpoena warfare, particularly since 2017, when multiple sensitive videos were leaked to the public from numerous sources. Among those videos were the infamous “Pillowgate” info-videos, where two high-ranking Jehovah’s Witness Branch Committee members explained the intricacies of pillow-humping and various masturbation techniques found to be practiced by both male and female members of Watch Tower headquarters.

Masturbation is defined by Jehovah’s Witnesses as “self-abuse” and is banned by the religion.
Another popular YouTube channel under attack is the Kevin McFree “Dubtown” program, featuring stop-motion Lego videos satirizing the Jehovah’s Witness religion.
“Dubtown” episode Forcibly Removed by Watch Tower Watch Tower took exception to this channel in June of 2018, when the show featured a small clip of the upcoming July 2018 JW Broadcasting episode. This Lego video was released before Watch Tower had the opportunity to unveil its own broadcast, propelling the legal department even deeper into the ongoing apostate witch hunt.

Court documents in the Kevin McFree case reveal that Watch Tower claims that this satirical video has done “irreparable damage” to their organization.
The anonymous owners of Kevin McFree have challenged Jehovah’s Witnesses in court, issuing a motion to quash Watch Tower’s subpoena. This infuriated Watch Tower’s legal department, which has hired the services of Cohen, Liebowitz,and Latman, a large NewYork-based law firm, to continue its quest to identify the person or persons behind these videos.
Watch Tower has expressed serious concern over the length of time taken by any of the media organizations to comply with the subpoenas, arguing that service providers will delete user logs after a specific period of time, rendering Watch Tower unable to litigate against anonymous accounts which may have been closed or abandoned by their owners.
While Watchtower continues its quest to expose apostates and litigate against the numerous platforms which host content, new sites have emerged which currently have immunity to Watch Tower’s legal threats.
It seems that Watch Tower can easily obtain an order from a judge to identify a Facebook or YouTube user, but when the content is hosted outside of the United States, the problem becomes much more complex.
Enter Faith Leaks

While many countries comply with DMCA takedown requests, there are a number of web hosts in countries not governed by DMCA law, and those demands go largely ignored.
One such organization which appears to have worked out the legalities of posting leaked content is the Truth and Transparency Foundation, the creators of MormonLeaks and FaithLeaks.

According to the Truth and Transparency Foundation site:

“The TTF was founded in November 2017 by two ex-Mormons, Ryan McKnight and Ethan Gregory Dodge. Prior to that, they worked together to launch the website MormonLeaks. Their efforts and success would soon cause them to expand their whistleblowing and transparency efforts to all religions, forming FaithLeaks”
Faith Leaks made headlines in 2018 when they published secret documents obtained from an anonymous source, documents which revealed the extent of sexual abuse and the corresponding cover-up inside several Jehovah’s Witness Congregations in the Northeastern United States. The leak came to be known as the Palmer Leaks.

Faith Leaks currently hosts thousands of Jehovah’s Witness documents and policy letters, which have been submitted to their organization by anonymous sources. Thus far, Watch Tower has been unable to prevent Faith Leaks from publishing these documents, hosted in unknown locations.
What now?

The future of Watch Tower’s continued quest to identify the individuals posting and leaking documents and videos is unclear. There is a war between those who wish to exercise transparency and freedom of speech, and the religious organization which believes it is entitled to identify anyone who would publish its works, which are produced by unpaid Jehovah’s Witnesses.
For the most part, the leaked documents are presented on platforms in which there is no monetary gain, but Watch Tower approaches the matter as if they are being irreparably harmed.
Watchtower Letter to Judge Seibel in the Facebook Case Warnings have been issued to Ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses or current Witnesses who leak information – warnings which express the dangers of posting information using accounts which can be subpoenaed and identified. The popular sub-Reddit EXJW posted this warning following a subpoena issued by Watch Tower to identify a user who posted leaked documents.
In multiple court documents, Watch Tower claims that it is not seeking draconian sanctions against the subjects it calls “infringers”- but facts indicate otherwise. In the above referenced “Palmer Leaks” case, Watch Tower’s sister corporation, Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, enforced the immediate disfellowshipping of the person accused of stealing, then leaking child abuse documents from more than one congregation.
Disfellowshipping is as draconian as it gets.
https://jwsurvey.org/news/watch-tower-sues-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-for-contempt-of-court-demands-daily-fine?fbclid=IwAR2aN8FD_xLghy-yibn7jnBekKURy3VVPnfmT-VjLIX0DsyrIYWyNIVc1JI

In Spain, legislation is extremely protective and protects individual liberties and the rights of citizens. One of these rights is the "protection of personal data". That is, when a third party wants to obtain my information (name, address, for example) or much more importantly (my religion, medical issues, financial issues) I have to authorize him. Otherwise it is prohibited and is punishable.
That's why in Spain we do not use the forms of preaching records to record "not at home", return visits, etc. We did it on personal sheets, and lately we are recommended to do it on the mobile or tablet to be more discreet. Still, legally, if I write down "Ms. Maria, street x, interested," you should ask her for permission to have that information. In short, a real problem. None of us do that.
And that brings us to the fine. What the Hospital Liaison Committees have done is illegal. They have done it in good faith, but it is illegal. They have interviewed doctors and collected information from patients (Witnesses) and, without their consent, they have taken note of these data, they have collected them in an electronic file, and (of this I am not sure) they have transfer this data to third others.
All this is penalized. Here when you enter the door of a doctor the first time the first thing they do is to extend a form where you authorize the query to keep your data.
What saddens me in particular is the lack of orientation that the headquartes has given to the brothers who attend this work. Only a small form would have sufficed, asking the interested parties if they give their consent to the fact that the interview information could be collected and stored for later use. Let's see if they do it in the future, because this fine affects a small community in this country, but luckily the government agency has not investigated the rest of Spain.

In Spain, legislation is extremely protective and protects individual liberties and the rights of citizens. One of these rights is the "protection of personal data". That is, when a third party wants to obtain my information (name, address, for example) or much more importantly (my religion, medical issues, financial issues) I have to authorize him. Otherwise it is prohibited and is punishable.
That's why in Spain we do not use the forms of preaching records to record "not at home", return visits, etc. We did it on personal sheets, and lately we are recommended to do it on the mobile or tablet to be more discreet. Still, legally, if I write down "Ms. Maria, street x, interested," you should ask her for permission to have that information. In short, a real problem. None of us do that.
And that brings us to the fine. What the Hospital Liaison Committees have done is illegal. They have done it in good faith, but it is illegal. They have interviewed doctors and collected information from patients (Witnesses) and, without their consent, they have taken note of these data, they have collected them in an electronic file, and (of this I am not sure) they have transfer this data to third others.
All this is penalized. Here when you enter the door of a doctor the first time the first thing they do is to extend a form where you authorize the query to keep your data.
What saddens me in particular is the lack of orientation that the headquartes has given to the brothers who attend this work. Only a small form would have sufficed, asking the interested parties if they give their consent to the fact that the interview information could be collected and stored for later use. Let's see if they do it in the future, because this fine affects a small community in this country, but luckily the government agency has not investigated the rest of Spain.

In Spain, legislation is extremely protective and protects individual liberties and the rights of citizens. One of these rights is the "protection of personal data". That is, when a third party wants to obtain my information (name, address, for example) or much more importantly (my religion, medical issues, financial issues) I have to authorize him. Otherwise it is prohibited and is punishable.
That's why in Spain we do not use the forms of preaching records to record "not at home", return visits, etc. We did it on personal sheets, and lately we are recommended to do it on the mobile or tablet to be more discreet. Still, legally, if I write down "Ms. Maria, street x, interested," you should ask her for permission to have that information. In short, a real problem. None of us do that.
And that brings us to the fine. What the Hospital Liaison Committees have done is illegal. They have done it in good faith, but it is illegal. They have interviewed doctors and collected information from patients (Witnesses) and, without their consent, they have taken note of these data, they have collected them in an electronic file, and (of this I am not sure) they have transfer this data to third others.
All this is penalized. Here when you enter the door of a doctor the first time the first thing they do is to extend a form where you authorize the query to keep your data.
What saddens me in particular is the lack of orientation that the headquartes has given to the brothers who attend this work. Only a small form would have sufficed, asking the interested parties if they give their consent to the fact that the interview information could be collected and stored for later use. Let's see if they do it in the future, because this fine affects a small community in this country, but luckily the government agency has not investigated the rest of Spain.

It looked to me like there was more to the government's case. Apparently the brothers assigned to do the HLC work in Spain were creating a database of doctors sympathetic to bloodless surgery. But it was done by compiling information gathered from questioning doctors, questioning staff, and questioning the experience of Witness patients with those doctors. The amount of cooperation in the way they answered questions, and the patient experiences were all used to produce a list of those assumed to respond well in situations listed. The data from both patients and doctors was used to make assumptions about how those doctors would treat cases assumed similar by the the HLC. It was being shared without permission. This had come up before and the HLC had been called out for this in 2014 and 2017. So the HLC promised to destroy the database. A followup shows that the HLC is still making use of the database that they never destroyed, and they are still collecting data.
I think the penalty is especially for lying about the destruction and (dis)continued use of the database.

There should be no reason for you to do that, nor I. There are plenty of things wrong or misleading on both of those sites. In fact, I see that AD1914 has merely taken a lot of articles from JWFacts and Hatton, and AlanF, and just re-posted them verbatim.
That's what you should do. And you appear to have access to a lot of research materials, so that's great.
No one is asking you or anyone else to buy into anything, but at least I see that we agree on the topic of the earth's creation. The Watchtower says that the creative days were of unknown length, and that these days didn't begin counting until perhaps many millions or even billions of years after which time the earth was "formless and waste." There is nothing wrong with this perspective we learn from the Watchtower. It is perfectly fine from a Biblical view, as a "day" can have a variety of meaning. I don't remember reading anything different in R.Franz perspective, so I'm guessing that he would have agreed with us, too.
I'm sure there are always new and better ways to explain things. Certain questions come in that show a need for focusing on something that was only mentioned briefly before. New books and new quotes are available that weren't available in 1967. I'm sure you already knew all this, so I'm not even sure why you are asking.
Why? Why should I find other avenues to criticize the Org? I'm only going to question areas where prayer and study and meditation and Bible reading have led me to think that certain strongly entrenched doctrines ought to be questioned. The Watchtower has often said that it welcomes such questioning. The Bible makes it our Christian duty to make sure of all things. 
It's for the same reason that I welcome your own questions and criticisms of those areas that I have brought up. But I often wish that you would actually offer Scriptures, reasoning, or even counter-arguments. Instead, you seem to have an obsession with making false statements about things I've said. Perhaps you just have trouble understanding me. But if that's the case, don't just jump to conclusions about what I said, or what I think Russell said, or the Watchtower said, etc. Just ask! I'd be happy to discuss any of these things.
But instead you seem bent on making claims like the one above that says that I think the Org is wrong and only I am right. It's completely false, of course, and I'm sure you know that. But why waste your time on such things even if it were true. If a person says something you disagree with, it's better to discuss the thing, not whether the person always thinks he is right. 
Here again, why be so obsessed with persons who have agreed with something I've said, here and there? I think a lot of people have noticed this absurd obsession you appear to have with up-votes, down-votes, and such things. I'm not here for any of their up-votes or to get anyone to hang on every fiber of my words. There have been people here in the past, Alan [Allen] Smith for one, who was so obsessed with up-votes and down-votes that he created multiple accounts just to practice vote-spamming, where he targeted a few people with literally hundreds of down-votes and employed those same multiple accounts to create hundreds of up-votes for himself. It was a funny quirk of his, and the Librarian or admin pointed it out publicly. But I'm not concerned about it myself. I'd point out the exact same scriptural concerns even if I never got an upvote. And there are others who probably would point out some of the exact same concerns if I weren't even here.
The thing I would appreciate is having someone respond to the reasons my "false demonstrations" are false rather than going after me for bringing them up.

Sometimes you make me think you have been living under a rock. I don't know what you mean by unfavorable messages, but it is clear that every Witness generation has been living with the thought that "our children won't make it to high school", it doesn't matter whether this is the 20's 30's 40's..............80's 90's.... you get my drift. Perhaps this is a good thing as it keeps everyone on their toes, but it can also backfire, like crying wolf one too many times. 
Being ready at all times doesn't equal putting a date or time period on it.

The New Creation, Studies in the Scriptures, is not so different than what was continued until the 1970's and proposed again in the 1980's:
We believe our readers will agree that although the length of these epoch-days is not indicated, we will be justified in assuming that they were uniform periods, because of their close identity as members of the one creative week. Hence, if we can gain reasonable proof of the length of one of these days, we will be fully justified in assuming that the others were of the same duration. We do, then, find satisfactory evidence that one of these creative "days" was a period of seven thousand years and, hence, that the entire creative week would be 7,000 x 7 equals 49,000 years. And although this period is infinitesimal when compared with some geological guesses, it is, we believe, quite reasonably ample for the work represented as being accomplished therein—the ordering and filling of the earth, which already "was" in existence, but "without form [order], and void [empty]." . . .  Evening and morning, Day Six, at its close, 42,000 years after "work" began, found the earth ready for man to subdue. . . .
Edited to add that the December 1912 Watch Tower also explained it similarly:
Six great Thousand-Year Periods or Days have passed since Adam was created, according to Bible chronology. We are now in the dawning of the great Seventh Day or Sabbath Day of human experience. God has promised that this Seventh Day of a thousand years will be very different from the preceding Six Days, in which mankind has experienced a reign of Sin and Death. The Seventh Day of a thousand years is Scripturally called the "Day of Christ," and by many it is styled the Millennium. In it Satan and Sin are to be overthrown, righteousness is to be established by the Redeemer, and mankind, purchased by the precious blood at Calvary; are all to have full opportunity for arising from present degradation to re-attainment of the image and likeness of God, lost in Eden by Adam's disobedience.
The Seventh Day of the Creative Week began with Adam's creation and has already lasted six thousand years, and is to be completed with the thousand years of Christ's Reign. The Seventh Creative Day will be seven thousand years long. Whoever sees this to be a reasonable deduction can easily suppose that the six preceding Days of the Genesis account were, likewise, seven thousand years each. Reckoned thus, the total period from the time that Divine Energy began to operate upon the waste Earth down to the time when the whole work of creation and Restitution will be fully completed, would be 7 times 7,000 years, or 49,000 years.
According to the Bible, that time will be a thousand years hence, when The Christ shall have accomplished His work for mankind to the full and shall deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father. At that moment the fiftieth thousand-year period will begin, with every creature in Heaven and on earth ascribing praise to Him that sitteth upon the Throne, and to the Lamb, forever. How appropriate this will be, especially when we recall that in God's arrangement fifty is the greatest climax of numbers! In Bible usage the number seven is symbolical of perfection, and 7 times 7 represents a completeness of perfection; and the fiftieth or Jubilee following is climacteric.

LOL. I got so confused when both TTH and I used the word "shrill" within a couple days of each other. I started thinking maybe Allen Smith was right after all when he used to say I was the same person as TTH, among several others. I think Allen could have tried to convince me that it was just him and me running the entire forum.
I never said it doesn't matter. You either forgot what I said, or made it up, or I forgot what I said. Or I could have said something you misunderstood. Even so, I accept that it matters very much to me that we don't "do dates." But I would only impose this on myself, I don't think it matters so much that I should impose my view on others in the congregation. But I'm happy to present how much it matters to me if called upon to do so.
The "Clarification of Our Beliefs" does not have anything to do with what I was referring to. I was referring to specific admissions of past errors about dates in several other specific places in the Watch Tower publications. In addition, I was also referring to specific things that the Watchtower admitted can be dangerous and un-Christian, including 'serving with a date in mind.'

FelixCA, Just in case anyone gets the impression that this is true, it might be interesting to look at what the Watch Tower publications said, which makes me question your claim. It sounds like you are claiming that the Watch Tower publications do not state any one given time, and this is no different from the way the "parable of the ten virgins" was described in the Bible Student era. Feel free to correct me if it is wrong. It's not too far off topic. It even references the 6,000 years from Adam and its relationship to the beginning of the Millennium, etc.
As I understand it, the Watch Tower publications initially thought that the difference between the foolish virgins and the wise virgins was based on the criteria that the foolish virgins had foolishly given up on chronology after the Great Disappointment of 1844. A "Midnight Cry" went out at some point in the "night" between 1844 and 1874, initially thought to be at the midpoint, around 1859, when Nelson Barbour first recognized and thereafter declared that William Miller had been off by 30 years. The lamps of the virgins had to burn for another 30 years. But the foolish virgins who gave up on chronology had let their lamps run out of oil, which was obvious because they wouldn't believe in 1874.
It seems to me that the parable was considerd to be all about the time period from 1874 to 1881, the seven years period before the "door was shut" on October 3rd, 1881. (A door of "mercy" could still be open, even if the full number of Christ's Bride would have been chosen by October 3rd 1881.)
I'll quote from one of a few articles on the topic from the Bible Student era Watch Tower magazines. The following, until the end of the post, is from the October 1881 Watch Tower (ZWT), beginning on page 288:
"AND THE DOOR WAS SHUT."
. . . The parable of "The Ten Virgins" (Matt. 25) . . .  "Then shall the kingdom of heaven (church) be likened unto ten virgins which took their lamps (Bibles) and went forth to meet the Bridegroom" (i.e.,) they went forth or separated themselves because of their belief that the Bridegroom, Jesus, was about to come.
While we are neither "Millerites" nor "Adventists," yet we believe that this much of this parable met its fulfillment in 1843 and 1844, when William Miller and others, Bible in hand, walked out by faith on its statements, expecting Jesus at that time. . . .
The disappointment of that company of Christians (which was composed of many of the best Christians from all denominations) all are well aware of, but it was foretold in the parable: "While the Bridegroom tarried they all slumbered and slept." As a general arousing of the church to the investigation of God's Word had attended the preaching of Mr. Miller, and the Word was more studied than ever before, especially the Prophecies, so when his calculations seemed to end in such bitter disappointment, a spirit of drowsiness followed; some slumbered, some slept . . . .
The next important step of the parable (verse 6) is the midnight cry. The night of the parable was the time during which the disappointment lasted and the sleeping occurred, and was to end with joy in the morning, when, the tarrying being ended, the Bridegroom would be present.
As the former movement in the parable had been represented by Miller and others, so to this second movement we give a similar application. A brother,  B[arbour]_ of Rochester, was, we believe, the chosen vessel of God through whom the "Midnight Cry" issued to the sleeping virgins of Christ, announcing a discrepancy of thirty years in some of Miller's calculations, and giving a rearrangement of the same argument (and some additional), proving that the night of the parable was thirty years long, and that the morning was in 1873, and the Bridegroom due in that morning in 1874.

We do not here give the time, arguments or proofs. They are familiar to many, and can be had in more convenient shape. We merely notice here that the Bible chronology, first dug from Scripture by Bowen, of England, which shows clearly and positively that the 6,000 years from Adam ended in 1873, and consequently that there the morning of the Millennial day (the seventh thousand) began, in which a variety of things are due. The establishment of the kingdom of Christ, the binding of Satan, the restitution of all things, and the blessing of all the families of the earth, are all due. And if all these things are due during this thousand years which commenced in 1873, surely one of the first things due and on which the others all depend, is the coming of the Bridegroom, who must first exalt his church [establish his kingdom] before it can bless, restore or bind.
Bro. B[arbour]_____ first began to preach the message, and soon started a paper, which he appropriately called "The Midnight Cry," the circulation of which soon ran up to 15,000 copies a month, and served to arouse many of the drowsy to a fresh examination and trimming of their lamps. These began again to search the Scriptures for the time of the Bridegroom's coming.
But the disappointment had served an intended purpose in casting a reproach on the subject of "time," and the prudent ones had reached the worldly-wise conclusion that having been disappointed once and consequently had the finger of scorn pointed at them, they would be more prudent in future, and not expose themselves to contempt; so there was a division of the company; some could see it and others could not. ("Thou hast hid these things from the (worldly) wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.") Some rejoiced in the midnight message that the Bridegroom was due in 1874, and were able to find the evidences in the light of their lamps; others admitted that though Scripture contained a great deal of "time," yet they were so fearful and prudent that their lamps would give no light. Thus they said: "Our lamps are gone out." Thus one separation took place.
When 1874 came and there was no outward sign of Jesus in the literal clouds and in a fleshly form, there was a general re-examination of all the arguments upon which the "Midnight Cry" was made. And when no fault or flaw could be found, it led to the critical examination of the Scriptures which seem to bear on the manner of Christ's coming, and it was soon discovered that the expectation of Jesus in the flesh at the second advent was the mistake; that the human nature had been taken for the purpose of giving a ransom for humanity, and that the human nature remains a sacrifice forever; that Jesus, though put to death in the flesh, was quickened or made alive in spirit—Sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body, &c., and that all spiritual bodies can be present unseen. . . .
It was evident, then, that though the manner in which they had expected Jesus was in error, yet the time, as indicated by the "Midnight Cry," was correct, and that the Bridegroom came in the Autumn of 1874, and he appeared to the eyes of faith—seen by the light of the lamp—the Word. Afterward it was seen that the thirty years of tarrying between 1844 and 1874 was the exact parallel to the thirty years of tarrying at the first advent, from the time the wise men visited the babe until Jesus stood on Jordan and was anointed with the Holy Ghost for his work, at thirty years of age. (Acts 10:38.) . . .
To return to the parable. If these movements were of God, and if Bros. Miller and B__________ were his instruments, then that "Midnight Cry," based on the prophetic and other statements and evidences, was correct, and the "Bridegroom came" in 1874. We believe that Midnight Cry was of God, and was fulfilled by the Bridegroom's coming, not because Bros. Miller and B__________ claimed it, but because the Word of God supports it.
"How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word."
. . . The going in, like all other features of the parable, is a work of time, and we understand that it has been in progress during the seven years from 1874. . . .
The seven years which ended October 3d, 1881, were years of favor during the presence, that of the living generation all of readiness of heart might become members of the little flock and enter into the joys of our Lord's presence. If our application of Scripture be correct, the favor has now ended, and in the language of the parable, "the door was shut"; and to those who have never fully consecrated and sacrificed self to God, we cannot any longer hold out the great prize of our high calling, viz.: to be members of the Bride of Christ, joint heirs of Glory, Honor and Immortality.

Yes. This goes all the way back to Russell's "Photo-Drama of Creation" which emphasized the 49,000 years of creative days. I don't think anyone here has denied that this is what we taught. But in the 1970's, the cracks in this view were already beginning to be seen. It had become a way to put more emphasis on 1975. But it was also realized that 1975 could become an embarrassment. And the Aid book, produced by a team led by R.Franz, had provided evidence that the very foundation for all this emphasis was built on sand.

Sorry that I added so much evidence for that assessment in my last few posts, especially. But I do take issue with the idea that "none of this really matters."
Witnesses have long moved on from being too concerned about the personalities of R.Franz and F.Franz. But for some persons, dredging it up again can immediately bring up feelings of hate and judgment. For me, everyone is imperfect and liable to mistakes, including me of course. But I'm concerned when a Biblical principle gets violated and we feel that facts no longer matter:
(Exodus 23:7) . . .“Have nothing to do with a false accusation . . .  for I will not declare the wicked one righteous. (Proverbs 17:15) . . .Anyone who acquits the wicked one and anyone who condemns the righteous one —Both of them are detestable to Jehovah.
The point is exaggerated, but the principle remains. We don't want to let our feelings get in the way of facts when it comes to how strongly we condemn or praise the lives of imperfect men. This includes R.Franz and F.Franz. Sure, it's comforting for some to see one as a devil and one as an angel; it fits a "world view" that some can use to bring a hammer down on others. This goes for ex-JWs who want to see R.Franz as a kind of "angel" and Witnesses who want to see R.Franz as a devil, for example. But there are cracks in these "world views" that anyone can see. Seeing those cracks reduces the comfort level of some and threatens to reduce the power of the hammer for others.
The Bible says to let our reasonableness become known to all, and yet reasonableness from one person will often trigger unreasonable responses. And I can see how I have been unreasonable here a few times, but it's always good to have someone else point it out too, as you have. We can't always see our own faults very well. 
But there is another way in which I think it's wrong to dismiss all of this saying, "None of this really matters does it?"
It's because our very Christianity should be focused on the sort of persons we ought to be every day, precisely because we know that the end could come at any time within our lifetimes. And precisely because we know that it might come, in effect, 1,000 years from now, after we die, for example. Jesus had a good reason for emphasizing why dates and times and seasons were not in our jurisdiction, but in the jurisdiction of the Father. The time was none of our concern. Yet, as a group, we have put so much energy into dates and chronology, and even used this "urgency" as a motivator instead of love as a motivator. To me, I "harp on it" because Jesus and the rest of the Bible made it clear that this really did matter.

The latter part of your theory is still based on trying to defend a chronology system that attempts to put the times and the seasons in our own jurisdiction. It could be dangerous to our Christianity besides being presumptuous. Also, the premise that Peter was speaking about the period between the day of creation and the day of the Lord is without foundation.

As I believe I made clear, the Watchtower has never presented anything like a belief that the 6 creative days are the same as the 1000 years. So this idea should cause you no worries, since no one said it, and no one implied it. So hopefully you can rest a little better now. 
This reminds me of some of the logical problems we just looked at, where something is admitted to be probable or possible in some of our prior publications, but then within the space of a sentence or two, what initially "appeared" to be true, actually becomes "totally" true, and a supposedly solid conclusion is drawn from the false premise. 
You have made several other mistakes just like this, so that a reasonable person would likely have already dismissed many of those conclusions you drew about R.Franz, too. And if you really thought that what 'this person' was saying was the false idea that only you had brought up, then I think that a reasonable people would also not be able to automatically trust conclusions you derived elsewhere from reading the Watchtower, reading anything written by R.Franz, or perhaps even other people on this forum. When a person needs to resort to making up things out of thin air as you apparently just did above, then you also lose credibility when it comes to your stories and anecdotes that reveal supposedly hidden personality traits that no one else who knew these people for years has ever reported before today.
To disprove what about 1975? 1975 could still be the end of 6,000 years of man's existence, and since the Bible puts no particular significance on 6,000 years, it could also have been the same year Eve was created, just as the Watchtower once said (that Eve too had also been created that same year in 4026 B.C.E.). I fail to see what this might DISPROVE about 1975, that wasn't already disproved by the Watchtower articles.
Anyone should realize what Peter was saying from the very context of these words: that Jehovah's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and his ways are higher than our ways, and that his determination of the times and seasons will always be in his own jurisdiction, not ours. We shouldn't be toying with chronology if we think it can somehow be the key to becoming prepared for something that will come as a thief in the night. Chronology will never be the key to helping us become the kind of persons we ought to be while we await the end of this system. If anything, it would much more likely be a detriment to our true Christian conduct. We might be motivated by a time or season instead of by love for Jehovah, his patience, and of love for our neighbor.
That's absolutely correct. The Watchtower said there might be up to a two-year gap between the end of the 6,000 years of "man's creation" and the end of 6,000 years of "creation." (Both Adam and Eve.) Of course, at one point the Watchtower did actually slip up and say that Eve was also created in 4026, the same year as Adam. That was another example of the premise being built up with words like "apparently," "evidently," and "possibly" and then, within a few sentences, what was possible became supposedly demonstrable, declarative and dogmatic.
But even this slip-up that said Eve was also born in 4026, was never given as a guarantee that the Millennium would begin that same year. At that point, we only taught that it would be "appropriate" for God to act that year. The time period for the beginning of the Millennium was still relegated to the:
entire decade of the 1970's, then by the end of the 20th century, then by the end of the lifespans of currently anointed persons whose anointing overlapped with persons in an earlier group of anointed persons who saw the sign in 1914 and understood what it meant.  Rather than distort, we should want to see the truth and make sure that it keeps us humble enough to avoid further error. Israel was humbled by failures, too. That didn't automatically mean they were no longer God's people. It just meant that what befell them should be used as examples to learn from. The people that make up spiritual Israel are also human, and will also fail many times. We can learn from these examples to improve, and not make the same mistakes over and over again. We can also show all potentially interested persons that we are not so cult-like that we would defend what is wrong. We would not want to hang onto false reasoning that might blind us to what is right. This is one way that even apostate views might help us to improve:
(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. In all seriousness, I saw that reaction coming as soon as I pointed out some of the more obvious errors you had recently made here.  For some reason, I have never seen you simply acknowledge an error, or even try to address one. Instead, you seem to repeatedly just "lash out" with new diversions you appear to just make up. I still hope to show that most Witnesses have much credibility and honesty. It's true I point out errors from our past, and some of these still effect traditional doctrines of the present, but more and more of these have been humbly acknowledged. From those taking the lead, to those of us in the "rank and file" we have made great strides in humility and made great improvements over those days of so much illogical dogmatism. We should be able to compare the brighter present with some of the actual darkness of the past. This exercise will highlight the ways in which the "dross" is filtered to keep making the gold more and more refined. I'm not trying to make fun of the dross, but I'm surprised and find it disappointing when someone thinks it necessary to keep defending the dross.

I recalled a comment from last year where you commented positively on the new way of referring to these days as aeons or epochs, rather than literal days, and then added the following comment:
1975+43=2018 (last year). This old reckoning might seem ridiculous now, especially after the Watchtower once argued that this period could be a matter of weeks or months, but could not go beyond 2 years. But there are still some Witnesses who haven't kept up and believe there must be some validity to the 6,000 year theory. (A partial salvage of the theory, without any reference to 6,000 or 7,000 years, was rewritten in a much better way in a 2011 Watchtower:
*** w11 7/15 p. 24 God’s Rest—What Is It? ***
God’s Rest—What Is It?
During the time that Fred Franz was still alive and still working on his last prophetic book "Revelation -- Its Grand Climax at Hand" an article was written dealing with the Jubilee year and how the 49th year was related to the 50th:
*** w87 1/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Second, a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. . . . According to Romans 8:20, 21, Jehovah God purposes to liberate believing mankind from this slavery. As a result, true worshipers on earth “will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”—See also Romans 6:23. . . . While the small group selected to be taken to heaven have had their sins forgiven from Pentecost 33 C.E. onward and thus already enjoy the Jubilee, the Scriptures show that the liberation for believing mankind will occur during Christ’s Millennial Reign. That will be when he applies to mankind the benefits of his ransom sacrifice. By the end of the Millennium, mankind will have been raised to human perfection, completely free from inherited sin and death. Having thus brought to an end the last enemy (death passed on from Adam), Christ will hand the Kingdom back to his Father at the end of the 49,000-year creative week.—1 Corinthians 15:24-26.
So although the 1969/1971 Aid Book, as you pointed out, had said that we don't know the length of the creative days, this probably came from the idea that a Bible Dictionary should not contain esoteric beliefs that are not actually based on the Bible, but are just a traditional interpretation. R.Franz must have recognized this fact, while preparing the Aid Book, but apparently there was a faction that thought this "reasonable" approach was very dangerous. It admits that we don't know everything. I have personal anecdote that let me know that this is exactly what at least two brothers (Greenlees and Schroeder) thought would, initially, be the way to get R.Franz removed, by exposing the non-dogmatic approach in the Aid Book style that tends to erode dogma. I'll save the anecdote for another time, but I think it is easy to recognize that this kind of approach to the Bible takes a lot of power away from the interpreters. (The anecdote did not concern the length of the creative days.)
Even in the lead-up to 1975, there was a need, probably influenced by the Aid Book, to start using words like "evidently" rather than just speaking dogmatically:
*** w73 2/1 p. 82 Will Your Days Be “Like the Days of a Tree”? ***
Since each of the creative “days” or periods was evidently seven thousand years long, the whole creative “week” takes in 49,000 years.
Compare that with the dogmatism in the previous decades:
*** w51 1/1 pp. 27-28 The Christian’s Sabbath ***
Since the sabbath was a part of the law and the “Law has a shadow of the good things to come”, of what was the sabbath a shadow? Of the grand rest day for all mankind, the 1,000-year reign of Christ, the seventh 1,000 years of God’s rest day. For six thousand years mankind has been toiling and suffering under “the god of this world”, Satan the Devil. In that antitypical sabbath Christ will free men from the bondage of Satan and his demons . . .
*** w63 8/1 p. 460 par. 14 Religion and the Nuclear Age ***
We could continue verse by verse through the entire period of the six creative days, periods of time that other Bible passages show to have been each 7,000 years in length.
Of course, no other Bible passages were shown to indicate this, just a footnote to see the book by F.Franz, Let God Be True, 1943.
Hebrews 3 & 4 does connect Psalm 95:11 to Genesis 2:2, but without any connection to a certain number of years and without any reference to the millennium of Christ's reign.

Both the criminal and Jesus were about to die that day..  The criminal could not repent, be converted and be baptised as time had run out for him. (1 Peter 3:19) Jesus could read hearts and knew that this particular criminal who asked him to remember him when he got into his Kingdom (rules over Paradise) had a good heart and in time would come to know God and love Him.  He assured him he would be there in the earthly realm of the Kingdom (Paradise).  He would be in the Memorial tombs (John 5: 28,29) and he would be among the unrighteous whom God will resurrect through Jesus to learn about Him and  given the opportunity to choose to serve Him or not. Acts 24:15 also speaks about righteous and unrighteous ones who will come back to learn and to benefit from the priestly services of Jesus and the 144,000 king-priests. During that 1000-year reign he will have ample opportunity to learn God's will, see the majesty of Jehovah, appreciate his way of  doing things and grow to love him.
(*** Bible Citations ***
"(Isaiah 26:9, 10) In the night I long for you with my whole being, Yes, my spirit keeps looking for you; For when there are judgments from you for the earth, The inhabitants of the land learn about righteousness. 10 Even if the wicked is shown favor, He will not learn righteousness. Even in the land of uprightness he will act wickedly, And he will not see the majesty of Jehovah."
It is clear that those with a good heart condition will learn righteousness, but some will prove to be wicked and will not benefit. Jesus knows this man will be resurrected so he can benefit; this particular criminal is already looking promising when we read his comment concerning Jesus not deserving this fate. He has a sense of justice and fairness. He also has faith and confidence in Jesus' ascension to his throne in the future.
 

@Outta Here  I also didn't see many brothers, elders with a beard,  some more on Conventions.  In my congregation we had 3. - A wonderful older brother, in the past an elder,  he had always a beard he said. First a small one and later little more   I saw different photos and its looking really good. He is living in Austria.
My own opinion, some brothers looking so cool with a short, nice beard, yes!   In the far past, all men had pretty long beards, haha, NO problem  

What  do  you  think  about  our  brothers  new  look?
Our  Org. is  changing  this  and  that....

I have absolutely no obsession with the 6,000 years. Pointing out that F.Franz had an evident obsession with something unscriptural, is not the same as having an obsession myself.
I see that the only support you offered about the 6,000 years was not from the Bible, of course, but from "HA 1423." (For anyone who is not aware, this is from Horae Apocalypticae, an infamous source of several of Nelson Barbour's chronology mistakes, that he passed along to a chronologically naive Charles Taze Russell.)
HA1423
Similarly the pseudo- Barnabas, a very ancient though Apocryphal writer: "Consider, my children, what that signifies, He finished them in six days. The meaning is, that in 6000 years the Lord will bring all things to an end," &c.
The same expectation as to the six days of creation typifying 6000 years, as the term of the present world's duration,
continued, as we have seen, (see p. 230, &c, supra) even among the anti- premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Only they explained the sabbatical seventh day as typical, not of a seventh sabbatical Millennium of rest, but an eternal Sabbath: - - a view generally adopted afterwards.
An apocryphal writer, from the era of apostasy, as @Outta Here has elsewhere pointed out, had an obsession with numerology and gematria. He clearly misinterprets scripture by claiming that the words "he finished them in six days" means that in 6,000 years, the Lord will bring all things to an end. I'm not saying that Barnabas did not get some things right, or that the anti-premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries did not get some things right. But it's never a good idea to depend on a non-Biblical, apocryphal misinterpretation to impose an idea on scripture when absolutely no support for anything like it is found anywhere in the Bible.
It's actually a good thing that you pointed out that this is ultimately where the Watch Tower Society got this unscriptural idea from.